I was just reflecting on something I heard: that some people work towards retirement as their "reward" for decades of work.
Does anybody really think like this?
How do they know it won't go like it did with my uncle: shortly after retirement he dropped dead of a heart attack. Boom, c'est finis.
If it's true, maybe it's an American thing? I don't recall meeting anybody from whom I got the impression that they looked forward to retirement as the reason for which they were working.
42 comments:
You must not know very many people. Either that or Europeans are even lazier than I thought. If you hardly ever work, I can see why you would not care much about retirement. Most sane people would look forward to retiring.
Work for forty years before getting your reward? Isn't that kind of bleak?
Look at the mindset most people seem to have. They're always looking forward. They're always thinking about next month's bills, about filling the gas tank next week, etc. There is a myth that to live and work is to have no time for yourself, that your happiness lies in a future time when you've acquired all the things you want, you've paid off your debts and you can just relax, usually when you've already reached the twilight of your life. Until then you're just supposed to deal, and if you never get to relax then take solace in the idea that God almighty will reward you for working yourself to the bone. This is what I was taught.
Youth is wasted on people who never learn how to live.
No one said these people don't live. Most people, during their working years, have things they do outside work - but because of having to work there is a limited amount of time to do them in. Of course, when you retire, you're a bit past your prime, but still... Most sane people would retire as early as possible, at 55. Only a psychotic workaholic would stay longer.
The only people who would want to keep working are the ones who don't really work anyway - your do-nothing CEOs and other executives who only spend their day scratching their ass.
peaceful blade sounds like a guy who has never worked a day in his life.
Most people are not lucky enough to have one of those cushy jobs, and most people do just have to get through it as something they need to do in order to live.
Time for a reality check, p.b.
"Only a psychotic workaholic would stay longer."
Hardly. If you really enjoy what you're doing, retirement isn't a big issue. The trouble lies in the mindset that compartmentalizes work and play into two separate areas of life. Essentially it boils down to, "You cannot live and follow your passions, and you're crazy if you choose your passions over living."
Yes, there are things people do outside of work, but these are often seen as valueless because they don't turn a profit and they do nothing to directly aid in survival.
We begin to function on automatic. We're in a trance like state while we work, doing our best to zone out so we're unaware of how quickly or slowly time is passing us by. We snap awake upon going home only to enter a similar frame of mind as we whittle our remaining hours in front of the television. Yes, there are many that let themselves come alive and really enjoy themselves, if only for a moment. But what I spoke of earlier remains true, at least where I grew up. I assume it extends further because I see symptoms of it regardless of who I talk to or where they're from.
The symptoms of what? Near total passivity as we watch our lives slip away.
I've put in many long hours at jobs I hated because, for some reason or another, I "had" to be there. I know quite well what I'm talking about, I just don't view it from the same perspective as you. (Though I understand how you'd see it as you do.)
I guess it's a waste of time, asking you to think. As always, you're not interested; you just want to pat each other on the back.
These are fine insights you all have bought to the discussion. But let's not forget Worthington's Law. People who make more money are better persons.
"Only a psychotic workaholic would stay longer."
Sad to admit, but I agree with this statement. I've spent 20 long hard years in a filthy foundry doing what most people could not and would not do.
I look forward to the day when I can relax and never have to face this "concentration type of work camp" ever again.
About retirement (Eolake) my uncle spent thirty years busting his ass in a factory that produced forklifts and a year after he retired he dropped dead of cancer.
Anybody that says they will continue to "work" after retirement either has to or hasn't really ever physically worked period. No argument intended. Peace to all.
I don't buy the notion that only physical work is real work. Neither do I buy the notion you have to hate what you're doing for it to be work.
If someone gets into a line of work they hate, that's too bad for them, but that's no reason for them to slight the work other people do.
Way to miss the point there, Pauly. Well done.
Work, the word, is so loaded with meanings that it is almost pointless to discuss it unless a definition is offered. It has meanings in at least the following fields: politics, law, economics, physics, psychology, computer science and craftsmanship. All different.
Retiring means to withdraw, especially for privacy. People spend their lives in hectic environments with many people around them, and then at some point, supposedly having gotten tired of it, they withdraw to their homes, and live a quieter life from there on. Healthy people generally don't stop working at this point though. They just pick up something else, often something that is closer to their hobbies. As an example, Rod Stewart builds railroad layouts.
I prefer the other way around: Spend your life mostly in privacy and in an environment where you can best concentrate on your work. Then when you have something to publish, or talk about, come forward to socialise and show your stuff. Of course, this assumes your main passion is something that can be executed in solitude. If you passion is to be a talk show host, for example, this obviously doesn't apply.
Humans can not work long on something they don't find rewarding in an itself. It may not be a perfect match to their truest will, but deriving no pleasure from one's work would very soon manifest in ailments in one's body or mind, and incapacitating the person from the job. If we don't objectively make the choice to walk away from something we don't enjoy at all, our subconscious mind will find a way to force us to do it.
Many people say they only stay at their job because they look forward to retirement and pension as a "reward". But they are incorrect. They do derive at least some pleasure -- i.e. rewards -- from their job here and now. Else they would have quit already.
Personally, I love work (in all its meanings except politics and law). And I intend to continue working for the rest of my life.
They do derive at least some pleasure -- i.e. rewards -- from their job here and now. Else they would have quit already.
I don't know about that - some people can't quit. It depends on their skills, where they live, their age, whether they have a family (and whether they can retrain if they want to).
People who are lucky enough to live the dream aren't likely to look forward to retirement. Movie producers, artists, photographers, etc., are likely going to keep working right up to the end (even though they might lighten their work load). People working blue collar jobs are likely only there for the paycheck. Even if they like what they do - and many do - they at least relish the free time they will have when they get out.
That doesn't mean they spend the rest of their days at home, watching TV and drinking beer (well, some do; some spend all their free time during their working life doing that), they're going to do something, whether it's something they get paid for or a hobby. After all, even if you've got talent and ability, it's usually very difficult to break in to many creative fields. Why do you think so many go into teaching?
People working blue collar jobs are likely only there for the paycheck. Even if they like what they do - and many do - they at least relish the free time they will have when they get out.
Joe Dick said.
Well said Joe. I agree fully.
I think the vast majority of North American office workers think this way, and I can guess that it's because the vast majority of them both (a) spend as much as (if not more than) they make and (b) can't stand their jobs. Office work generally is soul-destroying and mindless, despite requiring a higher-than-base education and supposedly offering "fulfillment." Recently, as well, economic situations have changed such that hardcore constant job-obsession has become essentially the only way to "get by" as a typical middle-class citizen, especially if you're raising a family and therefore feel that certain material wants can't be denied.
My solution to this problem is to stand outside the box. I've never told a boss that I "loved" the job when I didn't -- something most employees feel intimidated into doing. I spend long periods of my life unemployed (for that reason?), relative to most. My resume falters, and has major gaps in it, as a consequence. I do without many material things -- I don't own a home, my car is older, I don't want anything more. I regularly tell my relatives that, for Christmas, I only want them to give money to their favorite charity in my name. I have too much 'stuff' and have been actively (though often not so energetically) reducing, rather than increasing, my "material footprint" since about 1988. I'm not good at it.
Most people in the average class aren't comfortable living like this. It has left me with a lot of negative fallout. I get fewer dates (I haven't come up with a good cover story for, "So, what do you do?") because I'm not much of a provider type. I have less opportunity to influence the world positively, because I don't have access to the power-structures that you get at when you get promoted at a typical workplace. I get less respect. People think I'm wasting my life.
But I get more sleep. I need about 10 or 11 hours a night (something I'm currently trying to change), which I was never able to have when I worked regularly in an office. The dawn start of a typical office job seriously irks me. My bosses would rather that I sit stupefied at the desk doing nothing and them paying me, than that I agree to take less money but arrive later in the day. Evidently that makes me "not dedicated" somehow, to match my schedule instead of theirs, even though coming in on their schedule costs them more money and gets them less work. The overt performance of "enthusiasm" and "dedication" and "commitment" quotients are evidently more important to them than the "profit" and "good work" and "success" and "competence" quotients.
I look at their hysterical lives, these people who think I'm wasting my life, and I wonder why it doesn't occur to them that it's really the other way 'round. I get to walk in the park, and if I ever have kids, I'll help with the homework and watch them grow. They, the office victims, they just go in to the same flourescent light bulbs day after day and then die.
It's no wonder they're looking forward to ending it and playing around for a while. If I had that kind of job, I'd want to "retire" from it as soon as possible, too. And really, about 99% of North American workers think of their job that way.
I just don't get it. Here we are, smart capable people, able to make the company successful, able to do something good for mankind, and instead the boss wants us to come in early and type reports that nobody will read. I guess that prevents us from making him look bad ...
Oh, and, as far as the flaming and stereotyping goes here, I think it's interesting that a thread about work can so readily hit people's hot buttons. I think behind most of the flaming is an assumption, that you aren't a good person unless you're putting in EFFORT at something. For example, one insult in this thread is simply, "hasn't worked a day in his life." It has no evidence to support the conclusion, that lack of work equates to lack of goodness.
And yet, if you think about it, NEITHER DID JESUS CHRIST. I'd personally be quite proud to "not work a day in my life" like him.
The problem here is that the word "work" (as relates to the making-a-living type of "work", not the physics-foot-pounds-Newtons type of "work") has been imbued with significance and moral value. And yet I disagree with that assumption. Just as I believe that free-market competition is not necessarily a force for good (though it can be), I also believe that regular office-based work is not necessarily a characteristic of good people. What if you work for an arms-manufacturer, for example? And you deliberately create devices that are designed to kill children and other non-combattants, and avoid killing combattants? These devices actually exist! Someone is PROUD to have designed them! He (or she; likely he) got PAID for it. Is it GOOD that he went to his office very day? Is it GOOD that he "contributed to the economy"?
Our society's members have general assumptions about how one is "supposed" to spend one's day. The flamers, and the deliberately-miss-the-point responses, and the pick-at-a-weird-detail comments, all are rooted in the act of taking offense that someone would question what one is "supposed" to do.
I don't know, final, Jesus was supposed to be a carpenter, wasn't he? But how much time did he spend in the shop? Did he do his miracles and shit on weekends?
I think carpentry was the "skilled craftsman" of the time. That meant he "had a trade" but, as far as I can tell, he didn't really PRACTICE it all that much. (Note: I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm not even really Christian.) He seems to have spent his adulthood doing what nowadays would be termed "hanging out" and engaging in "bull sessions."
I'm not really Christian either. I think what I said there would be considered blasphemy by a true Christian! ;-)
and I wonder why it doesn't occur to them that it's really the other way 'round. I get to walk in the park, and if I ever have kids, I'll help with the homework and watch them grow.
You're not likely to ever get the chance, but no woman wants to fuck a bum.
If you want all the things you whine about wanting, you have to live by society's rules.
Where are you going to get the money to send your kids to school? Going to pull it out of your ass?
Stop whining and get a job. You're not special, you're just an ordinary slob.
Peaceful Blade observed...
"Look at the mindset most people seem to have. They're always looking forward."
So much for carpe diem! The Future is an illusion, we can never know what it really has in store for us, all the unpleasant surprises.
The only thing we can be sure of is the present moment. This is where we life and feel, and this is what we can enjoy of life, always.
"A bird chirping on your shoulder is worth more than a hundred in the Australian bush."
"Youth is wasted on people who never learn how to live."
Deep, dude. Deep.
Youth is also wasted on those who burn up their life and health with all sorts of excesses, but that's another topic. A neighbor of ours, in his twenties, killed himself last week because he was a typical reckless driver. Talk about early retirement!
Anonymous assessed...
"Most sane people would retire as early as possible, at 55. Only a psychotic workaholic would stay longer."
Or a politician aiming for the Presidency! But perhaps there's no difference between the two?...
It's very pleasant to see the Anonymous superorganism contributing to reflection. This goes to confirm what I always knew: that everybody in the world can be useful, given a chance. :-)
"peaceful blade sounds like a guy who has never worked a day in his life."
Or like a guy who has never perceived his work as a chore. Such a mindset would make anybody sound unconventional about toiling.
I was once in a job that I loved doing, but with a boss who just couldn't stand my state of mind. As if a job should always be noble slaving hard-labor, by command of God! I almost felt guilty for not hating my life and for working with a smile, sir yessir! :-P
Some people are really disturbed inside...
Regarding Terry's testimony, of course many of us work because one has to make a living and it's not always easy (some understatement!!!). If you're a slave to the necessity of having a hard underpaid job, retirement definitely feels like a well-earned reward of rest.
But this is not the goal of life. Those who preach so are prisoners of social propaganda orchestrated by the rich and powerful. Who would love the exploited masses to mindlessly adhere to their interested dogmas.
Never pass a worthy moment of life for the sake of "tomorrow".
TTL prefers ..."the other way around: Spend your life mostly in privacy and in an environment where you can best concentrate on your work. Then when you have something to publish, or talk about, come forward to socialise and show your stuff."
I'm in love with that idea! :-)
"If we don't objectively make the choice to walk away from something we don't enjoy at all, our subconscious mind will find a way to force us to do it."
I read you, man. Like an encyclopedia. (Or a Bible? ;-)
Joe Dick asked...
"Why do you think so many go into teaching?"
The fantastic pay, naturally!
(Jest a sarcastic joke dere.)
Final Identity truly gets it! His "rant" at 6:34pm was classic, but dead-on.....if I didn't have 3 kids, a mortgage, and a demanding wife, I would embrace Final Identity's lifestyle and start catching up on my sleep immediately!!!
Work sucks. It drains the life out of you and leaves you with nothing at the end of each long, tedious day.
Live free, Final Identity, so that the rest of us can live vicariously through you while we plod away 'til the end....
Final Identity emitted: "And yet, if you think about it, NEITHER DID JESUS CHRIST."
Well, there's this talk that he was a carpenter. Though I don't think there's any evidence of that. Also, he is said to have been a miracle worker. Finally, don't you consider his teaching as a form of work?
Sure, his teaching was a form of work. But he didn't get paid for it. That's essential to my entire point of view: worthwhile "work" is often not very profitable at all. In general, I've experienced in my life, that the two concepts -- inherent moral worth; and market-driven profitability -- are often diametrically opposed.
F.I. clarifies: "Sure, his teaching was a form of work. But he didn't get paid for it."
Are you sure? He did eat meals. They were paid for/prepared by someone.
Ach, Herr Anonymisch, very interesting, dat fixzation auf yoorz on feline sexual metaphors und other anatomical orifices, ya!
Ich bet your mozer refused your getting eine katzchen, I mean a kitten, vhen you vere eine young kleine kinder, nicht wahr?
Mein Gott! Dis voold exzplain much auf your prezent day aggrezziveness. Zuch sufferink, ach, der humanity!
Vhat yoo need iz über grösse lots auf liebe. Love rezolves all.
Ich hope dere are many volunteers reedink dis. Herr Anonymisch iz kountink on you.
"Show me der love, mein freundes!"
final identity's just a bum who doesn't want to get a job.
He whines and whines about how he wants money, wants to bang chicks, wants a house, wants kids... He's not willing to work for it.
Grow up, final identity.
I have an anonymous hater. Funny how a few comments "outside the box" can REALLY piss someone off and send him on random flights of personal attack. The comments aren't accurate because they aren't based on evidence. But they're an interesting demonstration of a set of common assumptions: in America, if someone says "I want just reward for my work" people assume he means "I don't want to work"; if someone says "I can't stand doing pointless work" people assume he means "I don't want to work"; if he says "I find it unjust that many people get paid for pointless work, and those who do good work don't get paid much at all, even so little that they can't afford to get to work because they can't maintain a car" people assume he means "I want to be a free-loader."
The evidence isn't there. But the assumptions are. This is our society: fit in (be a cubicle-moron) or be excoriated.
Read "Dilbert" lately?
Your own words are what it's based on, fool. You've admitted to having been unemployed on numerous occasions for long stretches of time, to not wanting to work, to not being able to follow the rules of society (showing up on time and doing your job is part of it).
You're lazy and obviously believe the world owes you a living.
You say you want things but don't want to work for them. It's that simple.
I would be willing to be I'm not the only one to think this. Everyone here but you is a contributing member of society.
Final Identity said...
"I have an anonymous hater."
Congratulations for your very own private stalker! Now you've achieved fame and celebrity status.
Oops! I'm on the wrong thread for THAT.
Final Identity said...
"I regularly tell my relatives that, for Christmas, I only want them to give money to their favorite charity in my name."
[Applauding with joy] That's a lovely idea for a gift. Great Christmas spirit, man!
And you say you're "not really Christian"? I think you are enough. :-)
"My bosses would rather that I sit stupefied at the desk doing nothing and them paying me, than that I agree to take less money but arrive later in the day."
Been there, done that. Typical.
In spite of the ESTABLISHED fact that if you work less but more rested, you are far more productive overall. It's called the science of Ergonomics. I've had a course about it.
"Strictly prohibited to employers under the IQ of 80." ):-P
You may not become rich by getting all the sleep your body needs, but you'll most likely outlive your hyped boss and enjoy a longer, calm life. Stress is a serial killer.
"I get to walk in the park, and if I ever have kids, I'll help with the homework and watch them grow."
Seriously, this is one of the deepest wisdoms I've ever heard. To focus on living rather than on "making a living" for most of your existence.
You're the opposite of a social drone.
Which means the System is probably plotting to eliminate your grave threat to Society as we speak! ;-)
"and instead the boss wants us to come in early and type reports that nobody will read."
Again, been there, done that. I was once blamed for a report that wasn't done in the morning, for a patient that arrived late the afternoon before. (The reason was, I had a huge sudden workload.) I made a perfect report for the Professor who had blamed me, and two days later asked him what he thought about the therapeutic suggestion I made at the end of it (it was a very serious matter).
His reply: "Suggestion? Oh, well, I didn't read the report!"
The only reason for having us make those, it appears, was to bill them to the patients/insurance companies. Paperwork was our sole work, Mr Dilbert, sir.
So much for Final being the only one here not "a contributing member of society"... ;-)
"the word "work" has been imbued with significance and moral value."
Biblical influence on a society where the wealthy and powerful controlled nearly all official propaganda. "Obey the Lord, and work hard all your life as it is written in Genesis. That is, the Lord thy God, AND the Lord thy suzerain land master. Whom, incidentally, doesn't have to pay any taxes, unlike all thou lowly peasants." A 1,000 year-long system such as this can leave serious marks on the collective minds.
Jesus was apparently a typical bourgeois jewish son. He stayed at home with his parents until he was 30, then when hi Pa died, he left to roam the world with a bunch of friends. He eventually drew so much heat from criticizing the System and the Authorities that they arrested and executed him.
(Just kidding with you, big J. I really dig you, dude.)
"I think carpentry was the "skilled craftsman" of the time."
From what I've read, he was probably more of a financially secure company boss. Might've had his own workers, and all, in a carpentry/building business. A "lowly commoner" wouldn't have been treated with as much consideration for three years of preaching and irking the Clergy, they would've just had him put away had he not been of a respectable social status. There are several mentions of his family, clan, many friends, and the like. Wasn't one bit like the loner hippie bum one might imagine. Or the half spaced-out bloke you often see in the movies. Definitely a brilliant and respected citizen of his time, with a well-established social status.
Interesting thing about the "real" historical Jesus. Didn't know any of that. Maybe being a carpenter would have been a smart trade choice for me?
Golly the stress on others I cause, by saying things which question their presuppositions. I'm so sorry ... please tote it up to my lack of cunning, and not to any deliberate willful attack, for if I had had more more cunning, I would certainly have said better, and not managed to offend a person like the one here.
It's funny how final can delude himself.
Pascal, you crazy frood. There's no proof Jesus existed - you're just talking out of your shapely, exquisitely toned Lebanese ass!
All this about the "real" historical Jesus is simple deduction from the Gospel texts and knowledge of regional social rules.
Exegesis is the technical word. I didn't make this up myself, there are experts for it.
Joe Dick flirted...
"There's no proof Jesus existed"
From what I know, even atheists usually admit that the historical person: "Jesus of Nazareth, preacher who initiated some 2,000 years ago what has eventually become Christiannism", has certainly existed. Jews don't recognize him as their Messiah, but they acknowledge the man existed and preached.
As for who/what he really was, of course it depends on what you believe: son of God, holy man like Buddha, impostor, political activist... on THIS there is debate by the ton.
I think there are official historical documents from ancient Rome about Saul of Tarsus, later to become Saint Paul, and his close relationship to "the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, executed under Pilates". I've myself seen a photo of an archaeological artifact proving Poncius Pilatus existed for real.
(However, that tomb of "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of Jacob", genuine or fake, proves nothing: these were VERY common names in that period and place.)
The interpretation of the events widely depends on the beliefs of whom you ask today, and passions are sure intense (make that paroxystic). But practically nobody will question the fact that, in Ancient Palestine, 20 centuries ago, a man from Nazareth, known as Jesus son of Joseph, preached the masses, was attributed prodigies such as healing the possessed/epileptic and awakening the dead/comatose, and was sentenced to be executed in the cross for irking the authorities.
Actually, the Muslims claim it wasn't really him on the cross, that he was replaced by a lookalike or something, "because he was too holy for God to allow such an infamous treatment". They worship him above Muhammad, did you know that? But they have their own version of "what truly happened and what he truly preached".
As for my "shapely, exquisitely toned Lebanese ass", I'm... not sure I'm very comfy with that! Even though everybody I know agrees with you about my body, I hope you'll remember that I'm an out-of-the-closet hetero, okay? If you're not a woman, "let's just be good friends", deal? :-D
"the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, executed under Pilates"
That must have been a typo. Pilates is something different. :)
I'm... not sure I'm very comfy with that! Even though everybody I know agrees with you about my body, I hope you'll remember that I'm an out-of-the-closet hetero, okay? If you're not a woman, "let's just be good friends", deal? :-D
Don't worry, I'm not gay. But, come on, you keep parading that thing around in skin-tight spandex, you can't be surprised if people notice! ;-)
Forgive me if I admit that I can't always predict where these comments discussions are going to go.
Oh, don't worry, you're forgiven! Absolved, even. Amen. :-D
I bet even Joe and I couldn't have anticipated either. "It" just got out of hand.
(THE DISCUSSION, I mean! Honi soit qui mal y pense.)
But who squealed about my spandex? In theory only women knew. Unless...
- Avatar?...
- ...Yes, Master?
- Did you happen to move your frame while I wasn't looking?
- Er... that is...
- Into the lamp with you, you treaturous servant! Akhkoom halesh!
(Mumble, mumble.) You'd think a genie would have some brains. Wallah, I swear, he'll drive me into an early retirement, and I won't reward him for that!
There, all back on topic. Ta-daaah!
From what I know, even atheists usually admit that the historical person: "Jesus of Nazareth, preacher who initiated some 2,000 years ago what has eventually become Christiannism", has certainly existed. Jews don't recognize him as their Messiah, but they acknowledge the man existed and preached.
Wrong. The only account outside of the Gospels is by Josephus, and he's hardly reliable. The bits about Jesus are later additions - and even if they weren't, Josephus was a known liar and sellout. He can't be trusted.
With a guy like Jesus you'd expect a whole shitload of material about him - but no, there's nothing.
Believe in him if you want - after, it's supposed to be about faith - but don't pretend there's any tangible proof of his existence.
Josephus has been proven accurate in broad strokes - they've used his accounts in archaeology to make many important finds - including Masada. You're right when it comes to Jesus, though - those bits were later additions, but did at least ensure that Josephus' writings were preserved.
I said the historical existence of Jesus was generally accepted as a fact by almost everybody. I never claimed there was tangible proof. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't any so far (apart for some famous hoaxes). The two things are very different.
This is somehow the opposite situation of the Holocaust, where there is plenty tangible evidence, even some survivors up to this date with a number in their flesh, but nevertheless many extremists will readily deny it ever happened.
Rather weird, that. Agnostics, non-christians, people who don't believe Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, seldom have the urge to deny the person really existed and the rest is all about faith, just like you said.
There's no conflict of views, we're all in agreement. As for Josephus, I'll plead the Fifth. Because speaking up would reveal how totally ignorant I am in that topic.
(Whaddayaknow, I'm NOT a "know-it-all" after all! :-)
On a side note, nobody denies that Muhammad officially existed, either. Moses, that's another matter. Tangible evidence so far suggests much of what we know is either myth, or greatly warped retellings of what truly happened in Ancient Egypt.
BTW, did you know that the tale of Cinderella was originally from Ancient Egypt? Surprising but most official.
This is somehow the opposite situation of the Holocaust, where there is plenty tangible evidence, even some survivors up to this date with a number in their flesh, but nevertheless many extremists will readily deny it ever happened.
I've never understood that. If you're a neo nazi or belong to some other hate group, you'd think you'd not only admit that it happened, but applaud it. Your only regret would be that the plan couldn't be carried out completely.
seldom have the urge to deny the person really existed and the rest is all about faith, just like you said.
I'm not sure there's any evidence the person existed either, but then it's true that proof isn't or shouldn't be required - if you believe it, you believe it. If you don't, you don't. The only way to know for sure would be to toss a little garbage in Mr. Fusion and go back to see for ourselves.
You might enjoy the book "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. You might not agree with him 100%, but he's worth reading. I heard him speak once. He's an interesting guy, even if he does look like an older Abe Lincoln (sans top hat).
Mr. Fusion...
Ask yourself, "What would Marty do?" :-D
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check that book some day. Definitely interesting.
Even the historical Che Guevara appears to have little to do with his legend. So how much naturally more for someone crystallizing as many passions (pun intended) as Jesus, 2,000 years ago? Just look how problematic it is to un-venerate Muhammad after 1,400 years...
Post a Comment