Redwolf's Journal (continued)

Alas, I got caught off-guard today. Whilst doing some cleaning and collecting trash, I had my front door open, proving no barrier against the Jehovah's Witnesses making the rounds. But as I was politely listening to a short bit about how the Bible holds answers for uncertain times, I considered some things I've read and thought about recently and decided to take it as an opportunity. I accepted their Watchtower newsletter and resolved to look through it and a chance to see the perspective presented. We start with three pages about how people try to see what the future will bring, the first in a general sense and the second two talking briefly about astrology and fortune-telling. The text argues flaws in these methods, pointing out many predictions are so general as to be applicable to anyone. The even point out these things are not "scientific." It finishes out with a quote: "There should not be found in you anyone . . . who employs divination, anyone practicin...

I have a certain respect for, and reliance upon, the media when it comes to knowing what's going on in the wider world. There's a filter, though, even in the best of cases. In this day and age, it's easier than ever to get information - but the veracity and depth of it is often limited. I've often said I find politics to be simultaneously fascinating and nauseating. It's only fairly recently (in the scale of my life) that I've come to really consider the value of states as entities. And the recent trip to DC and seeing some of the history there drove home that the US government was fashioned in such as way as to make it deliberately difficult to pass new, sweeping legislation (it was a reaction to displeasure with a monarchy, after all). Religion is much the same to me. I've known deeply religious people who were some of the best and nicest I've met. And yet, I find the mere thought of any attempt to push such beliefs on another to be offensive. Plus...

... er... Debate! The big web event of last night seemed to be the debate between Bill "The Science Guy" Nye and Ken Ham, Christian young-Earth creationist. I tuned in for a fair length of it. At some times, it felt like a typically disappointing public debate, with questions being danced around rather than answered, but it has some interesting points and might provoke some thought here and there. First, I have to say that Ham came across as a more confident and charismatic speaker. I suppose that's natural and unavoidable, given his "profession" is based more around those traits. Nye, by comparison, gave (IMHO) good and sometimes lovingly-rambling answers, but felt less focused and on-point. I don't think it will really sway anyone, demonstrating rather directly how strongly people can cling to beliefs. I'm sure the video is available in several places for the curious. One point that seriously bothers me with Ham's view is he puts forth the...

So I spent most of the day with my dad and stepmom. We chatted, hiked a little, and had a nice steak dinner. Good all around, though a little strange being over there with no dog. The more I think about the possibility of taking a train for the potential trip next month, the more I like it. Definite points for uniqueness, and a certain level of comparative luxury and low stress. Of course, having the luxury of a private room makes it really the most expensive of the options, so it's not all roses. On my drive over, I was flipping through radio stations and stopped for a bit on one where someone was giving some sort of sermon. He said something that made me stop. And fume a bit. "There is no good without God." Y'know, the meaning of a statement like that could depend greatly on context, so I listened more. As I did, however, I only really became more annoyed. This sounded a lot like some AA pitch, where the speaker (reverend? priest? whatever...) went on about...

I wonder if there's someone who can help me out here. I happened to be flipping through channels over breakfast this morning and tuned in to some guy (an evangalist of some sort, I presume) praying. Skipping to the end, he finished with an "in Jesus' name we pray, amen." Okay, this is familiar to me. It was taught to me many, many years ago in school as some flavor of Christianity. It makes sense enough to honor Jesus, sure. What threw me was more in the middle of what I saw where he said something very close to, "... oh Lord, you died for our sins..." This confuses me. So he's praying to Jesus as the Lord rather than to God. I'll admit to having something of an outsider's view of the whole thing, but that seems completely wonky to me - dangerously close to First Commandment territory. Clearly it's not only accepted, but normal, in some religious circles, but I'm having trouble grasping how the two figures are treated so interchangab...

So, normally I argue that: 1) Gods in a fantasy world should be somewhat removed from mortals rather than being frequently present and driven by "normal" goals, so as to be something more than "just powerful guys." 2) Technological advancement should still happen in fantasy worlds. But between Warbreaker and Furryfaire, I'm running some mental theory on a different perspective. So... as far as technology goes, I very much believe in the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention." Technology advances a lot in wars because multiple sides are striving to gain an edge over one another. On a smaller scale, you get that when companies or craftsmen compete, too. Then what happens if there isn't a need? In a extended period of peace with little threat, military advancement can halt and stagnate. If the needs of the citizenry are all met, why make something new? Of course, that depends somewhat on what is "need." There may always ...

In the real world... Hmm. Rough way to start a post. Let me just say that I've not seen evidence of Poseidon or Loki or Amaterasu. Until I do, I tend to consider religious pantheons to be constructs of people, the deities therein mostly anthropomorphic representations of natural "events," be they sea or trickery or sun. I allow that I may be wrong, but I tend toward skepticism in the absence of proof. So accept for a moment that such can be the case, at least. A religion and deity can simply be a construct of a society trying to explain something in a way they understand. Then give the society a new understanding, supported by repeatable evidence and in absence of any manifestation of divinity to show otherwise. Is the religion still necessary? Many fantasy worlds have a pantheon (or more) of gods hanging out. Sometimes they're active, sometimes they're removed. But what purpose do they really serve? They give a rallying point for mortal characters and offer ...