It looks like all it took to get Win '98 to come up properly (so far so good) was to deactivate autoexec.bat and config.sys.
I really don't quite understand MSDOS and Windows and how they work together during boot-up, but I guess all that really matters is that the dang thing is working properly again...
(Those of you who are running the latest version of XP can stop snickering at my Win '98 box anytime... My philosophy is "Run it into the ground! I want my money's worth from the thing!"
May 20, 2004
In Need of Unraveling...
Man. I have been feeling minor stresses starting to accumulate in the back of my head, neck and mind - pretty much all over.
Maybe my life of relative psychic leisure (meaning that I am usually a peaceful and sedate guy) has left me with a weakened immunity to the stresses of everyday life.
It's weird. Like at work, during a recent meeting, I felt frustration building inside me; I felt tired and impatient. I just wanted to go back to my desk, work by myself and not deal with other people. It's nobody's fault. I suppose that my tolerance for miniscule changes in my circumstances or expectations is really low right now. I think I used to be much better at dealing with unknown factors or unforeseen changes to my tasks or priorities.
Hell - ten years working for small high-tech startups will get you used to that sort of thing.
I'm also suffering from a bit of PC/Internet withdrawal, as my Windows 98 box has recently decided to only boot to MSDOS. What a pain. I'm certain I'll sort it out, but in the meantime, it only adds to my stress and reminds me of what a funny little techno-junkie I have become...
I think I need to do some meditation or something... I need a better perspective...
Days of Protest
For most of each day and into the early evening, I hear cars honking their support as they drive by the long-term care home next door.
The healthcare staff standing out front have been hooting back and clapping in response. The support for the HEU job action and related protests seem to be gaining sympathy and support.
My initial reaction was one of fear for the safety and health of the residents of the care home. I didn't know anything about how this would affect them. Walking by one day, I saw an elderly woman sitting out on the sidewalk with a sign in her lap. I realized that some, perhaps most, of the residents might support the perspective and actions of the staff. For elders who depend on professional healthcare every day, the staff are not just a resource, but I'm sure they are also regarded as friends, trusted co-inhabitants of the hospital.
This might sound a bit idealistic, but it's too easy to take the reactionary, anti-union standpoint used too often by the Government's PR which says "this action jeopardizes the people who rely on the service". That may indeed be true, but it is certainly not the full story - only one point of view on the whole spectrum of causes and effects.
The Liberal Government of BC under Gordon Campbell seems, to me, to have consistently emphasized primarily the non-union, employer or user-as-victim approach to rationalizing it's actions against unionized worker's rights to bargain. I saw this during the Teacher's protests, early on in the Campbell Liberals, and I am seeing the same approach now, from his Health Minister, Colin Hansen. The difference I see this time around though, is that by Mr. Hansen's body language and the tension in his delivery, it looks as though the Liberals are surprised by the mounting scale of the worker protests and public outcry of support. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part that this government might begin to see the error of it's ways.
I have read stories about Gordon Campbell's management style, back when he was Mayor of Vancouver. I have read that there were many more closed room meetings, and less consultation than during, say, Mike Harcourt's era. I have heard about "Gordo's" moments of arrogance and I think that this plays a huge role in how the current Liberal Gov't runs things today too.
At the end of the day, I think this current situation might have been handled better without such an early and controversial action like Bill 37, the back to work legislation. I have seen lots of strikes come and go here over the years, but was this one of the fastest, most knee-jerk responses by a provincial government yet? I think it's irresponsible of either side to act to reactively, if not enough discussion and negotiation has taken place. I have no idea if this is the case or not. I'm not that aware of the details, of who said what to whom, etc. I only know what I can see in the media.
I do know that the BC Liberals are died-in-the-wool Social Credit capitalists in my book. And thousands of union members and many more in the general populace have been pissed off at them for a long time now, so I suppose this kind of confrontation was inevitable. After the confrontations with the Teachers and other unions, the labour movement has been looking for a window of opportunity to strike a blow at Cambell's capitalists.
Carol James, Leader of the provincial NDP, issued this statement: http://nid-624.newsdetail.bc.ndp.ca. I really agree with her opinions, but honestly, I have heard practically nothing in the media from or about the opposition party. Maybe I'm not paying attention closely enough. Perhaps the low-key approach is smart though, so as to not appear to be acting like political opportunists. Meanwhile, the Labour movement has been active and vocal as hell.
The healthcare staff next door are still out there, waving, hooting and getting honked at. I think the Liberals have finally shot themselves in the foot big-time. It strikes me that this could be the straw that broke Campbell's back.
Update, May 2, 2004 (CBC web site): http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/02/canada/bcstrike_040502
The Dalia Lama in Vancouver
We watched the Dalai Lama on webcast on Sunday morning when he addressed the crowd in the Pacific Coliseum in Vancouver.
I guess I am an armchair, agnostic buddhist, trying to absorb the philosophy and integrate what makes sense into my athiestic world. However, being a bit of an idealist still, I believe that if I work hard, I can help to bring betterment to my part of it. And, by extension, if others do the same, eventually, we do have a better world, no?
I take the Dalai Lama at his word that he wishes to be considered as "just a monk". He maintains a down-to-earth, approachable and humble quality, which seems to me to be in keeping with personal growth and human compassion. That, to me, is a reminder of our finite lives and a fundamental and personal committment towards peace.
When Dad Met Svend Robinson...
Once when I was visiting my Dad in his care home, back in 1987 or 1988, he told me that some local politician had been by for a visit. Dad had never been particularly political, and didn't like or trust politicians very much.
I asked him what had happened. He told me that it was Svend Robinson who had come to visit.
"Did you talk to him?" I asked.
"Sure. He was talking to everyone. He came over to me and introduced himself. 'Hello. I'm Svend Robinson' he said. So I looked at him and said 'You're that queer fella, aren't ya?'"
Dad was smirking, proud of his little jab at Canada's first openly-gay politician.
I put my hand to my forehead in disbelief. "Jeez Dad! You didn't say that to him did you? What did he say?"
"He said he preferred to be called gay."
"And...?"
"We talked for a few minutes. He seemed like a good guy."
Dad looked off into the distance for a moment, thinking about the encounter with Svend Robinson, and I watched his smirk fade away, as his face became serious.
"You know," Dad said slowly, "he was the only one who came to see us." Dad meant that Svend had been the only politician who had taken the time to stop by and visit the residents at Carlton Lodge.
"Maybe I'll write him a postcard and say thanks."
Jesus, that's too much blood!
Holy Cow... I mean, yikes... what a bloodbath of a movie!! Why did Mel do this?
After weeks of prepping and some anticipation, I finally say "The Passion of the Christ" today.
I'm quite shocked and very disappointed in this movie in a number of ways. Mostly, I feel that it was excessively graphically violent. I will say that this is by far, the most brutally violent film I have watched. I suppose that this is really the point of the movie: to stun an audience who exists in a society steeped in violence from the real world, the media, games and other sources.
Is it assumed that we are so desensitized to violence that this level must be used to make an impact on us?
Maybe I am just a wimp, or too soft. Maybe I don't realize just how vicious people were back then, and are today. No. I'm just saying that - paying lip service to those views, so that they will have been said.
The fact is that I am mostly a pacifist, who hates violence. The truth is that I know that violence exists, and intolerance and cruelty exist, and I know that ideological differences are still the cause of violent conflicts all over the world. In our world today, horrible violence exists, as much as it ever did in the past. Living in one small corner of our world, inside the bubble of my urban life, I cannot say with absolute certainty that life is so much more advanced and peaceful today than it was 2000 years ago. I want to believe that it is, and I want to believe that people are not persecuted today as Jesus (apparently) was.
So, why so bloody and gory, Mr. Bush, er, I mean, Mr. Gibson? Why so sadistic a portrayal? This is a movie, so it was consciously created. Scores of people collaborated to create the story, decide on how it should be composed and shot, and overall it probably represents countless hours of research, design, and execution (pardon the pun) by people who do this kind of work professionally every day.
This wasn't a haphazard effort. Someone decided that we must see chunks of flesh flying, rivers of blood and layers of flayed skin spread across the screen. I will say that the depictions of violence were so graphic as to lessen the impact of the story for me. I did not feel that the movie adequately built up my empathy for Jesus as a person. He was represented as a healer and trusted individual, but I did not feel as though his special nature, ablities or leadership were adequately demonstrated. In this movie, I did not feel that Jesus was built up high enough as a character before his bloody descent into capture and torture. While he was being tortured, I certainly felt that I was watching someone suffer, but I did not feel as emotionally affected by it as I thought I would (or should) be.
Really, if anything, the movie presented so much graphic violence, that I felt as though I was somewhat desensitized to it.
I believe that, particularly with all the violence going on in the Middle East, this movie could have offerred more depictions of hope, compassion and love. The moments in the movie where compassion is shown (Pilate's wife bringing Mary the cloths, the man carrying the cross with Jesus, or the emotional/philosophical dillemma felt by Pilate) were few, and greatly overshadowed by shades of red.
I think the decision to portray this level of violence had to have been influenced by a fear that if it wasn't shocking, nobody would pay attention. It had to be spectacular, or we wouldn't even notice it. I think it was sensationalized in order to grab glory in the media and at the box office. Perhaps this is religion trying to compete with mass media on it's own terms? Look at "Kill Bill" by Tarantino, or any number of mobster flicks that depict gun play and blood and guts.
Is this what is necessary to make a strong impression on people? I don't think it is the only way to go. Look at "Kundun", the movie about the life of the Dalai Lama. Certainly he lived through the bloodlest time in recent history for Tibet, and there certainly was sufferring and anguish depicted, but there was also a sense of beauty and some hope that a future would grow out of the violent conflict.
Passion of the Christ is like a snapshot taken out of context - a violent scene, as if watched through a keyhole. This was a violent movie which, taken by itself, does a disservice to people who might otherwise consider the Christian faith as their belief system.
Perhaps this is just the modern equivalent of some fanfare to get people's attention... Like that joke that goes "SEX!!! Now that I have your attention..." and then goes on about real estate or some other unrelated topic. I mean, maybe that's what this movie is good for: a bloody, sensationalistic and graphic story that packs people into the theatres and reminds them about Jesus Christ. Then, once they have recovered from the shock of seeing the movie, they want to talk about it and talk about him, and maybe even open up a Bible or go to church.
However, still wearing my pessimist's hat, I think this is a rather desperate way for a religion or a film maker to draw attention to themselves.
Here are a few select web sites featuring, discussing or otherwise promoting this movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
http://www.passion-movie.com/english/
http://www.thepassionoutreach.com
April 05, 2004
The Book and the Bottle... "ne'er the twain shall meet"
A co-worker recently returned from a vacation back home in Mexico. During her stay, she had asked me if I wanted her to bring me anything back. I light-heartedly said "A bottle of Tequila!"
When I was 18 and thought I was invulnerable, I helped another friend finish a bottle of Mescal right down to the worm at the bottom of the bottle, chasing with beer all the way. I thought I was such a he-man as I giggled and wobbled my way home, walking from False Creek across the Granville Street bridge.
Twenty years later, and I'm proud to say that I have a low tolerance for alcohol, and could not (and wouldn't want to) tackle a bottle of Tequila the way I did when I was a stupid, cocky young lad :)
Having said all that, the woman who bought me the bottle as a souveinir is a total sweetheart, with the best intentions. She took me at my word, presenting me with almost a full litre of Tequila this morning at my desk. I thanked her profusely for such an extravagant gift, which would have cost me an arm and a leg if bought here at a Government Liquor Store. I believe it's much less expensive in Mexico, but nonethess, a very considerate and nice thing for her to do.
Here's the punchline:
I grab this huge square one-litre bottle and jam it in my shoulder bag for the trip home, but it won't fit - something is blocking the way. I reach into my bag and pull out the offending item - the large Bible I have been studying in preparation for going to see "The Passion of the Christ".
A Bible and a litre of Tequila. Boy - talk about your clash of ideologies. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. That's some kind of bag o' conflict right there...
When I was 18 and thought I was invulnerable, I helped another friend finish a bottle of Mescal right down to the worm at the bottom of the bottle, chasing with beer all the way. I thought I was such a he-man as I giggled and wobbled my way home, walking from False Creek across the Granville Street bridge.
Twenty years later, and I'm proud to say that I have a low tolerance for alcohol, and could not (and wouldn't want to) tackle a bottle of Tequila the way I did when I was a stupid, cocky young lad :)
Having said all that, the woman who bought me the bottle as a souveinir is a total sweetheart, with the best intentions. She took me at my word, presenting me with almost a full litre of Tequila this morning at my desk. I thanked her profusely for such an extravagant gift, which would have cost me an arm and a leg if bought here at a Government Liquor Store. I believe it's much less expensive in Mexico, but nonethess, a very considerate and nice thing for her to do.
Here's the punchline:
I grab this huge square one-litre bottle and jam it in my shoulder bag for the trip home, but it won't fit - something is blocking the way. I reach into my bag and pull out the offending item - the large Bible I have been studying in preparation for going to see "The Passion of the Christ".
A Bible and a litre of Tequila. Boy - talk about your clash of ideologies. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. That's some kind of bag o' conflict right there...
March 30, 2004
Not Much Faith in Faith Anymore?
In anticipation of seeing the movie "Passion of the Christ", I have been reading voraciously on Christianity and ancient belief systems from a number of different sources.
These sources have included The Bible, "The 12th Planet" by Zechariah Sitchin, The Necronomicon, and most recently, The Koran. Quite a mixed bag, I know, but I'll explain my train of thought, to assure you that it has not derailed too badly.
I will be going to watch the movie "The Passion of the Christ" in the next week or so, and contemplating this particular drama has made me aware of how little I know about the Christian Bible, Jesus, etc. My society is steeped in Christian rhetoric, sayings, holidays, and values, which have been incorporated into my personality subtlely all my life. It's such an easy habit to say "Christ!" or "Oh my god!" when I'm shocked by something. But I can honestly say that I do not believe in God. I am an atheist, and somewhat of a skeptic generally where belief systems and philosophies are concerned.
I have always been inspired by the saying "Any science, if sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." I do think that everything can, ultimately, be described in physical terms. I do not believe in mysteries, magic or miracles, angels or devils, and I admit to feeling quite impatient with those who do believe such things. Having said that I basically believe that all things can be explained by science, I do not have any presumptions to great knowledge myself. I am just admitting that I will take reports of miracles or "acts of God" with a grain of salt.
So, my interest in the story of Jesus is that of an outsider, who wants to read the stories himself. I want to evaluate the Bible's historical (?) claims of interactions with "the Lord", and learn where these stories originally came from, and if they were inspired by earlier accounts.
So far, I am only as far as "Exodus" in the Old Testament, so I have a loooong way to go. I did skip to the end of the book once, and let me tell you, if Revelations is the end, this is not a pretty picture folks. So, I went back to the beginning again, hoping that things would somehow seem less shocking if I had more information first.
The Bible has been compiled from numerous different sources over the past thousands of years. It is truly the oldest continuously-published volume around, as far as I know. Many spoken versions of the it's stories spread around for millennia before being written down, and so they were subject to all kinds of cultural and temporal adjustments and changes with each recounting. Not to mention how the Bible has been consciously re-edited over the years by various religious orders, Kings, Popes, or whomever, in order to suit their political or religious goals.
At this point in my layman's reading the Bible, I have encountered a number of inconsistencies or things that seem plain strange to me.
In a few places in Genesis, God refers to itself in the plural e.g. "Let us create him in our image". Who was God talking to? Was there more than one God?
In other places, God (referred to as "The Lord") seems to act on quite a human scale. The Lord seems to interact with Jacob and Moses personally, speaking to them face-to-face, getting impatient or angry with them, or bargaining and promising things to get what he wants. The Lord also casually kills people too, with very little explanation given (I'll cite an example from the Old Testament at a later time).
This is far from the al-knowing, al-seeing, benevolent and omnipresent entity that was described to me in my youth. Some of the other people I have mentioned this to have had the same reaction, not liking the idea that God was so vengeful and "in-yer-face". Perhaps people prefer a more benign, compasssionate, super-being. You know, silent and invisible.
The Bible is certainly prone to inconsistencies, but then it is made up of fragments of ancient tales which have undergone countless modifications in their verbal and written manifestations. But all the same, the Old Testament God seems like quite the petty meddler in human affairs, sometimes walking around like a man, confronting people face-to-face, or sometimes whooshing around above a battlefield upon a "pillar of fire and cloud". God was definitely getting involved in things first hand.
This skeptical vision of "the Almighty" as a powerful yet meddling, human-scale super-entity spurred me to re-read the book "The 12th planet" by Zecharia Sitchen. In this, the first of his "Earth Chronicles" series, Sitchin claims that the Human race was created by advanced visitors from another planet in our solar system. He quotes lots of ancient Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals to back it up.
While I take a lot of Sitchen's claims with that same grain of salt, his views do provide a refreshing alternative to accepted stories of human creation and ancient events. Most useful to me were his statements that many of the events in the Old Testament may have been inspired by even older Sumerian or Babylonian tales. Sitchin (as well as other authors I found on the web) have compared the story of Noah and the Flood to older tales of a great deluge taken from Babylonian stories.
Cultures and beliefs tend to be fluid, influenced by other cultures as they intermingle due to commerce or other are affected by other causes. New cultures take on some characteristics of previous cultures too. So, I could see how the Jewish Torah, the basis for the Old Testament, might have adapted from or used versions of older, popular morality tales or epics for it's own purposes. The Old Testament, so far as I have read it today, is horribly vague about providing reference points that I can understand, so it's difficult to know where and when events it depicts actually occurred. I need like, a Coles Notes study guide for the Old Testmane, or "Bible for Dummies" :) But anyway, Zecharia Sitchin's work does help me get a timeline and context for certain Biblical events, and see that there were earlier possible sources for them.
I have also had a second look at the Necronomicon. The Necronomicon is billed as a book of magical incantations written by a "mad Arab" in the 9th century AD. Sounds pretty ominous. I bought it in handy paperback form at Coles books, and have recently re-read it purely out of curiousity. Having said all that, I'm a nice guy, who doesn't believe in any kind of blood oaths, sacrifices, or devil worship. (Just wanted to get that out of the way.)
I found that the Neconomicon makes *so* many references to Babylon and Sumer, whose religious beliefs pre-date Christianity by thousands of years, that it is no wonder that the Christian and Roman Catholic churches would want to suppress it or label it as evil, satanic, etc. The Necronomicon looks to me like a manifestation of old Sumerian or Babylonian stories and beliefs, recast in mystical terms, kind of like how ancient astronomy and pantheistic or shamanistic belief systems have been marginalized and recast into largely mystical terms as Astrology, Wicca, etc. So, it's not scary to me, or cursed or any of that sensationalistic crap that may have been assigned to it.
Finally, the Koran is somewhat of a breath of fresh air. It repeats some of the same messages of the Bible, but it is largely in the form of prose - a poetic format, which almost makes the Bible read like a Harlequin Romance by comparison. The style of the Koran is elaborate, slightly flowery and almost abstract, and yet remains structured in it's own way. It's not unlike the Islamic ornamental designs I fell in love with in first year at Art School. The Koran will be a difficult bok to interpret and understand, which is something I think I may enjoy.
In Summary...
I don't think I'm much more definite about my beliefs than before. I still "will believe it when I see it" as far as the Christian God, miracles, Heaven, etc. are concerned, but it makes me wonder how the Christian and Catholic Church has responded to the demands of modern society.
I think I shall enjoy staying on the fence, to study some more...
These sources have included The Bible, "The 12th Planet" by Zechariah Sitchin, The Necronomicon, and most recently, The Koran. Quite a mixed bag, I know, but I'll explain my train of thought, to assure you that it has not derailed too badly.
I will be going to watch the movie "The Passion of the Christ" in the next week or so, and contemplating this particular drama has made me aware of how little I know about the Christian Bible, Jesus, etc. My society is steeped in Christian rhetoric, sayings, holidays, and values, which have been incorporated into my personality subtlely all my life. It's such an easy habit to say "Christ!" or "Oh my god!" when I'm shocked by something. But I can honestly say that I do not believe in God. I am an atheist, and somewhat of a skeptic generally where belief systems and philosophies are concerned.
I have always been inspired by the saying "Any science, if sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." I do think that everything can, ultimately, be described in physical terms. I do not believe in mysteries, magic or miracles, angels or devils, and I admit to feeling quite impatient with those who do believe such things. Having said that I basically believe that all things can be explained by science, I do not have any presumptions to great knowledge myself. I am just admitting that I will take reports of miracles or "acts of God" with a grain of salt.
So, my interest in the story of Jesus is that of an outsider, who wants to read the stories himself. I want to evaluate the Bible's historical (?) claims of interactions with "the Lord", and learn where these stories originally came from, and if they were inspired by earlier accounts.
So far, I am only as far as "Exodus" in the Old Testament, so I have a loooong way to go. I did skip to the end of the book once, and let me tell you, if Revelations is the end, this is not a pretty picture folks. So, I went back to the beginning again, hoping that things would somehow seem less shocking if I had more information first.
The Bible has been compiled from numerous different sources over the past thousands of years. It is truly the oldest continuously-published volume around, as far as I know. Many spoken versions of the it's stories spread around for millennia before being written down, and so they were subject to all kinds of cultural and temporal adjustments and changes with each recounting. Not to mention how the Bible has been consciously re-edited over the years by various religious orders, Kings, Popes, or whomever, in order to suit their political or religious goals.
At this point in my layman's reading the Bible, I have encountered a number of inconsistencies or things that seem plain strange to me.
In a few places in Genesis, God refers to itself in the plural e.g. "Let us create him in our image". Who was God talking to? Was there more than one God?
In other places, God (referred to as "The Lord") seems to act on quite a human scale. The Lord seems to interact with Jacob and Moses personally, speaking to them face-to-face, getting impatient or angry with them, or bargaining and promising things to get what he wants. The Lord also casually kills people too, with very little explanation given (I'll cite an example from the Old Testament at a later time).
This is far from the al-knowing, al-seeing, benevolent and omnipresent entity that was described to me in my youth. Some of the other people I have mentioned this to have had the same reaction, not liking the idea that God was so vengeful and "in-yer-face". Perhaps people prefer a more benign, compasssionate, super-being. You know, silent and invisible.
The Bible is certainly prone to inconsistencies, but then it is made up of fragments of ancient tales which have undergone countless modifications in their verbal and written manifestations. But all the same, the Old Testament God seems like quite the petty meddler in human affairs, sometimes walking around like a man, confronting people face-to-face, or sometimes whooshing around above a battlefield upon a "pillar of fire and cloud". God was definitely getting involved in things first hand.
This skeptical vision of "the Almighty" as a powerful yet meddling, human-scale super-entity spurred me to re-read the book "The 12th planet" by Zecharia Sitchen. In this, the first of his "Earth Chronicles" series, Sitchin claims that the Human race was created by advanced visitors from another planet in our solar system. He quotes lots of ancient Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals to back it up.
While I take a lot of Sitchen's claims with that same grain of salt, his views do provide a refreshing alternative to accepted stories of human creation and ancient events. Most useful to me were his statements that many of the events in the Old Testament may have been inspired by even older Sumerian or Babylonian tales. Sitchin (as well as other authors I found on the web) have compared the story of Noah and the Flood to older tales of a great deluge taken from Babylonian stories.
Cultures and beliefs tend to be fluid, influenced by other cultures as they intermingle due to commerce or other are affected by other causes. New cultures take on some characteristics of previous cultures too. So, I could see how the Jewish Torah, the basis for the Old Testament, might have adapted from or used versions of older, popular morality tales or epics for it's own purposes. The Old Testament, so far as I have read it today, is horribly vague about providing reference points that I can understand, so it's difficult to know where and when events it depicts actually occurred. I need like, a Coles Notes study guide for the Old Testmane, or "Bible for Dummies" :) But anyway, Zecharia Sitchin's work does help me get a timeline and context for certain Biblical events, and see that there were earlier possible sources for them.
I have also had a second look at the Necronomicon. The Necronomicon is billed as a book of magical incantations written by a "mad Arab" in the 9th century AD. Sounds pretty ominous. I bought it in handy paperback form at Coles books, and have recently re-read it purely out of curiousity. Having said all that, I'm a nice guy, who doesn't believe in any kind of blood oaths, sacrifices, or devil worship. (Just wanted to get that out of the way.)
I found that the Neconomicon makes *so* many references to Babylon and Sumer, whose religious beliefs pre-date Christianity by thousands of years, that it is no wonder that the Christian and Roman Catholic churches would want to suppress it or label it as evil, satanic, etc. The Necronomicon looks to me like a manifestation of old Sumerian or Babylonian stories and beliefs, recast in mystical terms, kind of like how ancient astronomy and pantheistic or shamanistic belief systems have been marginalized and recast into largely mystical terms as Astrology, Wicca, etc. So, it's not scary to me, or cursed or any of that sensationalistic crap that may have been assigned to it.
Finally, the Koran is somewhat of a breath of fresh air. It repeats some of the same messages of the Bible, but it is largely in the form of prose - a poetic format, which almost makes the Bible read like a Harlequin Romance by comparison. The style of the Koran is elaborate, slightly flowery and almost abstract, and yet remains structured in it's own way. It's not unlike the Islamic ornamental designs I fell in love with in first year at Art School. The Koran will be a difficult bok to interpret and understand, which is something I think I may enjoy.
In Summary...
I don't think I'm much more definite about my beliefs than before. I still "will believe it when I see it" as far as the Christian God, miracles, Heaven, etc. are concerned, but it makes me wonder how the Christian and Catholic Church has responded to the demands of modern society.
I think I shall enjoy staying on the fence, to study some more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
