Update no.1213

 Update from the Sunland

No.1213

7.4.25 – 13.4.25

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

From a separate thread discussion, a topic that began as a derivative of the current administration’s abysmal offensive against transgender citizens morphed into a discussion of truth. The following contribution is rather long, and my response is long as well. I elected to include this exchange ‘as-is’ since I feel it is informative and thought-provoking within the purpose of this humble forum. I trust the reader will find the same stimulation.

The contributor’s submission:

“I'm glad you brought up the rising of the sun every 24 hours as well as making mention of religious texts. The two ideas serve as a good example of the wide gulf between the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East and that of the modern West. We in the West compartmentalize the two arenas of life, the natural and the spiritual. Of course, for many, there is no such thing as a spiritual world at all. But to those that do believe in a spiritual world, it is usually segregated from the natural world. The modern West make a distinction between the natural world and the spiritual world. There is science and there is religion. It’s easy to accept one and reject the other. To many, science is accepted as truth and religion as myth. Given our culture, it’s quite logical to come to that conclusion. After all, thanks to science we know that the sun rises every 24 hours because our globe rotates in space. But the earth being created in 6 days defies all science and is thus discounted as a fairy tale. 

“However, the people of the Ancient Near East made absolutely no distinction between the natural world and the spiritual world. The two were inextricably bound together. To even speak of a natural world and a spiritual world would make no sense whatsoever. The sun rose, not because the earth makes a complete rotation every 24 hours, but because that is what the power of the sun god made it do. Gullible? While easy to give a resounding “yes, of course, it’s a ridiculous idea!” I would suggest that had you lived 6,000 years ago, that is exactly what you would have thought.

“What are the concerns about the nature of life in the modern West when reading Genesis? The following offers some typical questions raised by many who read Genesis:

1.     How long is a day?

2.     How can a snake talk?

3.     Was the flood local or global?

4.     What about evolution?

5.     How did people live so long?

6.     Where is the original Tower of Babel?

Genesis offers no answers to those questions. Genesis is not a science book. 

Here’s a list of some of the concerns of those who lived in the Ancient Near East:

1.     How many gods are there?

2.     Which gods should we follow?

3.     What do the gods require from us?

4.     Will I have sons?

5.     Is idolatry OK?

6.     Is Marduk really the king of gods?

I’ll use Genesis chapter 1 & 2 as an example of how we should read the Bible, of what it is trying to communicate. Genesis is not about what the Modern West thinks, but about what the Ancient Near East thought. It does not purport to give a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. Was God supposed to explain the expanding universe to them? Was He supposed to delve into the intricacies of atoms, quarks, and leptons? No! Genesis, as well as the whole of scripture, addressed their concerns, not ours. The scriptures explain the spiritual world, how it affects the natural world (again, they really made no such distinction), and visa versa.

“Specifically, the creation account in Genesis explains that God created a safe place for people to dwell with Him. It explains how it went from an uninhabitable wilderness (Genesis 1:2) to a place that was, ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:27), a place where humans could thrive.

“The word ‘good’ deserves some attention. Our minds immediately go to something that is moral or ethical. But to the people to whom the scriptures were given, the word “good” means something that is functional, something that works as designed. Evil, on the other hand, meant something that was dysfunctional. Good was essential for an orderly and just society. Evil, dysfunction, destroyed the order and introduced chaos. Genesis said that as long as people trusted God’s idea of what worked and what didn’t work, what was functional and what was dysfunctional, they would be just fine. He also warned them that if they tried to determine what worked and what didn’t work for themselves, chaos would reign. I don’t think anybody can deny that we live, not in a orderly world, but one filled with chaos, thus giving credence to the real message of Genesis.

“The 7^th day, the day God ‘rested’ is usually glossed over as a mere added comment. But it was that day that the real purpose of the previous 6 days was given. While it is all too easy to assume that God resting meant He sat on a couch, eating popcorn, and watching Netflix. But that is another case of reading our mindset into the text instead of viewing it from an Ancient Near Eastern worldview. In the Ancient Near East a god rested in a temple. The temple was the center of all activity in a city. The people would go to the temple to present their petitions and receive answers from the god who dwelt in that temple. It was where the god worked to maintain justice and order within society. It was understood that if the people dissed the god in any way, that god would leave and the people would lose the protection offered by the god.

“A comparison between the Garden of Eden, the tabernacle, and later the temple will show that the Eden was the temple in which God dwelt and maintained order. Had Adam and Eve trusted in God’s idea of functionality, everything would have been fine. But they decided they themselves could determine what worked and what didn’t work. As a result Yahweh, like any other god, abandoned them to their own devices. As I said above, it didn’t work out very well for Adam, Eve, and all their descendants. So we are where we are today because of that. The upshot is that the 7^th day, far from being a mere postscript, was the key to the whole account. That is how the Ancient Near East would have seen things. It’s how the account was given. Genesis does not explain the nuts and bolts of the physical creation.

“A key element in the creation story is seen in Genesis in Genesis 1:22, where God told Adam & Eve to reproduce and fill the entire earth with people who would trust His ideas instead of their own. That was a major part of the “good” i.e. the proper functioning of society. It is quite obvious why homosexuality was dysfunctional. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. Homosexuality is decidedly at cross purposes of filling the earth with people who lived in paradise. But then so is lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. None of those things would lead to a just and equitable society (God’s idea of DEI is radically different than man’s idea). In that sense, homosexuality is really no different than lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. All of them are at cross purposes with God’s desire to live in a world filled with humans.

“Today, man is hell bent on determining good and evil, what works and what doesn’t work. I think the state of our society speaks for itself. Man is utterly incapable of deciphering good from evil, functional from dysfunctional. It started with Adam & Eve wanting to be gods (Gen 3:5) and to this day, it hasn’t stopped one bit. Man wants to be God. Man wants to call the shots. Man wants to determine truth.

“I might also point out that God gave man dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26). Contrary to orthodox church doctrine, God is decidedly not in charge. Many blame the state of the world on God, but the world today is what man has made it. It is certainly not God’s idea of how society should be. Along with dominion, God gave man free will. He did not create robots. God would tell man what worked, but the man could believe Him or they could go their own way.

“That leads to the question of who defines good and evil? Who decides what works for an orderly society and what destroys it? This gets to the heart of the meaning of truth. Who decides truth? The modern West tends to let truth up to the individual (of course that leads to many truths, which makes the very definition of truth null and void). The scriptures say:

Ps 119:160:

Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.

John 17:17:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

There are countless other verses that make the same claim. Of course believing that the scriptures reveal the truth is purely optional. Genesis shows God giving Adam a choice of who to trust. It remains that way to this day. 

“Any thoughts on all of this, Cap?”

My response to the above contribution:

You asked, “Any thoughts on all of this [the above], Cap?” My answer is yes. I spent most of my life thinking about such things, since I began reading religious texts including the Bible. To be clear, I am not a theologian. I am only and just a curious citizen. Unfortunately, my reply will take a few days (due to other exigencies of life).

First and foremost, you (as well as any free person) are entitled to believe what you wish to believe for whatever reason you wish to believe. It is not my place to question or challenge your beliefs . . . as long as those beliefs remain personal and private to you. When those beliefs enter the public domain in the form of laws or other enforcement mechanisms, i.e., imposition on others, I shall object and resist.

To my knowledge, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) was written by human beings two millennia and more ago. I see many reasons why those human beings wrote the words. Humanity has had to translate those writings into various languages across those millennia.

It is interesting and intriguing that Christian scholars have pegged God’s creation of the universe circa 23.10.4004 BC [using the Gregorian calendar as a time metric]. Anthropologists marked recorded human history (writing) at roughly six millennia ago. Odd . . . the coincidence.

There are a lot of things I would have believed if I had lived six millennia ago. Most (if not all) of those beliefs would have been driven by the knowledge of the day, i.e., they had no way to understand physics, astrophysics, geology, anthropology, and such. Science has evolved our knowledge.

Let it suffice to say, I do not view Genesis in any different light than Leviticus. Both are the best they knew all those millennia ago.

Just so we are clear . . . to me, there is no better example of religion getting it wrong than the Church’s persecution of Galileo Galilei. [It took the Church three centuries to confess its mistake, a little late for Galileo and for the advancement of human knowledge.]

I do not see Genesis as “God’s word.” I see the text as human beings of those long past days attempting to explain their belief in God and His work. The Old Testament, in large measure, portrays a vengeful God, punishing humans for their transgressions. We can certainly argue the intention or purpose of that general portrayal, but as you have noted, the text was written millennia ago and represents the beliefs of the day. The New Testament takes a more humanistic portrayal in the form of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, proclaimed the Son of God and thus speaking for Him. The contrast between the Old and New Testaments is informative and instructive.

I have been accused (by more than a few) of cherry-picking religious texts for contemporary purposes. The implication (to me) being, I should accept the “word of God” in toto rather than selective usage. I would say, if I had a mind to do so, I stand guilty as charged. I see enduring, wise, and useful guidance in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that apply to contemporary life regardless of the religious source of those words or elapsed time. I cannot and do not see the same usefulness in the words of Leviticus; quite the contrary, I see Leviticus as injurious. Yes, there are pearls of value, but they are rare from my perspective.

This exchange began with a different topic but transitioned to ‘truth.’ My contention has been and remains that facts are truth. Faith is not truth since it is not based on facts. That does not lessen the importance or significance of faith, but non-factual assessments required considerably more thought to corroborate or build a clear(er) view of truth. I would be remiss if I did not say that the opinions of human beings including clergy are prone to all sorts of distraction, deflection, obfuscation, distortion, and outright malfeasance. I have too many instances of failed and flawed clergy. I also become immediate suspect when a ‘holy man’ who claims to speak for God; he wants us to believe because he says so. To me, that is a bridge too far. Some things, some principles, are not factual and we must choose to believe. So be it. I choose to seek facts.

I truly appreciate your generous contribution of time to articulate your beliefs. For that, I thank you. There is so much to discuss/debate in this topic, so I shall leave that choice to you.

 

I grew up in the 1950s. One of the huge societal issues of those days was the public use of low dose Fluoride in our drinking water to reduce dental problems. The conservatives of the day screamed that it was a communist plot to subjugate We, the People. I grew up drinking fluoridated water, and I do not believe I am subservient to anyone, and I still have all of my original teeth in fine shape; thank you very much. To be frank, I believe science dealt with this matter decades ago that is until President (no name) nominated, and the Senate confirmed Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., to be secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). He has directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending the fluoridation of local water supplies. This is exactly regression, seeking ignorance over knowledge, defying long established science. I publicly and emphatically condemn the secretary’s action. He is wrong. He is harming a generation or more of our children and susceptible adult citizens, just as he has done with vaccines. The children of Texas are paying a terrible price for such ignorance.

 

We have the bozo-in-chief of this ridiculous clown show messaging the world within the chaos he has created all by himself . . . 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t’ be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people) Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!

Apr 02, 2025, 8:59 AM

This whole sordid episode of the on-again, off-again, on-again-but-my-buddies-are exempt chaos is beginning to stink with the nauseating stench of market manipulation and  insider trading. If anyone else had been president, I probably would not be so suspicious, but President [no name] has a long and disgusting history as a con-man stealing from innocent people with impunity to enrich himself or his buddies. To be frank and blunt, what he did is dreadfully close to criminal conduct.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the president’s authority to detain and deport Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the U.S. State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization—Trump v. J.G.G. [604 U. S. ____ (2025)]. The Court vacated the district and appeals court rulings that granted a temporary restraining order (TSO), which in turn allows the administration to take such aggressive unilateral action. The 5-4 majority confined themselves to the administration of judicial review of Executive action and conveniently ignored the elephant in the room. The dissent did not. 

The president cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 [PL 5-II-066; 1 Stat. 577] as his authority to do what he is doing. As noted above, the majority chosen not to deal with that question. The first sentence of the Act says:

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizen, denizens, or subject of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

The key element of the law the administration cites is a “declared war.” The last time I read the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Now, in this instance, the president has publicly declared that we are being invaded by TdA (and others) and thus he can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. He is clearly and emphatically wrong. There is no declaration of war against another nation or entity since Congress last properly passed a declaration of war that was signed by the president on 11.December.1941. Congress has not passed an authorization to use military force either. The majority’s 

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, concluded, “The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.” Justice Jackson also wrote a dissenting opinion and concluded, “With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”

I am struck by the profound paucity of due process, and the Court’s monumental neglect of that fact as well as the lack of a proper war declaration. We already know of one green card holder was illegally sent to the notorious Cecot prison in El Salvador without so much as a how do you do, so which is precisely the kind of nefarious thing that happens without due process of the law. Why should we believe what he says in this case, or any case for that matter? He asks us to believe all of the deportees are or were members of TdA, and we know at least one was not (ever). Why should we believe his contention and declaration? [No name] directly and blatantly defied a valid court order, and the Supremes de facto sanctioned that defiance. The Court’s negligence is shocking and portends back things to come for exactly the reason provided by Justice Jackson.

 

A frequent and consistent contributor sent a short message and the URL for a very interesting article that I include below.

“Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription.

“Ideology May Not Be What You Think but How You’re Wired.

“In her new book, “The Ideological Brain,” the neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod outlines what makes some people prone to rigid thinking.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/science/ideology-neuroscience-politics-zmigord.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-U4.cTgz.yqHPWflAg4zX&smid=em-share

To which, I replied:

Excellent. It explains a lot. The salient question seems to be, how do we treat "rigid thinking."

I am an eternal guarded optimist. As such, I believe a solution is out there to break the intransigence of contemporary politics. While the calcified parochialism of the last ten years, and given our experience in the same time span, I cannot imagine finding that path forward as long as [the person who shall no longer be named] remains involved or influencing the political arena. We can only hope the MAGAts eventually see him for what he is and seek a new course to the future.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1212:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Felon loses popularity by the day, and Just Don’t Vance is faring pretty badly in that department as well. Felon’s surrounded by sycophants rather than the competent this time. Group-think with him at the helm is a recipe for disaster.

“A story making the rounds of the Internet says that the Felon’s motive for tariffs is to crash the economy so the very wealthy might buy up the injured companies cheaply. That happened during the Great Depression.

“The ‘intelligence’ community has sustained plenty of damage from Laura Loomer, but others are also harming them; the Secretary of Defense is one more.

“I’m sad the MAGAts came for the universities.

“Other commenter, again: teaching the reality of something doesn’t endorse it, whether that’s Fascism, sex and gender, or the evils of Christian history.

“The Christian Bible (any version) doesn’t strike me or the Founders of this country as a source of ultimate truth, if there is any such thing. There’s wisdom in spots, especially the Synoptic Gospels, but the Christian “Lord God” isn’t an entity I could work with if he exists.

“Transgender people are under attack, which is newsworthy.”

My response to the Blog:

Oh my, you got that right! When you are surrounded by yes-men telling you how great you are, this is the kind consequence we suffer. Unfortunately, [no name] does not care a twit about his popularity. He does not have to face the voters (and that unpopularity) again. I am quite concerned this is going to get much worse before we might hope for improvement.

Rumors are rumors. While the hypothesis is possible, it sounds more like a left-wing conspiracy theory. The wealthy have a far greater capacity to weather full-fledged economic depression. The working and middle classes do not enjoy that capacity. Again, there is no sign he cares even a smidgen about economic depression. This will be his “let them eat cake” moment.

Quite so. It is quite akin to poking us in the eye. They are blinding us. He wants the IC to give him the information he wants to see rather than the facts.

Me as well, my friend. Yet another tragedy we must endure.

Yes, exactly! Our future citizens must learn about the mistakes that have been made through history, including the mistakes of the United States. Pretending slavery did not exist is wrong in every possible way.

We do not have a plethora of writing by the Founders regarding religion and government. The only solid point is Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists [1.1.1802]. As a consequence, we must interpret the Founders/Framers intention or spirit. There is no doubt (zero) in my little pea-brain that the Founders/Framers de facto sought to separate church and state. Such a fundamental premise is logical and reasonable. Religion deals with the personal and private. The state must address the public domain, and thus religion must be removed from the public domain to avoid the appearance of favoring one religion over another. This has never been a Christian nation or any form of theocracy, despite the convulsions of the Christian nationalists.

 . . . Round two:

“I’ll note one of the Felon’s recent rants emphasized, ‘It’s a great time to get rich! Really rich!’ I’m sure he’s familiar with ‘bargain hunting’ on Wall Street, and he’d be the last person to have empathy with ordinary investors and retirees who might actually need their incomes. Plus, he probably has cash on hand from his recent crypto ventures and various bribes.

“I have no patience with those who quote the Bible, Quran, etc., as if they were information on anything but the religion involved. Let’s stick to reality.”

 . . . my response to round two:

That man has NEVER been known for empathy, understanding, or even a curiosity to learn. All the evidence we have available suggests we bear witness to our contemporary version of a “Nero” event or a “let them eat cake” moment. He simply does not care about the chaos he has created all by himself. And the trade war he induced is escalating rather fast. I am more and more convinced his paramount objective is the total isolation of the United States in every aspect of the world activities. He wants to alienate everyone.

Let’s us not be so quick to discard the societal value of religious texts. From my perspective, all religions have given us civilization. Yes, religion has probably caused more destruction than any other human motivation, but that damage does not lessen the value of other lessons. Yes, sticking to reality is a very good endeavor, but we need one essential trait, respect for the freedom of choice of others.

 . . . Round three:

“Guessing the motives of the insane is a difficult game. I doubt the Felon has objectives in our sense of the word; he just needs to attack everything and everyone. However, he's aware of how to make big money on others' suffering.

“The religious texts I’ve studied all have bits of wisdom. As a guide to governance, they’re out of place.”

 . . . my response to round three:

First, quite so. Second, perhaps not. I may be far too generous to the man. After all, he is an accomplished con-man, who sells a worthless snake-oil to millions of citizens. He continues to sell his shit with impunity; no one to stop him.

As I have been accused, I cherry-pick thoughts from religious texts that are time-tested and serve contemporary purposes. I have never seen religious texts as a means or guide for governance. We have a very good contemporary example of what happens with theocracy—the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Christian nationalists in this country (and others) seek a Christian theocracy. If that state is ever attained, we will find yet another example of the oppression of theocracy. I have always seen religious texts as a personal guide, to define morality—how we act when no one is watching.

 . . . Round four:

“Reading ‘sacred’ texts is one way to find one's moral values, although I really don't recommend it. I have a friend who studies the Bible in depth, and she can give several texts to support any given position, then claim one as hers. I assume other texts are the same. My moral values are about benefit versus harm; usually that's a very simple code, but sometimes hard to live by.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Morals are taught, directly and indirectly, by parents and others who are in close association with a child. Religions have given us a body of morals, and if utilized properly, which can and should enhance and complement parental teaching. The -isms and many societal phobias are also taught primarily by the parents and close family. Hatred is born in infancy. I have a long exchange with another contributor that will appear in this week’s Update. More to follow.

Yes, it is a very simple code and well grounded. In different terms but the same thought, respect others as you wish to be respected.

Morals are said to be what governs human behavior when no one is watching. That seems a reasonable portrayal. What we must be watchful for are the signs, indicators, clues, and hints that a particular child is not developing proper moral values. I have long advocated for more aggressive interaction with parents especially with children who display signs of anti-social behavior, e.g., a schoolyard bully. Jeffrey Dahmer was created by his parents (predominantly his father) in early childhood. I will also note, comparably, [no name] was created by his parents (again, predominantly his father); there were so many clues that we missed or chose not to intercede or correct.

 . . . Round five:

“Your discussion of parental influence is oversimplified. There are biochemical and other neurological factors that appear to influence child development, as we have discussed elsewhere. On top of that, the parents have only their own backgrounds and development to work with. Religion can as easily be a malignant influence as a benevolent one, and society can’t succeed in assigning ‘proper’ moral values in a diverse nation.

“Schoolyard bullies typically don’t interact with authority figures in that aspect of their lives. A Jeffrey Dahmer typically goes undetected because the parents, for whatever reason, conceal the condition if they can.”

 . . . response to round five:

Quite so! Agreed! My simplification was for brevity and certainly not intended to discount or ignore the biological, physiological, and psychological factors. My apologies.

Yes, absolutely! Parents need access to more support assets. However, my point was, we, as citizens, must be vigilant and care enough about our society to look for the signs, and to adhere to, see something, do something.

Oh my, yes! History is replete with example of religion’s malignant influence. I will note that the underlying text has not changed. It is the interpretation and application of “religion” by flawed human beings that foster the malignancy. To the point is the case of Galileo. The priests who stood in judgment of his work sought power and control (adherence to “God’s word”) rather than knowledge or learning. If those priests had studied Galileo’s work without their religious bias, they would have learned. But alas, they did not. The destruction and injury of religion is the consequence of flawed human beings acting in the belief that they are doing so as “God’s will it”—Deus vult.

Again, quite so! No argument. I will also add the case of Adam Lanza. His mother, Nancy, knew her son was “troubled” and sought assistance from multiple places to no avail. She did not have the means to help her son. I will say, We, the People, did not care enough to help her with a disturbed, mentally ill, untreated son. The massacre of Sandy Hook was the consequence.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)