Gods and Ungodly Things.

The multi-million pound footballer scores, the blindly faithful are ecstatic, the footballer searches out a TV camera before undertaking a carefully rehearsed post-goal celebration. Then he kneels, facing in the requisite direction and kisses the turf; two continents away a tsunami obliterates the lives, homes and livelihoods of scores of thousands of individuals. God had taken his eye off the ball, or perhaps had his eye on entirely the wrong ball?

The young body, now deceased yet remaining sacred, is 'violated' when its kidneys, liver and lungs are lifted from the still warm cadaver. The 'violated' organs save or seriously enhance the lives of three much cherished children. Pious men are angry and decide to redress the balance, in God's vengeful name.

But, God is omnipotent and he is omnipresent, we are reminded.

So, does this mean that He was actively involved with plotting the trajectory of the tsunami? And is He genuinely angry about the continued employment of His organs, beyond their scheduled demise? Is He comfortable with the idea that pious men, operating in His name, will be organising some form of retribution? Was He really the the deciding factor in that insignificant football match?



God works in mysterious ways, we are 'placated.'

Hospitals work in mysterious ways.
Have faith in your home insurance provider.
Have faith in the pilot's ability to land the plane, upon which your family are travelling.
The structure of the building above your learning children's heads functions in mysterious ways.

You see the thing is that, provided in any other significant situation, neither explanation stands comfortably alone, neither 'faith' nor 'mystery.' A welcome pinch of scientific justification would, in every case, prove to be more than a welcome addition. And yet here, and with the academic world at its most informed, wherever religion or a God is concerned, we are still required to sit 'comfortably' with almost exactly the same 'answers' that may have 'served,' in the absence of anything better, almost exactly the same 'answers' that may have been proffered, over two thousand years ago.

Apart from in 'faith' and 'unexplained mystery,' which anyway do not count, where might the 'debatable' proof as to God's presence exist?

Cricket?
... or the beauty of nature that is seldom beheld (e.g. Nudibranchs)?
... or coffee?
... or mind-enhancing substances that have evolved naturally?
... or the free will to analyse any significant evidence that purports to support or, far more likely, declines the opportunity so to do, the existence of a God?
... or the Resplendent Quetzal?
... or the Sagrada Familia?
... or (the very best of) human nature?
... or government regulation, in the best interests of the customer?
 

And where might the counter 'debatable' evidence be found?

A Sky monopoly of increasing swathes of TV 'entertainment?' Curious, and most definitely related, why might it be possible to watch the entirety of an all German football final (the EUFA Champions League Cup Final between Borussia Dortmund and Beyern Munchen), here in the UK, whilst the home test series between the national cricket teams of England and New Zealand is only available to Sky subscribers?
... or the Tesco plague?
... or Thatcherism? The phenomenon, not the woman (*).
... or indiscriminate- as they all must surely be- natural disasters?
... or insurance companies that might cite 'act of God' in order to avoid providing the services for which they so handsomely charge?
... or most other insurance companies?
... or the worst examples of parasitic behaviour (e.g.Leocochloridium Paradoxum)?
... or the 'free' press (oxymoron)?
... or Conservative values (another oxymoron)?
... or the free will to question and to look at, and to learn from, scientific evidence (Only a paradox in the context of God)?
... or organised religion, especially of the more fundamentalist persuasion?
... or advertising and its requisite product packaging (ugly lies beautifully presented)?
... or the concept of original sin?
... or (the worst of) human nature?
... or automated telephone 'services?'
... or government deregulation, at the behest of industry?
... or the passwords and pin numbers that are 'required' in order for one to function as a fully-integrated member of one's own society?
... or reality TV, notably that which celebrates dysfunction or may deny our children access to the full range of truly creative genius that is music?
.... or the arms trade?
(*) Also the woman.

Theology?

"Theology (from Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λογία, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialised training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary." (Theology- Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia)

Maybe there are more thorough and in-depth definitions out there in the aether, but I think that this pretty much sums it up.

Wikipedia often finds itself at the butt end of so much questionable-academic-integrity based humour. And it's almost inevitable that some of this 'knocking' will have been fairly grounded; it's an inescapable certainty that such a readily and widely amended site will occasionally 'allow' a few factual inaccuracies to slip through the net. But, as is oh-so-often the case, much of that which is routinely presented as fact, in the wider academic sphere (that is other internet sites, on other subjects), should one choose to investigate, will also often fall well short of the factual presentation that one was, perhaps, hoping for.

Indeed, much of that which may be presented as absolute fact, might be readily contestable, should one elect so to do; if not always on the generalisations then almost certainly on the specifics and in the fine tunings. I would contest that, in an educationally evolving globe, striving ever to improve, that this is, in effect, the most desirable of all the options anyway. Thus, Wikipedia will more than suffice in its definition of 'theology.'  

Citing next history, as a self-contained module within the wider sphere of general academia- which, of course, it isn't- is it not generally universally accepted that the vast majority of the globe's battles and conflicts have been summarised very much more copiously by the pens of the victors than by those of the vanquished? Thus, and considering the highly fickle nature of human memory and interpretation, especially when coupled with the 'fact' that so many of the recorded volumes that have been penned and re-penned, are based upon second or third-hand information at best, and invariably composed by the winning side, should it not be more generally and widely acknowledged that that which we have been encouraged to regard as historical fact remains, at best, largely subjective? Perhaps instead, it should be regarded as historical theory, patiently awaiting serious amendment.

Within (aspects of) the theology module- arguably a somewhat stand-alone subject- none of this fine-tuning matters, or is at all relevant, anyway. "Have faith," is the oft repeated last refuge of the defeated debatee, is it not? We might just as usefully use this argument as proof of the existence of dragons (Thatcher excepted), pixies, faeries?

The Ten Commandments, and who really scribed these? More so, who actually dictated the things? In defence of this list it's not the worst of codes for any society with aspirations towards a greater social harmony. But, even so, a great deal of cherry-picking and rewording would need to have ensued before any sensible attempt at application could be deemed to be seriously workable.

Take a closer look at this one, for example:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Second Commandment, King James Bible- Godstenlaws.com)

What about making a graven image of oneself, eh, Mr Gove? "Thou shalt bow down to Me and serve Me: for I am a Jealous Me, visiting iniquity of fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me,"- and that's pretty much anyone with any feel for, or knowledge of, the concept of universal education. How could it not be?

What on earth was God thinking, when he created the Gove?















drocpsu

Have faith in Gove.
Gove works in mysterious ways.

Where Am I?

It seems like only yesterday, that I was fighting valiantly against the dark forces of bureaucracy in the crumbling NHS. I now see that the smouldering remnants are again in the news, as yet another flanking tower finally gives up the ghost, under massive trebuchet assault from the Black Knight, JC, and his heathen hoards.

To briefly recap, my father was in hospital, my mother confused and at home. I was attempting to negotiate a hospital release, via various sub-contracted trusts and other amorphous NHS parasites. 

Well, things have moved on a pace, as is almost inevitable once one's parents have entered their ninth decade. From sheltered apartment to care home, and on to yet another care home. Dad, now more often asleep than awake, more often asleep than eating, more often asleep than any of the alternatives, has a mind that is still two home-moves in arrears. During his more lucid flirtings with the real world the most often uttered statement is, "I wish I was dead!" Of course, I paraphrase, but the sentiment remains the same, clear and unambiguous. He doesn't eat, he doesn't read, he doesn't watch TV, he doesn't partake of conversations. The list of what he doesn't do is considerable; the list of what he does do is short and mostly confined to things he wished he didn't. 

Thank you to Big Grey Mare

If I were my own father I'd want to opt out too. Indeed the only significant thing that he does continue to do is to pay handsomely for the cost of his care, as organised, in part, by myself. 

He's well beyond that dodgy, intermediate stage, whereby he might be considered clear-headed enough or indeed well enough to have opted to travel abroad and to sup of that final glass of rosy red wine. Now that he's unable to partake of more than the briefest of coherent exchanges, I'd certainly not be prepared to make such a final decision on his behalf; even less so would my brother. Dad's very much in the in-need-of-protection-from-unscrupulous-interests camp, the one against which 'our' government keeps warning us. Although my contention is that these, 'unscrupulous interests,' are to be found more so in a rather different guise to those cited by 'our' government.

Were my father's mind more his own, and were it less enshrouded in bigoted Tory values, as spoon-fed over decades, through the likes of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, he might once, in another and parallel existence, have joined the likes of Paul Lamb, Jane Nicklinson and Martin- Jane, still battling on behalf of her deceased husband- in their fight for the right to die with dignity. In reality this was never going to be the case, having long-since been brain-washed to react knee-jerkily towards anything that might, in any shape or form, be regarded (by the Daily Mail, my parents' Guru) as left of centre. 

So now, in remarkably swift time, Dad finds himself in the perhaps-drawn-out twilight of his days, rarely more than fleetingly concerned with the wider world. Is he deserving of protection from unscrupulous or malicious interests? Certainly! Would he want this protection to extend his life much beyond where he is now? Almost certainly not! But, in so far as making that ultimately-final decision is concerned, that ship has long since sailed.

Thank you also to massdistraction

JC and his spawn pretend concern for my father and his ilk; these players have mastered the dark arts of disingenuous argument, insisting clarity where none exists, 'protecting' the vulnerable elderly from unscrupulous interests? JC is currently also legislating to 'protect' some of our vulnerable-elderly yet further, by ensuring that the cost of care might be capped at £75,000. "So that the elderly might be more able to hand, 'a little something,' on to their younger families," I think one of 'our' politicians recently clarified. 

Seventy-five thousand? Well, call me 'a silly old doubting Thomas,' but that's gonna be pretty much it, for many working individuals, I'd have thought. The single family home might be in serious jeopardy! That is unless you've acquired a whole portfolio of properties, in which case you've almost certainly also amassed a small fortune in shares and the likes. And, at this juncture, the finer machinations of JC's devious little mind and bigoted blackened soul become crystal clear. He's not protecting your money, you fools, he's looking after his own kind. By God, search the blighter and he's probably got the best part of seventy-five grand in loose change! 

An approximation of what's actually going on between those pixie ears might be something along the lines of, "Snuffle, snuffle... bloody peasants! Bugger, how can I con those oiks out of a bit more? Snuffle, snuffle... grab that, have that too! Festering plebs! Mine, mine, mine, mine... soon will be mine... Grr, snuffle, snuffle... Money makes my world go around, my world go around, my, my, my... mine! Hunt, it's bloody Hunt, you stupid bounders! Snuffle, snuffle, grrr, grr... I'll have that, and those, and these, and... Collapsing, what's bloody collapsing? Let them eat cake, but not the dashed Battenburg; crusts, let them eat crusts... Champers, where's the confounded champers? Here, my preciousssss... *

Argentem

As ever, carefully tended behind the small lies, the whopping great monster lies are bursting into bloom, in those Parliamentary allotments, a veritable riot of colours, I'll bet. And, in amongst the 'Best in Bloom,' flourishes the government's 'concern' for the elderly. 

By jove, what could possibly be hatching in their blackened little minds, when they speak so pseudo-passionately of, "The sanctity of life"?

It's those government claws and their puppeteers from which the vulnerable elderly most need protection.

* Obviously I haven't actually seen inside JC's head. I have it on good authority that such a darkness will drive a normal human mind insane.