Testing one, two
On March 20, Bill wrote a Letter to the Editor about God being the standard and creating the universe from nothing. I know from my readings that the universe, by definition, contains everything known to man. This simple statement means you are either in the universe or you’re not.
The universe is a large structure formed about 13.82 billion years ago in a fast expansion known as the Big Bang. Scientists can trace the physics of this event back to the first three minutes of creation or even earlier. This means that our physics works from today all the way back to moments before the creation of the universe. Physicists can also show how the universe began as a very small piece of something that was smaller than the size of a proton—something that cannot be seen without the aid of the biggest electron microscope and grew to its current immense size.
This scientific explanation is as esoteric as any of the thousands of religious explanations of the creation of the universe found throughout the world. This does not mean I have a better idea about our place in the universe but it does bring up the question: If God was in the universe during creation where is he/she/it hanging out today? Or, as what most probably happened, God was outside of the universe when the universe banged and he has never been able to get back inside.
Tough luck!
Greg Blinn, Kelseyville
Comprehending God
Bill Kettenhofen deals his own conundrum (RB 2015-3-20) when he states, “As finite beings we are unable to fully comprehend the infinite God.” But, he then goes on to say that He doesn’t act arbitrarily and is not nefarious or sinister. It would appear that Bill is himself putting God into a box of our understanding. If, as Bill states, we are unable to fully comprehend Him, how are we to ‘… get ourselves right with Him?’ The Bible was written by people who appeared to know what He wanted, but if that is not the case, then what? How are we to understand why the tree of knowledge was put into the Garden if not a test for His creation (Adam)? Is this the only place that it could have been put? Bill fails to explain himself and resorts to the mantra that God is Great and has infinite love for his creations that obey Him. Even if we can’t understand what that means.
I don’t know how the universe came into existence. There is still a lot that we need to discover. But I do know that everything we see on the Earth tells us that it wasn’t created in six days.
Kevin Bracken, Kelseyville
Politically incorrect
I know it is politically incorrect, but I think that those people who feel that prejudice, “profiling,” and judgments based on personal feelings and experiences dominates have their well intentioned heads in their armpits. Why? Because we are human beings who have values and memories, who are frightened of change, differences, and perceptions of things that might cause us harm and discomfort. Over time, as a people, we can work to mitigate a lot of things, but many have such a long and firm — proper or not — foundation that mitigation, let alone eradication, is a very long term prospect. Sadly, desired fairness and compromise both mean someone loses a little. If one looks at some of the present problems we are having, it appears that a lot of “individual” rights, and those based on the first amendment, are going to take some hits. As far as I am concerned, taking advantage of one’s first amendments rights and causing problems for other people is simply not acceptable! I suspect a lot of so-called “racial” problems are in that realm.
Seems to me that most discrimination and profiling actions stem from subjective and/or emotional bases, not objectivity, and this is one of the reasons for the underestimated differences between the two “equalities.” “Legal” equality has its base in the founding documents (although whether slaves, noted as 3/5 of a person, were meant to be included is still questioned), particularly the 14th amendment. The good Dr. King did much to push the implementation of this equality. Social equality, on the other hand, and largely based on acceptance, is a far different beast, and, additionally, would seem to be split into two parts: Individuals and groups. Through our history, individuals, dealing with other individuals, really have not had “racial” problems. To my mind, Crispus Attucks is an outstanding example of racial interaction. When minority individuals can live primarily as members of the national society rather than owe their allegiance to their race, they seem to prosper. When groups are dealt with, society seems to have trouble. And, let’s face it “race” is only one of many bases for people of like attitudes and values to “tribalize.”
To me it is pretty obvious that we all need to do a lot of reflection on what we consider “equality” and how we are going to achieve whatever that equality is. Taken singly, individuals of all sorts tend to be pretty nice. Interactions of groups, where individuals can aid and abet one another beyond rationality, need a whole lot of work from all of us. If there is a problem, history time and again shows us that it is the individual/group wishing to earn acceptance that has to do the greater part of the work!
Guff Worth, Lakeport
