I posted this a few days back but the full text didn't post for some reason.  Anyways, enjoy?

The male is naturally stronger and more suited for hunting.  The female is more prepared instinctually for child rearing and early life nurturing; I know of few men who are physically equipped to breast feed.  Were our entire modern society stripped away, we would largely be reduced to the aforementioned state of being, that is, primary roles as dictated by biological instinct.

Humans are a peculiar species.  We have clearly developed beyond any other animal.  We have harnessed the resources of the earth to create achievements which have previously (and theoretically) been unheard of -- That is unless of course dolphins in their infinite dolphin-esque wisdom have seen detriment in unnaturally modifying the Earth.  But, as we all know, dolphins are cheeky bastards who are probably too busy hitting the black smokers to care about industrial progress.  But I digress.

Unfortunately, our biological evolution has been far outpaced by the technological and sociological evolution.  And I feel that this is wreaking havoc on our frail minds; humans are a curious paradox -- astoundingly resilient yet staggeringly delicate.  We have always been able to adapt to new situations, but each has not come without its consequence.   

The biggest reason for this progress is the radical shifts in the way humans operate structurally.  You have the most basic of 'societies' which are the hunter/gatherer types.  These types of communities are small and spend the majority of their time simply surviving.  Take away the burden of 'simply surviving' by say, adding a surplus of crops, and you have shifted the sociological evolution.  At this point, those who were previously confined to hunt and fish and club women over the head are now liberated from that kind of lifestyle; their minds are freed to a point which allows them to dance along the philosophical nature of mankind.  This shift, I might mention, was largely due to the introduction of the appliance-osaurus, those wise-cracking herptile appliances who managed to master the English language before resulting CO2 emissions caused the first global warming and subsequent freezing.  Moving on.

Considerably; we have moved far beyond the boundaries of our natural state, but psychologically still contain the motivators and the instincts that are a result of countless years of evolution (or the religiously safe 'adaptation').  The family structure has suffered tremendous stress, especially since the coming of the industrial revolution.  My theory on this is that we have been plucked from our previous social roles and have not filled in the vacuity that provided some sort of psychological function for us.  For example:  we have an obesity epidemic in this country.  This is partly a result of the horribly unhealthy diet that we have adopted, but it is also a result of the lack of physical activity in our society as well.  We have become increasingly sedentary.  Previously we would have spent our energy (burning calories) through the normal rigors of day to day labor.  But again, we have been pulled out (or pulled ourselves out rather, whichever suits you better) of our natural state and placed into a highly convenienced and highly catered to society.  We used to have to spend hours trying to catch our food, now we have it delivered to us and complain if it takes more than thirty minutes (however, two hours? That is a bit long I feel, especially if they are still expecting a tip).

The industrial revolution in particular seems to be the major catalyst for all of these changes.  This period in history 200 years ago caused a huge shift for our economical productivity in a way which had previously been unheard of.  This caused a huge migration toward cities which consequently modified the way people group and live together.  Prior to this time it was common for generations of a family to reside in one dwelling; with the development of the new industrial age, the family unit has been altered significantly leaving previous primary relationships to be supplanted with an abundance of secondary ones.  The home is no longer, for a vast number of people, the place where they get most of their social interaction or even rearing for that matter.

Where we sit now is a point where information is widely available, yet the understanding of it is not.  For instance, we can have a group of pseudo-revolutionaries -- fashionable revolutionaries if you will -- grab hold of partial information and lead crusades against the evils of the government without ever truly knowing what is going on.  Same goes for overzealous religious groups.  All I can say is, read up and don't be so overly contrarian; lest we continue to simply be monkeys with guns.

So this thing seems to take what it pleases from my posts and randomly remove segments. I can't figure out how to get it to stop and its rather annoying.  Anyway, I guess aside from removing 3 paragraphs from random spots in my original article, the point is still intact.  Otherwise  CURSES!

Humans are a peculiar species.  We have clearly developed beyond any other animal.  We have harnessed the resources of the earth to create achievements which have previously (and theoretically) been unheard of -- That is unless of course dolphins in their infinite dolphin-esque wisdom have seen detriment in unnaturally modifying the Earth.  But, as we all know, dolphins are cheeky bastards who are probably too busy hitting the black smokers to care about industrial progress.  But I digress.

 Unfortunately, our biological evolution has been far outpaced by the technological and sociological evolution.  And I feel that this is wreaking havoc on our frail minds; humans are a curious paradox -- astoundingly resilient yet staggeringly delicate.  We have always been able to adapt to new situations, but each has not come without its consequence.   

 The industrial revolution in particular seems to be the major catalyst for all of these changes.  This period in history 200 years ago caused a huge shift for our economical productivity in a way which had previously been unheard of.  This caused a huge migration toward cities which consequently modified the way people group and live together.  Prior to this time it was common for generations of a family to reside in one dwelling; with the development of the new industrial age, the family unit has been altered significantly leaving previous primary relationships to be supplanted with an abundance of secondary ones.  The home is no longer, for a vast number of people, the place where they get most of their social interaction or even rearing for that matter.

 Where we sit now is a point where information is widely available, yet the understanding of it is not.  For instance, we can have a group of pseudo-revolutionaries -- fashionable revolutionaries if you will -- grab hold of partial information and lead crusades against the evils of the government without ever truly knowing what is going on.  Same goes for overzealous religious groups.  All I can say is, read up and don't be so overly contrarian; lest we continue to simply be monkeys with guns.

Biblical Analysis Part II: The omniscience of God

 

*Although translation, especially Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, is certainly with flaw in the biblical translations, the majority of translations tell the stories in the same manner, for the pieces I am addressing anyway.  For reference, I have been using the New International Version, and the Jewish Publication Societies version of the TaNaKH (being essentially the old testament).

 

Growing up strongly involved in the church I had usually never questioned the doctrine.  Had I ever stumbled upon any inconsistency in the text I would eventually give it up to an inexplicable misunderstanding of man rather than the fallibility of the omnipotent and omniscient God.  However, after I had officially defected from the church for reasons related to human flaw rather than canonical error, I had begun to take a closer look at the scriptures which had been fed to me throughout my childhood.  One of these main ideas is that God is all knowing and all powerful.  The part that especially now makes me curious is the idea of an all knowing God.  A particular passage which stands out to me is         & nbsp;  Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew ^[a] you,
            before you were born I set you apart;
            I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

God expresses that he knew Jeremiah from the womb and that, as stated, he was set apart as special.  I had always been quoted this scripture as a symbol of my significance (in a broad term, usually encompassing the church) and as a reinforcement of the idea of an omniscient God. 

I have previously written on the book of Genesis and the nature of the creation story, which is where the first contradiction seems to jump out at me.  Genesis 2:19-20 explains the creation of the land animals of which Adam would tend to.  It is also stated in that passage that God had created those animals for Adam as helpers and implies that Eve was an afterthought, coming only after no suitable helper was found amidst the livestock.  This is the first moment in the bible where God seems to fall short of omniscience.  To so greatly misunderstand his own creation as to think of woman after animals. 

The second instance which I find is much less explicit and is, I will admit, a debatable one; the story of the great flood.  In Genesis 6, God sees that his creation is wicked and decides to eradicate them through a flood.  This suggests that God had not understood the direction of his creation.  At this moment the majority of humanity seems to have been a mistake. 

The last issue I wish to press is the story of Job.  The purpose of this story is easy to pick up on.  It is meant as a means of encouragement for those who face the hardest of situations.  The moral is that, no matter how hard things get, God still cares for you.  My first grievance with this chapter comes in Job 1:7 where God is talking to the Adversary.  The Adversary - or Satan - has been out accusing people of not having faith in God (by God's command).  When the Adversary returns God asks "Where have you been?"  The first question is the obvious one: Why is God asking where Satan was if he is omniscient?  A reasonable response may be that it is merely for literary purposes or that it is a rhetorical question whose function is to draw out relevant dialogue.  If that is the case though, it seems as though the entire purpose of the Bible is not so much as to confine itself to the truth and infallibility of God, but rather to illustrate figurative happenings in order to guide humanity during the times when the laws of physics and nature were not fully understood.  Furthermore, the nature of humanity as a creation of a definable and near-tangible God seems more logically the result of humankind's infinite yearning for the understanding of our origin and the purposes of our existence.  The authors of such works were not dumb...they were working with the limited knowledge and grasp of our world.

All I want to do is go jam with somebody.  Nothing permanent, just a jam session.  I miss being on stage!



-update-    so I'm thinking, it would be pretty awesome to do one preliminary jam to see if tastes fit, and then I would like to set up a random show that is all jam.  I really really miss playing shows.  Anyone interested just let me know.

*I posted this earlier and for some reason it only posted half.... odd

IF a closer look is paid to the creation account(s) as is present in the book of Genesis - chapters 1 and 2 - there can be seen a number of curious indiscretions in the ordering and pairing of creations.  First, take note of the Genesis 1 account of the overall creation of Earth.

 

DAY 1 is day and night separated.  Day 2 is ocean from sky.  Day 3 is land, plants and other vegetation.  Day 4 has the creation of the moon and stars (lesser lights to govern the night, separated from the greater light, or sun, of the day).  Day 5 came the sea creatures and the birds. 

 

MY major focus is the 6th day.  This is the day that God creates the animals (livestock and other land creatures).  This is also the day that God creates man.  The order is as such: God creates the land animals and then male and female to tend to them.  It is very explicit in any English translation as to what the order is.

 

"Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" - Genesis 1:26

 

THIS is contradictory to the Genesis 2 account of the creation of man and beast.

 

THE second creation account has been believed to be simply an elaboration on the first account; a revisiting of the day in which man and land animals were created.  However, in this account, the order in which the creations take place is - and for what purpose - is modified. 

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.  But for Adam no suitable helper was found. - Genesis 1: 18-20.

MAN is created before the land creatures.  Furthermore, the land animals are created as an initial mate to Adam.  This is an odd prospect that God has so greatly misunderstood his own creation as to offer it an animal as a suitable helper.  From the existence of an omniscient God it seems curious.  Also note that in Genesis 1:26 it is addressed that God created humans to govern the animals, not man alone, which is the case in the second account.  In the second account Eve is somewhat of an afterthought; in the first, they are both grouped together.  

SO what does this mean exactly?  As of this moment I am not completely sure.  All I do know is that it is a very peculiar inconsistency which has been one of the many catalysts in my breakaway from the church and particular faith.  For the sake of brevity I will conclude here, but any response is highly welcomed and highly encouraged.