Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll.  The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies.  So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship.  It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats.  You are not with your partner or children.  Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule?  Be honest – it is all anonymous!  Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my ‘religion’ to put the woman and child before myself, which is based on a personal interpretation of the Abrahamic texts. I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!

My Christmas Day Truth on Jesus Christ – The Pretended Saviour of the Universe

When one reads religious writings, such as the Abrahamic Texts, in my view they should be treated no differently to any other works. One can analyse or parody Shakespeare, and I wish to do the same with religious texts and religion.

For me it is clear in religious terms that Christ was a prophet – the second Messiah and Son  possibly. He was from the line of King David (who was the first Messiah), which King Solomon (the Second Messiah and first Son), which Mohammed (the Third Messiah and Son) also was. Christ made claims about the origin, nature and future of the planet.

In my self-determined faith/religion I am making up, best called ‘Non Conformist‘ – I have decided to also regard Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking to be prophets like Moses was, but not Messiahs. They made claims which on the basis of current science at the time they made them they were not entirely provable.

In is my view that Christ was not ‘crucified’. I personally think he did a deal with Pontius Pilate to pacify the Jews. Pilate said that Christ had committed no crime, and that he’d ‘wash his hands’ with the Jews.

So, reading the Gospels, there was this part where Doubting Thomas trues to prove Christ has ‘resurrected’ by putting his fingers though his hands. Thomas put his fingers through the centre of Christ’s hands and not his wrists, which proves to me Christ was not crucified the same as the others. Also, it is claimed that Christ spent 40 days in the desert, yet he only lasted a couple of hours on the Cross, so I find it unconvincing from a consistency point of view also.

It is known that the Roman’s ‘auctioned off’ all of Christ’s property between themselves. I think the purpose of this was so that when Christ was meant to have taken part in ‘assentation’, he was propertyless and therefore meek, like all those he said would inherit the earth. If he had not been ‘meek’ when he was ascended into heaven then he would have been a hypocrite.

Now turning to Paul and his conversion from Saul. I think it was Saul who wrote many of the unsigned  letters to the Romans and in fact Paul was a pseudonym used by Christ in the various letters he dictated to others following crucifixion. Christ had to dictate these letters because as he had holes in his hands and couldn’t write from his plams being nailed to the Cross and so Saul and others acted as a reasonable adjustment for him in continuing his good news message. Saul was not the only transcriber in my view, as one can see from Romans 16:22 another person, “Tertius”, transcribed that letter in place of Saul.

My interpretation of Romans 1 and 2 will be controversial from some, but reading them was essential to the inner-peace I find in myself today. In Romans 1, Paul has a complete condemnation on homosexuality, and in Romans 2 he defends it, saying those who condemn homosexuality will become homosexual themselves. I think this was based on Christ’s personal experiences working with Saul.

When I started having thoughts and feelings towards men, I found it completely disturbing. I thought I was becoming gay, and would therefore no longer be attracted to women, whose ‘assets’ I hold dear as desirable adornments to them, especially those which have been Photoshopped in ‘lad-mags’, but for which Photoshopping was not necessary in my first love!

So I became homophobic towards myself, but not towards other homosexuals in the way I treated them. In fact, while I was coming to terms with these experiences, I recruited the first two openly gay members to the Treforest Labour Party, and designed the discussion programme around things I thought they would be interested in, so that they felt more included and willing to participate.

My auto-homophobia didn’t reduce the thoughts they made them more powerful. And then I would have no control over them coming into my mind at times I would not want them. I have now accepted these thoughts.

So it could be that the reason Christ wrote Romans 1, was because he was having thoughts that he didn’t want towards Saul, who he became close to, and this was his way to deal with it. So although his auto-homophobia his thoughts then increased so that he became orientated towards men, which led to him writing Romans 2, where he said condemning homosexuality will make one homosexual also.

So as you can see, I don’t think Christ had any supernatural powers. I am not willing to believe in anything supernatural until the day science can fully explain it so it can become natural. I think Christ was a very advanced psychiatrist of his days. None of his miracles including making those whose legs were amputated grow again. Most of the people he helped had neurological problems that were acute and treatable. Though talking to people at length and knowing which parts of the mind to manipulate he acted like a placebo, giving people a sense of confidence and home they had overcome their problems. Nothing is said in the Abrahamic Texts about whether Christ’s interventions actually had any long-term efficacy. And so called miracles like ‘walking on water’ were actually misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Texts, as in this case it was simply a case of when Chris’s boat approached the seashore that he walked on the wet sands, or something like that so I’m told by a Christian Minister.

I’m convinced that Christianity was created not by Christ, but by the Romans. Many stories in the New Testament have been shown to relate to local folk-law, like the rolling back of the stone to Christ’s resting place. So the Muslims may be right that Christ was not actually crucified, nor may he have ascended into heaven. By being of David’s line, however, he could have be a Son, and also Messiah.

 

My position on ‘Christmas’

I regard King Solomon to be the only Desire of Nations to have existed – the anointed one of God. I regard Jesus and Mohammed to be Messiahs and Sons like Solomon, but neither managed to become Desire of Nations.

On this basis I will not be celebrating Christmas for religious purposes. I will only celebrate in when in the presence of children, for who I think the fantasy of Christmas should be an important part of the innocence of childhood. Therefore I will only be sending Christmas Cards and Presents to children, such as my nieces and nephews, and my own children eventually.

Any presents I’m given for Christmas when I’m not in the company of children I will open on New Years’ day, which is more significant to me. I tend to keep all my New Year resolutions, and as the person I judge myself against and compete is myself in the previous year(s). For example, 2008 was a rubbish year compared to 2007, as in 2007 I became an LLM and Chartered IT Professional and other than gaining public office, nothing much happened in 2008. 2010 was a good year, I got my first paper on law, and I became a Fellow of BCS. 2011 was reasonable, getting my MScEcon from Aberystwyth. I hope 2012 will be even better, where I aim to complete a doctorate, become a Chartered Scientist and gain Chartership of CILIP, among others.

I don’t mind people sending me Christmas Cards and Presents or saying ‘Happy Christmas’ or any translation into their own language – I’m not too keen on ‘Merry Christmas’, because Solomon as Desire of Nations was a King also and should therefore not have drank because he could lose track of his responsibilities and obligations.  I will however respond to these cards with New Year Cards, and open the presents on New Years’ Eve, so they can be used in the New Year. Anyone I buy presents for that isn’t a child will receive their present in the New Year.

Who gives a monkey’s?

I have kept this blog password protected all year, but since reading this article on The New Scientist website I feel I can come out of the cold.

When I was 21 I was sworn into the Anglican Church on the basis of a baptism and confirmation of my faith in the values and beliefs of Christianity. All I had read at the time were the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. My exposure to science was limited, but I’ve gone on to gain three science degrees – a BSc(Hon), MSc and MScEcon.

Over that period I have decided I do not wish to follow any way of life prescribed by any religion. I do however like the Christian message of tolerance and forgiveness, accept that the Old Testament’s conception of vengeance means that forgiveness can’t exist without it, like black can’t exist without white, or day without night. However, I put my faith in science so that it will be able to answer the questions about God one day, even though it can’t at the moment.

So what I am about to present may not be able to be proven or disproven by today’s science, but one day it definitely will be able to, if my faith becomes fact. When Charles Darwin wrote the “Origin of Species”, his theories were based on the best evidence available at the time, and many have been supported by modern science, others not. I think the ‘Great Flood’ story in the Bible was based on an actual event like a tsunami as historians suggest, and the writer of the story changed it to encourage people to believe in a higher power, called God.

The battle towards science and religion is on the basis that science can’t prove God, so that creates a conflict. Atheists regard this to mean God doesn’t exist. Christians, for example regard this to be that just because one can’t prove a higher power like God exist doesn’t mean it can’t – and they strongly believe God does exist and they see the prophets who gave voice the Bible as proving that. Both of these positions are protected in the UK by the Human Rights Act and Equality Acts.

I would like to suggest a consolidated view of evolution theory and creationism theory, where both can mutually exist and neither be wrong. This may be wide of the mark for devotees, but open minded scholar may find it thought provoking. I invite people to leave comments, and if they’re fair and balanced and non-offensive I will approve them.

What made Lucy so different from her ancestors? Courtesy: Columbia University
What made Lucy so different from her ancestors? Courtesy: Columbia University

Consider Adam and Eve. It is claimed that when they disobeyed God that he forced Eve to have more pains in pregnancy and because they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they both had better decision-making abilities. Interestingly, scientists have discovered a biological ancestor of ours, called Lucy, who was the missing link between earlier claimed ancestors and more obvious less old findings. The difference between Lucy and primates was primarily that she had better decision-making capabilities (like post-sin Adam and Eve) and better child rearing capabilities (like post-sin Eve). Some coincidence, eh?

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve and had three sons, who both had three wives – but it doesn’t say where they came from and the vicar of the church I was confirmed at couldn’t say either. It was this passage in Genesis 3 that started the loss in faith I had, as I could only assume at the time they were their sisters, but we all know that that causes evolutionary deformities and birth defects.

However, when I re-read Genesis 1 to 3, I had this strong sense that there was life outside the Garden of Eden. Genesis 1 appears to create beings (maybe Neanderthals) prior to createWhat if it followed that after God banished Adam and Eve from it that with their new knowledge and breeding capabilities they created their three sons, whose wives could only have been primates?

As wild as this may sound, scientists don’t know whether our ancestors species could or could not cross-fertilise with other species. If we have the view that science and religion are both compatible, then we can’t rule this out. It could be that Lucy was the offspring of one of Adam and Eve’s sons being crossed with a primate, and could explain why we have over 99% the same DNA as a chimpanzee, as we share a common ancestor.

As a scientist I think that for evolution theory to be at least 95% provable, it needs to be repeatable. At present only ‘natural selection’ is one of the few premises proven beyond reasonable doubt. But it may be that with advancements genetic science we could one day know whether the split between the primates that led to us and the ones that led to chimpanzees was because of those primates cross fertilisation with an advanced life form?

If evolution theory is to be proven at least 95% right, we will either have to replicating our ancestral path or find examples of other evolved life on this or other planets.

Does future science hold they key to our distant past?

We could, through ‘DNA regression’, match fossil records to a hypothesised ‘pre-human genome’ through advancing genetic research to the extent where we can generate a 3D computer model of what an organism would look like based on its DNA – as with dinosaurs in the sci-fi Jurassic Park. Then we can using this and doing the same with chimpanzee DNA, see what our common ancestor looked like. After that we could using embryonic research replicate it – then we will have the answers!

The other alternative is to find evidence of earlier intelligent life before us, with no links to us, from billions of years before we came into being, even before the dinosaurs, or on other planets. But then again, would this not confirm that Genesis 1, where ‘God’ tells people to go forth and multiply, is at a different point in history to when we existed, as is depicted in our creation through Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.

Privacy and God’s law

The privacy of children who do not know the consequence of their actions and those whom they may trust is sacrament. It was not until Adam and Eve started human’s evolutionary journey towards knowing as much as God through eating the forbidden fruit that they realised the consequences of their actions [Genesis 3:7]. This loss of innocence due to the deception of the serpent should not be repeated. Anyone who so denies a child of their innocence will need to ask for the forgiveness of Christ on the Day of Judgment.

Revelation says that on Judgment Day the forces of evil will be embodied in one man who shall go by the number of 666 [Revelation 13:18]. Therefore it is forbidden to number humans as if they were unsacred cows and by providing means to reveal their identity through the use of an identifying serial number in place of their real name, except on Judgment Day.

The privacy of public figures should be protected so as to protect those who worship them as idols against God’s law [Exodus 34:17], whom are not able to protect themselves from exploitation.

People should never forget that God is all seeing. Until the day that science has advanced to the stage that humans know as much as God then they shall use available scientific knowledge to ensure fellow humans know they are being watched over and protected.