Okay, this post might get me some flak. So be it.
I saw a post in FB which went "I might lose friends over this but I support Gay Rights" and a person had commented "You don't read your bible do you? How do two men or two women make a baby?" (Okay, I admit I fixed the spelling mistakes)
Say what?
How does the concept of equal rights for people no matter what their sexuality is become the ability to bear a child? And what does reading the bible have to do with being able to bear a child? If only Christians were capable of bearing children we'd have a lot smaller world population. Considering the huge number of people following other faiths out there, this obviously is not the case.
I've read the bible. I've actually studied it and all I can say is that it really does require a lot of faith to accept it as written. I mean a LOT of faith. There are so many contradictions in it that my head swims from them. And I am referring to just the Old Testament. Add in the New Testament and you really need to be distanced from any rational thought to believe in all this.
Now there are good things to the bible. It does teach us to be good to one another and to be forgiving and tolerant. If you accept those particular parts of it as your doctrine. If you go for the other parts - an eye for an eye, no tolerance, etc - then you get the religious fanatics. unfortunately, too many people go for the eye for an eye policies.
I have my personal faith and my moral beliefs follow the basic tenets of being a good person, treating others fairly, and living my life without hurting others. I know I have taken my beliefs from the bible - no lying, no cheating, no judging others, etc - and yet because I don't follow an orthodox faith (Catholic, Protestant, Hebrew, Islam, etc) I am told that I will not get into Heaven.
Let me take you on a little tour through history and the bible.
Before churches were built, men gathered to worship God on hillsides and in clearings. Then they built the Tabernacles and later stone churches. Religion changed from being a personal faith where each man carried God inside him and could pray to Him anywhere and at anytime to having to go to a House of God on certain days and at certain times so that God would hear him.
Now the cynical part of me says "Priests and clerics figured out how to use fear to control their populations" and "Someone figured out how to make money pretty early". Or well, since money didn't exist as such then, it was mostly a barter system still, someone figured out how to collect goods by using a tithing system.
But I digress. If one looks objectively at religion and the bible is used more as a history book, one can see how religion became organized and used to control people. It is still being used to control people today. Not for their benefit either. Religious leaders don't like people who think and especially those who question.
But one of the things I really like to point out to people is that the bible is written by people who talked to God. In their day, they were considered Holy Men touched by God and the bringer of His Word to the people. Nowadays, we lock up people who claim to talk with God in insane asylums.
So, our religions are based on the words of people we would now consider to be insane. Think about that.
Every time someone tells me that something is against God's will and especially that it is in the bible, I throw this back at them "Judge not, lest ye be judged." The quote is from Matthew 7:1 but there are several other references throughout the bible about judging and condemning and putting obstacles in the way. All of these references refer to not judging others so that a worse fate will not fall on you.
Yet people judge. Constantly.
I try to live my life without judging others. I don't care what a person's sexuality, religious beliefs, political leanings, gender, age, language, culture, or any of the countless other things people use to make judgments are. What I care about is how the person acts around me and if they are a person that I want to continue to be around. Period.
That doesn't mean I don't make judgments, I'm just as human as any one else. But my judgments are usually based on the actions and sometimes the fashion and eating habits of people. I don't need to know and I don't care about a person's sexuality. I certainly don't think it has anything to do with whether or not a person is a caring, capable person.
I think we need to have faith in something bigger than ourselves. But we need to think for ourselves as well and not blindly accept someone else's interpretation of a philosophy (which is what religion really is) and a moral code. We need to be able to question it, to test it, and make sure it is for the betterment of all of us. And we need to accept that not everyone will agree on the proper way to follow their faith.
Isn't that what it really is all about anyway? Faith.
PS. No, I did not capitalize the bible at any time. If anyone is offended by that, sorry you're so easily offended but this is my blog and my choice. It is simply a book to me.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
On Being Famous and Death
I've actually had a couple of opportunities to become famous. But I shied away from them like they were the plague. It's much more important to me that I have my personal space and life and that's something that's lost when a person becomes famous.
Every couple of weeks there's another death announced of some famous person. Sometimes it's someone I don't know at all; other times I go "Awww, no." It doesn't matter that I never met the person or really knew them, I knew how their work had affected my life and that made them special to me. So, along with all their other fans, I grieved at their passing.
There's a dichotomy in all of us that most of us don't realize. We want to be well known so that when we die there are lots of people who will mourn us. We want to be loved by everyone and know we'll be missed. But the price of being well known is to lose our privacy since every movement, every word, every outfit is scrutinized and criticized and commented on. Including many that we don't do. Pictures are taken whether we want them to be or not. Rumours abound, whether true or false, and are taken to be truth anyway. Any problem we try to deal with is blown up and announced to the world.
So our need for privacy fights our need to be loved by everyone. Obviously, many people have a stronger need to be in the spotlight and become famous. Most of us want our privacy or lack the confidence to expose every aspect of our lives to the public and so we don't become famous. But just because we don't have most of the world ready to mourn us when we die doesn't mean we don't have people who will mourn us.
We are a weird species. We live in the moment yet we're driven by future events. Our primary drives are to reproduce, survive, and be remembered. Death preys on our minds no matter how young or old we are. Of course, it becomes more of a conscious awareness as we age but even when we are very young we are still preoccupied with our manner of death. How will I die? How many people will miss me? How will I be remembered? Will anyone remember me?
I know that when I die there will be a small group of people immediately affected - my spouse, child, in-laws, sister and her family, my friends. If word is spread either through an obituary or by word of mouth, there will be other people who will think "That name is familiar" and might remember me from when I worked with them. But the overall number will be less than a hundred, mostly because it's been a while since I worked and people forget co-workers after a couple of years.
Which is fine with me.
I know my husband thinks the world should mourn when I die. He thinks that they don't know just how special a person they will be losing. I think he has an overblown appreciation of me but that's okay, because he loves me. :)
One of the reasons we are drawn towards being famous is so that we can influence other people. I know I like to think that I have influenced some people over the years. that I've helped people to open their eyes and really see the world and how their actions, reactions, and thinking have been driven by other people and not their own choices. I know I have shown one person at least how to be more objective and not assume that another viewpoint is correct without checking out the facts himself. So I haven't influenced thousands of people but one person can influence another who can influence another who can influence another, etc. So, given enough time, I might have influenced hundreds of people without ever meeting them.
And in the end, isn't that the best memorial a person can have?
Every couple of weeks there's another death announced of some famous person. Sometimes it's someone I don't know at all; other times I go "Awww, no." It doesn't matter that I never met the person or really knew them, I knew how their work had affected my life and that made them special to me. So, along with all their other fans, I grieved at their passing.
There's a dichotomy in all of us that most of us don't realize. We want to be well known so that when we die there are lots of people who will mourn us. We want to be loved by everyone and know we'll be missed. But the price of being well known is to lose our privacy since every movement, every word, every outfit is scrutinized and criticized and commented on. Including many that we don't do. Pictures are taken whether we want them to be or not. Rumours abound, whether true or false, and are taken to be truth anyway. Any problem we try to deal with is blown up and announced to the world.
So our need for privacy fights our need to be loved by everyone. Obviously, many people have a stronger need to be in the spotlight and become famous. Most of us want our privacy or lack the confidence to expose every aspect of our lives to the public and so we don't become famous. But just because we don't have most of the world ready to mourn us when we die doesn't mean we don't have people who will mourn us.
We are a weird species. We live in the moment yet we're driven by future events. Our primary drives are to reproduce, survive, and be remembered. Death preys on our minds no matter how young or old we are. Of course, it becomes more of a conscious awareness as we age but even when we are very young we are still preoccupied with our manner of death. How will I die? How many people will miss me? How will I be remembered? Will anyone remember me?
I know that when I die there will be a small group of people immediately affected - my spouse, child, in-laws, sister and her family, my friends. If word is spread either through an obituary or by word of mouth, there will be other people who will think "That name is familiar" and might remember me from when I worked with them. But the overall number will be less than a hundred, mostly because it's been a while since I worked and people forget co-workers after a couple of years.
Which is fine with me.
I know my husband thinks the world should mourn when I die. He thinks that they don't know just how special a person they will be losing. I think he has an overblown appreciation of me but that's okay, because he loves me. :)
One of the reasons we are drawn towards being famous is so that we can influence other people. I know I like to think that I have influenced some people over the years. that I've helped people to open their eyes and really see the world and how their actions, reactions, and thinking have been driven by other people and not their own choices. I know I have shown one person at least how to be more objective and not assume that another viewpoint is correct without checking out the facts himself. So I haven't influenced thousands of people but one person can influence another who can influence another who can influence another, etc. So, given enough time, I might have influenced hundreds of people without ever meeting them.
And in the end, isn't that the best memorial a person can have?
Thursday, September 25, 2014
A Book Review
Hmm, been busy and tired for the past few weeks but didn't think it's been as long as it has been since I last posted. Sorry about that.
A few weeks ago I got an email from Chapters/Indigo Books about a new Hercule Poirot mystery. Now since Agatha Christie is dead and has been for several years, I was surprised to get this notification. But, apparently the estate of Ms. Christie was approached about a new novel and after considerable discussion, approved the request.
Naturally, every Poirot fan out there was excited and worried about a new novel. How good is this author at recreating Christie's style? How well does she know Poirot? Too many times, authors have tried to write about characters and worlds that are not their own and have done bad, no horrible works which have destroyed some or all of the pleasure people got from that world and characters.
The reviews looked good, perhaps too good. I don't usually pay attention to reviews as I like to judge myself but in this case I wanted to see what other people were saying. Unfortunately, I have no idea who most of these reviewers are so I don't know how well their opinions and mine would mesh. However, I was willing to take the chance.
The BBC has adapted all the novels written by Christie about Poirot and they have been performed fabulously by David Suchet, who, without any doubt, has faithfully captured the essence of Poirot. It is him that I picture when I read a Poirot mystery. I might quibble with some of the adaptations not being entirely true to the novels (Murder on the Orient Express in particular) but never with Mr. Suchet's performance of Poirot.
So, with that in mind, I opened the book and started reading.
The author, Sophie Hannah, has done an excellent thing - she has introduced a character never before heard about to be the main narrator of the story but she does do some scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Christie did the same in many of her stories, telling most of it from Hastings' viewpoint but with the occasional scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Hannah brings in an Scotland Yard Inspector, younger than Poirot but with some experience under him. Like Hastings, Catchpool is stereotypical British and many of Poirot's habits are annoying to him. And like Hastings, he says things that help Poirot solve the case.
There were a few times when I felt that the story tripped me up. When I read, I like an author who can make me feel like I'm gliding through the story, catching me up into it and taking me along until the end. When something doesn't fit right, when the writing is off, it's like stubbing a toe or hitting a bump. There were a few places when I thought "That isn't precisely how Poirot would act or what he would say" but very few places were like that. Less than five anyway. And they were all in the first three chapters. Like Christie, Hannah kept her chapters short.
Overall, I was pleased with the book. If anything, it was too short. I want more Poirot. But the story was the right length, not dragged out and not compressed. Poirot was there, even if there were a few times when he seemed to fade a bit into the background rather than stand forth. Catchpool is a character with obvious flaws, one of which played an important part and perhaps was too prevalent. But he is a likable character and has the potential to become as much a favourite supporting character as Hastings or Japp.
If she writes more Poirot mysteries, I will certainly be trying to get my hands on them. I give her a 9.75 out of 10. Aside from the little hiccups in her writing, I had figured out who was involved and most of how it was done between the halfway and three-quarters marks. Some of it from the very beginning. With Christie, it usually took me almost three-quarters of the book to figure out most of who did it and how and rarely was I certain of any of my reasoning before I was two-thirds of the way through. Still, there was one surprise in it. So, overall, I am happy with the book.
If you are a Poirot fan, get the book. If you like mysteries and have never read Christie's Poirot, start reading them.
A few weeks ago I got an email from Chapters/Indigo Books about a new Hercule Poirot mystery. Now since Agatha Christie is dead and has been for several years, I was surprised to get this notification. But, apparently the estate of Ms. Christie was approached about a new novel and after considerable discussion, approved the request.
Naturally, every Poirot fan out there was excited and worried about a new novel. How good is this author at recreating Christie's style? How well does she know Poirot? Too many times, authors have tried to write about characters and worlds that are not their own and have done bad, no horrible works which have destroyed some or all of the pleasure people got from that world and characters.
The reviews looked good, perhaps too good. I don't usually pay attention to reviews as I like to judge myself but in this case I wanted to see what other people were saying. Unfortunately, I have no idea who most of these reviewers are so I don't know how well their opinions and mine would mesh. However, I was willing to take the chance.
The BBC has adapted all the novels written by Christie about Poirot and they have been performed fabulously by David Suchet, who, without any doubt, has faithfully captured the essence of Poirot. It is him that I picture when I read a Poirot mystery. I might quibble with some of the adaptations not being entirely true to the novels (Murder on the Orient Express in particular) but never with Mr. Suchet's performance of Poirot.
So, with that in mind, I opened the book and started reading.
The author, Sophie Hannah, has done an excellent thing - she has introduced a character never before heard about to be the main narrator of the story but she does do some scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Christie did the same in many of her stories, telling most of it from Hastings' viewpoint but with the occasional scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Hannah brings in an Scotland Yard Inspector, younger than Poirot but with some experience under him. Like Hastings, Catchpool is stereotypical British and many of Poirot's habits are annoying to him. And like Hastings, he says things that help Poirot solve the case.
There were a few times when I felt that the story tripped me up. When I read, I like an author who can make me feel like I'm gliding through the story, catching me up into it and taking me along until the end. When something doesn't fit right, when the writing is off, it's like stubbing a toe or hitting a bump. There were a few places when I thought "That isn't precisely how Poirot would act or what he would say" but very few places were like that. Less than five anyway. And they were all in the first three chapters. Like Christie, Hannah kept her chapters short.
Overall, I was pleased with the book. If anything, it was too short. I want more Poirot. But the story was the right length, not dragged out and not compressed. Poirot was there, even if there were a few times when he seemed to fade a bit into the background rather than stand forth. Catchpool is a character with obvious flaws, one of which played an important part and perhaps was too prevalent. But he is a likable character and has the potential to become as much a favourite supporting character as Hastings or Japp.
If she writes more Poirot mysteries, I will certainly be trying to get my hands on them. I give her a 9.75 out of 10. Aside from the little hiccups in her writing, I had figured out who was involved and most of how it was done between the halfway and three-quarters marks. Some of it from the very beginning. With Christie, it usually took me almost three-quarters of the book to figure out most of who did it and how and rarely was I certain of any of my reasoning before I was two-thirds of the way through. Still, there was one surprise in it. So, overall, I am happy with the book.
If you are a Poirot fan, get the book. If you like mysteries and have never read Christie's Poirot, start reading them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)