I find it extremely inappropriate and offensive to compare the distribution of bibles to advertising cigarettes. I know people say that religion has killed more people than cigarettes have and that the church is corrupt, but the truth of the matter is that large problems don't happen on a local scale, and it certainly isn't the calm and devoted man standing outside the school that is creating a war against Islam.
The cigarette industry is about selling an addictive substance that pointedly destroys the lungs to anybody they can, including kids. We are exposed to more of their advertising on a weekly than a guy from the church could match in months.
On a local level, religion all over the world has been contributing to well-being and community. Religion is something that people can turn to unconditionally in a time of need or sadness. It can be a huge comfort to some to know or think that when a loved one dies they are just waiting in another life. Religion promotes caring, love, and service. As much as it may not be allowed to let someone give away bibles on school ground, it doesn't make sense to bash all religion over it.
It also seems prudent talk about the first amendment. Free speech says that this same man could have just stepped off the sidewalk or walked a certain number of feet away from the school zone and been okay to distribute his bibles anyways, so it wouldn't do anything usefull to combat him.
One last thing Tony. Why did you take the bible?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Trespassing?
So about a week ago, I was walking towards my bus, about to go home. But as I prepared to board the bus, a stout man in a gray suit approached me and asked me if I wanted a Bible. I said sure, why not. At that moment, I was in such a hurry to get on the bus and get a seat that I didn't think to question the man about his intentions, or why he was handing out Bibles on school grounds (some say the place where buses park is public property; even if it was public property, it is so close to the school and kids, just because of its proximity and because it is where buses pick up school kids, that it directly affects kids and the school). Are people allowed to solicit (anything) so close to public schools (perhaps on school grounds)? Not that I have it in for this one guy. I think soliciting religion is the same as soliciting anything else. And one can even make the argument that solicitation of religion is a more serious matter because the product can have long term consequences or affects on "customers."
I wonder if this guy, handing out New Testaments to any kid who would listen to him, asked permission before he started handing them out. But what I really want to know is if this solicitation is a legal act. If this man had been selling cigarettes or some other dangerous substances, even though some seniors were 18 at that point, would we have mounted a full investigation into why he was selling cigarettes so close to a school? Would we have tried to move him far away from the school? I think so. I don't see the difference between advertising cigarettes and advertising religion. Isn't this person trying to force (although gently) his Christian religion upon schoolkids, the people most likely to be influenced by anything in this world, especially religion? Although we do have a Religions class in school, it is: one, an optional class; second, it is a class in which people interested about different religions study religions (as opposed to a class which either focuses on one religion or tries to convince students to believe a certain religion). In my personal opinion, I think this man was taking advantage of schoolchildren (whether consciously or unconsciously), finding a way to spread his faith easily among people who might be more open to solicitation than adults. I don't think this is a terrible offense. I simply think that the school should be more public about its policies for solicitation on and near school grounds. I think that if this man were to come to the school again, he would most likely face some harsh opponents and biting criticism.
I wonder if this guy, handing out New Testaments to any kid who would listen to him, asked permission before he started handing them out. But what I really want to know is if this solicitation is a legal act. If this man had been selling cigarettes or some other dangerous substances, even though some seniors were 18 at that point, would we have mounted a full investigation into why he was selling cigarettes so close to a school? Would we have tried to move him far away from the school? I think so. I don't see the difference between advertising cigarettes and advertising religion. Isn't this person trying to force (although gently) his Christian religion upon schoolkids, the people most likely to be influenced by anything in this world, especially religion? Although we do have a Religions class in school, it is: one, an optional class; second, it is a class in which people interested about different religions study religions (as opposed to a class which either focuses on one religion or tries to convince students to believe a certain religion). In my personal opinion, I think this man was taking advantage of schoolchildren (whether consciously or unconsciously), finding a way to spread his faith easily among people who might be more open to solicitation than adults. I don't think this is a terrible offense. I simply think that the school should be more public about its policies for solicitation on and near school grounds. I think that if this man were to come to the school again, he would most likely face some harsh opponents and biting criticism.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Big Decision
To sleep, or not to sleep: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous homeworks,
Or to take arms against this sea of assignments
and by sleeping end them. To delay, to sleep-
No more-and by a sleep to say we end
The College Essay, and the thousand math problems
that flesh is heir to! 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished.
I could keep going, but it would just get dumber and dumber. But really. The big question is this:
Should I stay up into the ungodly hours of the night, get all my work done, but be moody and sleepy through the day?
Or should I not drink that cup of coffee and sleep now, only to be faced with worse grades and self-disappointment.
Well, it's a redundant question. I know already I'm going to stay up late and try to get things done. Which means to finish my first draft, and read as much of Jane Eyre as possible.
But sometimes when I'm reading the books I'm assigned to read, I catch out of the corner of my eye another book. It doesn't matter what book. I recently got three new Camus books, and a shiny shiny copy of Ulysses. And for some reason, I have this overwhelming desire to put down my book and start reading one of dem. Or wikipedia in great detail literary movements and eras. I like figuring out this stuff, and reading classics, and learning tons
... just not when it's assigned to me. I think this means that college is either going to be great, or be awful. Depends where I go, I suppose...
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous homeworks,
Or to take arms against this sea of assignments
and by sleeping end them. To delay, to sleep-
No more-and by a sleep to say we end
The College Essay, and the thousand math problems
that flesh is heir to! 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished.
I could keep going, but it would just get dumber and dumber. But really. The big question is this:
Should I stay up into the ungodly hours of the night, get all my work done, but be moody and sleepy through the day?
Or should I not drink that cup of coffee and sleep now, only to be faced with worse grades and self-disappointment.
Well, it's a redundant question. I know already I'm going to stay up late and try to get things done. Which means to finish my first draft, and read as much of Jane Eyre as possible.
But sometimes when I'm reading the books I'm assigned to read, I catch out of the corner of my eye another book. It doesn't matter what book. I recently got three new Camus books, and a shiny shiny copy of Ulysses. And for some reason, I have this overwhelming desire to put down my book and start reading one of dem. Or wikipedia in great detail literary movements and eras. I like figuring out this stuff, and reading classics, and learning tons
... just not when it's assigned to me. I think this means that college is either going to be great, or be awful. Depends where I go, I suppose...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
52
I was doing some figures in my head about time, since I've been feeling I've had so little. I came to this discovery. I get home around 6:00 everyday, after rehearsal, and all of a sudden, I've got a full six hours before I drag myself into bed. I know I have a lot of work to do: I have to read Jane Eyre in less than a week; David Copperfield was the summer reading, NOT Vanity Fair, the other 900 page novel; I have to learn music for SOS to teach. Then of course there's college apps. And DaChords. A lot of things. Include personal goals to this, and we've added a whole lot of things I want to be achieving. I used to complain that I've had 'so much to do, so little time', but I have a full SIX hours everyday, weekends I have the whole day. So, with a little math, I have 52 hours each week (6 x 5 for weekdays, 2(24-9 for sleep -4 for rehearsals)). What have I been doing for the last three years with all this free time? I honestly can't really say. And how many goals have I successfully achieved? Very few. Too few for having 52 free hours every week. There's something very wrong with this picture.
Friday, September 18, 2009
I am sooo bored and tired right now. This worst thing is that I should be home asleep right now. I was under the impression that I would have 2 classes today, 2nd and 7th, so i got up early and came to school. But NO when i go to 2nd my teacher tells us that he decided to give us an X. WOW that would have been fantastic...if he had told us yesterday. Then I could have slept all morning. I still would have come in before 7th because I am being forced by another teacher to attend the Shakespeare play, which I am not so excited for. Now that I'm here I might as well just go and deal with it, but I'm not really pumped up for it. I have already had 3 cups of coffee today, and 4 people have already told me that I already look baked out of my mind but I'm really not. I'm kind of wishing that I was right now as I sit in the computer lab with activity period about to begin with a bunch a freshman fooling around with photo booth. It is times like these that i cannot believe that I am actually still in high school. It is still only september and I feel like I have been a senior forever now.
I was going to write a letter for this but then I was like who am I going to write a letter to? what am I going to say? Then I basically forgot about it. Bourne said we could blog about anything so I just decided to go with it. Apparently I get a 4/5 for this since I finished this by the end of the week, which is good because I think I bombed the descriptive essay. Im hopin 2nd semester rolls around soon because I already have a bad case of senioritis and its showing no signs of easing up. I guess thats all I got right now...hopefully we won't get this assignment again because I'm way to lazy to write a letter so I'll probably end up putting out something crappy like this again.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
So at Matt said, "save it for the blog" and here it is.
I think the argument about not having crew docks at Fullington farm is plain silly. There are not that many people that are going to be affected by the long dock put in. It helps the majority, and that is what we should focus on. helping the greater good. There are hundreds of members on the HHS crew teams and there are also countless members of the upper valley that participate in crew that will also enjoy the crew docks. There does not have top be a gate that locks everyone out of the dock, since it will be in a public place. there might however be locks on the fullington farm boathouse, which will have our shells in them and therefore. for a good reason.
I think it is not benificial to many people if the crew dock is not made, and therefore it should be.
I think the argument about not having crew docks at Fullington farm is plain silly. There are not that many people that are going to be affected by the long dock put in. It helps the majority, and that is what we should focus on. helping the greater good. There are hundreds of members on the HHS crew teams and there are also countless members of the upper valley that participate in crew that will also enjoy the crew docks. There does not have top be a gate that locks everyone out of the dock, since it will be in a public place. there might however be locks on the fullington farm boathouse, which will have our shells in them and therefore. for a good reason.
I think it is not benificial to many people if the crew dock is not made, and therefore it should be.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Abutters
For those who don't know, the Fullington Farm/ Wilson's Landing controversy is a movement by the peaceful and reasonable crew program in Hanover to find a place to row out of. After rowing out of the Dartmouth boathouse for twelve years per a deal made back when the team was small, they are ready to see us off. Having looked at many places along the Connecticut, only the property at Fullington Farm next to Wilson's Landing will suit the purposes of the team. Through massive fundraising the property was obtained from its previous owner and the Friends of Hanover Crew organization is now attempting to obtain town permission to build a larger dock at Wilson's Landing to launch shells out of. The boats would be stored on the Fullington Farm property and out of the way and the dock would be taken out by the team during the winder.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the town and the crew team. Hanover benefits from a 180 foot (out of the way) dock alongside the maybe twenty foot one that is there now, and thus an opening up of the only public boat launch in town. The town would not have to pay for any of it and the crew team would only be using the area from 5 to 7 every morning for two months in the spring. Additionally, one Saturday each June the site would house a home race.
As is obvious to any reasonable observer, the impact to long-time users of the Landing is minimal. Any activities that occured there before still can, only with more space. The only factors in the way of this watersport utopia are a few misers, a number of uppity busybodies, and the Abutters.
I hate abutters. Abutters in the way I mean it are selfish people who are more concerned about their property value than they are with the appropriate expansion of recreational opportunities for the public. Abutters are loud, grumpy, and hard to please. Rather than being excited about a wonderful opportunity for students and community members alike, the Abutters are doing their best to bring the whole operation down before it gets off the ground.
Some of the arguments that opponents have used are as follows:
My property value will diminish. (Why?)
Construction on the Fullington Farm property will obstruct my view of the river. (That isn't true).
It will change the nature of the site. (Well obviously it will. The change will be positive).
You will kill bugs in the shallow water with gasoline drips! (Excuse me? Shut up).
I don't want 120 kids milling around near my house every morning! (Kids are everywhere theses days deal with it).
The "bullhorns" will wake me up. (Close your window).
The people who made laws in the '70s wouldn't have wanted this. (Who told you that?)
In my opinion, the decision that the selectboard makes needs to one ONLY about policy. Rather than worrying about zoning issues or environmental problems (because that is the job of the zoning commision), the selectboard needs to decide whether or not it is better or worse FOR THE TOWN OF HANOVER, not the three neighbors, to let Friends of Hanover Crew put in a new dock.
So, in conclusion, it will be a tragedy if the selectboard does not give the team permission to go ahead with construction. If it doesn't work out for some legitimate zoning reason later in the process, that is understandable. For now let's give the team a fighting chance at giving everyone a nice new dock.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the town and the crew team. Hanover benefits from a 180 foot (out of the way) dock alongside the maybe twenty foot one that is there now, and thus an opening up of the only public boat launch in town. The town would not have to pay for any of it and the crew team would only be using the area from 5 to 7 every morning for two months in the spring. Additionally, one Saturday each June the site would house a home race.
As is obvious to any reasonable observer, the impact to long-time users of the Landing is minimal. Any activities that occured there before still can, only with more space. The only factors in the way of this watersport utopia are a few misers, a number of uppity busybodies, and the Abutters.
I hate abutters. Abutters in the way I mean it are selfish people who are more concerned about their property value than they are with the appropriate expansion of recreational opportunities for the public. Abutters are loud, grumpy, and hard to please. Rather than being excited about a wonderful opportunity for students and community members alike, the Abutters are doing their best to bring the whole operation down before it gets off the ground.
Some of the arguments that opponents have used are as follows:
My property value will diminish. (Why?)
Construction on the Fullington Farm property will obstruct my view of the river. (That isn't true).
It will change the nature of the site. (Well obviously it will. The change will be positive).
You will kill bugs in the shallow water with gasoline drips! (Excuse me? Shut up).
I don't want 120 kids milling around near my house every morning! (Kids are everywhere theses days deal with it).
The "bullhorns" will wake me up. (Close your window).
The people who made laws in the '70s wouldn't have wanted this. (Who told you that?)
In my opinion, the decision that the selectboard makes needs to one ONLY about policy. Rather than worrying about zoning issues or environmental problems (because that is the job of the zoning commision), the selectboard needs to decide whether or not it is better or worse FOR THE TOWN OF HANOVER, not the three neighbors, to let Friends of Hanover Crew put in a new dock.
So, in conclusion, it will be a tragedy if the selectboard does not give the team permission to go ahead with construction. If it doesn't work out for some legitimate zoning reason later in the process, that is understandable. For now let's give the team a fighting chance at giving everyone a nice new dock.
So Many Locks
My biggest complaint about this school building is that I am locked out of the school as soon as I arrive. Apparently, the janitors are required to lock all but the main door and one of the cafeteria doors so that strangers do not wander into the school and start shoot the place up or stealing valuable items. As a result, I and many other walkers are forced to swallow a great inconvenience; we have to spend extra time either walking to the main doors or the cafeteria doors in order to enter the school. I arrive at school by walking across the turf field and entering the school from behind. Instead of walking in the school near the classrooms, I have to enter the cafeteria and push through the crowded halls to my first period class. The extra distance really ticks me off.
Next time you feel the lactic acid burn your legs or the blister pop on your feet as you wander the halls to our first class, think about a utopian world where every door in the school was unlocked.
An upset walker.
Next time you feel the lactic acid burn your legs or the blister pop on your feet as you wander the halls to our first class, think about a utopian world where every door in the school was unlocked.
An upset walker.
The joy of running
I am about to embark on retelling a powerful running story that has a lot of historical accuracy, as well as unfortunately many, many, cliches. However if you plan on only reading a segment of this post I plead you to skip it entirely, because without the full picture the story loses its greater meaning.
Running is pain, the only way one can run fast is to take that pain and put it into the back of their minds. What I just typed is commonly known as a lie. Running hurts but you cannot put that pain in the back of your mind. To run fast you must take the pain and love it. Each agonizing and painful gasp as the cramp on your side slowly begins to creep across and cramp the other side.
Yesterday I ran a race in which I was able to achieve my sole purpose in racing. Now the goal that I have may be different from others, and some may try to say they never have the same goal in mind, but they are liars or a saint. My sole goal in running is to find a kid who I should be able to beat and beat him. However, beating them is not enough. I find a person I can beat sure, but I choose that person who has a large crowd cheering for him, that way when I beat him, I destroy him.
Now what justifies beating? For me a loss in running is being passed within the last 400 meters of the race. Naturally I work this into my scheme. I will purposefully slow my pace during that last 400 meters so that the person I have chosen believes he has some sort of hope. His parents and friends are cheering for him. "GO EVEN GO!" The part I love however is with 100 meters to go. I begin to pick it up and immediately the shouts change to, "EVEN RUN, EVEN DON'T GET PASSED, WATCH OUT!" but even more satisfying is the silence that follows.
In the race yesterday I chose who I wanted to beat at around a mile to go. His name was Even and he had more fans than he had skill. He pestered me which of course meant he had little chance I would not chose him. We had been close enough for the majority of the race for me to find out that many people were hoping he would pull through and run a great race. The part that really angered me and forced me to chose to crush him in the end was when we were on a very slim path in the woods, so slim that we had to go single file, the cocky little kid snuck by me and then tried to pick his pace up. Could he add insult to injury? You better bet he could. We had to make to laps around this 1.5 mile loop and toward the end of the loop there was a bell hanging from a string. The previous time I had hit the bell before him, then he hit it behind me. This kid hit the bell so hard on this last passing that the bell swung around the branch it was hanging from several times, putting it out of reach of my swinging arm to hit it. His fate was sealed with that mockery of my pride.
The last 300 meters of this race was on the track. I was feeling surprisingly good for the end of a 3.1 mile race, so I began to set my trap. I slowed my pace a little and let him edge out in front. Screams of "GO EVEN, You got this" filled my ears and I laughed a little on the inside. Never before in my life have I lost a race once I hit 300 meters to go. Sure many people get there before me and are far out of reach, but any kid who is within ten meters of me when hitting 300 to go, is about to see my sprint. Anywho, Even was just another one of these kids, as we reached 200 meters left, I picked up my pace and was dead even with him by 150 meters to go, then I began to toy with the poor boy. Vengeance persay for the incident with the bell. I started wheezing and gasping and slowed so that he thought he had me beat. I let him get 20 meters up on me, a fine challenge I thought. Screams for Even doubled. Just then the fatigue faded from my face and I began my sprint. If you go to X-C races you will know few people have a kick left for the end, I always make sure I do even if it means running the race slower. Now I rocketed up to where Even was so that there was around 50 meters between us and the finish line, when I was on his shoulder, I felt his pain as he tried to go faster but couldnt. I saw the look in his parents faces as I slowly crept ahead of him, then let out my real sprint and destroyed any chance he had at catching me. I had won.
Raphael Addante
Running is pain, the only way one can run fast is to take that pain and put it into the back of their minds. What I just typed is commonly known as a lie. Running hurts but you cannot put that pain in the back of your mind. To run fast you must take the pain and love it. Each agonizing and painful gasp as the cramp on your side slowly begins to creep across and cramp the other side.
Yesterday I ran a race in which I was able to achieve my sole purpose in racing. Now the goal that I have may be different from others, and some may try to say they never have the same goal in mind, but they are liars or a saint. My sole goal in running is to find a kid who I should be able to beat and beat him. However, beating them is not enough. I find a person I can beat sure, but I choose that person who has a large crowd cheering for him, that way when I beat him, I destroy him.
Now what justifies beating? For me a loss in running is being passed within the last 400 meters of the race. Naturally I work this into my scheme. I will purposefully slow my pace during that last 400 meters so that the person I have chosen believes he has some sort of hope. His parents and friends are cheering for him. "GO EVEN GO!" The part I love however is with 100 meters to go. I begin to pick it up and immediately the shouts change to, "EVEN RUN, EVEN DON'T GET PASSED, WATCH OUT!" but even more satisfying is the silence that follows.
In the race yesterday I chose who I wanted to beat at around a mile to go. His name was Even and he had more fans than he had skill. He pestered me which of course meant he had little chance I would not chose him. We had been close enough for the majority of the race for me to find out that many people were hoping he would pull through and run a great race. The part that really angered me and forced me to chose to crush him in the end was when we were on a very slim path in the woods, so slim that we had to go single file, the cocky little kid snuck by me and then tried to pick his pace up. Could he add insult to injury? You better bet he could. We had to make to laps around this 1.5 mile loop and toward the end of the loop there was a bell hanging from a string. The previous time I had hit the bell before him, then he hit it behind me. This kid hit the bell so hard on this last passing that the bell swung around the branch it was hanging from several times, putting it out of reach of my swinging arm to hit it. His fate was sealed with that mockery of my pride.
The last 300 meters of this race was on the track. I was feeling surprisingly good for the end of a 3.1 mile race, so I began to set my trap. I slowed my pace a little and let him edge out in front. Screams of "GO EVEN, You got this" filled my ears and I laughed a little on the inside. Never before in my life have I lost a race once I hit 300 meters to go. Sure many people get there before me and are far out of reach, but any kid who is within ten meters of me when hitting 300 to go, is about to see my sprint. Anywho, Even was just another one of these kids, as we reached 200 meters left, I picked up my pace and was dead even with him by 150 meters to go, then I began to toy with the poor boy. Vengeance persay for the incident with the bell. I started wheezing and gasping and slowed so that he thought he had me beat. I let him get 20 meters up on me, a fine challenge I thought. Screams for Even doubled. Just then the fatigue faded from my face and I began my sprint. If you go to X-C races you will know few people have a kick left for the end, I always make sure I do even if it means running the race slower. Now I rocketed up to where Even was so that there was around 50 meters between us and the finish line, when I was on his shoulder, I felt his pain as he tried to go faster but couldnt. I saw the look in his parents faces as I slowly crept ahead of him, then let out my real sprint and destroyed any chance he had at catching me. I had won.
Raphael Addante
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Rough Draw, Mamba
As you all know, the NFL kicked off its 2009-2010 season last week. No one would care, except that with the start of the pro football season comes fantasy football: the nerdy pursuit that has been ruining friendships and lowering GPAs for many years. This year, one league stands out above the rest because it is made up entirely, with one exception, of bosses. I speak, of course, of RIP Cory.
Most of the league'sWeek 1 matchups were fairly routine victories, with no last-minute drama or controversy. Two games did set themselves apart, however: those between Gunnar Shaw's ridiculously racist "Hitler's Youth Army" and Chris Tecca's aptly named "4-Year Sophmore (sic)", and between Robbie Brown's creatively titled "Team Brown" and John Chobanian's "The Black Mamba".
The first contest is noteworthy because it contained the league's 1st overall pick, Adrian Peterson, an object of fierce controversy. The scandal arose from a comment his owner made the day after the player draft, casually gloating, "Dude, I can't believe I got Aaron Peterson, I'm gonna run train!" This seemingly innocuous comment would go on to spark immense debate, as an AP poll shows that 93% of 9th grade girls know that it is, in fact, Adrian Peterson. When reached for comment, Tecca only said, "I suck" and proceeded to soil himself in the atrium. Nevertheless, due to the quality of his own team or (more likely) Tecca's trainwreck lifestyle and utter lack of football knowledge, Gunnar Shaw defeated Tecca in a high-scoring contest.
At the other end of the spectrum sits, or should I say lurks, John "Black Mamba" Chobanian. While his owner may not know his name, Adrian Peterson was able to rack up 37 fantasy points-equalling the total score of the Mamba's team. In a post-game interview Chobanian had only this to say, "This be the mamba. Gimme chances my team sucks." A reporter then offered 96 as an appropriate number. Said reporter picked some numbers, the Mamba guessed incorrectly, and it was confirmed that the Mamba's team does in fact suck. A rough draw, indeed.
In other league news, Prestige Worldwide smoked Disregard Females Aquire Currency, Toats McGoats defeated Lata Jobin, and I Love College bested Turd Ferguson in a battle of grizzled veterans Travis Mulvihill and Clark Brighton.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Prep Schools
There are many different reasons for a high school kid to go to a so-called "prep school." They might have various problems socially, academically, etc. All of these reasons are completely acceptable and understandable. However, recently I lost a close friend as he left for prep school to repeat his junior year. He injured himself over a year ago which prevented him from doing what he really loves--playing sports--and then decided that going away to school was in his best interest so he could make up for the year of sports that he had missed.
Let me give you a little background. This kid had roughly a 3.8 grade point average, a genuine group of friends that he spent time with daily, a close female friend, and a loving and together family. With all of this, why do you go away to school, missing what is supposedly one of the best years of your life--senior year in high school? The answer is still beyond me.
I confronted him with this question over the summer while we played knockout before dinner at another friend's house. He had no response. After I let him ponder the question for a few minutes, he finally answered. He said he didn't know. He said that he didn't even know if he wanted to play sports at the collegiate level. I was confused and angry. He had been telling me for three months that he was doing this solely to excel in his sports and now he didn't know if he wanted to anymore. You may think that I was being selfish, but it isn't easy to just give up a friend like this, having known each other since the third grade.
He's been gone for about a week now and things really are different. He doesn't return home until Thanksgiving week, about two and a half months from now. This isn't supposed to be a "Dear, Annie" entry or anything. I just felt the need to write down my thoughts that have been bugging me for months now.
Please feel free to respond if you have suggestions on 1) coping with this problem 2) getting my friend kicked out of the school so he has to come back or 3) just somehow smacking him across the face a few times.
Thank you for your time,
John
P.S. I am not trying to put down prep schools in any way in this post.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
God/s
So I was lying in bed, thinking about the existence of God/gods and the problem of evil. The first thing that came to my find was the downfall of the polytheistic religion and the rise of the monotheistic religion that dominates society today? Why did the polytheistic religion die out? Was it because the races of people that believed in this form of religion died out? Or does the monotheistic religion have some distinct advantages that really appealed to people?
If we let ourselves believe in the gods of old, such as the Gods of Greece and Rome, then I think we would have no problem defeating the problem of evil. In the stories of Homer and Aeneid, and countless other ancient poets and writers, the Gods are depicted as powerful creatures that have their own character flaws. The stories show that when a god is angry, they can kill innocent people (not onmibenevolent ). In this polytheistic religion, we can clearly see many flaws. For one, the gods have varying degrees of power. For example, Zeus the almighty is said to be the supreme god, the one who has power over all other gods; he defeated his father Cronus and took over the "universe". And the fact that Cronus swallowed his own children again proves that he (and all other gods) are not omnibenevolent . However, if this was believed to be true, then there can be someone who is more powerful than him, which means that omnipotence of an individual god does not exist, and therefore omnipotence of the gods does not exist. Another flaw in this belief is the idea that the gods are omniscient. In the story of Aphrodite and Ares, the couple is tricked and captured in a net by Venus' husband Hephaestus. If the gods were omniscient, then Ares would have known that there was a trap waiting for him, and would have escaped or would have chosen another place to lure Venus. And the fact that the pair remains trapped in the net without a way out also proves that they are not omnipotent. And finally, in the story of Iliad , when Juno tricks Zeus and puts a sleeping spell on him, omnipresence of the gods is disproved. If Zeus (or any other god) was omnipresent, he would have been there when Juno sought the help of Aphrodite to conquer Zeus and thus stopped Hera's plan. It seems that the polytheistic religion really does not allow a god to be omnibenevolent , omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; in other words, the polytheistic religion fails us when we say the goods are all-powerful. Is this the reason for the rise of the monotheistic religions that dominate society today?
With monotheism, there are definitely greater and more varied ways to argue the existence and the omni's of god.
One of the arguments for the existence of god is the prime mover theory. This theory first acknowledges that there is movement in the universe; it says that nothing can move by itself; thus the first thing that moved must have gotten a "push" from God. There is another similar theory that says everything has to be caused by something else (like movement). Since things exist, something must have caused it to exist: the first cause (God). But the idea of the first cause is itself contradictory. If everything is caused by something else, there must have been something that caused to exist. Thus, he cannot be God according to the argument. Furthermore, since everything is caused by something else, there cannot be a first cause because it would assume that that cause was not caused by anything. Thus, there must be an infinite cause of causes. This conclusion is a disturbing one. Why? Because it cannot be true. This conclusion says that time and causes are infinite; thus there is no beginning of time or space. And since every cause has a preceding cause, there must be a first cause that caused everything else. Thus, this argument is contradictory and untenable. And from the cosmological argument (below), since there must have been a time when nothing existed, nothing could have caused anything to exist (no first cause and no infinity of time/space).
The cosmological argument for the existence of God says that since all things decay and go out of existence, there must have been a time when nothing existed. Thus, for something to exist out of nothing, God must have created it. However, if there was a time that nothing existed, there must have been a time that God had not existed. Thus, God cannot exist because he did not exist. And because of the prime mover/cause argument, he could not have created himself.
The ontological argument say that nothing greater than God can be conceived. Thus, if God was only an idea in our minds, we could have a idea better and greater than the idea of God, which is impossible because nothing greater than God is conceivable. Thus, God has to exist in reality. But since we can conceive in our minds a perfect being, which means that we cannot think of anything better, the ontological argument does not really hold. And since we can conceive things that are not existent, just because we can conceive of a perfect being does not mean it exists.
Another argument for the existence of God says that since there are good and bad things (differing degrees of goodness), there must be something absolutely good that all things are compared to (God). But herein lies the problem of evil. For most modern believers, or most Christian believers, god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But the are these fundamental tributes of a higher power contradictory? For example, God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence seem contradictory; the only explanation is that God is not always righteous, and does allow the innocent to suffer, which means that he cannot be omnibenevolent. How can there be evil and suffering in the world if God knows everything, is good, and can do anything? Does the contradictory nature of God's characteristics prove that there is no God? What if we believed that God was all but omnibenevolent? Could God exist then? Of course. However, we would have to confront ourselves about the fact that our lives are controlled by a malevolent (and sometimes benevolent) high power? Would we want to accept this fact? Or would we rather believe that there is no God?
If this actually offends anyone, let it be known that I am only trying to think to myself whether god exists or not. I do not intentionally push my views onto anyone. And since I have reasoned that infinity cannot exist, and alternatively has to exist, I see no real way to prove that god does or does not exist.
Please feel free to object, agree, or add anything pertinent to the argument for the existence of god.
If we let ourselves believe in the gods of old, such as the Gods of Greece and Rome, then I think we would have no problem defeating the problem of evil. In the stories of Homer and Aeneid, and countless other ancient poets and writers, the Gods are depicted as powerful creatures that have their own character flaws. The stories show that when a god is angry, they can kill innocent people (not onmibenevolent ). In this polytheistic religion, we can clearly see many flaws. For one, the gods have varying degrees of power. For example, Zeus the almighty is said to be the supreme god, the one who has power over all other gods; he defeated his father Cronus and took over the "universe". And the fact that Cronus swallowed his own children again proves that he (and all other gods) are not omnibenevolent . However, if this was believed to be true, then there can be someone who is more powerful than him, which means that omnipotence of an individual god does not exist, and therefore omnipotence of the gods does not exist. Another flaw in this belief is the idea that the gods are omniscient. In the story of Aphrodite and Ares, the couple is tricked and captured in a net by Venus' husband Hephaestus. If the gods were omniscient, then Ares would have known that there was a trap waiting for him, and would have escaped or would have chosen another place to lure Venus. And the fact that the pair remains trapped in the net without a way out also proves that they are not omnipotent. And finally, in the story of Iliad , when Juno tricks Zeus and puts a sleeping spell on him, omnipresence of the gods is disproved. If Zeus (or any other god) was omnipresent, he would have been there when Juno sought the help of Aphrodite to conquer Zeus and thus stopped Hera's plan. It seems that the polytheistic religion really does not allow a god to be omnibenevolent , omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; in other words, the polytheistic religion fails us when we say the goods are all-powerful. Is this the reason for the rise of the monotheistic religions that dominate society today?
With monotheism, there are definitely greater and more varied ways to argue the existence and the omni's of god.
One of the arguments for the existence of god is the prime mover theory. This theory first acknowledges that there is movement in the universe; it says that nothing can move by itself; thus the first thing that moved must have gotten a "push" from God. There is another similar theory that says everything has to be caused by something else (like movement). Since things exist, something must have caused it to exist: the first cause (God). But the idea of the first cause is itself contradictory. If everything is caused by something else, there must have been something that caused to exist. Thus, he cannot be God according to the argument. Furthermore, since everything is caused by something else, there cannot be a first cause because it would assume that that cause was not caused by anything. Thus, there must be an infinite cause of causes. This conclusion is a disturbing one. Why? Because it cannot be true. This conclusion says that time and causes are infinite; thus there is no beginning of time or space. And since every cause has a preceding cause, there must be a first cause that caused everything else. Thus, this argument is contradictory and untenable. And from the cosmological argument (below), since there must have been a time when nothing existed, nothing could have caused anything to exist (no first cause and no infinity of time/space).
The cosmological argument for the existence of God says that since all things decay and go out of existence, there must have been a time when nothing existed. Thus, for something to exist out of nothing, God must have created it. However, if there was a time that nothing existed, there must have been a time that God had not existed. Thus, God cannot exist because he did not exist. And because of the prime mover/cause argument, he could not have created himself.
The ontological argument say that nothing greater than God can be conceived. Thus, if God was only an idea in our minds, we could have a idea better and greater than the idea of God, which is impossible because nothing greater than God is conceivable. Thus, God has to exist in reality. But since we can conceive in our minds a perfect being, which means that we cannot think of anything better, the ontological argument does not really hold. And since we can conceive things that are not existent, just because we can conceive of a perfect being does not mean it exists.
Another argument for the existence of God says that since there are good and bad things (differing degrees of goodness), there must be something absolutely good that all things are compared to (God). But herein lies the problem of evil. For most modern believers, or most Christian believers, god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But the are these fundamental tributes of a higher power contradictory? For example, God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence seem contradictory; the only explanation is that God is not always righteous, and does allow the innocent to suffer, which means that he cannot be omnibenevolent. How can there be evil and suffering in the world if God knows everything, is good, and can do anything? Does the contradictory nature of God's characteristics prove that there is no God? What if we believed that God was all but omnibenevolent? Could God exist then? Of course. However, we would have to confront ourselves about the fact that our lives are controlled by a malevolent (and sometimes benevolent) high power? Would we want to accept this fact? Or would we rather believe that there is no God?
If this actually offends anyone, let it be known that I am only trying to think to myself whether god exists or not. I do not intentionally push my views onto anyone. And since I have reasoned that infinity cannot exist, and alternatively has to exist, I see no real way to prove that god does or does not exist.
Please feel free to object, agree, or add anything pertinent to the argument for the existence of god.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Grammar Fun (again)
Here are links to some of my favorite grammar websites:
“Guide to Grammar and Writing”
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
Look for topics in Word and Sentence Level
“Online Writing Lab at Purdue University”
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/index.html
Look for topics in the Purdue University Online Writing Lab
“Strunk & White” on-line
http://www.bartleby.com/141/index.html
"Hamilton College Writing Center"
http://www.hamilton.edu/writing/index.html
Enjoy!
“Guide to Grammar and Writing”
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
Look for topics in Word and Sentence Level
“Online Writing Lab at Purdue University”
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/index.html
Look for topics in the Purdue University Online Writing Lab
“Strunk & White” on-line
http://www.bartleby.com/141/index.html
"Hamilton College Writing Center"
http://www.hamilton.edu/writing/index.html
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
