ChadMaestro

Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Einstein once showed, through his theories of relativity, that time and space have no bearing on what a person thinks he or she sees. He also did a number of other things, such as clarified how gravity works, and is not merely a force which pulls things toward each other; he also showed that energy can be converted into matter with one of the most famous equations of all time, being e=mc² – now the basis for the idea of nuclear fusion.

One of the interesting concepts beside space and time, however how the human mind perceives something that is not mathematical. Bear in mind that relativity was not a new concept when Einstein was around, classical relativity had been around for centuries, and is merely the idea that what you see is relative to the position you’re in at that given moment in time. A practical example of this would be seeing a car driving past at a constant speed of 100km/h. To a person outside of the car, the car is moving at 100km/h, but to the person inside the car, the car is practically stationary because he or she is moving at 100km/h as well. If the person inside the car threw a ball in a forward direction at 50km/h, the respectful speed of the ball is 150km/h, however only the person outside of the car would see this. The person inside the car would see the ball travelling at 50km/h because, as we said, he is perceivably stationary as he’s moving at 100km/h with the car.

That’s a basic explanation of classical relativity. Einstein took this further and showed that time is relative, as well. That is to say, if the speed of light is constant and therefore all observers must agree that light travels at a constant speed, then the time measured for the distance travelled is arguable. Slightly confusing? Basically, using the previous example, if a stationary spaceship and a moving spaceship shot a laser, the speed of the laser would not change for the moving person, because light travels at a constant speed. But if the laser of the moving ship and the stationary ship is in the same position, and the ships are at different positions, doesn’t that mean the distance of the laser travelled away from the moving spaceship is less than that of the stationary one? Yes and no. Yes in the classical sense, but no in Einstein’s sense, as the measure of time taken for the distance travelled will be different. That is to say that the time taken for the movement will differ because time is relative to the person observing it.

Physics aside, this is not what the blog is about. What I’m actually interested and curious about is how the human mind interprets data if their given circumstances are different.

Understanding the idea that something is relative to something else is a real world idea that almost falls under common sense for most people. It’s quite obvious to most people that the reaction of a person is relative to the action imposed on him or her. But is it really? Imagine a person who is abusive toward their partner because he or she spent money that they do not have. In this case, is the reaction completely relative to the action? That is to say, is the abuse justified because of the woman’s initial actions?

Most people will say “no”. But if this is the case, then reactions of people are not merely relative to the actions igniting the emotional response. To understand the way a person behaves (and reacts) there must be something that another person can quanitify and relate to. Perhaps we are looking at the wrong idea, then. Perhaps we should not be looking for the relativistic action to the reaction, but rather looking for the relativistic emotional response; what is the emotional response relative to?

Human beings are indeed all different, and this is why the reaction of one person to the same action is different to another person, therefore reaction is most certainly not relative to action, but rather, relative to emotional intelligence. This doesn’t get us very far though, to say that emotional intelligence is the basis for how a person reacts. To fully understand this we must find what emotional intelligence is relative to.

And it’s very clear, actually. Emotional intelligence and responses are relative to understanding of the environment and world around us. This understanding is, however, based on upbringing and environment of the particular person. Right from the moment the person is born, the environment plays its toll. This is not merely the idea that abusive parents will bring up children who are worse off than other children, but rather analysing why the person’s parents are abusive. To understand this, we come to the conclusion that a person’s life does not start when he or she is born, but rather at the beginning, to when the environment started (the beginning of time).

This could almost absolve any human being of morally and ethically unjust actions, because those actions are not only a reaction of the present moment surrounding them, but the reaction of their parents upbringing, and their parents’ upbringing, and their parents. There is no end to the idea because everybody’s actions has a reaction, and those reactions are almost never directed at the initial person, therefore it’s past on.

Apologies for this blog entry, it’s a quick one and a lot of ideas coming out in one go.

One has to wonder what it must be like to be brought up in a strict religious household. The unnecessary pressure that is bestowed upon a young child to fulfill something that he or she will not understand until at least adulthood, sometimes their entire life. I found a very nicely made video which shows some ideas about what these people must go through, the ideas in their heads and what they must do in their life to make themselves right, even straight after birth.

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US resident, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.  I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.  When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.  A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.  Can you clarify?  Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.  In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24.  The problem is how do I tell?  I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9.  The problem is my neighbours.  They claim the odour is not pleasing to them.  Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.  Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.  Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.  I don’t agree.  Can you settle this?  Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.   I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.  Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.  How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).  He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.  Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

PS: It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian