Monday, July 25, 2011

A dark grey world

People like to think it's a black and white world. You have the good guys and the bad guys. Good versus Evil. But that's not how I see the world. The truth is if there were any superheroes left I'm not sure they would bother trying to save this dump. I'm no superhero. I'm just a guy. A guy that comes out here night after night trying to do what's right. Many have labeled me a vigilante. They say I'm no better than the scum I sweep off these streets every night. Maybe their right. But I bet they still sleep easier knowing there is one less criminal loose on the street.
The opening monologue to some dark, gritty, twisted comic book or comic book based action movie. To bad I know absolutely nothing about this comic book hero that's giving the monologue. If I did I'm sure I could whip up a few storylines and try to sell the idea to Marvel or DC.

Oh and for the record, when he says "scum I sweep off the streets," he actual means dead bodies he leaves for the police to clean up. This guy really isn't any better than the criminals he's removing from the streets, hence the it's not a black and white world. This guy is clearly psychotic and thinks he's doing the world a favor by killing whatever low lifes he can get his hands on, or bullets into, whatever the case may be. It's hard to label him a "bad guy" when he's going around removing the threat other bad men present, but can you really label him one of the "good guys?"

Someone I know told me not to logn ago he had this theory about how all of America's heros are criminals. I'll let him talk about it if he so chooses. But it did give me something to think about. If he's right with that theory, what does that say about our society? I can't say this post came about from thinking about that, but it did remind me of it.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

The ethics of punishment in a predestined world.

Is it possible to see the future? And if so does that mean the future is already written, or are we merely seeing a possible future? If there is a being that can foresee the future with 100% certainty than future events must already be written, there is no free will. And if there is no free will, should we be held accountable for our actions, because we are merely living the life that was predestined for us? If that is the case than the only ethical thing to do is release all prisoners and tear down the prisons, because if criminals didn't have free will to choose to commit the crime, how is it fair to punish them for living the life that was predestined for them?

These questions have been in the back of my head for weeks, if not months, now. The only reason I haven't asked them before is that I was hoping to expand on the ideas a bit more first, but nothing is coming to me. The problem I think is I don't believe in 100% predestination.  I believe that there are just some certain events that are fixed in the probability matrix and have to happen, but that for the most part the daily lives of people are left to chaos and free will. As for what I mean by probability matrix, I'll just have to get back to you on that. The term just sort of came to me as I was typing it so it doesn't have any real thought behind it yet.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Heaven's Spear

Awaken from the Dreaming darkly
Heaven sent torments knocking at your door
Earthbound with gossamer wings
In a cold calculated world

Over the precipice
And drifting in the wind
A shooting star
Racing towards the end

Rejoice cruel world
The fireworks are in the sky
So dance the night away
And have no fear of the coming day
----------------
I haven't done a word flow in awhile and then suddenly the first few lines came to me and I knew I had to write it down before I forgot it. I can't say it's any good but it felt nice to write something new again. As usual there is no real meaning here that I'm aware of. I know what I was thinking for each line but they don't really mesh together well.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Magic numbers and the name game

So years ago I watched a show on The History Channel about who can be blamed for Jesus's execution, or something similar to that, and after watching that show I formed a new theory about Judas Iscariot. In all the gospels Jesus knew he was going to die ahead of time, and in at least one told Judas to go do what he had to do. So I formed a theory that Judas was actually the closest disciple to Jesus and the only one Jesus could trust to get the job done. And the other disciples didn't understand it and told the story different and that's where we get the idea that he betrayed Jesus. I have no proof for this theory so its just a matter of my personal opinion.

Then recently I bought a book all about Judas and how the way people have understood and portrayed him has changed over the centuries. I still haven't gotten past the first chapter so I can't say if its a good book yet or not. But it gave me an idea. The way I figure it Judas is the most important disciple of Jesus, because without him Jesus wouldn't have died and the whole Christian religion wouldn't be around today. I know people won't agree with that statement but that's how I see it. So I figured his name would be one of the most used through out the gospels, behind Peter whom I knew was most named.

So I set about to write down and count the number of times the names of the disciples were used through out the four gospels. Peter came in first of course with about 50% of the times a disciple is actually named. Most of the time the gospels just say the disciples after all and not their names. Judas came in fourth with about 7% of the time disciples names get used. I hadn't counted on James and John, the sons of Zebedee, to be mentioned as often as they were.

What really surprised me, though it shouldn't have had I stopped to think about it, was how the list of names for the disciples is not consistent between the gospels. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all list the twelve at one point, and for 6 of the disciples this is the only time there name is mentioned in that gospel. John on the other hand only lists seven of the disciples by name, then adds the sons of Zebedee without actually naming them, and says "and two others." But even more oddly three of the disciples named that get more face time in John are ones just mentioned within the list of the twelve in the other gospels and nothing more is said about them.

There is of course so debate about the actual names of the twelve. After all each gospel lists the name slightly differently. Is Levi, the tax collector; Levi, son of Alphaeus; and Matthew the tax collector all the same person or were their three different people the gospels were talking about. And how is he related to James, the son of Alphaeus? Wikipedia has a listing of the twelve with their various names and how tradition has reconciled the differences in the lists of the gospels.

Twelve was obviously an important number to Jews. There were twelve tribes of Israel originally after all. But considering how there seem to be no surviving stories about half the twelve in the bible I'm left wondering if these people actually existed at all, or if the names were just made up to fill out a list of twelve disciples just to reach that magic number twelve.

There are stories about them that aren't in the bible though apparently. I don't know any of these stories and can't judge how trustworthy any of them are. According to Wikipedia though eleven of the twelve were martyred before or during the time period that most scholars think the gospels were first being written. If the twelve were important to the early Christians, and they had just been martyred, don't you think someone would have written that down?

Anyway that's just my opinion. I doubt most of what's written in the bible anyway. This was just my most recent adventure at trying to dig for any truth in the bible.