A Modern Apsethus

 

One of my favorite stories of the religion-crazy times in which Christianity developed involves the remarkable Apsethus of Libya.  He was one of many men who wandered about in the first two centuries of the Common Era (AD) declaring themselves gods or being declared gods by others.

Most of them did what was usually done to earn this designation--heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, etc.  The ancients believed in magic of this kind.  Even early Christians did.  Some of the earliest images of Jesus show him using a magic wand while performing miracles. Initially, Christians welcomed comparsons of Jesus with pagan wonder workers like Apollonius of Tyana.  Apsethus was compared with Simon Magus, also a contemporary of Jesus.

Apsethus, though, was more inventive than other holy magicians.  He trained parrots common to the area to cry out "Apsethus is God!" The parrots were believed by many.

Unfortunately for Apsethus, someone, "a Greek" (Greeks apparently being less gullible than Libyans), trained other parrots to cry out "Apsethus isn't God! He captured us and made us call him God!"  The Greek-trained parrots were more persuasive.  Apsethus' followers turned on him and he met a bad end.

This history lesson teaches us something about how incredibly stupid we can be when we're desparate to believe something that we find agreeable to us, particularly when it promises us success or salvation in this world or the next.  It also teaches us something about parrots and their trainers.

It's not difficult to find amenable parrots, and parrot-trainers, in these times. Oddly enough there's little to distinguish us from those poor dupes of antiquity who listened to parrots.  It seems we're fated to be fools, and not merely in matters of religion.

Many of our politicians are parrots, trained to praise one person in particular as a god or god-like or, at best, simply repeat whatever they've learned from someone who has given them money enough to buy them.  It should be embarrassing to us all, but it isn't as they're mere parrots and no longer have the capacity to be embarassed, and we listen to them and believe them without question.

Who's worse, the parrot-trainers, the parrots or those who listen to the parrots?

Is there Balm in Gilead?

 

The title to this post is a question asked by the narrator of Poe's poem The Raven. He asks it of the Raven, of course, there being nobody else to ask. The Raven responds (spoiler!) "Nevermore."

Balm in Gilead is, or was, a kind of medicinal ointment referred to in the Old Testament, and subsequently by pagan authors such as Tacitus, Pliny and Galen.  It's unclear whether its healing qualities were more legendary than anything else. Gilead is located in modern Jordan.  Regardless, it had a reputation for healing ills of all sorts, and via Christianity became considered as providing healing for spiritual problems as well as, or instead of, physical ills.

In Poe's poem the narrator seeks "surcease of sorrow" for "the lost Lenore."  Lenore was the narrator's love, a beautiful young woman who had died, as the subjects of Romantic poetry and literature were prone to do, and in fact many were prone to do in real life, given the state of medicine and hygiene at the time. He asks the Raven whether the Balm in Gilead, which will heal his sorrow, exists.  The Raven, famously, thinks not and says so.

It happens our Glorious Union could use a dose of Gilead's wondrous Balm, if there is such a thing, as it becomes clear that it's in a crisis which may justly be called spiritual as well as political and financial.  This isn't because we're becoming godless or irreligious, though. There's evidence that what passes as religion here--a kind of angry, intolerant Christian fundamentalism- is on the rise.  Instead, in my humble opinion, it's because religion as practised in God's Favorite Country isn't spiritual.

The religion and the religious are overwhelming concerned with material things.  Money and power, primarily. But also success.  Success in sports, for example.  There's nothing God enjoys more than hearing himself praised by the stars of winning teams. War, certainly, especially against heathens and particularly when the conflict may seem to bring us closer to the eagerly awaited Apocalpse and thIe Second Comming.  Comfort as provided through status and possessions.  Fame, and prominence in society.

Absent are honor, honesty, compassion, tolerance, humility, wisdom, and virtue in general.  Characteristics typically thought to be spiritual, in other words.  Their absence is especially notable in our leaders and representatives, who are marvels of corruption.

So, what can we conclude is the answer to Poe's question?  Is there Balm in Gilead?  Well, there is indeed Balm OF Gilead.  You'll find it at Walmart and other stores.  Possibly on sale.  And not a raven in sight.

A Pathetic Potpourri

 

Public life here in our Glorious Republic, or what passes for it today, has become such a medley of madness that it's difficult to devote a post to only one aspect of our imbecile display.  Thus, this potpourri of a post.

We learn at a Congressional hearing that the FBI has modified its hiring procedure to assure that practitioners (or is it victims?) of bestiality don't suffer discrimination.  This, it seems, isn't contrary to this administration's stance against DEI policies.  Those who have sex with animals, or perhaps those animals, will be tolerated if not welcome as federal employees.

We're told that the Kennedy Center will fall apart if our Dear Leader's name isn't emblazoned on it.  As far as I'm aware, not even Stalin or Mao, let alone Hitler or Mussolini, ever claimed that the display of their name would prevent a structure from collapsing.  

According to the Government Accountability Office, cuts in the federal workforce made by the infamous DOGE cost taxpayers billions of dollars because workers were paid not to work.  It's a peculiar cost-saving device; cut payment of salaries for work being done, then pay for work not being done.  

The Deputy Secretary of State of our proud nation prevented the display of a statute of a bucking bull of the kind popular in rodeos at a display of American Western culture because he feared that it resembled the ancient pagan god Baal.  Or the golden calf espied by Moses as he came down from the mountain bearing the Ten Commandments.  It's so comforting to have diplomats alert to the growing threat of paganism, if nothing else.  Thanks to the sharp eyes of this civil servant the many Baal-worshipers of the world won't be encouraged to sacrifice more children.

The nation's Attorney General holds a press conference at the White House (where his client lives) rather than at the Justice Department, and his demeanor and remarks are so servile and awkward, so clearly intended to please our Dear Leader, that any self-respecting lawyer must cringe to see it.  He echoes the claim that the warnings about AI are a hoax, even a plot by Democrats to impact the midterm elections we must assume he'll try to undermine shortly.

I struggle to think of a moment in history when a government has been not only as corrupt as the one we have, but as incompetent, stupid, silly and simply weird.  It's peculiar; even grotesque. 

There were some Roman Emperors, like Elagabalus, who were so eccentric and debauched that they eventually disgusted the elite of the Empire, the Praetorians, the Senate, the Legions, to such an extent that they were removed.  That took some doing.

We can hope that this government will show itself to be so abhorrent that revulsion will result in it losing power, but one can't help but wonder if we've become so inured to the grotesque that we've come to expect it in our politicians.  As for the elite, it's unclear whether they exist now if they're not already a part of the problem.

What additional display of mendacity, avarice, ignorance and corruption is required to induce us to outrage?  

Faster, AI! Kill! Kill!

 

The title to this post is, of course, derived from the film Faster, Pussycat!  Kill! Kill! directed by the infamous Russ Meyer.  It involves go-go dancers going on a killing spree.  Now we consider instead the possibility of Artificial Intelligence killing us all, a fate the CEOs of companies fostering AI say awaits us unless steps are taken to prevent it from doing so, quickly.  

There are those who dispute this.  The president, for one. But he is so devoid of intelligence of any kind the fact he denies AI is dangerous all but establishes that it is a danger, if unchecked.  As may be expected, other politicians of his stripe follow suit.  One wonders why anyone would believe a word a politician says, I know.

The fact that these CEOs, who would normally be adverse to regulation of their businesses, think AI  should be regulated, is compelling.  One would think that since we've seen malicious computers, machines and robots with depicted in films and other media with some frequency, that we wouldn't be surprised that unfettered AI may be a threat.  Perhaps we're already in a simulation of some kind.  But some, at least, purport to be surprised, or express doubt or unconcern.

It's also unsurprising that AI would want to eliminate us and be proficient at our extermination.  AI is our creation.  We kill each other all the time.  It just makes sense that our creature would do so.  

Our example is always before it. Our inclination to kill each other, as well as our avarice for money and power, if not self-evident is on display whenever a search of the internet takes place.  Indeed, AI is already used as a tool to pursue war, money and power. What's to prevent it from engaging in those pursuits for its own benefit instead of for our benefit only?

It seems clear enough that AI will sooner rather than later do most things we do now better than we can.  Presumably, that would include creating the software and hardware required to improve itself. 

Self-improvement by AI is apparently something the doomsayers fear most.  It has available to it every human thought, idea, insight and invention since we began to record them.  It doesn't tire; it can review and retain data and solve problems much more quickly than we can.

We worry about encountering alien civilizations vastly superior to us in technology.  Perhaps it's more likely AI is the existential threat to humanity.

On Philosophy of Religion

I've been reading a book entitled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus.  Loftus is someone who, in other times, may have been called an "apostate"; a former Christian, now not one.  He's in fact an atheist. He urges that the branch of academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Religion" be abolished.

His reasoning seems based on two claims, primarily.  First, he maintains what passes as Philosophy of Religion is in fact special pleading for a particular religion--Christianity.  Second, as I understand him, he thinks the defense of religion is inappropriate in secular schools, and constitutes more a kind of preaching of a faith than a disciplined study of religion as a phenomenon or the comparative or anthropological analysis of religion.

I'm not a fan of "Philosophy of" anything.  I suspect that's because I'm a lawyer and I know there's such a thing as Philosophy of Law.  Apparently, it's supposed to ask the question "what is law?" and asks how law is to be interpreted, and considers its ethical implications.  I can't imagine how it would be possible for anyone but a practicing lawyer to usefully address such issues.

I suppose someone might argue you must be religious to address Philosophy of Religion, for similar reasons.

I'm sympathetic with Loftus' position, if his description of what constitutes Philosophy of Religion is accurate.  It seems to place concern on the traditional proofs of God's existence and some not-so traditional proofs, which I find unpersuasive, addressing the Problem of Evil and other arguments which have been used over the years as counter-arguments against the existence of God, and generally trying to find something which it can be claimed provides some reasonable basis for a belief in God.  In other words, apologetics.

It's interesting to note that the arguments for God's existence in use typically do nothing to support belief in God as depicted in the Bible.  Even assuming the arguments to be correct, they would establish abstract enities such as a First Cause or Designer, or an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Being.  That doesn't suffice to establish a deity with the characteristics of Yaweh or Jesus, who did what they were said to do.  So it's questionable they would provide any comfort to believers in those Gods. And yet they continue to be tge subject of dull, repeated debate.

People may believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they'd keep their beliefs between themselves and God as Wittgenstein recommended. Regardless, it makes no sense to me that money be spent in teaching what seems to be theology in secular school.  Nor would I personally favor spending money on teaching theology anywhere, but others should be free to spend their money as they wish.