Friday, April 16, 2010

Dementia, God, and You

Though it may not seem like it, every human being has a brain.

And each person's brain tends to look roughly the same to the naked eye. And for the most part, each human brain is the same overall. But the details underneath the hard-wired similarities of our brains produce a world teeming with billions of unique individuals.

Our brains seem to act as the seat of our consciousness and awareness. And should our brains ever deteriorate, our ability to interact with the outside world deteriorates right along with our brains.

I've seen one case of dementia up close in my life. When I was young, my mother made the decision to be the primary care taker of her aunt who had started developing dementia. I had no clue as to why my mother uprooted us.

I soon found out.

One afternoon, my (great) aunt was staring out of a window while muttering to herself. I innocently asked her what she was looking at as I too began to peer through the window. I also wanted to know who she was talking to. While she was muttering to herself, her tone was somehow conversational. Who in the world was she talking with?

I was only about ten years old at the time.

She responded to my childhood curiosity by accosting me. "Who are you? What are you doing in my house? How did you get in here? I'm calling the police on you if you don't get out of my house!"

I scurried away. She had never talked to me like that before.

And we never had a normal, coherent conversation ever since.

Often she would talk to "herself". At any given moment, she would burst out singing praises to God and acting like she was in church. Then moments later, she would seem to behave as though her personality had split in two. She would role play a little child being fussed at by her aggressive, angry, overbearing mother. (I often wondered if this display was a faint echo of my aunt's actual childhood. How horrible if so!) My aunt would play both roles out loud in "real time". She displayed the personality of both the parent and the child.

Think "Norman Bates". . . but not nearly as sinister.

As the dementia worsened, my aunt was prone to do other odd things. She would sometimes eat raw meat out of the refrigerator. She'd cry like a three year old sometimes when we'd try to convince her to do something for her own good. She would hit at us because, to her, we were unwanted strangers in her house. She'd call the police on us numerous times. She'd wander off for hours until the police would finally find her and bring her home.

The police in the area became really familiar with us.

Over the years, she became sickly and frail. Eventually, she had stopped eating. Then she stopped swallowing water.

Soon thereafter, she stopped living.

Today, my wife's grandmother (our kid's great grandma) is slowly developing dementia.

She's blind and bedridden, but still has a lot of spunk about her regardless.

Unfortunately, her jaw often becomes dislocated and she has to visit a doctor to have it moved back in place.

Excruciating, I imagine.

Since she's is known to be religious, the doctor often tells her to call on Jesus as he tries to reset her jaw. One particular time, she told the doctor as he manipulated her chin, "I'll whoop yo' ass with Jesus!"

Apparently, this round of jaw resetting hurt extra bad!


If my great aunt's brain had never deteriorated, she would never have treated us as she did. Before dementia set in, she was hospitable, recognized us all, and never exhibited a split personality. She was a church goer and loved God for sure. But, she wouldn't have sang spiritual hymns one moment, then performed a split personality freak show the next.

My wife's grandmother would not have made such a vulgar (but hilarious) statement towards the doctor if her brain wasn't deteriorating. Well . . . I dunno. I could be wrong about her . . . I hear she was quite a spitfire in the past.

My mother-in-law has endured brain surgery from years ago. She couldn't talk for weeks afterwards and had to learn family members all over again. She remember us to some extent, but our names were gone as well as some of the details of our lives. That information was lifted out of her mind right along with the brain cells she lost when her tumor was surgically removed.

She has come a very long way and is independent again. Yet, she still grapples with expressing herself clearly. Imagine a pentecostal minister who was once a fluent speaker before audiences-- but now challenged in expressing herself.

All because of physiological changes in her brain.

It's not religion that made any of my loved ones this way at all. I don't mean to imply that.

And I don't mean to make fun of dementia or any other form mental illness or retardation. Sometimes you have to laugh at some of the things your loved ones say and do when they have any sort of mental impediment. Otherwise, you'll simply cry all the time. But I don't make fun of the ailments themselves and I hope I haven't come across as showing any disrespect to my family.

And while that sentiment may seem like a cliché, it's true nonetheless.

So . . . what's my point?

I find it interesting that when the brain deteriorates, the sufferer of such conditions becomes a different person. Personality is controlled by a single organ in our bodies-- the brain. When that organ fails, our very selves change into something else.

Where do you go when your brain deteriorates and dementia sets in?

And where is God when all of this is happening to you?

Friday, April 9, 2010

Numberwareness

I've heard the speculation that a person's perspective of human kind's centeredness in the cosmos is directly proportional with one's understanding of math.

In other words, the less math a person understands, the more likely that person will think human kind is the apex and center of the Universe. However, the more math a person understands, the more that person will realize humanity is not even a blip when considering the grand scale of the Universe. Again, this is speculation.


Among the industrialized democracies, the United States lags behind in primary and secondary education. Math does not seem to be an exception. Also, I am no exception within this scenario and I long to better understand the important skill of understanding numbers. So, to do my part to educate myself and any who will listen, I will share some interesting comparisons that I've recently read. Perhaps this information could help us put ourselves and our cosmos into perspective-- a perspective largely described using numbers:

If you count at a rate of one number per second, you will need to count for practically 12 days before you reach one million.

At this same rate, you will need to count for 32 years to reach one billion (109).

To finally count to one trillion, you will need 32,000 years.


*****

McDonald's claims to have served one hundred billion customers. If you took one hundred billion hamburgers and laid them end to end, the burger chain could circle the Earth 230 times! No wonder we've got obesity problems!

And you'd still have burgers left over to stack to the moon and back!

Those people at McDonald's are some rich Mo'Fo's.

*****


If a person making $25,000 a year finds $0.25 on the side walk, then this is the same proportion to Bill Gates finding $25,000 laying around on the floor somewhere! In other words, $25,000 is merely twenty-five cents when compared to Bill Gates' wealth!
No wonder he can donate a billion dollars to AIDS research and not blink!
No wonder Gates only wants the world to use Windows!
(That Linux hater. Grrrrrr . . .)

*****


If we placed a soccer ball in the middle of a soccer field to represent the Sun, we'd have to walk about ten paces from our soccer ball to represent the distance between the Sun and Mercury. About 20 paces away from Mercury would be the Earth-- Venus would fall somewhere in between. The moon would rest about an inch away from the Earth at this proportion. Amazingly, this is the furthest any human has ever physically ventured so far.


Jupiter would be found about 130 paces away from Earth in our "soccer field rendition" of the solar system. And Pluto would end up being half a mile away from the soccer ball which represents our Sun.

The nearest star? We'd have to fly 4000 miles away from our soccer ball to represent Proxima Centauri, the closet star to our planet besides our Sun.
Now try to consider the countless stars our telescopes can see.

*****

If that doesn't put the universe into perspective, then take out the time to listen to what Carl Sagan has to say about our planet, the Pale Blue Dot:




A very humbling discourse indeed.

In light of all of this-- who are we to be cruel to one another? Who are we to think we are so much better than anyone who is different from us? Who are we to ever think that our minds are so high, that we don't have to turn skepticism towards ourselves?

Whether there be a god or not, each individual person is way too small to treat anyone else of lesser size.

To me, these humbling insights reveal the importance of "Numberwareness".


Sources:

Death By Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries
by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief by Dale McGowan, Molleen Matsumura, Amanda Metskas, and Jan Devor.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Reality check

I had the pleasure of recently reading a book by notable astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. His book is called Death by Black Hole. On page 292 of his book, he discusses how in 1054 A.D., a star in the constellation of Taurus suddenly became brighter. So bright in fact, that the star could be plainly seen during the day for weeks.

Tyson states that the star became brighter by a factor of a million if it were to be seen during the day time.

How many stars do you see out during the day time (besides the Sun)?

(And assuming you don't live where it's sometimes dark during the "day".)

Tyson also writes that both Chinese and Middle Eastern astronomers documented this event. Native Americans in the future territories of the United States made cave drawings depicting the event-- which turned out to be a supernova from some 7,000 years earlier. The light had finally reached Earth by A.D. 1054.

But somehow, the astronomers in Europe omit this event from their logs, even though they kept records of the Heavens much like the a fore mentioned astronomers.

Why?

Tyson argues that due to the authority of the Church at that time, no astronomer in Europe wanted to document a change in the Heavens. The could possibly undermine the authority of the Church. So, (let the Europeans of 1054 tell it)-- that supernova never happened!

That's the Dark Ages, for ya.

To ignore a bright light shining in your face is begging for darkness. Begging for ignorance.

I admit that ignorance can sometimes be easier to embrace. And, I will personally admit that I have embraced ignorance in the past. And I'm sure I'll make the mistake again at some point in my life.

But with a new endeavor to embrace skepticism, I try to ground myself to a system that can hopefully provide me with a reality check when I need one from time to time.

Embracing a delusion takes away your ability to "call in" and make a reality check. When that happens, you're far more likely to be exploited by someone with malformed intentions.

The following link is NOT SAFE FOR WORK, but I invite you to check out the post "The Armor of God" by Greta Christina. It's a long post, but I personally think it's worth the read. If not, at least a quick skim to get the gist of her argument. She's one of the first bloggers I've heard to use the phrase "Reality Check" in terms of religion and skepticism. So, I owe her the credit for the title of my post.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Happy Atheist's Day!

Since the bible says non-believers are fools, and today is April Fool's day, I thought I'd wish everyone a Happy Atheist's Day, instead.

So . . .

Happy Atheist's Day!

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part II

In part one of The Four Legends of Jesus, I stopped with the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. ending in massacre by the hands of the Romans. Shortly after the failed revolt, the gospel of Mark emerges as the first written gospel. Recall the possibility that Jewish Christians and mainstream Jews alike were expecting a Messiah to rise up and secure the new kingdom during the revolt against Rome. While Jewish Christians were possibly looking for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom, the mainstream Jews were probably looking for a different Messiah to rise up from among their ranks.

Either way, the revolt failed and Jerusalem was sacked; the Temple--so precious to the Jews of Jerusalem--was desecrated and laid to waste.

Mark

The "new Jews" probably needed new encouragement to help them endure the deep disappointment of an absent Messiah. But what could facilitate healing after such a brutal pounding from the Romans? The survivors lost loved ones in a bloody massacre as well as their central symbol of God's presence-- the Temple.

Many scholars of textual criticism point out that the gospel of Mark is short and abrupt relative to the other canonized gospel writings. Consider the original ending of Mark before it was edited. The women who want to anoint the body of Jesus with spices are last seen frightened and fleeing the tomb, telling no one what they saw. Also, we find that Jesus is absent from the tomb, said to be away in Gallilee.

Jesus was absent from the revolt, too. He didn't make his way back down from Heaven.

The traditional ending of Mark found in the typical bible was added on later. Mark actually ends in chapter 16 verse eight. Someone apparently didn't like how Mark originally ended and needed to smooth over Mark's bewildering ending. But in doing so, the editor of Mark may have covered up an intentional literary device by the original author.

The goal of Mark seems to be consolation towards the followers of Jesus after the failed revolt. Again, someone needs to smooth over the disappointment caused by failed expectations of prophesy. The gospel of Mark seems to depict Jesus as a reflection of the people who suffered through the horrors in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Also, Mark seems to reach out to the diasporic Jews who saw the outcome of the failed revolt from afar. Mark attempts to help the followers of Jesus feel as though he identifies with and knows their sorrows. For instance, Jesus falls prostrate in the garden before he is crucified, begging God to take the cup of suffering from him. He exclaims to his disciples that he is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death before he is arrested. Likewise, many of the people who endured the punishment of the Roman army no doubt fell prostrate, begging not to be slaughtered by the sword.

The women leave the tomb during the resurrection scene not knowing what to think and terribly afraid--wondering where Jesus could be. In like manner, those who endured the failed revolt were probably thinking the exact same thing. Those who were "new Jews" were probably afraid and wondered where Jesus could be. Why hasn't he returned like he said? Yet, the mysterious man standing at the tomb insists Jesus is alive somewhere. Perhaps Mark also attempts to leave a subtle glimmer of hope concerning Jesus. Maybe he's challenging the reader. Will you continue to look for and hope for Jesus? Will you go to Gallilee and find him? Or will you run away in fear, never reaching past his empty tomb?

On a side note: the prophesy of the demolished Jewish Temple was added in hindsight in my opinion. If the disappointed early Christians can be persuaded that Jesus predicted this, they may very well accept that he has a higher purposes and meaning to his words than they could have possibly understood. But if none of this was divine to begin with, the only way the "prediction" of the Temple could appear in Mark is for if the revolt happened first.

Matthew

Matthew seems to work towards depicting a new kind of Jesus-- Jesus, the King of the Jews. The dating of Matthew is debated (as well as Mark), but many think Matthew was written next. In this gospel, Jesus often speaks of fulfilling the law and acts as a literary type of Moses by going up into the mountains and coming back down to the people with a message or miracle from God. Jesus has a pedigree that links him directly back to Abraham. The actions and words of Jesus are quite often a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophesies (many of which Jews contest or claim to be gross misinterpretations by Christians). The author of Matthew is attempting to attract mainstream Jews into accepting Jesus as the real Messiah. I suppose the first failed revolt left a bitter taste in their mouths and Jesus' promise needs to be fulfilled soon. In the meanwhile, an appeal needed to be made to the rest of Israel to rally behind their soon to return Messiah.

Luke

Later comes Luke. Again, the dating is debatable. But since so much of Mark is contained in the other three Gospels, Mark is considered a literary source. Unlike Matthew, Luke is written largely to a pagan audience. Luke takes time to explain Jewish laws to his audience, which wouldn't be necessary with a largely Jewish readership. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam-- who is the son of God. Luke alludes to the divinity of Jesus in somewhat of a pagan manner-- reminiscent of mystery religions in my view. Jesus is the son of God, much like Caesar was probably seen as the son of God. Human, yet divine.

Luke also tried to stress to the Greeks that one could still be safe under Roman rule while converting to Christianity.

Honest. The Romans won't become suspicious of you if you openly became a Christian.

Honest.

According to many scholars of textual criticism, the gospel of Luke is written with pristine Greek-- the finest of the whole New Testament canon. Luke is said to write on the level of a Classical Greek novelist. I'm sure this helped to hold the attention of his sophisticated, Greek audience. Also, many people forget that the book of Acts was part of the gospel of Luke. And with Paul often depicted as a missionary to the Gentiles, he appears in Acts. Paul's "Roman" citizenship is played up a few times in Acts. His citizenship even prevents Paul from getting flogged or mistreated by Roman guards when he's arrested. The Book of Acts even ends with a "happily ever after" feel as Paul preaches the gospel in Rome unhindered.

But secular history tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem just before his arrest-- years before Luke and Acts were even written. The Romans arrested Paul as a rebel rouser and executed him. Likewise, the Romans went after Peter and the other leaders as well because they suspected this fringe movement of Judaism was creating dissension towards the Roman government.

Yeah, being an early Christian in Rome was really safe.

John

In the gospel of John, Jesus is sometimes depicted as a superman. Jesus embodies the full divinity and majesty of God. Contrasted with Mark-- Jesus delivers a beautiful prayer in the presence of his disciples before he is arrested (John 17). When the Roman guards finally come to arrest Jesus, they inquire of his whereabouts. When Jesus responds, all the Roman guards fall back onto the ground! To me, this expresses that Jesus willingly goes away with his captors. These guards clearly didn't have the power to apprehend Jesus; he is only letting them take him away and nail him to the cross. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Compare the story of Jesus' arrest with all the other gospels within the context I've presented so far. Do you still see four people telling different angles of the same event? Or do you see four different "Jesuses" pitched to four different audiences, written by four different authors who have four different religious or political agendas?

Another fascinating feature of John (and perhaps found in the other gospels) is the constant rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees. They argue with Jesus constantly when he claims authentic Judaism. But . . . if Pharisees were truly Abraham's children, they would love Jesus-- not hate him. But the Pharisees don't love Jesus at all. So then, the Pharisees cannot be the real Children of God-- but rather only the Children of the Devil.

But according to some historians, Pharisees weren't prominent until years after the Temple fell and synagogues became more important than ever. Interestingly, this phenomena seems to match the time that John was probably written-- decades after the fall of the Temple. So then, Pharisees seem to become some sort of anachronism within the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . .

As the synagogue and Pharisees became more important in Judaism, the mainstream Jews were finally making a full split with Christians as John was being written. The gospel of John was the final cry of an outcast group demanding to still be called Jewish as they were being thrown out of the synagogues. By now, the mainstream Jews had a new Messiah by the name of Bar Kokhba and strong tensions for a new revolt were forming again.

Eventually, Bar Kokhba was believed to be the true Messiah and lead a second Jewish rebellion that was also smashed by the Roman government.

The "new Jews" sat out on this failed revolt. By now, they were too Christian to be Jews and were too smart to be creamed a second time by the Romans. Christians now have their eternal, divine Jesus as their Messiah. His return is still soon, but he is otherworldly now and can flutter down from the Heavens to establish the kingdom whenever he sees fit. At this point, many first generation Christians were passing on. So then, the return of Jesus and the establishment of God's kingdom finally needed to transcend time and place so that Christ's followers could still maintain hope in rising above any political situation that kept them oppressed.

If it had not been for Constantine, Christianity would perhaps be regarded as nothing more than a myth or legend by now. Probably not too different from the ancient mystery religions or the ancient religions of Greece and Rome that finally fizzled out from that time period. And if Christianity did hang on without Constantine, I have a feeling the believers would only make up a very small religious order.

With this new perspective, I don't see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four gospels any longer. I now see them as the Four Legends of Jesus.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to become a fundamentalist Christian again.

Just so you know I didn't make all of this up on my own, you can see the documentary that inspired this post:

From Jesus to Christ



DISCLAIMER

I also want to stress that I'm mainly stating my opinions based on what I've understood from the documentary, some extra reading, and a few suspicions I've held in the back of my mind since my deconversion. I don't make any claims at being a biblical scholar and I understand that my analysis could be wrong in many places. But, I personally feel like my presentation is a rough idea of how Jesus evolved from a Jewish political rebel, to the Messiah, and then into the very person of God in the flesh.

I believe the followers of Jesus changed who he was over time-- from a fringe group's Messiah to the Christian's Jesus Christ.