The other day, I was listening to a podcast from Logically Critical called Why Atheism? (as a quick aside, I laughed my butt off at the Ode to a Superhero episode.)

Overall, the episode is very good - basically explaining to people what atheism really is - a lack of belief in a higher being.  Atheists are often forgotten in the “Freedom of religion” debate, and I’d never considered that Atheists are often unwilling to share their beliefs (or lack thereof) for fear of being discriminated against at workplaces, social events, etc. 

One point at the end really struck me powerfully, which is the purpose of this post.  The host indicated that, as an Atheist himself, he was constantly worried about the intentions of those that are extremely religious, and their goals in this world.  Since, in many Judeo-Christian beliefs which are predominantly in power in the West, this world is treated to be mainly as a den of sin and just a layover till we get on that next plane to the afterlife,  why would any of them care what happens to it? 

I think I have happened upon this thought before, but I never let it sink in as deeply as I did after listening to the podcast.  It was shockingly frightening - and I understood what the host was talking about.

Genesis 1:28 clearly indicates to Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, that the world is his to do with as he wishes.  Quoting from Bibletools.com:

 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 Now, environmentalists have been pointing to this passage as a source of our huge distance from the natural world, and our centuries of tearing it apart for our current societal goals.  And that is, in itself, disturbing.

But what about the social impact as well?  If we are to believe Religioustolerance.org’s chart, over 2 billion worldwide are Christian, and 14.5 million are Jewish.  That means that a major portion of the world reads the Bible/Pentateuch - where this verse exists.

Bibletools wants to clarify to environmentalists that this has been misread for a long time:

Genesis 2 contains a parallel account of creation, adding detail to certain parts of the narrative of the first chapter. Notice God’s expanded instruction: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend [dress, KJV] and keep it” (verse 15). This greatly modifies the force of “have dominion” and “subdue it” from Genesis 1:26, 28!

Tend (Hebrew ‘abad) means “to work or serve,” and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as “to till or cultivate.” It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV’s choice in its translation: “dress,” implying adornment, embellishment, and improvement.

Keep (Hebrew shamar) means “to exercise great care over.” In the context of Genesis 2:15, it expresses God’s wish that mankind, in the person of Adam, “take care of,” “guard,” or “watch over” the garden. A caretaker maintains and protects his charge so that he can return it to its owner in as good or better condition than when he received it.

 It made me feel better about those that actually know this, but how many do not know this?  How many read the Bible and take it at its current interpretation and don’t have the explanation behind it? (see Edit below)

In essence, how many read that passage in the Bible and feel no compunction about what happens to the Earth or the people in it because this world doesn’t matter - only heaven matters?

It makes me view our president differently as well.  Part of what really annoyed me about him is his arrogance - the audacity he had to stand up in the face of the people of the world and say, “We’re going to support oil because it is more sustainable and environmentally friendly than coal.” (or really, whatever crazy thing he’s saying lately…like nuclear energy being renewable and has no emissions.  A claim could be made that our education system might be making more of a difference on the environment than our fuel system, but I digress.)  Needless to say, I thought to myself, “How does he have the balls to stand up there and say he’s doing things to benefit our environment, and then do whatever lines his pockets with money?”  How can he say the Iraq War is about freeing people, when it really is about cheap oil so he and his cronies can make more money?

But now, my eyes are wide.  President Bush is a man of faith.  Perhaps this really IS a religous war. Perhaps he is acting in accordance with his beliefs to fight an “opposing” religion, without regard the world at hand because this world does not matter - only the afterlife matters.  Eerie.  Saving those oil fields from heathens to heat the homes of Christians worldwide, and if it destroys the earth - who cares? 

Dominion over the Earth and Subdue it.

There are those out there that believe he is actually a member of Christians that is apocalyptic in belief, and that his actions are directly pointed at destruction, in order to bring around the Apocalypse sooner.  Because heaven is all we are waiting for, right?  A video found by a friend - I have not watched it yet. 

I’m not sure how I feel about this - I guess the world-lovin’ part of me wants to believe that people couldn’t be this misguided.  For some reason, it makes me feel better to believe that Bush is ambivalent, or ignorant, towards the environment instead of attacking it purposefully.

On top of all of this, how do environmentalists - or anyone - convince any of these believers that it is IMPORTANT, nay, IMPERATIVE to take action about the negative impact we have on the environment? If the world is just an annoying traffic light between you and your afterlife (which is promised to be a rockin’ good time at the right hand of God and all), why would you ever choose to ride a bike instead of drive?  Or put your money into sustainable living methods?  Or do anything that preserved the world at all?

Have we produced a religion with a deity that creates a world, and then empowers the creature creations of that world to destroy it?  Can global warming survive Judeo-Christian belief?  Have we pressed the self-destruct button on our world through the creation of a faith that values everything after death more than the world of the living? 

 A 2000 year countdown, and we didn’t even know the clock was ticking.  Where’s Bond when you need him?

Edit:

I had a conversation with a devout Catholic man after posting this who indicated that he was, and believes all Catholics are, taught the differences in the Hebrew that lead one to understand that subdue is inaccurate and it really means “stewardship”.  Having been in evangelical studied for 10 years instead of Catholicism, I did not know that.  I only discuss what I was taught - which did not involve any sense of responsibility for the earth.  I would also like to point out that I was not taught to destroy it either. 

(disclaimer: Because I listened to a podcast on Atheism does not necessarily indicate I am Atheist.    Thanks.)

(Disclaimer 2: I understand that some of this post may sound sensational - at the very least, it has some generalizations.  My concern still exists, however, and would love to know what you’ve experienced with regard to religious teachings of such a nature. )

Apparently, there are millions of people who just forget about bank accounts, safe deposit boxes, and more.  Legally, the government has to hold onto these things.

 Go to this website to find if you’ve been missing out on something that is yours!

http://www.unclaimed.org/

I was reading Brazen Careerist again today - catching up on recent posts (btw  - her 9/11 post really got me emotional.)  Something made me revisit a couple of the first posts I’d ever read on her blog - about her marriage. 

 And one of them focuses on the Myth of the Stay-At-Home-Dad.  It’s something that does concern me a lot.  I am married a year, living together for 4.  I’ve always had more of a “career” than he and supported our lifestyle.  He became a massage therapist a few years ago and is quite fantastic at it.  We are very lucky to have found something he loves and is talented at.

But it isn’t a steady workflow, and he’s home a lot.  If the economy tanks, fewer people get massage.  To get the steadier work, you have to contract with another health provider or a spa, which takes a cut.  And it never will be very much in the way of income unless he is one of the 1% of massage therapists that manage to make it big somehow. 

I’m ok with this.  Yes - it would be nice to have more income at times.  But it also gives me a great feeling to be supporting his “art” per se.  It gives him so much in the way of happiness, which feeds our happiness.  And we are very happy the majority of the time.  So I pay most of the bills, and he provides what he can.  I don’t judge his massage as less worthy.  If anything - he changes the world way more than I do, and that I can help him in that process makes me feel like I am part of it.

But as part of having a job that is not as active, I feel that on the days he has off, he needs to take care of the house.  That it is part of his “job”, since two days of the week are usually completely empty of appointments.  And not passively - but really take care of it.  We rent, so we don’t have a yard or such to deal with. It’s cleanliness - dishes, laundry, vacuuming, taking out garbage - house cleaning.

That doesn’t mean I don’t do things around the house too.  We have a tacit agreement that I ALWAYS clean the bathtub and the bathroom floor.  I clean on weekends and am responsible for the general organization of stuff.  But there appear to be no tacit agreements about anything for him.  Still, he does the laundry almost all the time, and the dishes probably about 70% of the time. 

He does complain about it though, and I’m not sure how to deal with it.  To me, it just makes sense - you are HOME.  You should take care of the house more (instead of playing video games).  If you do not work as much as the other person, and we have no children yet, take care of the house.  Do what you can to make it look great all the time.  Cook food.  I would feel responsible for these things if I was at home and someone was making sure I had a home and food.  He complains that he always does the laundry, or I don’t do enough of the dishes.  Yet, I am looking around and see that he hasn’t EVER emptied the bathroom garbage (that’s me, folks - the only one who does that) or that his breakfast dishes are still on the table.

Me coming home and complimenting him on everything he’s done has made improvements.  It makes him know I’m aware of what he has done, and how much I appreciate it.  But it hasn’t caused more to be done.

Or at the very least, work on your personal business.  Research marketing options.  Paper the neighborhood with homemade ads.  But I’m the business person - so in the end, I usually end up working on his business as well.  Because I can accomplish the needed research faster and with more desirable results.  It’s what I do for a living.  And I have a business sense and understanding of what that world is like.  Ask me where a piriformis muscle is, and I wouldn’t have a clue.  Ask me how to market your home business, and I can help you.

This is a long introduction for my main question:  What happens when we have kids?  We are considering family, and we’ve talked about our options.  As much as I’d like to stay home with a child and take care of the house, the kid, and work on my dance practice, I am the “bread-winner”.  I have more earnings potential now than he may ever have. 

So, we pretty much have come to the idea that he will stay home with the kids.  But this may put a huge dent in his massage practice.  I’m not sure he is ok with this, or not as much as he thinks he is.  We recently shut down the home-based version of his massage business and he was extremely unhappy about it.  He still gives massage by appointment at your house, but not in our house.  And I think he feels a sense of failure about this, even though it doesn’t change his client-base or income level.  How will he handle the fact that kids may close down even more of his business?  Not all of it, because we have many options, but certainly more than now. 

I’m not sure, and in finding Penelope’s blog again, I’m reminded that this is something he and I need to keep discussing.  And yes, I commented to her blog.  I think it was misinterpreted that I don’t do anything around the house, but the points are the same.  (and to respond to JohnMcG, yes - when I am out of work or even home sick, I feel it is my responsibility to take care of the house more because I am making up for my half of things.  So, I would feel that I agree - and I’ve put the theory to the test personally. )

My final question here is - why does it seem to be a much larger issue with dads than it seems to be with moms?  Or am I not being fair?  Is it a huge issue with moms too?  Why does it sound like dads have a harder time dealing with staying home with the kids?  Am I wrong for expecting that the person who is home more often should put in more effort with the house?  I’d expect it of a woman too.  My roommate and I had a similar understanding for a while as well.  Am I too mercenary?  Do you know of stay-at-home dads that enjoy it or are successful at it?

Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.

–Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Today, I’m going to write about this quote.

At first, I want to scoff at this.  There is very prevalent belief in our society that genius is something secluded to the few, the elite, the special, sometimes the insane.

Either way, it is not easily made the commodity of the common man - but rather something built into ones genes.  And therefore, we all have a cop out.  I cannot be creative or a genius because my DNA doesn’t allow it.

It would seem that, until recently, our world been punctuated by seeking limits - reasons you and I could not achieve this or that, be something.    Whether it was through our social caste, income, or genetics, we have found ways to explain why we were ordinary instead of extraordinary.

Thus we have the image of the creative genius as half mad-man, half angel.  He is neither achievable, nor accessible, and not even desirable - else you are seeking insanity, or placing yourself above your mortal existance.  Seeking godliness is only allowed through modesty.

But what if we sought godliness as something that is already a part of us?  Potential, just waiting to be released to flourish?  When we say, “Seek the divine in all things,” as part of the Judeo-Christian faith, we recognize that “god” has touched and created all things.  So, are we not a part of godliness?  And therefore, are we not possible of the divine? 

(Forgive me my extrapolations - it has been a long time since I’ve delved into any mythological lore, including one so vehemently defended as Judeo-Christian belief systems.  I do not seek to deconstruct beliefs, but instead look to find the source of inspiration.)

So, I put my scoffing aside and allow myself to believe.  Believe that we all have the potential for greatness.  Believe that all people are created equal and each has the opportunity to blossom in the direction he or she chooses within.   As Steve Pavlina mentions in his post on motivation to achieve, we have roiling deities of creation pounding the walls to get out. 

Why, then…Love certainly IS the answer. 

• Love of yourself, to trust your inner voice.  To allow that divinity to break through, even though it may trash your household and your life as you know it. 

• Love of the work.  It takes a lot of work to be creative, and to do it over and over and over means one must somehow enjoy the work in that it leads to a finished product.

• Love of the art.  There’s a tiny part of you that must die in creation.  Energy is not created or destroyed, it merely changes.  Part of you must go into that art, and to touch that divine part of you may mean you get burned by its flame.  The passion of it consumes you, giving you little option to turn away from it.  Perhaps for a day, a month, a year.  But it is still there inside you, tinkering with the inner workings, finding a path for release.

 And in the mean time, you must fight the limits.  The limits you’ve allowed to be created around your life, the limits you’ve erected like fences.  That you cannot be both a mother and a dancer.  That you cannot be a good partner and an artist.  That you cannot be super intelligent and enjoy football.  That cleaning the house is more important.  That to follow your dreams is irresponsible. 

Greatness is just an extension of the possibilities that reside within you.

“Everybody Got Their Something” - Nikka Costa

There’s a time for every star
There’s a time for every star…

This article talks about how to clearly define what success means to you.  I’m going to try it, and you might want to too. 

http://www.wisebread.com/defining-success-if-you-dont-know-what-you-want-you-wont-know-when-youve-gotten-it

JS Online: Snack could be toxic

Holy crap.

No wonder I hate that stuff.  I could never stand the butter.  Yay for my toxin-aware taste-buds!

43 Folders discusses a new online website called Daily Lit.  Basically, what this does is take great literature and email segments to you, one after another, for you to read.  It’s premise is that so many people are too busy online these days that they don’t get a chance to physically read.  So this service sends you emails with short, readable parts of the book every day.  If you want to read more in a single sitting, you can click a button and the next part is sent to you.

From Daily Lit’s FAQ:

Why read books by email?

Because if you are like us, you spend hours each day reading email but don’t find the time to read books. DailyLit brings books right into your inbox in convenient small messages that take less than 5 minutes to read. This works incredibly well not just on your computer but also on a Treo, Blackberry, Sidekick or whatever the PDA of your choice. In the words of Dr. Seuss: Try it, you might like it! (Oops — it would appear that the actual quote from Green Eggs and Ham is “You do not like them. So you say. Try them! Try them! And you may.”)

I can’t decide if this is a GREAT THING or if this a BAD SIGN.  It’s getting people to read literature they want to read - so what if they don’t get the physical book from the library or buy it from a bookstore?  Isn’t it just a matter of medium - like audiobooks?  Actually, this might fit really neatly into my own life - I never thought I’d have time to read War and Peace, and since I’m online so much of my day, it may now be possible.  I will have access to tons of literature, at the click of a button.  Equality at its best.

But…why isn’t there time to read a book?  Is there something we are losing by disconnecting ourselves from the physical act of holding a book, turning the pages?  Is it only because I’m a bibliophile that I like the feel of a book page, can tell how well a book is made through that and its binding?  Or is there something to be gained by putting one’s life to the side for a moment and picking up a physical book and actually reading it?  What about those rainy days where it is perfect to snuggle into the couch and pick up a book?  Will that be changing to blinking in front of the computer screen? 

How does that change our reading experience?  How does that change our comprehension of written text?  Will it affect our enjoyment of reading?  Will reading become one more item on the “to do” list in order to be a viable member of our technological world?  Will even our pasttimes revolve around being connected to the internet, checking our email? 

Will it become expected that you are connected, 24/7?  Will “reading a book” cease to be a way to relax?

For that matter, I wonder what will be happening to libraries - already underfunded - and the book industry.  What about people who still don’t have regular internet access? 

Is this just the new world and I have to get used to it?  Will I be one of those anachronistic old people who still fills shelves with paper and glue based literature?  Will collecting books have more to do with the medium than the age (say it isn’t so, to my full set of Alexander Dumas from 1880)?

Yes, I know nothing has happened yet, and libraries are still around.  I’m not freaking. But I’m taking a moment to contemplate the inherent benefits we get from physically doing something.  I’m asking the questions that perhaps few are asking. 

http://www.43folders.com/2007/08/01/dailylit/

If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.

-Siddhartha Buddha