jump to navigation

Religion and The Good Life December 27, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment

The three monotheistic religions of the world all posit that God is an all-seeing deity that interjects Himself into the affairs of man for his divine purposes. This interjection can be called “miraculous” or it might simply be invisible to us as Adam Smith’s  “invisible hand” of commerce succinctly defined how self-interest actually helps society as a whole as regards to economics. This “eye-in-the-sky” God is posited as looking down upon us, keeping notes, and eventually doling out our just rewards for everything from unrepentant sin to holding the wrong beliefs, no matter what our behavior in life actually is.

For centuries, humans have held that religion contains the answers for a more peaceful world. But recent research is demonstrating the opposite, that the least religious countries are also the “happiest”, based on several factors such as crime etc.

Fundamentalists will say “They’re not really happy, it’s Satan’s trick to make them think they are happy while they are on their way to hell in a handbasket”. So be it. But for those of us free from dogma should take a good look at these studies. We may learn that life, when freed from the rules of cosmic handbooks, may be just, fair and compassionate on its own.

This sorta tells it all December 25, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

No comment December 25, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment

Questions about the God of the Bible. December 5, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Here are some questions that I really can’t get any answers to without being quoted scripture, which is, of course, a tautology. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

1. Does God have emotional needs and insecurities so that He actually needs our constant praising and worshipping?

2. Is sin a human thought or action that makes the God of the bible angry, but has no absolute right or wrong to it other than His approval or disapproval?

3. If we are to forgive our transgressors, as Jesus taught, why does God not do the same instead of sending people to hell forever without a chance of forgiveness?

4. Surely our sins can’t hurt the God who created us, so isn’t an eternal hell more of a vengeance instead of a justice?

5. What accounts for God being vengeful and a killer in the Old Testament and His remarkable change to a more benevolent God in the New Testament?

6. What would be the purpose and utility of eternal punishment without a chance of rehabilitation?

7. Why does God care so much about sex between unmarried consenting adults?

8. If God is omniscient, and knows in advance how everything will turn out, why did He flood the earth and start over instead of getting it right the first time.

9. If God made us and He is omniscient, He would have known we’d do things He didn’t approve of (sin), so why would He demand that animals need to die to be forgiven for those mistakes, which He clearly knew would occur?

10. Since God can create and destroy life anytime He likes, why was it so momentous for Him to sacrifice His only Son, since He could reverse any death at any time?

11. Why is faith more important than works?

12. Is what I ‘believe’ more important than how I ‘behave’?

13. Since we human beings are the most rare and complex collection of matter in the known universe, why does the church constantly tell us we miserable sinners deserving of death and eternal damnation?

14. Why don’t pastors sell everything, turn against their own families and preach the Word Of God, as Jesus commanded?

15. Why do people think there would be no good moral behaviors without a God to tell us what they are?

16. If there were no Hell, would people behave worse than they already do?

17. Is human free will really free if it involves fear of eternal punishment if we should choose to exercise it as opposed to His wishes?

18. Can justice be a universal truth when we humans would never consider justice done if one person is punished as a substitute for the crime of another, but God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of others.

19. When Jesus is coming back “in the clouds” and “all eyes will see him”, how can people on the other side of the planet see him, since clouds only rise at their highest to around 50,000 feet, which is not high enough to see something from the other side of the earth? Isn’t it more probable that “all eyes shall see him” refers to the concept that everyone will “recognize” he is the Lord, rather than actually being seen, which is impossible as written?

20. If lions and lambs will lie together in heaven, it sounds like animals won’t eat each other like they do now. What will carnivorous animals eat in heaven?

21. Since we know that life experiences are a contrast between two poles of experience and perception, meaning there is no up without down, no happy without sad, no light without dark, how can there be joy when there is no sorrow?

22. Since love and fear are polar opposites, how can we love god and at the same time fear him?

23. Since gold is considered valuable on earth because it’s rare and hard to find, why would “streets of gold” add any meaning or joy to the experience of heaven if it was so prevalent?

Crows September 22, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment



Crows

Originally uploaded by David Paul Hanson

Totally made up scene. What the heck. I had the elements.

God Is Love. At Times. June 11, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment

I learned alot of things growing up Lutheran. I learned these things because I was forced to go to Bible School, one week after getting out of regular school. And these things I learned came back to haunt me with a vengeance when I reached the “age of understanding”. Let’s start with a simple one first. “God is love.” Sounds good to me. But oops….go back to the old testament and you learn about a chick that was told not to look at a city that was being smoted (smited?) by God himself, which would be quite hard to not sneak a peek at, and lo and behold, God smote her by way of turning her into a pillar of salt. Now, maybe I’m just not gettin’ it, but if “God is love”, then what is so loving about smiting a chick who just couldn’t resist taking a peek? I mean really. Did He have to turn her into a salt block for disobeying that teeny tiny little bit? Oh, you say, He was making an example of her. Ok, example made. I was terrified to screw up in the tinest way. “God is love”, for me, turned emotionally into, “God loves me as long as I don’t screw up even one teenie tiny little bit.”

Let’s now jump ahead, or is it backwards, to the Ten Commandments. I like the first one the best; “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Now maybe I’m the only one who reads it this way, but I think it says that God is just one of many gods and he knows it, but we only better worship Him and not the others. Ok, call me literal, but I’m just sayin.

“Honor thy father and mother”. My father was a jerk. Ok, I’ll go to hell for that but I mean it. Mean sucker.

Which brings me to heaven and hell itself. How the heck does “God is love” fit into that scheme of things. Oh..I get it. He IS love if you love him back. If we don’t love him back we get, unfortunately, smote and sent to the pit. SInce when does love motivated by fear get anything done with a positive bent?

The next one for today is another one of my favorites; the crucifixion. Now, I do believe Jesus of Nazereth was crucified, which was a common form of execution in those days. but the, to me, ridiculous part is that the “God who is love” needed a blood sacrifice so we can be forgiven for our sins. Huh? Now really. I mean this was at a time when the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. Weather was freaky and not uderstood and the best they could come up with was killing sheep and other critters to appease a pissed off weather god. But really, a God who demands a blood sacrifice? We humans don’t even demand blood for stuff like stealing cars, which by the way, is worse than sneaking a peek at an entire city being smoted. In the Bible’s case, everyone is short of perfect so we deserve to die. Huh? I know I’m not perfect but I haven’t killed anyone, raped or pillaged.

Yes, God is love. But that’s just as long as you pony up. See, this free will thing, the choice He gave us to love him or not, is not really a choice. In other pieces I have called Christianity the Hobson’s Choice of religions. A Hobson’s Choice is no choice at all. Actually I think it’s a very schizophrenic exercise in corporate (meaning the church) control.

And finally; God is love. But he’s also says He is a jealous god. Jealousy is one of our baser emotions. So God is jealous? And He’s love? Huh? I need a nap.

Saving The Earth: June 10, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment

I remember about a year ago when Madonna played at a festival to promote the cause of stopping Gorebal Warming. When she hit the state she yelled into the mic, “If you want to save the earth, I want you to jump up and down.” I felt this was fitting metaphor for the entire movement. So here’s what gets me: For one thing, the earth doesn’t need saving. If we kill ourselves off, the earth will be just fine in about 25,000 years, which, in galactical time, is but a few seconds. And now there is the swine flu pandemic about to reak havoc with the “earth”. I live in Fargo, North Dakota, which recently got international attention because our local river, the Red, overflowed its banks, like it does every year. We have known that the Red River floods almost every year and always has. But, people still build on the thing. And the it floods, again, it’s a crisis of biblical proportions. Indeed, this year the flood was blamed by some local fundamental fruitcakes on our having an abortion clinic in town. God’s wrath. To me it seems odd that God whacked the people living along the river whether they have had or condone abortions or not. Apparently this God does not have a very good aim or is just sort of sloppy in dealing out his smiting. But, I digress.

The Customer In Control = Capitalism April 8, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

I still get a kick out of the ubiquitous soundbite, “The customer is now in control of your brand.” There is no doubt this is a great soundbite but is it really anything new? Hardly. It’s called Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system on earth that rewards those who provide the stuff people want, at the price they are willing to pay for it, and punishes those who don’t. If you have a bad performing “brand”, let’s say a plumbing company that regularly misses appointments and ticks off customers, the Internet ONLY provides the means of spreading the bad word-of-mouth faster and wider. The customer has always been in control of word-of-mouth issues about your brand, but the difference now is that word-of-mouth is spread faster and wider. This is no ‘new paradigm’ as the media and social presses love to buzz and twitter about. It’s really just a speed and depth of dissemination of the oldest form of communications about how a product or service performs.

So-called Social Media is insanely popular, but that’s not the issue. You can MySpace, Twitter and FaceBook all you want. In fact a lot of employees spend far too much time doing it at our (business owners) expense. The term “social media” in my view is a good cover term for “time-waster”.

But what really makes me chuckle is when I see brands like Skittles™ and Jack-In-The-Box™ “opening up” their websites for consumer content addition. I mean, really, what kind of person takes the time to write something on a Skittles website in the first place? It’s an exercise in irrelevance by those completely hypnotized by the shiny and sparkling. It’s all “surface chatter”. It’s white noise masquerading as the Beatles. I know because I’ve tried them all. I have a FaceBook page. I look at it occasionally and I get to see that someone is thinking about having a donut. I have tried Twitter and I have found that people have been entranced by the illusion of mini-fame of being “followed” but have nothing to be followed for.

I have said for a long time that most of the chatter and hype about “social media” is coming from marketing companies that have either 1) a vested interest in monetizing their endorsement of its usage and have nothing but occasional anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness, especially cost effectiveness and/or 2) have simply bought into the hype themselves because they have no understanding of the deeper underlying communication principles involved and have fallen ill with the “next big thing” syndrome.

So I’ll be my big naysayer self again and debunk what I think is the truly inane and impotent sound bites of the supposedly new landscape of social media. Let’s start with the term itself:

“Social Media”: Remember when “chat rooms” was the buzzword? Well, there’s not much difference here other than not everyone is “live” in the room at the same time. No, in fact the “chat room” started out as a technical sounding term known as “ICQ”. “Social Media” is really just a term that is a lame attempt to attach the word “media” to a quasi pen pal club in order to dupe marketers to spend money on it so the developers can FINALLY realize a return on their investment and efforts. It is a misleading term and I’ve always thought so. Popular? Oh yes. Relevant to a highly funded marketing effort No way.

Having Conversations About Brands”: Boy, the ONLY people I know who have conversations about brands are advertising and marketing people and brand owners. Who wants to have a “conversation” about a brand anyway? When I come across a rant about a bad customer experience, I sure don’t think I’m having a conversation about a brand. I’m just catching someone’s rant, knowing full well that they may be right or wrong or it’s just some guy who has a vested interest in a competitor.

“Social Media Expert”: Again, bogus, bogus, bogus. Run from any agency that tells you they are social media experts. Nobody is a social media expert. It’s not even a discipline. Most businesses themselves do their social media better than any agency can.

Ok, you’re now at the bottom line of this diatribe: Regarding the hype surrouding so-called “social media”: Quit thinking of it as a marketing “next big thing”. Monitor your competitions conversations through it. Perform well for your customers or know you’ll be Twittered about badly. Don’t fall for the hype of Social Media Experts. Listen more and talk less.

Bank Marketing Gone Awry April 5, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
add a comment

I can’t help but be opinionated about marketing campaigns that, in my humble opinion, just don’t make the mark. Recently a bank in my town created a large billboard and print campaign with the headline “Bundle Up”. I, as well as anyone else I asked about it, had no clue what that meant. So I went to the website and clicked on the “Bundle Up” icon and out popped up some listed things like “Have teenagers?”. I clicked on that link and the site downloaded a white PDF with a listing of the “products” that I should get if I had teenagers. No incentive, no reason, no benefit. So here we have a case where internal “bank speak” such as “bundling” of products and services leaks out all over the public mass media and confuses everyone as to what the heck it means. I mean really, why in the world would I “buy” a bundle? What’s in it for me. The basics of marketing violated on every billboard. Just plain silly marketing.

Michael Phelps: The Hypocrisy Is Not His But Ours February 3, 2009

Posted by davidhanson in Randomness Is Just Allright With Me..
Tags: , , , , , ,
5 comments

davesmall2The latest flap over Michael Phelps being photographed holding a marijuana bong and the surrounding media flap it has caused is yet the latest look into America’s hypocrisy towards the use of pot. Let’s get a few obvious things out of the way first: Do you really think Michael just tried pot this ONE time? No one would be that silly. Obviously he has smoked it before and it sure didn’t seem to degrade his performance in the pool.

Secondly, has anyone noticed that there are no mortality tables compiled by insurance companies for pot usage? That’s because it’s not life-threatening, unless you smoke it like cigarettes…which are legal. And since a conservative 42% of all Americans have said they’ve “tried” pot, what in the world should be so earth shattering about a 23-year-old guy taking a toke at a party with his buddies. Of course, it is illegal, so isn’t it time to tell the liquor lobby to bug off and finally have common sense reign.

In Amsterdam pot usage is legal and it is estimated that a much lower percentage of the population smokes it compared to a larger percentage here. I recently watched a program on that subject and one of the most lucid comments by the Amsterdam official being interviewed as to why that is, was, “Because in Amsterdam, we’ve made pot boring.”

Amen to that because we know there is always an attraction to the use of something that is illegal. The Prohibition in the US we know actually stimulated the public’s appetite for liquor. In recent studies, it has been proven that all the anti-smoking advertising over the past 3 decades has actually encouraged smoking addicts to smoke more. On the spectrum, pot, medically does far less harm than alcohol abuse. Now this is of course a touchy subject because of the current illegalities of pot sales and usage.

So what would an America look like with legalized pot available at your local C-Store? I don’t think it would look much different that it looks today, but our tax rolls would be much larger. There would be less criminal activity. Like anything else sold in the US, the best “brands” would rise to the top and lesser known names would disappear.

Plus, we adults can come clean with our children and tell them the real truth about pot: It’s a mild stimulant. It is not a gateway drug anymore than beer is. Yes we have smoked it, and maybe some of us still do on occasion, but like any other stimulant such as alcohol or tobacco, it can be overused and your life will suffer. There IS such a thing as social pot smoking. If you smoke pot everyday from morning until night you’ll end up with consequences in your life that you may not like, just like an alcoholic or “drug” addict will.

ABC news reports: “If you’re using cannabis daily, heavily and over a long period of time, the people (in this study) had been using heavily for about ten years, then you are likely to have changes in the brain that are likely to lead to
or mimic some of the symptoms of things like paranoia, memory loss,
confusion.” We’ll, duh. My point exactly…most pot smokers smoke it only recreationally. There are always those who will abuse any mood enhancing substance.

So, should Michael Phelps lose his endorsements? I hope not. One of the arguments for it is that because he smokes pot he would probably also use performance-enhancing drugs. But that’s not Michael Phelps. He most obviously has not let his pot smoking interfere with his goals and dedication to training…as do most responsible adult pot smokers. If he signed contracts that outlined that behavior as a deal breaker, then he deserves the financial loss. But let’s not castigate him morally. This hypocrisy about pot is wrong because it stacks pot right in there with meth, acid, coke, heroin and performance-enhancing drugs. They are not the same.

Now, if you think I’m just an old hippie trying to protect my “hippiedom”, that’s not the case. Humans throughout the ages have found mild substances and harder substances to assuage the stresses of the day and for social pleasure. Pot falls under the most mild of all these substances and we all damn well know it. I just hate hypocrisy when I see it.