Time for an End Game

Appeasement has never been a good policy. And while fools go where wise men fear to tread, there comes a time when necessity requires action.

The Islamic State, ISIS, is an abomination. They have no religion, no morals, and no respect for human life. They are a cancer in the Middle East and need to be treated as such.

It is always nice to hope that reason, negotiation, and comprise can solve all problems. Generally, this is true. But when a shark smells blood, you can't ask it to sit and talk about its actions. One can understand not just rushing in to a negative situation. But, when waiting greatly adds to the nature of the problem and the ability to deal with it, perhaps even at the cost of a significant number of lives, men, women, and children, then caution must be cast to the winds of fate and and action must be taken.

The IS will not just fade away. They grow in power, strength, and the ability to create death and destruction beyond their confines.

It is time for them to go away, not a slap on a wrist, but an End Game that removes them to the abyss of a bad memory.

With respect to Putin, please remember Neville Chamberlain. While no one wants a direct confrontation with Russia, we know that if you give a bully an inch, they take a mile. Please, leaders of the West, don't let Putin get more out of hand, it would be a very bad decision.

The Messiah Matrix?

A timely piece as the age of worn out dogma comes to an end.

You may also want to read: WAKING GOD: THE TRILOGY

That's the premise behind The Messiah Matrix, a consciousness-raising thriller whose protagonists delve into the secrets of the past—and expose those who hide them still. Follow a young, skeptical Jesuit priest and a vivacious, brilliant archaeologist as they pursue their passion for truth—while fighting to control their passion for each other. Together they uncover a Roman imperial stratagem that leads them to unveil the Vatican's best-kept secret—a secret so sensitive the Curia never wanted it to be known.

From the first page to the last this contemporary thriller takes the reader on an exhilarating quest from the ancient city of Caesarea to Rome's catacombs and beyond, and provides gripping confirmation for all those who have ever wondered about the actual historical existence of the "Christian Savior".

The Messiah Matrix may prove to be the most thought-provoking thriller ever written. Classical scholar and Yale Ph.D. Dr. Kenneth John Atchity is the only author alive today capable of creating this literary and historically-based masterpiece.

What was your inspiration for writing The Messiah Matrix?

I've long been intrigued by the parallelism between the first two Caesars, Julius and Augustus, and Jesus Christ. As far back as my Jesuit high school years it was pointed out to me that their histories were strangely intertwined. Then, a few years ago, a client and business partner directed me to a little-known 1899 book on the history of Augustus Caesar titled The Worship of Augustus Caesar. Its author, Alexander Del Mar, (1836–1926) was director of the U.S. Bureau of Statistics during the period 1866-69. He was a respected numismatist as well as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury appointed in 1872. Del Mar's history of Augustus derived from a study of  coins, monuments, calendars, eras, and astronomical and astrological cycles. His account  established a new chronology and includeda survey of history and religion.  In the book Del Mar  reveals the legerdemain of the early church, conclusively demonstrating how Christianity absorbed pagan religious beliefs and motifs and claimed them as its own. His work exposes hidden religious facts that have been buried for millennia, and reminded me of discoveries I made during my years as a student and professor of classical literature—of "Christian" lines that occur in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and especially Virgil.

Why is The Messiah Matrix relevant today?

With the resignation of Benedict XVI, and his book on the origins of Christianity and the nativity scene in particular, the issues fictionalized in the novel are now revealed in reality: the internal Vatican politics that go against the spiritual grain, the questioning of the historicity of the Jesus narrative, the long litany of sins committed behind the mask of organized religion, etc.

 As a Christian, will I learn anything new about the roots of Christianity in The Messiah Matrix?

The true history of Christianity has been shrouded in mystery for millennia, partly intentionally and partly out of ignorance. The Messiah Matrix reveals important aspects concerning the roots of Christianity, lost to history until now, that will change the reader's understanding, possibly forever.

Why is Augustus Caesar the central historical figure of The Messiah Matrix?

Augustus Caesar was the most powerful ruler in the history of Rome, and perhaps the most powerful ruler in the history of the Western World.  His Pax Romana, the two-hundred years of peace he established throughout his empire after taming the entire periphery of the Mediterranean, which the Romans referred to as mare nostrum, "our lake," remains unrivalled in world history.  He was all-powerful and exerted vast, pervasive influence throughout his Empire, an influence that remains with us to this day. His shrewd policies concerning religious tolerance, celebrated in the construction of the Pantheon in Rome, initially led him to allow continuance of the religions of the nations he conquered. He eventually realized that a multi religious empire would lead to civil unrest so he took measures to create a single religion that he believed would engender peace among the nations.

Is The Messiah Matrix anti-Christian?

No, if we define Christianity as a way of life incorporating the distillation of thousands of years of spiritual wisdom, then The Messiah Matrix supports that aspect of Christianity wholeheartedly. On the other hand, if we define Christianity as literal history in which the Son of God preached and performed miracles in Judea, the novel demonstrates that this literalist view was deliberately constructed, as readers of the novel will discover. The Messiah Matrix actually glorifies Christianity's origins by revealing the truth about the universal principles at the foundation of the Christian religion.

How can I determine fact from fiction in The Messiah Matrix?

You'll find a chart of actual historical data versus Biblical/mythical history at the end of the novel. All of the factual elements in this chart can be found in The Messiah Matrix. I've also provided an extensive bibliography listed on this website for the intrepid reader! And I welcome other questions, and your feedback on the subject.

 http://www.amazon.com/The-Messiah-Matrix-ebook/dp/B007ZJL4TK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362413241&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Messiah+Matrix%3F

RELIGION Vs. SCIENCE: THE DEBATE IS OVER?

Guest post!

 

Large swaths of Americans seem to have drastically different views of how humans came to be, according to a June 2012 Gallup poll.

Nearly half of America – 46 percent – agrees with the creationist view that humans are purely the product of God, absent of evolution, within the last 10,000 years. Fifteen percent believe humans evolved independent of God, while the rest believe humans evolved with god guiding the process (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx)

These millions of Americans are pitted on two sides of a conflict which has a solution, as described in my new book The Genesis One Code. As an engineering physicist, CEO of the aerospace company known for building the space station’s robotic arm and student of religion I looked for a precise, unequivocal answer. Not good just arguments which hard to prove, but mathematical precision.

 

The creation-evolution conflict is a recurring point of contention in the United States, from the presidential election to what should be taught in schools.

I show that the religious and scientific wisdoms are two sides of the same coin and can enlighten each other. The reason the debate developed in the first place is because the discoveries of modern science of an old Earth seemed to conflict with descriptions in the Bible of a universe created in 6 days, only thousands of years ago.

The reality is that the Bible and science agree on the timeline for the development of the universe and life on Earth. The Bible is a blue print for the creation. I found the “scale used in the blue print” within the texts, the factor that converts “Creation time” to years as we know them, as measured by scientists. When applied to calculating the age of the universe and life on Earth, the Bible consistently matches scientific estimates derived from the study of fossil timelines, the solar system and the cosmos.

What’s the scale factor?  One creation day is — 1,000 X 365 X 7,000 – years! When those numbers are multiplied, each creation day is an epoch of 2.56 billion years, Using the formula, the biblical age of the universe is 13.74 billion years. Scientific estimates put the universe’s age at 13.75 billion, plus or minus 0.13 billion. Another 18 events described in Genesis, from the age of the sun to when first life appeared, match the scientific dates precisely!

If the Bible and science agree on what happened and when it happened, do we really have a conflict? It is time to reexamine and bury the conflict between science and religion. In fact, the book shows that Genesis has answers to science’s three biggest unanswered questions.

By continuing this false dichotomy of religion vs. science, we are severely limiting progress and our potential as humans.

.

Most of us have pondered our origins at some point in our lives. I am no different, except perhaps that I have both a strong scientific and a religious background.  Thus, when I ponder our origins I not only have to contend with two seemingly very different accounts of our universe; but with the knowledge that both are accurate, at least in terms of what happened and when it happened.  Christians are invited to see science as something that complements ones faith, not to see it as something that contradicts it.  Many Christians affirm God as the Creator and at the same time support the scientific study of creation. They recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world and affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. However they preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues.

I began my quest with knowledge gained from a basic religious upbringing and a high school science education. Both bodies of knowledge were fascinating, yet appeared incompatible. As I proceeded to obtain a scientific education, I initially came to think that science books answered everything. Yet, by my fourth year at university, some fundamental questions concerning our origins began to re-appear. In science texts, some answers were not available, some answers were strange, and some answers were so metaphysical they looked like religious answers. So, I went back to study religion to find deeper inner meaning. Answers began to appear.

So what did I find?  The Bible and science agree on what happened and when it happened with respect to the development of the universe and the appearance of life on earth.  Not just roughly but precisely.  That’s right! Very old religious documents contain what science has discovered in the past 50 years!

This was so exciting I decided to share my findings in a book,  The Genesis One Code was borne Canada’s leading newspaper describes the book as follows:

The book is engrossing. In it, Friedmann … is persuasive and devoid of insistence. In essence, he argues that, just as a blueprint provides a scale reference to the finished building, there is a mathematical scale that reconciles the events of Genesis to the findings of science.

About Daniel Friedmann

Daniel Friedmann is a student of the origin of the universe and life on earth both from the scientific and biblical perspectives. He is also a longtime student of religion and for the past 14 years has attended the Vancouver Kollel center for learning.  He is passionate about helping young adults put science and the Bible in correct context.Daniel Friedmann is currently CEO of Canada’s leading aerospace company which built the Canadarms, and is involved in space exploration and the Hubble telescope. He is a professional engineer and holds a master’s degree in engineering physics.The Genesis One Code is currently available onhttp://www.amazon.com/Genesis-One-Code-Daniel-Friedmann/dp/1935764276/ “>Amazon.com and at http://danielfriedmannbooks.com/.

SAM HARRIS IS SO WRONG

I HAD TO POST THIS BLOG IN ITS ENTIRETY!

I'm glad that others are seeing the real truth with regard to Sam Harris and his objective morality. If there is one truth in science it is that the observer and observed are one. It is totally subjective; what you look for is what you find. For some reason, Sam Harris ignores this fundamental truth as it, a priori, totally destroys his entire argument. The universe is subjective-plain and simple. And while his take on traditional religion is, to me, correct, he obviously has no understanding of mysticism or spirituality. If he did, he would see that science, is in fact, proven what the ancients knew thousand of years ago-We are one and we create our reality. Kudos to John Horgan!

 

Be wary of the righteous rationalist: We should reject Sam Harris's claim that science can be a moral guidepost

By John Horgan Oct 11, 2010 09:00 AM
Say what you will about Sam Harris, the man's got guts. In The End of Faith (W. W. Norton, 2005) and Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Harris, a neuroscientist, rejects the notion that science and religion can coexist. We can't believe in science, Harris says, and still believe in supernatural beings that part seas, resurrect dead people and keep tabs on our naughtiness and niceness.
Harris slams nonbelieving apologists for religion such as the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould. With typical rhetorical grandiosity, Gould proposed that science and religion need not conflict because they are "nonoverlapping magisteria" that address separate realms of existence. Science tells us what is, religion what should be. Given all the crimes committed in religion's name, Harris retorts, why would anyone look to it for moral guidance?
I'm with Harris up to this point. I part company with him when he argues in his new book The Moral Landscape (Free Press, 2010)—which comes fortified with blurbs from Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins and other antireligious scientific luminaries—that science can take religion's place as the supreme arbiter of moral "truth". "There are right and wrong answers to moral questions," Harris asserts, "just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics." Questions about morality, he explains, are really questions about human happiness or "well-being," and these questions can be empirically resolved, just as questions about diet and disease can be.
One can raise all sorts of philosophical objections to this position, and the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah does just that in a New York Times review ironically titled "Science Knows Best". My concerns about Harris's proposal are simpler: I just look at the harm—historical and recent—wreaked by scientists supposedly concerned with humanity's well-being. Some examples:
—From 1946 to 1948, physicians funded by the National Institutes of Health deliberately infected nearly 700 Guatemalan prisoners, mental-hospital patients and soldiers with syphilis to test their responses to antibiotics. The leader of this research, John C. Cutler, was also involved in the infamous Tuskegee studies, in which scientists withheld antibiotics from black American males naturally infected with syphilis. "It's ironic—no, it's worse than that, it's appalling—that, at the same time as the United States was prosecuting Nazi doctors for crimes against humanity, the U.S. government was supporting research that placed human subjects at enormous risk," the bioethicist Mark Siegler told The New York Times.
—In the 1950s and 1960s researchers at leading universities embedded electrodes in the brains of mental patients to test whether minds and bodies can be manipulated via electrical stimulation of neural tissue. In 1969 the Yale physiologist Jose Delgado (whom I profiled in Scientific American in 2005), extolled the benefits of brain implants in his book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society (Harper & Row, 1971). Delgado declared that brain implants could help create "a less cruel, happier and better man." In 1970 Frank Ervin and Vernon Mark, two brain-implant researchers at Harvard University with whom Delgado had collaborated, proposed in their book Violence and the Brain (HarperCollins, 1970) that brain implants and psychosurgery might quell violent crime and rioting in inner cities.
—In recent decades prescriptions of drugs for children, including infants, supposedly suffering from psychiatric illness have skyrocketed. Some 500,000 U.S. children and adolescents are now taking antipsychotic drugs, Duff Wilson reported recently in The New York Times, even though some experts believe the drugs "may pose grave risks to development of both their fast-growing brains and their bodies." In another Times article Wilson details how psychiatrists who tout the benefits of antipsychotics receive grants, vacations, meals and other gifts from drug manufacturers. The Harvard physician Joseph Biederman, whose research helped spur a 40-fold increase in diagnoses of bipolar disorders in children between 1994 and 2003, received $1.6 million, "from companies including makers of antipsychotic drugs prescribed for some children who might have bipolar disorder," according to Wilson.
Some will complain that it is unfair to hold science accountable for the misdeeds of a minority. It is not only fair, it is essential, especially when scientists as prominent as Harris are talking about creating a universal, scientifically validated morality. Moreover, Harris blames Islam and Catholicism for the actions of suicide bombers and pedophilic priests, so why should science be exempt from this same treatment?
Clearly, some bad scientists are just greedy opportunists who care about only their own well-being. But those who fervently believe their own rhetoric about saving humanity may be even more dangerous. Consider the harm done in the name of Marxism and eugenics, pseudoscientific (not religious) ideologies that inspired two of the most lethal regimes in history—Stalin's U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany.
Harris asserts in Moral Landscape that ignorance and humility are inversely proportional to each other; whereas religious know-nothings are often arrogant, scientists tend to be humble, because they know enough to know their limitations. "Arrogance is about as common at a scientific conference as nudity," Harris states. Yet he is anything but humble in his opus. He castigates not only religious believers but even nonbelieving scientists and philosophers who don't share his hostility toward religion.
Harris further shows his arrogance when he claims that neuroscience, his own field, is best positioned to help us achieve a universal morality. "The more we understand ourselves at the level of the brain, the more we will see that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human values." Neuroscience can't even tell me how I can know the big, black, hairy thing on my couch is my dog Merlin. And we're going to trust neuroscience to tell us how we should resolve debates over the morality of abortion, euthanasia and armed intervention in other nations' affairs?
I suspect Harris wants to rely on brain scans to measure "well-being" because he doesn't trust people to simply say what makes them happy. If a Muslim girl says that she likes wearing a veil, as many do, she doesn't know what's good for her, Harris might say. Maybe she doesn't, but magnetic resonance imaging won't help us resolve these sorts of issues.
When scientists venture into the moral realm, they should not claim that their investigations of what is yield special insights into what should be. I realize I'm asking a lot of scientists—and secularists—to be humble when religious and political zealots like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are so bloated with self-righteousness. This asymmetry recalls Yeats's famous line from his poem "The Second Coming": "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." But if we all become zealots, we're really in trouble.

SAM HARRIS TRAPPED IN OUTDATED PARADIGM

It is ironic that Sam Harris, who blasts religious dogma, would then use similar dogma to try to create an “objective morality” based upon science. As I have said in the past, I agree with his assessment of the past, present and future danger of religion. My views are fairly clear in the WAKING GOD trilogy of which was said, “It makes The DaVinci Code” read like a church hymn. But somewhere, Sam Harris has gone astray in an attempt to find a working morality in science.



The very notion of a morality is not even an objective idea. To even say there is, or there should be morality does not logically flow from science, but rather from a subjective notion that humanity should live by some form of underlying, or overriding, set of rules. Let’s face it; if we look at traditional science, the only morality you might find is the “survival of the fittest.” Where in the sciences of chemistry, medicine, physics or biology does one find a basis for morality? I guess all atoms are created equal and that they should be able to combine freely with other atoms might work. But even the idea of equal and free are not scientific terms unless you talk of balancing an equation or free radicals.



Further, objectivity in morality would certainly open the proverbial Pandora’s Box. If, for example, we look at nature, we find no rationale for caring for the elderly, sick, or genetically deviant. Nature culls such creatures for the benefit of the whole and to prevent defects from spreading in the population as a whole. Is this objective morality? Sam Harris also points out that enslavement, mutilating female genitalia, public whippings or stonings are morally and empirically wrong. According to our way of thinking, this statement makes sense. But, it is opinion, and opinion is subjective. In an article called “Toward A Science of Morality” in the Huffington Post, Sam Harris says he agrees with physicist Sean Carroll when he says, “I want to start with a hopefully non-controversial statement about what science is. Namely: science deals with empirical reality -- with what happens in the world, (I.e. what "is.").”



At this point, the entire argument must totally shift. What Sam Harris fails to realize is that discussing issues like the definition of ‘well-being’ is not at the heart of the debate. He seems to think that there is a scientific definition that can lead us out of the valley of death of religious dogma into and into the garden of scientific objectivity. This garden would be free of cultural and religious differences and would create an empirical definition that would be beyond reproach. Sam Harris, unfortunately, has fallen prey to his own outdated paradigm. There is no such thing as objectivity. If this is true, then the notion of an objective morality must be tossed out the window, both the bathwater and the baby.



Look at the following excerpt from a piece written by Robert Lanza. It is but one of many articles that clearly indicate that science is leading us away from any notion of objectivity within the universe. It is becoming increasingly clear that the observed and the observer are one. This being the case, we must discover a new paradigm outside of religion and science that can lead us to a moral high ground.



“But a series of new experiments suggest this may be all wrong, and that part of us exists outside of the physical world. The implications of these experiments have been downplayed because, until recently, quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However, this 'two-world' view (that is, one set of physical laws for small objects, and another set of laws for the rest of the universe, including us) has no basis in reason, and more importantly, is being challenged in labs around the world.

We're trapped in an outdated paradigm. A few more equations, we're told, and we'll know it all -- any day now. There's no adventure left, no lost gardens in far away lands. But we all intuitively know there's more to existence than our science books grant. It's the same nostalgic yearning that gives religion its persistent power over humanity.

We assume there's a universe "out there" separate from what we are, and that we play no role in its appearance. Yet since the 1920s, experiments have shown just the opposite; results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is most vividly illustrated by the famous two-hole experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both holes at the same time.

This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as "waves of probability" as Max Born demonstrated in 1926. They're statistical predictions -- nothing but a likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenter's mind is sufficient to convert possibility to reality.

Importantly, this behavior isn't limited to the microscopic world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called "Buckyballs" show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005, KHC0₃ crystals exhibited entanglement ridges one-half inch high, quantum behavior nudging into everyday levels of discernment.

Biocentrism tells us that reality is a process that involves our consciousness, and that space and time aren't the hard objects we think. Recent experiments show that separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances, as if they're endowed with ESP. They're intimately linked in a manner suggesting there's no space or time influencing their behavior. In 1997 Nicolas Gisin sent pairs of particles zooming along optical fibers until they were seven miles apart. But whatever action one took, its twin performed the complementary action instantaneously. Since then, other researchers have duplicated Gisin's work.

All of these experiments make perfect sense from a biocentric perspective. Everything we perceive is a whirl of information in our head. Time can be defined as the summation of spatial states occurring inside the mind. But that doesn't mean there's an invisible matrix in which changes occur. We watch our loved ones age and die and assume that an external entity called time is responsible for the crime. There's a peculiar intangibility to space, as well. Like time, it's just a tool of our understanding.

But the solution to this mystery lies within our grasp, a solution hinted at by the frequency with which the old paradigm breaks down. This is the underlying problem: we've ignored a critical component of the universe, shunted it out of the way because we didn't know what to do with it. This component is consciousness -- us, the great observer.”

Robert Lanza, M.D., Scientist, Theoretician, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/science-spirituality-what_b_624292.html?ir=Daily%20Brief

If we cannot rely upon biased religion or science to create a universal morality, what is left? Are we to be subject to the whims of moral fads or is there something that can guide humanity to a more logical way of living? To this topic, we shall return while keeping in mind that ‘what happens’ in this world is truly up to us.

RELIGIONS SHOULD STAY OUT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWS

On May 6th, Governor Baldacci of Maine signed into law a bill allowing same sex marriage. The Governor said, “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.” He went on to say, “This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs, it does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.”

Does this put the matter to rest in the State of Maine? Unfortunately, no. “We feel he kind of shortchanged us all,” said The Rev. Bob Emrich, pastor of Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth and a founder of the Maine Marriage Alliance, which opposes the law. “But that’s his prerogative. He’s the governor.” According to AP writer Glenn Adams, Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese said challengers expect to get the go-ahead by May 21 to begin collecting signatures to get a referendum on the bill, which was signed Wednesday by Gov. John Baldacci. The Maine Jeremiah Project, a church based public policy group and The National Association of Marriage Enhancement are starting a petition drive to get the issue on the November ballot as a referendum question.

In my opinion, these church groups should really mind their own business! If church and state are to be separate, as provided by our Constitution, then they should stick to their own concerns rather than trying to foist their ‘worn out dogma’ on others. Nothing in this bill requires them to conduct same sex marriages. They can continue to do practice their faith as they so choose. The fact that they are trying to force their values on others is just another example of the evils of organized religion. Why must everyone live the way they want people to live? Why must they insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong? There are other religions belief systems and that is why separation is guaranteed. One could easily argue that the state should not accept religious marriage ceremonies as legal unless it is accompanied by a civil union as well. Why should marriage be only what these religious leaders claim it should be?

Yes, we are one nation under God, but we are not one nation under the Baptist or Catholic version of God. Christians need to get off this ‘everyone must believe as we do’ train. This attitude has caused the world way too much suffering and strife and division. Christianity is perhaps the only religion that purposely sets out to force others to act in its own image. Maybe if religions practiced the true meaning of their teachings and acted with tolerance, love and compassion towards others, the world just might be a safer place.

WHO IS OWEN FIDDLER?

OWEN FIDLER by Marvin Wilson is a “stop and make you think” book. The main character, Owen, is like many people we know, perhaps our neighbors, perhaps even ourselves. His outlook on life would be laughable if it was not so common and predominant in our culture. Marvin brings us some important messages in this latest work; messages that all would do well to ponder in this age of turmoil.

I had the pleasure of interviewing OWEN FIDDLER! We discussed his views on politics, the environment, oil, religion and a few other hot topics. This interview will give you an inside look at what makes Owen tick and hopefully will lead you to explore his character and life in Marvin Wilson satire on this contemporary “nowhere man.”

(Phil) Mr. Fiddler, you seem to have had a rough childhood. Do you think that society owes you a better life now that you are an adult?
(Owen) Better life? How about A life! I got more month than money, no future worth a (bleep) and if gas prices go any higher I’m gonna lose what little of my mind I got left. Society owes me? Well, it sure ain’t helped me none, that for damn sure.
(Phil) What do you think about welfare and programs aimed at helping the poor?
(Owen) Cancel ‘em – all of ‘em. Nothin’ worse than lazy third generation welfare recipients laying around on their fat asses collectin’ free money from my over-taxed-hard-earned-meager little income.
(Phil) Do you think the government should do more to protect the environment?
(Owen) Well, I’m no tree-hugger or nothin’ like that, but I’m not stupid either. The government does more to protect its own interests than it does to protect the environment. Fat cats, with their fat incomes and their luxurious spending allowances and free health care, voting themselves raises while us down-on-our-luck folks’re tryin’ to eke out a living. Sucks.
(Phil) What is your view on all the oil we import?
(Owen) What the hell difference does it matter what my view is? The government don’t give a damn what I think. It’s all a scam. The politicians and the super-rich got it all figured out. We proles get these news flashes that the price of oil is gonna go up cuz there’s been an outbreak of mumps in Istanbul or some lame (bleep) like that, and we just gotta bend over and take it up the (bleep) while they sit back and laugh at us poor suckers as we line up at the filling stations and pour out our blood for a (bleep)ing gallon of gas.
(Phil) What do you feel are the major problems in America?
(Owen) Man, you’re makin’ my head hurt with all this heavy (bleep). Ahm, okay, lets see – major problems in America. Well, taxes are too high, the government spends those taxes on bull(bleep) instead of stuff that would help the little guy, the judicial system favors the wealthy, the prisons are breeding grounds for contempt of society and criminal intelligence, the educational system isn’t worth a (bleep) for folks from the lower middle class down, and the price of a cup of coffee is too (bleep)ing much. How ‘bout that for starters? I could write a book. Fact, I might just bring that up to Marvin.
(Phil) Are you a religious man? And if so, what do you think about gay marriage and the curent moral fiber of America?
(Owen) Religious? No, no, nooooo – hell, no. I know how to ACT all religious, you know, go to church and play that game. Buncha phonies, that’s what religious people are, ask me. All smiles in your face ‘n talkin’ behind your back. I read the Bible, y’know, when I was a kid. Mom made me. Jesus, he was all right. I couldn’t never be nothin’ like him, though. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, ya can’t get ahead in life tryin’ to live like that. But at least I’m honest about it. Church folks I’ve known talk that (bleep) but they don’t walk it.

Oh, gays? Each to his own, that’s what I say. Just don’t get in my face with it. If same sex couples wanna get married ‘n diddle each other ‘til death do ‘em part, that’s their business. The current moral fiber of America isn’t really anything I have any business judging – I’m not a very ethical person myself. But I ain’t about to judge others, I ain’t no holier than thou kinda guy.
(Phil) If you were elected president, how would you deal with our allies? What would you do about Iraq and terrorism?
(Owen) First of all, if I were ever elected president, then this country’s already gone to hell in a hand basket! (laughs – then pauses, gets a serious look) I guess I’d try ‘n keep everybody happy, our allies. Those terrorists scare the bejeebers outa me, though. They’re crazy, man. I can’t imagine believin’ in somethin’ enough to die over it. I’m kind of a wild and crazy son-of-a-(bleep), but those cats‘re outa their flippin’ minds. See, that’s another thing – ‘bout religion – that I can’t stand. Like I say, I ain’t no role model or nothin’ but I ain’t stupid, either. I read the Bible and the Koran – It’s the same thing – the same god. Why the hell are Jews and Muslims killing each other? Where’s the rub? I don’t get it. And I don’t want no part of it.
(Phil) What advice would you give the youth of today?
(Owen) Man – you just don’t stop, do you? Who the hell would get any use out of advice from the likes of me? (sigh) I dunno – don’t be like me, that’s for sure. Read my book – Marvin tells me it’s got some kinda spiritual message that’s really great for people getting’ along with each other – s’posed ta be some magical kinda wonderful experience I’m gonna have. (gets a mock look of holiness) I’m a changed person! (laughs) But I really can’t tell ya. I don’t much believe in all that mumbo-jumbo spiritual spooky stuff. Seein’s believin’ – that’s me.
(Phil) What is the key to happiness?
(Owen) I don’t know. I know I don’t have it. Marvin says I’m gonna find it, but I’ll have to see it to believe it.
OWEN FIDDLER was published in 2008 by Cambridge Books.
You can visit Marvin Wilson at: Owen Fiddler and Rock of All Ages.com

HUMANITY ON TRIAL: COUNTDOWN TO 2012

We have all heard of the growing phenomena on the internet called “social networking.” What may be new is the degree to which this networking is beginning to take on major societal issues. A new networking site has been created called, “HUMANITY ON TRIAL: COUNTDOWN TO 2012” (http://humanityontrial.ning.com/). The introduction says, “Is humanity worth preserving? By December 1st, 2012, this court will render its verdict.”

The network is organizing various groups including prosecuting and defense teams, witnesses and a jury. Early posts on the site are being made in the various forums on such topics as: Human Religions, Historical Evidence of War, Racism and Bigotry, The Environment, Human Redeeming Qualities, 2012, Prophecy and more. The network is currently discussing the various pros and cons regarding the continuation of the human species as the ranks of members begin to take on a global composition. In addition to posts from across the United States, members are weighing in from Australia, China, Iran, France, the UK, Latin America and Canada.

As the sides organize, it is expected that a mock trial will also will take place. What is unique is that the trial will occur on the internet radio. The creator of the networking site says that he will use his internet BlogTalkRadio show, “All Things That Matter” as the venue for the trial. Shows will be devoted to opening arguments and special segments for both the defense and prosecution. Listeners will be given the opportunity to cast their vote in a special poll that will be taken after the defense rests.

Citing the growing global crises regarding the environment, food, oil, politics and religions it is the intent of the trial to not only raise global awareness of these issues but to also offer possible solutions. Many are familiar with the various prophecies concerning the year 2012 and it is hoped that the trial will help people to decide if humanity does have or even should have a future on what CNN has termed, this “Planet in Peril.” It would appear that social networks are moving beyond making connections to addressing key issues facing the planet.

Despite one’s view on “doomsday” scenarios and the prophecies of the Mayans, the Hopi and even Nostradamus, there is little doubt that humanity is in crisis. Continuing updates on climate change, volatile political hot spots, the recent reports on the food crisis and the growing issues of inflation and oil production would indicate that the human race is at a crossroads and that decisions it makes now may well in fact determine its survival. The Humanity on Trial network, while presenting contrary opinions on our chances of survival agrees with one basic premise; time is running out.

SOMETHING IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!

Something is fundamentally wrong! After two millennia of organized Christianity the world is not a better place. The same can be said for Islam and all organized religions. Faiths that were established upon the teachings of love have become the pillars of hatred. Teachings that claimed we are all brothers and sisters have turned brothers and sisters against one another. Each religion rails against the other and within religions sectarianism will prove their undoing.

What went wrong? There is an award winning video called, “Church Outside The Walls” that has been produced by Family Room Media. One of the basic premises of the video is that there is no real biblical foundation for the concept of a physical church with its corporate styled power structure. Keep in mind, this video was produced largely by former ministers and pastors that spent on average twenty to thirty years as part of that structure. No longer able, in good conscious, to stand before a congregation and act as intermediary between the people and God, these men and women basically took the “church” and left the building. Citing the historical evolution of the modern church as a way for the few to dictate to the many that began with the Roman Emperor Constantine, the video illustrates how the organized religion has no basis in scripture and has, in fact, separated man from God.

Video host David Frederickson, author of the book, “When The Church Leaves The Building,” takes the viewer through a journey that exposes the myths that underlie religious institutions. Noting that versions of the Bible had been re-written to satisfy the needs of a growing church and political power structure, Frederickson sets up the interviews of a growing number of former clergy that, while maintaining their faith in Christ’s teachings, have abandoned the role of leading and dictating to an unsuspecting flock. Those interviewed indicated that since leaving the organized church structure with all of its manmade rules and corporate organization, they have actually developed a more personal relationship with God. Claiming that the “body of Christ” is really the people in a congregation and not the church, these former preachers of the “word’ have discovered that the stifling and divisive nature of organized religion.

The video shows that the early church was really just a casual get-together of like minded people in a community who shared their hopes, dreams, food and shelter to those in need. Rather than preaching, there was discussion and sharing with perhaps a “facilitator” to help those with the finer points of the Christ message. This facilitator evolved into bishops, popes, pastors and deacons who began to assume total authority over teachings and relegating the true congregation to on-lookers and mindless followers. This drastic turn of events began in the year 112 with rules issued by Ignatius and went down hill from there. Even the Protestant Reformation was exposed as a movement that only replaced one authoritarian religious hierarchy with another.

Churches built by Constantine and most since his time were actually designed to prevent the interaction of its members by focusing all eyes toward a podium and building ceilings so high that the focus was on the church leader and the rising arches put God symbolically out of reach from all but those in control. In essence, they built the precursor to the modern cinema where all attention is placed on the screen in front and everyone saying “shhh” if you try to talk. Whether built of simple materials of the most expensive stone and glass, the physical church, according to Frederickson, fosters separation and blind obedience.

The participants in the video, who seem to represent a growing phenomenon, claim that since leaving the church and all of its encumbrances and demands, they have actually moved closer to their families and their God. Rather than spending the typical one or two hours a week at a church service and many more hours performing corporate church functions, these former ministers have found that they actually have made God a more integral part of their lives. One participant said that rather than work for God, God has become his friend and that the relationship is based upon love and not on the number of hours punched in, the donations given, the church taxes prepared or groups created and controlled. Most said that their former “service” was an illusion and not based upon the realities of the teachings of Christ.

Indeed, something is fundamentally wrong with organized religion and the downhill slide began only twelve years after the last apostle’s death. History has witnessed the continuous bloodletting fostered by religious institutions. Sectarian violence has not been confined to Islam, as seen today in the Middle East, but has followed the trail of every major religion as they have struggled to gain theological dominance or world religious thought. As these institutions attempt to fight off their inevitable “green mile,” a growing sense of spirituality, one without walls, is emerging.

From the gifts of giving on the Oprah Show to those discovering how to use the Law of Attraction, a new non-institutionalized spirituality is spreading across the globe. People are waking to the God within and the “Secret” is becoming a household world. From the revelation that Jesus taught esoteric laws to the growing exodus from the confining walls of church steeples, humanity is on the cusp of a Great Awakening where the true congregation is found discussing spiritual principles rather than dictating religious dogma. Perhaps the fundamental flaw in organized religion has served its purpose by showing what not to do and the reaction to its failings will lead humanity into a clearer light of understanding.

WHAT DO 10.4 MILLION WEB SITES AND JESUS HAVE IN COMMON?

There are 10.4 million sites on the internet devoted to the Law of Attraction and 168 million sites devoted to the topic of Jesus. Is there any relationship between these two phenomena? In the book and movie, “The Secret” it is claimed that the Law of Attraction has been kept secret for millennia. Is this true?

The answer to that question is a definitive yes, and no. The Law of Attraction, if you follow the claims of “secret societies,” goes back to ancient Egypt. It takes some careful analysis but the claims are essentially correct, in my opinion. However, what is more certain is that this concept has been in plain sight for over 2,000 years. Like the proverbial purloined letter, the Law of Attraction has been in millions of homes around the world in the teachings of Jesus.

All too often, the sayings of Jesus are taken out of context. It is rare to actually see what he had to say in the complete context of his teachings. If you examine his whole “stream of thought” on a topic, what results is a meaning and idea that frequently goes against what is taught as religious dogma. This is the case with the Law of Attraction. Given that many Christian “hard liners” spoke out against the concepts presented in “The Secret” and the Law of Attraction, I decided to take a closer examination of the actual sayings attributed to Jesus as they may relate to this subject. What I found, and have documented in my recently released book, “Jesus Taught It, Too: The Early Roots of the Law of Attraction,” was that Jesus was a strong advocate of this principle. He further talked about what has commonly been termed the “create your own reality” ideology and he actually introduced what I have termed, The Law of Responsibility.

Many have argued that these so called “laws” are not at all scientific and have no basis in the physical sciences. Equal arguments have been put forth by some scientists that they are, in fact, physical laws. That is a debate best left for others but recent advances in quantum physics at least suggests that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to how energy forces in the universe are organized and manipulated. To avoid that debate, let us just say that these are “spiritual laws.” I would have to say that few could argue with the basic premise, not including magnetism or electricity that like minded people tend to aggregate together. People join in groups, unions or marriages because they share similar interests. Animals form herds for mutual benefit, “birds of a feather flock together,” and even microscopic creatures form colonies. Is this a physical law? Perhaps it is but at a minimum the concept cannot be ignored in dealing with the notion that “like attracts like.” From political parties, book clubs, ethnic clubs, sports teams and other social groupings, the operating principle is that similar ideas are attracted to one another.

After all, does not religion spread because people come to share a common theology? It seems that whenever someone in the pulpit teaches the words of Jesus, it is always in the context of serving the church, not sinning, being faithful to god, worship and other concepts that perpetuate the need for the pulpit. What is not usually taught or examined is that Jesus taught about how to live your everyday life. He knew people were concerned about putting food on the table and a roof over their head. He saw that people were ill, poor and lacking in personal freedom. It is in this context that he put forward sets of principles and formulas that would enable people to live a happy life and not one of poverty stricken servitude and mindless worship. Jesus taught that the “fields were already white with harvest” and that the “guiding intelligence” of the universe saw to it that all needs and desires are met. These promises, contrary to what some would have you believe, were unconditional and required no servitude or worship. They only required an open mind that could pierce through the cloak of ignorance and blind obedience in order to see the light of truth.

THE ROMAN CIRCUS AND "THE SECRET"

The recent AP story concerning the book and the movie, “The Secret” is humorous at best and disturbing at worst. The following are a few highlights from the story reported by CNN News:
“CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- While "The Secret" has become a pop culture phenomenon, it also has drawn critics who are not quiet about labeling the movement a fad, embarrassingly materialistic or the latest example of an American propensity of wanting something for nothing.
Some medical professionals suggest it could even lead to a blame-the-victim mentality and actually be dangerous to those suffering from serious illness or mental disorders.
"It's a triumph of marketing and magic," said John Norcross, a psychologist and professor at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania…" 'The Secret' has earned my antipathy for its outrageous, unproven assertions that I believe go beyond the ordinary overpromises of most self-help books into a danger realm," he said.
The book's mantra of "ask, believe, receive," he said, easily transforms into a blame the victim mentality.
"Cancer victims. Sexual assault victims. Holocaust victims. They're responsible?" Norcross said. "The book is riddled with these destructive falsehoods."
"The law of attraction says that like attracts like, and when you think and feel what you want to attract on the inside, the law will use people, circumstances and events to magnetize what you want to you, and magnetize you to it," Byrne said in an e-mail in response to several questions posed by The Associated Press.
… the fear that "The Secret" will lead to a blame-the-victim mentality is a serious claim of critics.
Psychotherapist and lifestyle coach Stacy Kaiser said that after reading "The Secret," several patients have worried that it was their fault they were abused, or laid off from their jobs. Others seem to expect everything in their lives to change overnight, she said.”
While there were some positive comments about “The Secret” in the article the overall tone was that people are being scammed. The use of such words as “dangerous, blame and outrageous” are used by those who have no real understanding of spiritual thought and I cannot help but wonder if they actually read the book. Is the book and movie perfect in their presentation? No. Are the claims dangerous? No
Let’s postulate another scenario which few claim is dangerous or outrageous. A group come along and says that there is only one god and they have the inside track on the intentions and so called desires of that god. They say that if you do not worship their god, IT will condemn you forever in a fiery inferno. If you do worship this god and give it a lot of money and build temples for worship, it will forgive you your sins. Even though this god made you and is all knowing it has condemned you from the start and only proper worship and duty will save you-well, some of you-144,000 to be exact. This god loves you but says that you must live a life that does not include material wealth, which you should give to its temples. And, if you are really good, some of you will get to be happy forever, when you die. Oh, to test your loyalty, this god has created all kinds of demons and monsters that will tempt ant taunt you. Although it has also created some good spirits that will send you messages every now and then but, in the end, even they will unleash plague, pestilence, war and untold suffering. Basically, if you want to be rewarded when you die: lead a good life, obey all of the rules, live a life of misery, kill those who do not believe and maybe, you will be saved.
If you want to talk about creating a victim mentality it seems that most religions have already done that. You are born a sinner, you are entitled to a life of misery, you are worthless (but loved), and you are probably going to hell. And you wonder why our society is riddled with disease and the world is forever at war. Most established institutions always have a negative and even violent reaction when something threatens their established dogma. Books like “The Secret” offer a good life in the here and now and yet as a result of this idea, they must be based upon selfish, materialistic concepts? Such claims show a total lack of understanding regarding humanity’s evolution and the dangers and threats posed by those organizations that are more concerned about their own survival and the status quo. The good thing is that all of these uninformed remarks only make the new ideas more popular. Remember what the Roman circus did for Christianity?
.