“Two Toms, John and Me” – Of Wolves and Ravens – Libertarianism

Happy Mani’s Day

Discussion:

Last week the discussion centered around anarchism where I basically stated that I consider it the morally purest and yet most naive idea about government – that is it is best not to have one.  In that post (link), I also stated that the government, if we are going to have one, needs to have certain qualities. This whole idea and the three things I said government needed to have comes direct5ly from my readings of John Locke and the practical application of his principles by two Toms – Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.  These were in my mind the beginnings of practical classical liberalism which sees its incarnation in the United States of the late 18th century.

It is from these men that much fo my own libertarian philosophy is derived from.  Granting people as much freedom as possible is actually a key to prosperity.  I suppose I do look a little romantically toward the founding of my nation and then look at the current state of things a go – what the serious fuck.  The enlightenment founding fathers were probably the first men to really ask the question of how to have an effective but small government with the maximum amount of liberty and actually put what they wanted more or less in place.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

“Feed the Wolves, but Listen to the Ravens first.”

Needs (Geri):

Through these gentlemen, I come back to my three things needed to do this:

  1.  Recognizing that the citizens are the boss, the government is the servant, not the master.
  2. Having a great concern to defend the rights of individuals, in fact, it should be made as one of the central duties of government.
  3. The citizens should have the means to overthrow said government if it attempts to violate the two above.

As the anarchist reminds us, we don’t need government, but we are probably going to have one, so what we need is safeguarding against tyranny and totalitarianism.

Wants (Freki):

The kind of government then that we want gives us the three above conditions. It starts with the Idea of ‘We the People’ establishing this government and granting it powers and then limiting them. It makes sure the rights of the citizen are spelled out and gives restrictions and limitations on what the government can do in regard to those rights.  Mostly protect them but not interfere.  It also should protect the means to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.  Weapons stay in the hands of civilians.

Reason (Huginn):

Led by Paine and Jefferson and using Locke’s principles all three were maintained in a constitution that granted powers to the government by consent of the governed.  It created a bill fo rights that the government could not strip from the citizen regardless of democratic action.  One of those rights the right to keep and bear arms for the very event and purpose of revolution against tyranny.

Wisdom (Muninn):

What was created was a very wise government that was small.  The problem is as we go along this constitution and the principles behind it are regarded as a tradition rather than law.  This seems to have the same effect as when the Roman republic began to see its traditions erode and tyranny became more possible.

Much the same is happening in the United States right now as the Constitution must be evoked by those who are willing to back it up with force and there seems to be less and less of those people.  I am not one of them but I am also not an idiot.  No government lasts forever.  But the principles of liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness and property ownership, need to remain regardless.

Conclusion:

As I consider my reading list for next year I am thinking Locke, Paine and Jefferson need to be among them.  I need to apply my libertarian principles and my sense of practicality to the modern issues fo how to maintain freedom in the face of two parties that seem hell-bent on restricting or limiting rights which they have no authority from the people to limit.  Making sure people can act in self-reliance is a worthy quest.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

“My Sexual Identity” – Freya’s Chambers – Sexual Identity

Happy Frigg and Freya’s Day!!!

Disclaimer:  The topics covered in Freya’s Chambers include serious discussions of sex, sexuality and related issues.  If it isn’t your thing; you can move along, otherwise enjoy and feel free to discuss.  Given the nature of some subjects be prepared for nude images as there may be some.  I avoid genitalia as a general rule but is not always possible.  

Introduction:

I have been writing for about a month on the topic of sex and sexuality and their various issues and the one thing it is high time I do is to write about my own sexual identity.  How do I view myself in regards to my sex and my sexual desires I think will help people understand where I am coming from as far as my own sexual perspective.  A few things up front.

  1. I tend to be very science-oriented about these things.  At least that is where I start.  Much of academia these days listen to the social sciences on these issues but I know as someone who has a social sciences degree in political science that much of what is believed there is indeed political posturing and belief, not actual science. For me, genetics and clinical psychology count a lot; and so, if an opinion does not line up with those, it is probably destined for the scrap heap. I live in the real world using real-world observations, not fanciful fantasy.
  2. That said, part of this is my opinion about said evidence.  Sex and sexuality have fuzzy edges because human beings are not black and white when it comes to these issues.
  3. I am a strong proponent of freedom of choice and liberty regarding these issues.

So I would boil my own sexual identity and orientation down to the following words which I will explain in more depth below: masculine, heterosexual. gynephilic, and egalitarian.

Masculine:

See the source image

I have a penis, so I am male.  I also like being a man and masculine.  I have no shame of any of this and anyone who says I am toxic, even in part, because of my masculinity can bite me, fuck off, etc. I find such statements ironic because they are sexist but trying to address sexism.  So no apologies for being a man and acting in masculine manners.

I suppose being INFJ, my intuitive empathic side is a little feminine but it most definitely expresses itself in the form of masculine reason and logic. I fight to survive and thrive in life.  I am protective of my own. I seek to be strong for those I love. I am loyal to family and principles I hold dear. I seek rational action.  I can be patient with some things, but in the end, something has to be done and the man in me rises up to do it.  I strive for peace but prepare for war.  I am aggressive but strive to tailor that to the situation.

Heterosexual:

Image result for heterosexual

I have actually taken tests in this regard and have a few personal experiences in life and have found I don’t really have any attraction to men sexually speaking at all. I don’t trust the motives of most men for one and I don’t like how they always see the big guy and need to posture and thump their chests trying for dominance over me.  Sorry there dude, – alpha male here.  Save your insecurities for someone who wants to respond to them.

Sexual orientation wise I like girls and don’t like guys.  I was kissed once by a homosexual man, and while I won’t say this is wrong morally, I found it personally distasteful.  Not my thing. The tests I have taken on this issue say I am 90% to 95% heterosexual. Sorry gentlemen I like ladies. In fact, I love women.

Gynephilic:

See the source image

While I have loved a few women very strongly in my life, I would have to say that I have been gynephilic since I hit puberty which for me happened early at about ten.  I love women in general and have ever since.  I am attracted to and admire femininity greatly.  It has gotten me in trouble so many times, but you know I don’t care.  It’s an addiction I will gladly keep because there is a lot of joy in it for me personally.

I love how women think, look, smell and act.  I like the way they walk and talk.  There is still something magical for me about the feminine and if that magic ever goes away, it is probably time for the dirt nap. I have no particular preferences either.  I can usually find the beautiful side of any woman who accepts their femininity in some way.

That’s probably the only turn off for me personally –  when a woman denies their femininity. Note I didn’t say tries to act like a man but denies who they really are.  You can act like a man and I still can know you are a woman because you do it without denying you are a woman.

I love women and it will probably be the death of me, but I will go with a smile on my face.

Egalitarian:

See the source image

I love women to the point I have no desire to dominate them or be dominated by them.  I want to stands as equals with them and I have always loved those moments where I and any woman have worked together; and because it was a woman/man partnership, it seemed actually to work much better than otherwise.

I have come to see through these moments how much better life is when we work together with our male and female strengths coming together to cover our weaknesses as human beings. We need each other and I find the constant bickering and rivalry troubling. While we should be fighting side by side against the chaotic forces of this world, this sexual rivalry, however, seems to rob us of what we could achieve.  Our survival and prosperity depend on us working with each other.

Conclusion:

I suppose as with all things INFJ, I am being idealistic here.  But someone has to do it. It is probably this sexual identity that keeps me looking for the perfect relationship which does not and probably cannot exist for me.  It is this idealism that explains why I go over the edge when I am in love.  But when I look at issues like sex, sexuality and the issues that are related, I must admit I see them through the filter of my own sexual identity.  So what you see written in Freya’s Chambers should be read in that light.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

“Anarchism: Moral but Naively Idealistic” – Of Wolves and Ravens – Political Science

Happy Mani’s Day

Discussion:

I want to go on record a saying the philosop[hy behind anarchism is morally pure because it is the only philosophy of government that gets rid of the two things that make government suck the most – control mechanisms and the removal of individual rights. Without a doubt, I do not argue with anarchists that their philosophy is good, just and perfectly thought out.  It is political idealism as its finest.

That said it is so idealistic that it will never happen.  Much life socialism has an idealistic view of economics but fails to account for the economic realities of the law of scarcity and that human beings are motivated by self-interest so taking that way you get a system that limits human achievement, option, and freedom. You basically also will find yourself taking rights from people, not granting them under a socialist system.

Anarchism does something similar – it doesn’t take into account another part of human nature that has evolved in us.  We are inherently tribal.  Tribalism has allowed human beings to band together against common problems or foes as long as the human race has been around.  it is part of our psychological makeup and it is why everyone will never accept anarchy as a form of government. There will always be the state no matter how it is set up.  As soon as people organize and set up a system of dealing with problems or issues, what they set up is ‘government’.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

“Feed the Wolves, but Listen to the Ravens first.”

Needs (Geri):

That said, I think the anarchists should keep advocating anarchy for one simple reason – it keeps us with the realization that the government doesn’t have to be involved in everything.  There is no need for the government but if we are going to have it it should do something we can all mostly agree it should do.  We need if anything, when the government is inevitably set up it, should be constructed in such a way it serves humanity, not the other way around. This is why most governments fail because they make slaves out of the populations under them and the tension for freedom is created that leads to their eventual downfall.

Wants (Freki):

So what we want is a government that serves us by: 1) recognizing that the citizens are the boss, government is the servant, not the master, 2) Having a great concern to defend the rights of individuals, in fact, it should be made as one of the central duties of government, and 3) the citizens should have the means to overthrow said government if it attempts to violate the two above.

Reason (Huginn):

While I can marvel at the ethical purity of anarchism given the above needs and wants, I have become practically a classical liberal libertarian. Not because I think having government isn’t immoral like the anarchist, but because I think it is inevitable that government will exist because of tribalism.  So if the government is rationally inevitable, it stands to reason that we keep it as small as people will allow and with the least amount of power necessary.  So far as I know the level of government of classical liberalism is the smallest that has been in history accepted by people. So it is practically viable and yet also respects individual rights and if done properly protects rights.

Wisdom (Muninn):

Wisdom finds itself in upholding the moral goodness of a particular philosophy but realizing the practical realities of experience and what human beings will actually do or accept. For me, classical liberal philosophy is the best compromise between the.purity of anarchism and the reality of human tribalism.  Anarchism, however, does bring to the wisdom table the constant reminder of trying to find a way to let people live in freedom and without coercion,  Well, at least as much as human tribalism will allow.

Conclusion:

I like anarchists, even when they argue with me about this, but I have also frustrated them by saying I agree that they are morally the purest philosophy I have found in studying political science.  Then the discussion turns practical and they have to concede another point – when have human beings accepted anarchism as anything other than a short transitional time between governments?  They never have.

Next week I hit libertarianism and I will be dealing with classical liberalism or more appropriately why I am one.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

“The Topfreedom Movement” – Freya’s Chambers – Equality

 

Happy Frigg and Freya’s Day

Disclaimer:  The topics covered in Freya’s Chambers include serious discussions of sex, sexuality and related issues.  If it isn’t your thing; you can move along, otherwise enjoy and feel free to discuss.  Given this week’s topic be prepared for images of topless females. 

Introduction:

I have to say that since the first time I wrote on the topfreedom movement in the United States, they have made quite a bit of progress.  I originally examined them in my Christian blog many years ago.  Mostly the issue back then was legal.  But the real trick of any social movement is to address all concerns including cultural, social and political.  If you are not aware, the topfreedom movement is basically pressing for equal rights of women to appear topless wherever a man can appear topless.  Basically asserting that the different laws for the treatment of men and women’s chests are sexist and violates equal protection under the law.  The issue for them is equal rights under the law.

I was supportive of the topfreedom movement back then even as a Christian because unlike many other Christians I actually realized that the constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible, and even with the Bible, there is no, I repeat no, statement or even indirect reference in the Bible that says a woman exposing her breasts is a sin. From my point of view then, a Christian woman who decided it was too damn hot and took off both bra and shirt and mowed the lawn was not a sinner, she was just being practical.

But what about now without Bible as some sort of appeal to authority and being you basic deistic humanistic pagan, where do I stand on this issue now? Without the whole sin question to consider, then the issue becomes very practical and about equality.      

Discussion:

From a cultural/social point of view, this is going to be a long fight but I stand with these ladies for a lot of reasons.  Most notably to me is a simple fact that socially I feel that these ‘modesty’ constraints are kept mostly to allow the unattractive, the insecure and religious women of the world to have an advantage over those women who are attractive, secure and non-religious.  I see it every time I go to the beach and some attractive woman is wearing a very revealing swimsuit.  All the other women are judging and criticizing because they are not secure in themselves or have a positive body image about themselves. I love it when a woman asks her significant other, who is watching said attractive female, what he thinks and he says: “whatever you think dear.”  This is far more about pecking order among females than anything else. To aid them in this quest for dominance, some women turn to religious moral codes and such to force their way into the law and on other women.

See the source image

My libertarianism kicks in as well to support these women.  If an action is not about force to harm, the threat of force or fraud there is no violation of the Non-Aggression Principle and if there is no victim you can point to and say who was harmed – there is no crime. Can someone tell me who is hurt by a woman walking down the street on a hot day topless?  As far as I can tell the only thing that is harmed is people’s opinions, feelings and sensibilities and none of those things count as far as the NAP violation or a crime.

See the source image

This leads me to the legal issues that how is exposing female nipples a crime and the exposing of male nipples is not a crime?  Note that most laws talk about nipple exposure and not the actual breast itself. I have found this an interesting part of the law as the nipples on men and women are essentially the same.  It is the mammary glands that lead to the mound of the flesh a women’s nipples are on that is the difference between the chests.  However, in most places, if the woman were to put tape over her nipples then she is perfectly legal as she would not actually violate the wording of the law.

See the source image

But I started this post out with the pagan and spiritual side of this and from that standpoint, I would have to say there is something liberating and freeing to the spirit when one frees themselves from the spirit of being a moral busybody and judge of other people.  There can be no greater judgemental attitude that the one where you impose what you think is modest on another because modesty is a spiritual quality of heart and mind, not one of the dress or undress.

See the source image

The other spiritual quality is the appreciation of beauty and in particular the beauty of the human body.  I find a lot of religious believers in God will talk about the beauty of creation and then spend a vast majority of their time trying to cover up one of its most beautiful parts: the human body, both male and female.  In this appreciation of beauty, I have also started to discover something about my attitude about women and their appearance.  I have found a greater understanding that sexual desire and nudity are not always connected. Put simply just because a woman is topless it doesn’t mean she is thinking about or asking for sex anymore than a man who is topless is doing so. Personally, I have learned that real modesty is letting other people be free and if a woman wants to freely walk down the street with her breasts bare, that is her business and I should respect that and not look at it as an invitation for a sexual encounter.

Conclusion:See the source image

When I first was made aware of the topfreedom movement, only one state of our fifty had changed its laws to reflect and equal treatment of men and women regarding toplessness.  Since then there are now 35 states that have followed suit realizing that legally there can be no distinction between a man and a woman’s chest. 

See the source image

The challenge now is in these states many local governments have reacted with their own ordinances and so what the topfreedom movement focuses on there is trying to get the one legal case in that state that will bring the locals government to heel with state law. There is currently one woman bringing legal action against the city of Chicago before the Supreme Court of the United States.  That might be the legal silver bullet that brings about the remaining states and locals to realizing they can either lose money in a lawsuit every time or just let women be topless.

See the source image

The real problem, of course, is that the long term will require society some time to change. Cultural norms change slowly but inevitably.  Like when women were first allowed to show their legs and more cleavage, it takes some time for it to be more normal to everyone in a society. I see change coming for American society regarding this issue and the majority of pushback will come from women and the religious.  In time, even they will have to submit to the inevitable. Sure men will probably at first avert their eyes, but eventually, they won’t think of bare breasts, as usual, any more than bare legs. Time will tell.

Thoughts?

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

“People as Sacred” – Odin’s Eye – Humanism

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

A humanist is a person who sees human beings and the human race as the central thing to solving human problems.  A pagan is a person who finds spirituality in all things.  I want to talk about how these two intersect.  For me, people are both the solution to their problems and sacred as part of the universe.  I don’t look to political or religious forces to solve human problems.  Both of those things tap into tribalism hard and push us to fear and hate one another. If you looking for the evil that might exist, you don’t have to look too far into any political or religious organization and you will find some.

As a humanist, I don’t think political ideology solves problems. Speaking as a political scientist, I can tell you that politics is about putting groups of people against one another to gain power, not solve problems.  Unless you see solving the problem as subjecting other people to what you think is right and forcing them, politics and government is not the way to go.

As a pagan, and former Christian, I can see how religion is used much the same way as it influences culture to label things ‘sinful’.  Once again, this is then used to put groups of people against one another as ‘the righteous’ put themselves against ‘the sinners’. Using shame, shunning and general looking down noses at others because ‘they don’t have the truth of our faith’, you can see once again how this is used to control people through fear and manipulation. Sorry, religion tends to create more problems not solve them.

It seems if human beings want actual solutions to their problems, they might want to look at themselves and stop joining religious and political groups that are not about solving problems but rather are about control.  Time for an alternative way of looking at people that might actually solve their problems.  Time to start looking at people as sacred.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

Having faith in human beings to solve their own problems is difficult at first.  Both the above forces fo government and religion do some pretty good PR to label some people as the problem and having the need for others to control them. I always marvel at political and religious leaders ability to label whole groups of people as the problem and not themselves of course.  They are the solution.

I can say that if you sit back and really think about it there are two things I can have faith in: 1) That things are getting better all the time for humanity, and 2) That a whole bunch of people are trying to convince you that things are getting worse for their own gain.  But if I look at it objectively and consider people being sacred. You can have faith in each individual human being to solve their own problems if they are given the freedom to do so. Letting people be themselves is the most sacred and loving thing you can do for someone else.

Religion:

Religion, in general, sees humans as problematic or having problems.  Paganism sees them as sacred. Not problems but wonderful parts of the universe. Religion involves chains and spirituality involves removing them.  The first step in seeing people as sacred is to stop thinking they need religion to help them overcome their problems.

Because each person is sacred, they hold within themselves the ability to solve their problems.  Religion always tries to get a person to look to the divine, or faith or something outside one’s self to solve the problems they have but in truth, each person’s decisions will either lead them into problems or out of them.  Religion makes a lot of false claims and promises they cannot prove, but one thing you can know for yourself is there is always a better path that you can take as a human being if you tap into it.

Theology:

What needs to change is our understanding regarding humanity.  As a Christian, I taught mankind is sinful and only god can get them out of the problems that cause. The problem is there is no evidence that sin even exists outside the say-so of the Chrisitan preachers. That theology certainly does not look at people as sacred, that is part of the goodness that is creation.

As a pagan humanist, my viewpoint of humanity is very much changed.  Each person is unique and the most sacred thing they all have is the ability to choose their own direction.  To choose their own path. It is this that must be guarded and protected as the previously mentioned forces of politics and religion will always try to take this away.  What makes a person sacred is their ability to sovereignly choose for themselves the path they want to walk.

Spirituality:

The spiritual side of all this is that to walk this path we have far more going for us in helping us to do do this.  That in addition to their being a rational and logical side to life, there is an emotional and passionate side.  There are also the factors of driving needs and wisdom gained through experience.  All these combine into a spiritual walk that allows us to use all we are as human beings to set and guide the choices we make.

Part of that is respecting that people are sacred and walking it as a spiritual path is to guard it for ourselves and respect it in others. To interfere in a person’s choice, even benevolently, is to look at them without this respect for the fact that they are sacred and what makes them sacred is their ability to choose for themselves what path they are walking.

Conclusion:

In the end s much as sometimes I can think people are stupid in their choices, I respect that their ability to choose is sacred to them.  It is what makes each individual unique to me and worthy of a measure of respect.  Now, this doesn’t mean all choices are good ones or even benevolent and some choices can be stopped if they violate this principle.  A choice to force, coerce or defraud someone is one that does not have this respect of another person’s sacredness. It should be stopped. But there are many choices that I would not make but they are not violating the principle of sacredness so I should not interfere.

It is amazing to me what peace of mind comes when you leave people to be sacred in their own lives. The freedom from the desire to control and manipulate is a wonderful one. It also brings about the simple truth about yourself – you are the product of your choices.  Those choices are sacred no matter if they were good or bad because as a human being you made them.  That is freedom with responsibility.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

“The Virgin Birth of Jesus” – Odin’s Eye – Bible Problems

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

What I am about to do here is give at sample or teaser of what I am doing for my non-fiction book.  What I am doing is taking my expertise gained from a biblical studies degree, a theological studies degree and twenty years experience of being a pastor and doing a class I did many times – Life of Christ.  I am however this time doing it from a skeptics point of view.  I am doing it as a non-believer and a critic of Christianity and The Bible.

Today I am going to give a brief synopsis about why I think the virgin birth story is a tall tale concocted by many people who had personal and political reasons to do so.  The theory I am running with here is my own which is that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth and that he did indeed have disciples.  That those disciples watched Jesus as he fought the religious establishment.  That establishment then did perhaps have him crucified by the Romans because they came to hate him and the threat he posed to their political and religious power.

This is where those disciples create mythology surrounding the man known as Jesus of Nazareth.  They knew the Messianic prophecies and began to retroactively go back to his life and spin things to fulfill them.  One of those things involved the fact that there was a prophecy where the Messiah had to be born of a virgin.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. – Isaiah 7:14

One of the things that may have very well have been true about Jesus is that his origin may have had a little scandal attached to it.  That is there was a question as to who his father was or that it was clear he was conceived out of wedlock.  As a political scientist, I can see how scandal can be turned to opportunity if it is spun right.  So, no Jesus wasn’t the product of an illicit affair or the fact that Joseph and Mary had sex before the wedding day, let’s write it this way to turn him into the Messiah.

Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was very perplexed at this statement and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. “For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.  Luke 1:26-38 – NASB

Suddenly the scandal becomes an opportunity to tell the story in a different way and Jesus fulfills the prophecy of being born of a virgin.  So what is the actual evidence?

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

In order to believe in the virgin birth, you have to believe that God can make a woman pregnant which is not a stretch if you accept an omnipotent god. That Joseph was not involved and that he suddenly became cool with the fact that another man has sex with his bride to be and knocked her up.  He has to buy the story himself.

Mostly though you have to believe that Mary herself is not lying about the angel.  Because the only witness of that event is Mary herself.  Understand that even if I take the account as true, the only witness even in the gospels of the event is Mary and the only gospel that records it is Luke.  Luke is probably the last synoptic gospel to write.  One could theorize that Luke is reacting then to the fact that Mark says nothing about a virgin birth and Matthew only deals with Joseph’s reaction and no one has addressed Isaiah’s prophecy to that point.  If you believe in the virgin birth, you simply taking the word of one witness – Mary.  A girl of fifteen who finds herself pregnant in a culture that stones women who commit adultery or at the best puts away women privately to live out their days in silence.  Which is more likely at this point – God impregnated her or that she came up with a story to cover her pregnancy out of fear of reprisal?  Or she made it up later to vindicate herself after the fact when people are starting to believe her son is the Messiah.

Religion:

Let’s understand something. the virgin birth in the Bible does not stand alone as the only one.  Religions around the world have tons of virgin birth stories and Mary was not unaware of them. This is something that is well known and well published. Just look it up for yourself.

The thing is though for Christianity a lot of theology regarding sin and the biblical god is wrapped up in this story being true; so of course, they defend it regardless of how common such a story is in mythology around the world and how little testimony there is to support the actual story.

But understand that even under the Bible’s own standard of establishing every fact the virgin birth story fails.  It only has one witness Mary herself and she certainly has plenty of cultural and personal motivation to make it up.  Luke is the only direct record of it but it is still her story alone, he just records it. This fails the two or three witnesses required even by Biblical Standards, particularly the Law of Moses.

Matthew records Joseph’s response but even his response might have had a personal motivation if he either loved Mary or he was the cause of her pregnancy.  How he reacted really has only one witness – Joseph himself.  He may have simply been a man who took responsibility for his actions and we are assuming he was even around for Matthew to interview as he might have been dead.  It is easy to see how Matthew who was writing with the goal of persuading Jews to become Christians might make up Joseph’s story based on stories of others. But that makes is second-hand hearsay, not reliable evidence.

Theology:

This story absolutely is essential for doctrines such as original sin and the incarnation of Christ.  For the early Christians, they needed a story that fulfilled some of the prophecies so going back a retroactively recounting things with their own spin on it became essential for the accusation that the Jewish leaders had killed the Messiah.

The motivation for this is that Jesus may very well have been a man who successfully created a movement of reform and the Jewish leaders, by killing him, had created a martyr.  It is not hard to see how the disciples, motivated by a desire for the resurrection to be true and to create Jesus as the Messiah, would stretch the truth and follow rumors and ‘urban legends’ of Jesus of Nazareth to do so. For later Christians, these become the basis for theology that allows Jesus to be the answer to the sin question and how Jesus was both God and Man.

Spirituality:

While a great many Christians, particularly women, draw a lot of spiritual strength from Mary’s Story, I look at it more as identification with a character caught in a bad situation that has a great story to get herself out of it and go from being a immoral unwed mother, to the mother of the Messiah.  I can see where a lot of women would love that idea and emotionally and spiritually resonate with it. Even those who might think it is not true fully understand given Mary’s Culture why she would do it. In the movie Saved! – the character Mary remarks in one scene how she could understand, being pregnant herself in the movie, why a girl would make up such a story.

Conclusion:

My thoughts are this, I think Jesus of Nazareth was a real person but I think after thirty years before the first writing on his life a lot of mythology and what we would term ‘urban legend’ became built around him that also got into the story.  One of the examples is the virgin birth story which appears late in the accounts like it was a reaction to criticism of Jewish leaders that the prophecy in Isaiah is not fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.  So Matthew records the story of Joseph with his reaction to her being pregnant and later on a little bit after that Luke does the same from Mary’s point of view.  Except this does not even meet the Bible’s own criteria of ‘two or three witnesses” as each account is only one person’s perspective and with no other witnesses.

What really happened?  Most likely Joseph and Mary had sex before they were married.  A common tale even back then.  Joseph may very well have simply decided to marry her because it was his child; which oddly enough the Law of Moses would have accepted provided he gives up is right to divorce her later. Joseph and Mary would have lived with a cultural stigma after that which would have cast her in particular as an immoral woman.

Fast forward some decades and their son actually becomes a great Rabbi and critic of the religious leadership.  He gets killed and becomes a martyr.  Mary finds herself with the opportunity presented by the new but fanatical Christians to vindicate herself and be the mother of the Messiah, to no longer be considered an immoral woman.

So that is what she did.  The story gets changed so that she is a virgin and both she and Joseph have visits by angels no one else sees and they decide to get married after all. She was a virgin until after Jesus was born and the prophecy fulfilled.  Of course, there are no witnesses to this other than Mary herself and so we must take her word for it. No physical exam, no other witnesses of the angels in question, nothing but her word.

I think the more simple explanation is she made it up to vindicate herself.  It is not something Christians want to hear but it seems to be very likely given her culture and her desire to clear her name would have been very strong.  It is just unfortunate how far people have taken this legend. I mean people actually pray to this woman now and she is probably nothing more than a woman who either told the story to save her ass or vindicate herself as an older woman who had lived with the stigma of being immoral all her life. She definitely improved her status in retrospect so the story worked.

So there it is a sample page from my non-fiction book although it will be much more extensive and much more complete and referenced. Hope you enjoyed it.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – The Practical Application of Political Science

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

In literally less than a week I will have finished my last requirement for the political science degree I have been working on for four years.  I walked in Fall but my internship will be done before the week is out. I happy about this as it represents something I started and finished and that is a good thing.

The problem is most people have a really poor understanding of what political science is about and so they don’t have a really good knowledge of what a person who has a political science degree can do.  In truth I picked it because of its versatility as you can do a lot of different things with a political science degree, you just have to broaden the scope of your understanding of what politics is.

Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is commonly thought of as the determining of the distribution of power and resources.

I suppose this definition is as good as any.  What I would like to focus on is the idea of the distribution of resources and power because that is what makes this degree so flexible.  Because the distribution of power and resources is universal and common to every organization. Every company and group has a power structure and way of distributing resources that involves human decision and implementation processes and that is what political science is about.  If your company or organization has a policy manual and an organizational flow chart, I can look at it and do the following things:

  1. I can understand how you theoretically want your organization to run.
  2. Give me enough time to analyze your company and I can tell the reality of how your organization actually runs and how resources are really distributed.
  3. I can work to help you optimize your organization or company by offering suggestions on how you can change one or the other of the above.

In this political science simply acknowledges that where two or three are gathered together there is a power structure and thus politics.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

For me personally, I needed a degree choice that was versatile and could offer me a good chance of employment. Political science is broad in that regard.  I have had courses in psychology, accounting, statistics, organizational structure, research, management, leadership, business, etc. I have a lot of different things I have learned for this degree and I see how things connect together because of it. If you’re looking for someone to keep an eye on the big picture of your organization, I have enough knowledge of the different areas to do that.

Wants (Freki):

What I would want is a job that involves this practical understanding of political science and incorporates that versatility.  It is why human resources as a busienss career appeals to me so much as it fits my knowledge, experience, and personality. Human resources and political science are two sides f the same coin to me.  One is more focused on the public and the other is focused on the private sector but seeing both of those intersect a lot they really deal with a lot of the same issues.

Reason (Huginn):

I get to use my reason as a political scientist. In the world of politics, emotional appeal is used because people are not motivated by logical argument but by what they need and want.  People are rarely if ever motivated by actual logic. That means if you want efficiency you need to plan logically but you must figure out how to appeal to what people need and want to motivate them to follow it.  If you don’t figure out the motivation part you will have a nice plan, but it will never be followed by those you lead.

Wisdom (Muninn):

.It is this combination of coming up with good solid policy but understanding that human beings both as individuals and groups are not motivated by reason so much as they are what they need and want that is the heart of the art of political science. Ethics is key in wisdom because you could use this knowledge to manipulate. Being truly benevolent is the heart of wisdom and part of that is respecting human freedom.  It’s a large part of it to me.

Conclusion:

For me, this is the practical side of Of Wolves and Ravens coupled with my knowledge of political science.  For me politics centers on needs, wants, reason and wisdom so there all the characteristics of the wolves and ravens are present and not treated as evil but normal and good. This is my practical and working understanding of political science as well as my own personal philosophy of living. Hopefully, I will be putting it to practical use very soon.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 2:3 – “Whenever You Find Yourself on the Side of the Majority, it is Time to Pause and Reflect.”

 

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “No Rest for the Wicked” – Godsmack

No real official video for this song, but here is the lyric one so you can sing along.

Poem: “Salt in My Wounds” by Edward W, Raby, Sr. – Written April 13, 2019

See the source image

 

Once you were the spice of my life,

You kept me from spoiling

You were the flavor I needed

You made life less plain

 

Then you left me

laying in a pool of my own blood.

Leaving a wound

a void from your knife

 

Now memories of you are salty

Burning as they are applied to the scar

Salt in my wound

Preserving the pain.

 

-Ed Raby – April 13, 2019-

 

Without a doubt this was the easiest poem I have ever written.  At least as far as time and feeling are concerned. Took me literally just five minutes.  It’s still rough, but I suspect it will be Grey Wayfarer canonized very soon. 

Miss Salty, as I called her, helped me through a lot.  She is definitely wiser and smarter than her years would say.  But this whole thing in reflection was a doomed voyage like the Titanic. Right now memories of this whole thing are bitter-sweet. Salty like she was.  They hurt and yet I hope they bring about some cleansing like salt removing infection.

Meditation:

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Yep, which is why I don’t trust either party. The Wall for the right and Rich Wall Street on the left are not real threat in my opinion.  Mostly fear mongering using a supposed noble cause to seize power.

Song of Preparation:  “Cult of Personality” – Living Colour

I once heard these guys live via radio.  The guy who was announcing made the remark that they were the loudest band he ever heard in concert. Good intro.

Text:

“Whenever You Find Yourself on the Side of the Majority, it is Time to Pause and Reflect.” – The Book Of Rabyd 2:3

Sermon:

This time through The Book of Rabyd, I am trying to quote as many different people as I can.  Mark Twain was pretty much destined to be on this list and it was only a matter of time.  This is my favorite quote from him and is truly a principle of wisdom.

Tribalism is inherent in the human species.  Survival trait. We band together to take on common threats and deal with common problems. The issue is that it can also lead to a mob mentality. It can lead to just bowing down to the culture, group think or what everyone’s opinion is.

This quote is a regular reminder to all of us who prefer reason to mindless pandering.  The issue is to take action on what makes sense and is most reasonable and this quote reminds us there is nothing inherently reasonable about the majority.  The only quality they have is more numbers. The majority is not proof of truth or rightness.

For me there is a reminder here that I am both a free citizen and a responsible citizen. Free because on thing that can enslave is tribalism and cults of personality. Responsible, because from time to time you need to be the thinking one that calls into question the actions of the mob.

There are institutions that thrive on this tribalism but they can, in my humble opinion be boiled down to two things – government and religion.  Both of these tap into people’s passions rather than their reason and thus are manipulative by nature. They tap into people’s inherent tribalism and mob mentality to get actions people think are the right thing but are actually the desires of those who would seek power either through politics or faith.

The lesson then is never let your loyalty to the group outweigh your loyalty to yourself and your principles. Something I hope gets carried on by those who I call my family is the ability to question anything and everything, even if the majority thinks it is the best course.  I would rather have my descendents known for being rebels and original thinkers that people who just went along with the crowd and the mob.  That they would be people of Courage, Self-Reliance and Truth

Closing Song: “Of Wolf and Man” – Metallica

I am thinking of making this my personal theme song. A lesser known work of Metallica but still one of their best.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text

Stay strong pagans. Keep going.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Western Philosophy – Individual Rights

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

If one wants to point to the main difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy it is Collectivism vs. Individualism.  This is overly generalized on my part, and I would say there are elements of individualism in Eastern philosophy and Collectivism in Western.  It is just the results ultimately lead down these paths overall.

See the source image

Source: http://www.writeopinions.com/western-philosophy

We could argue all day which is superior, but there is one element that I personally take to heart because of where it leads. The focus on the individual over the centuries has led to an understanding of individual rights.  The people have certain rights like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and ownership of property that no collective group can take away is something very Western.  In Eastern Philosophy you get more of a rights of the group mentality. This can be detrimental to the individual.  I suppose this debate will continue until the bitter end. I am going to side with the individual and the below cartoon illustrates how collectivism or majority rule can lead to evil.

See the source image

That said there is something to be said for Eastern Philosophy in other areas. I just get real rights conscious for the individual from Western philosophy and in this regard I think it is superior to Eastern. I am not going to go into the philosophy where our rights come from at this time.  That will probably be the subject of a Of Wolves and Ravens down the line.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

The need for an understanding of individual rights is paramount to treating each other like human beings.  If you don’t think humans have rights then it is very easy to see them as non-human.  I think it is a basic test of humanity to see what a person’s feelings about the rights of other humans are or may be. If you find they give rights to themselves and people they like but not to others, I think they fail that test.  This discussion of rights fills to needs – a) tests your own humanity and b) litmus test for others being human by how they treat other humans.

Wants (Freki):

For myself I would rather have this rights issues than the collectivist one. If the thought that you could be killed for the benefit of the ‘greater good’ bothers you, you understand why you want individual rights.  They give you the power to live your life ad protect you from those who would try to take that away from you.

Reason (Huginn):

Of course reason gets us to the point that we realize that rights only have value if they are defended and stood up for. This is another matter for the ‘where do rights come from?’ issue.  But for now, it is simply noted that the basic rights require other rights to defend them.  One thing leads to another when it comes to rights and the right to defend one’s rights stems from calling those basic rights rationally essential.

Wisdom (Muninn):

A wise world would promote individual rights.  It allows one to be both for the individual but also if everyone collectively is given the same individual rights – all benefit collectively  from having those rights.

Conclusion:

I would love to think balance between the collective whole and individual rights can be achieved, but I know people are inherently tribal and eventually they submit the rights of the individual to the fear or desires for power. There is always going to be that element in society that thinks they can come up with a better plan or system for you than you can and it seems inevitably they want you to hand over your rights to them or take them from you.  This needs to be resisted because if they can do it to you, they can do it to everyone. Individual Rights have to be defended against the mob.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 2:1 – “People are Stupid”

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“People are Stupid” – The Book of Rabyd 2:1

Thoughts and Exposition:

We are with verse one of chapter two moving into a different realm of The Book of Rabyd.  Chapter one is principles I would say are universally or nearly universally true.  Chapter Two is points of wisdom which are more about life guides and coming to a better understanding of the world.  Not hard fast rules in chapter two, but definitely can be seen to be true most of the time.  We start with the simple three word Phrase: “People are Stupid”

One might say this is a pretty pessimistic view of people in general. This is not a statement about people and their morality however, just their nature. Terry Goodkind and his Wizard’s Rules impressed me in their quick way of getting to human nature and laying it out there plainly and bluntly.  I like someone who can take a concept and put it into a simple statement and “People are Stupid” shocks you ,and yet catches your attention, because you know in you heart it is true.  I have tried to put this idea into other terms or phraseology but it never has the force of “People are Stupid.”

Terry Goodkind though really doesn’t stop with just these three words. but in his book Wizard’s First Rule he makes several other points about it:

  1. Given proper motivation people will believe almost anything.
  2. People will believe something because they want it to be true or fear it is true. (Confirmation Bias)
  3. Peoples’s heads are full of things that they think is true but is in reality mostly false. (Cognitive Dissonance)
  4. People rarely can tell the difference between a lie and the truth, but they think they can. (Ego)
  5. Because of all this people are easier to fool.

You will note Terry did not say ALL People are stupid.  His assumption is that by understanding this rule you can rise above it yourself.  First you understand it for yourself that you yourself are stupid.  Once you get this idea that you are stupid, and need analyze your own thinking and beliefs for whether or not they are true, then you are very much on the path to understanding yourself and others better.  Stupidity is part of being a human being and once you get that part, the rest of the wisdom that flows from this foundation becomes easier to swallow.  Truth is found in understanding that even you can be subject to stupidity and that means re-thinking things regularly to make sure you are basing your understandings on the truth and not just what you want to be the truth.

There is tremendous power that you gain when you understand all of this and the challenge for the vitreous person is to not take advantage of it for malevolent purposes.  It gives you an advantage when you realize what makes people, stupid including yourself is Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Ego. You can use this to help or harm.  lead people to truth to a lie.  Motivate them to great good or evil.

As a leader over the years’, I have come to realize the difficulty of researching and coming to know the factual truth at times, but knowing full well that to motivate people to act on it, requires a great deal of tapping into people’s ‘stupidity’.  Otherwise they will never be motivated to act.  Truth rarely motivates, passion does.  That is the challenge to be motivated by truth as a leader but tap into people’s passions so you don’t on the one hand mislead people, but on the other hand get them to act.

We may see Terry Goodkind again.  I am revising a lot of these points of wisdom and combining some of them so we will see.  However many of the Wizard’s Rules echo in a lot of them.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!