Eye on Faith

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Are chickens really chicken?

(Photo by Andrei Niemimaki)

After noticing that her flock of chickens “screeched and ran in a hundred different directions” at the sight of her walking out of the garage with a straw broom, urban-farmer Audrey Pavia came to this conclusion: Chickens aren’t the bravest creatures on the planet.

Maybe not. But it’s instant stereotypes like these that enable humans to feel okay about subjecting chickens to conditions that even the bravest of humans could hardly endure.

Conditions within poultry “factory farms” are so bad that compassionate souls have taken to adopting hens who would otherwise be slaughtered when their egg “production” begins to wane. Most of these “torture camp” survivors live another four years

and continue to lay eggs. Not only that, they provide many a heartwarming (and dare we say “inspiring”) moment for their new families.

Chickens haven’t always been thought of as “chicken.” Wikipedia reports that Gallus gallus domesticus was once highly respected. Having migrated from India to Asia Minor, chickens finally made their way “to Greece by the fifth century BC.” In Greece, cocks were particularly known for their valor – so much so that even lions were portrayed by Aesop as being afraid of them.

However, even this portrayal is stereotypical. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) reports that “each bird has a different personality that often relates to his or her place in the pecking order. Some are gregarious and fearless, while others are more shy and watchful…” However, there are some commonalities – ones that may be surprising to folks who were raised on chicken jokes.

According to PETA: Scientists agree that chickens’ complex social structures and good memories are undeniable signs of advanced intelligence comparable to that of mammals. Perhaps that is why Jesus favorably references them in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34.

Therefore, it behooves us to be kind to our fine-feathered friends. For - as Jesus implied in these passages – every hen might be somebody’s brave and protective mother.

Resources

http://animaltracks.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/14/8738282-good-eggs-uk-charity-saves-factory-hens-from-slaughter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#Chickens_in_religion_and_mythology

http://www.urbanfarmonline.com/community-building-and-resources/urban-farm-bloggers/urban-farmer-audrey-pavia/chicken-expressions-lessons.aspx

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/hidden-lives-of-chickens.aspx

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:37&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:34&version=KJV

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Caution: Photoshopped beauty can easily fade

Rainer Maria Rilke (Modersohn-Becker)

Today’s “mirror, mirror on the wall” quest might end up with a Photoshopped response. Even the “fairest of them all” these days might have been airbrushed just a bit.

According to the ABC News Medical Unit, retouched photographs of “celebrities and models, who appear forever trim and blemish-free, may affect how children view their own bodies.” There have even been studies showing a link between manipulated photos and eating disorders. One proposed solution is that such photos carry warning labels with ratings from “one (minimally

altered) to five (starkly changed).” Another solution could be for parents to teach their children a variety of perspectives about beauty.

According to Islamic Insights, the Qur’anic verse (32:7) tells us that “all creation is beautiful.” That being said, Islam also tells us that physical beauty “is just like any other material and perishable trait such as wealth, rank, and occupation.” These traits have no intrinsic value unless accompanied by “inner beauty (piety and good moral traits).” Real beauty is defined as only that which “we carry with us in our journey to the hereafter: our good deeds.”

Poet Rainer Maria Rilke waxes eloquently about age-old mythological dragons that turn into beautiful princesses when recognized for who they really are inside. He then continues with this philosophy: … perhaps all the dragons of our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us once beautiful and brave. Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us.

Albert Einstein - whose perceptions of life seemed quite “religious” at times – not only viewed all of “the whole called by us universe” as beautiful, but also as integrally connected. He, along with many mystics, claimed that humans suffer from “a kind of optical delusion” in which we see ourselves as separated from the rest. He advised that we free ourselves from this delusional “prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

Resources

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/photoshopped-images-carry-warning-labels/story?id=15060113

http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/religion/our-perception-of-beauty.html

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/topics/beauty/index3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainer_Maria_Rilke

Monday, December 5, 2011

Tom and Taj: Icon to icon

Taj Mahal (Photo by Jbarta)

Larger-than-life photos of Tom Cruise standing in front of the Taj Mahal have been hitting newsstands this past week. Alongside them are quotes by the film icon, who told this to the Associated Press: I wanted to come to India my whole life, so I am very excited.

Would Cruise have been just as excited if he knew what

iconoclasts have been saying about this famed UNESCO

World Heritage Site? Is he aware that various groups of

theorists have been claiming (1) that the Taj Mahal is not even its real name (2) that it is actually a Hindu temple, and (3) that it is much more of a testament to personal and political ego than it ever was to romantic and eternal love (which must be particularly tough for a lover like Cruise, who leapt upon Oprah’s couch while proclaiming his passion for Katie Holmes).

It’s hard to ignore all hundred-and-eight of P. N. Oak’s alleged facts about the “True Story” of the “Tajmahal.” Although Oak has been branded a “mythistorian” – and even a “crackpot” – there is something intriguing about his line of reasoning. Here are some of his 108 points: "...The term Taj Mahal is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit term TejoMahalay signifying a Shiva Temple… The people who dominate the Agra region are Jats. Their name for Shiva is Tejaji... A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj subjected to the carbon 14 test by an American laboratory has revealed the door to be 300 years older than Shahjahan…”

As for Shah Jahan’s motives? In 1993, authors Amina Okada and M. C. Joshi stated this opinion: “ … the Taj Mahal is a mausoleum far too imposing to commemorate the memory of one woman, even the favorite wife of an emperor… behind the monument’s beauty and majesty of form… is an autocratic ruler vaunting his grandeur and munificence to the world…”

If this sounds somewhat harsh, consider the very nature of icons. Whether they be kings, entertainers, or works of art – their grandeur is often more mirage than reality.

Resources

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/taj_mahal.html

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/03/tom-cruise-visits-india_n_1126952.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Oprah-Shows-Most-Shocking-Moments_1/6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._N._Oak

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Joel Osteen: Keeping it real

In a sort of “Extreme Community Makeover,” Joel Osteen and his mega-church members will be serving TV viewers some slices of ministry reality.

This is not the first time that Osteen, who Reuters reports “leads the largest U.S. church congregation,” has been asked to do a television series. However, this is the first time that Osteen felt that such a series would be “a good fit for the ministry.” This time around, he had been approached by producer Mark Burnett (think Survivor,

The Apprentice, and Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?), whom Osteen describes as a man with likeable values who knows what this ministry is all about.

For those who don’t yet know what this ministry is all about (and wish to have a little preview of coming TV attractions), here is a brief synopsis (minus the “candid-camera” drama).

Osteen, who has been named “Most Influential Christian in America” by The Church Report in 2006, has never attended seminary. He instead received training from his father, a “former Southern Baptist pastor” who went on to found Lakewood Church and develop it into a “body of approximately 6,000 members with an active television ministry, conferences, missionary support and food distribution.” (Joel Osteen’s continued interest in television is not surprising since he spent 17 years producing Lakewood’s television program before succeeding his father as pastor of that church.)

Joel Osteen’s message has been seemingly simple – and yet it has stirred controversy within certain Christian circles. According to Wikipedia, Osteen claims to “focus on the goodness of God rather than sin” and also upon “the power of love and a positive attitude.” Wikipedia also reports that Osteen’s use of “prosperity theology” concepts in his sermons and writings has resulted in criticism from those who don’t feel that “wealth and power are rewards for pious Christians.”

Television audiences will soon be able to see for themselves some fruits of Osteen’s message.

Resources

http://news.yahoo.com/mega-church-minister-osteen-signs-reality-tv-series-233714719.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Burnet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Cruisin' with Cruise: Making waves with Scientology

Freewinds (Photo: Mary-Austin & Scott)

According to Brian Palmer of Slate, guests who cruise on the Scientology ship Freewinds (no, not The Love Boat – this is serious stuff) might even be serenaded by Tom Cruise. That is, when they’re not getting educated and counseled “most days …from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m., with one-hour breaks for lunch and dinner.”

Think it might be easy to ditch this schedule in favor of a quick dip in the pool? Well, think again. You might soon find yourself in front of the “ethics officers” – explaining why swimming is an integral part of your plan for achieving Operating Thetan Level VIII.

If you’re scratching your head and saying “Sounds Greek to me…” – you’re on the right track. An explanation from the scientology.org website states that “the individual himself is considered to be the spiritual being,” and is called a thetan (“taken from the Greek symbol or letter theta which has long served as a symbol for thought or spirit”). Scientology bills itself as “heir to the understanding of thinking men since the

beginning of human history…”

It also bills itself as a “new religious movement” - and the “religious” part of that phrase has caused quite a stir in certain circles. Although some have claimed that Scientology is not an authentic religion, Professor of Religious Studies Irving Hexham (who is decidedly not a Scientologist) concludes that it is. Hexham readily admits that “scholars offer many different definitions of religion…” He chooses this one by Professor Ninian Smart for purposes of determining the “religious” aspects of Scientology: A set of institutionalized rituals identified with a tradition and expressing and/or evoking sacral sentiments directed at a divine or trans divine focus seen in the context of the human phenomenological environment and at least partially described by myths or by myths and doctrines.

Apparently, Hexham sees key elements of Scientology matching up with key elements of Smart’s definition of religion. That being said, Hexham goes on to remind his readers that calling Scientology a “genuine” religion is not the same thing as calling it a “true” (or a “false”) religion.

Now that’s a lot to chew on right there – which could be why guests aboard the Freewinds are allotted regular meal times within their otherwise tightly-packed schedules.

Resources

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/scient.html

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part01/Chp02/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/valeska_paris_and_the_scientology_cruise_ship_what_happens_onboard_.html

Friday, December 2, 2011

Invisibility: Can God see Harry Potter?

Eye of Providence (by Solipsist)

Now that scientists are well on their way to replicating the chief characteristic of Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak, two ultimate questions come to mind: Is invisibility a spiritual benefit? And… Is it even possible to be spiritually invisible?

In an article titled Scientist creates thermal ‘invisibility cloak,’

Amanda Guerra reports that a physicist at the University of Texas at Dallas has created this “cloak” from several strands of carbon nanotubes. This material “becomes so hot when heated up that it can bend light around an object, making it look as if it has disappeared.” This technology can be eventually used to make large objects, “such as military tankers,” appear to disappear.

Such military uses of technology can be (and have been) heartily debated. However, you hardly ever hear a coffee-break conversation that focuses upon the spiritual pros and cons of invisible people. If such a conversation were to exist (which already sounds appropriately philosophical), what might be some major points to ponder?

Well first off, there’s that nagging Eye of Providence (otherwise known as the All-Seeing Eye of God). As its name implies, total invisibility is neither a wave of the future nor the past (and its prospects for the present

are looking equally dim). Ignotus Peverell might have been able to ditch Death for the short run, but God wasn’t fooled for a mortal minute. Whether it be through the Egyptian Eye of Horus, the Buddhist Eye of the World, the Hindu Third Eye, or the Esoteric Great Seal – God’s vision has been beyond 20/20 for many a year. If that weren’t intimidating enough, God’s omniscience is also reportedly well intact.

Does this mean that invisibility is spiritually defunct? Perhaps in reality, but certainly not in principle. In fact,

Jesus sometimes seemed to applaud invisibility. (From Matthew 6:6: “But when you pray, go into your room…”) Some even say that Jesus had once donned his own version of an invisibility cloak. (From Luke

4:30: “But passing through the midst of them, he went away...”)

Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloak_of_invisibility

http://thejesusvirus.org/2011/06/22/the-public-invisibility-motif/

http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1307

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45226591/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Sekhmet phone home

Sekhmet (by Jeff Dahl)

Now that lions are sending text messages (as reported by Rob Adams of Newsoxy.com), it’s time for Sekhmet to phone home.

She whose breath is said to have created the desert is an ancient Egyptian goddess with the head of a lioness. She has also been known as Sachmet, Sachmis, Sakhet, Sekmet, Sakhmet and Sekhet during her 3,000-year heyday. These names are derived from the Egyptian word Sekhem, which

means “power” or “might.” This power was used both creatively and destructively since Sekhmet was the goddess of both war and healing. She was also very much associated with the sun, and was sometimes known as the “Eye of Ra.”

Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god, was said to have once been angry with humans because they were not following his laws of justice and balance(Ma’at). He therefore sent his “Eye” (Sekhmet) to take care of business. When the fields began running with human blood (to say that Sekhmet had a temper would be an understatement), the kinder and gentler Ra decided that enough was enough. However, Sekhmet was beyond stopping at that point. Ra therefore had to resort to clever subterfuge.

Because of Sekhmet’s “blood lust” about the whole affair, Ra deceived her by mixing 7,000 jugs of beer with pomegranate juice. (Caution: Do not try this at home, it might stain the carpet.) Thinking this was

human blood, Sekhmet slurped it up with abandon. The more she gorged, the drunker she got. The alcohol soon drowned all the fight in her. Humanity (for better or for worse) was saved.

Now that’s certainly something to phone home about.

Resources

http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/lions-send-text-messages-40802.html

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/Sekhmet.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhmet