NewsDream

I caught the 2nd or 3rd episode of “Newsroom” many moons ago on HBO. I was intrigued by Aaron Sorkin’s writing as I was when his “West Wing” was on the video waves. Obviously, if you’ve read anything I’ve written, our views are diametrically opposed. Nevertheless, I appreciate good writing and the creation of characters that are more than skin deep.

Sorkin has a staccato style that I think more mirrors reality than his critics give him credit for. When people are familiar with one another, especially in a work environment, there’s a type of tribal communication that eventually takes hold and much is communicated with very few words. I like the way this is captured and exists in every relationship.

So I returned to Episode 1, (shout out to HBOGO), and seamlessly caught up on Season 1 in the proper chronological order. I then took up the weekly viewing on Sunday evening or in the subsequent days through activating my blessed PVR. While I thoroughly enjoyed the characters being developed, their interplay, their dialogue, I was, perhaps to a greater degree, thoroughly annoyed, by the unbridled liberal dogma. In the final episode of the season it turned into a tasteless, totally predictable, stream of propaganda for the left and the associated Democratic Party.

Now to a great degree I expect this from Sorkin. On the other hand I don’t. If that’s all it was I would never have watched it at all. On the West Wing there were some issues that were at least wrestled over and both sides brought to light. It didn’t matter that the fictitious administration almost always came down on the left side of the tracks; at least there was an agreement on the problems that face the country and/or the people. And in the end it was simply a difference of vision. That is not what the Newsroom has become.

In one of the opening dialogues Will (main character) is asked in a College auditorium what he thinks is great about America. He goes into a long dissertation on why American is not the greatest nation on earth then follows up with many great things in America’s past.

While I don’t agree with which items are on which side of the list, at least it’s not a blanket negative condemnation of America. And basically that is what follows. A blind, relentless rejection of everything Republican and praise for all that is left wing.

So I heard that Sorkin had said that he didn’t know much about politics and was going to have a Republican consultant for Season 2. I don’t know whether he said it or not but if he did it’s a bunch of BS. Clearly Sorkin is well versed in the political issues of this day and the context of the show is to reestablish the historical contribution a supposed objective Newsroom provided in the last generation. So I don’t buy that, especially on the heels of West Wing. And second, why hire a Republican consultant?; no way it’s an admission of not being fair and balanced. I may watch the beginning of the second season to see if the trend continues or abates. But like Glee’s endless drumming about the Gay universe I can only bear so much to enjoy the trappings of the music. And the magic words of Sorkin are lovely icing but not to be eaten on a soiled cake.

It’s Just a Movie – The Fantasy that is ‘Contact’

I recorded "Contact" the other day, thinking I would breeze through it and hit some highlights for my enjoyment pleasure. My remembrance is not altogether favorable but just in a general way. The highlights are quite specific: Ellie’s first signal (music!), machine CGI, all scenes with John Hurt playing H.R. Hadden and the closed eyes, "okay to go" scenario. As expected, I thoroughly enjoyed these pieces for the umpteenth time along with the score that is obviously magic.

Unintentionally, the items that detract from the film were clearer than ever before. Not being a fan of Carl Sagan who wrote both a 'Contact' novel and contributed heavily to the film, it comes as no surprise. The entire religious presentation is a naive, surface appreciation of those issues as one would expect from a pseudo scientist. But even at that level you'd think the film would portray 'evidence = conclusions' in a logical manner. Nadda.

So Ellie's testifying before Congress, and they're asking her if she can supply a shred of evidence that supports her claim that she actually went on this inter stellar journey. Her answer is no, she cannot. Now Ellie has been painstaking portrayed, the entire movie, as basing everything on facts, scientific facts. She pooh poohs religion as BS. Yet she tells Congress (when asked) that yes, she's asking them simply to 'believe' her.

So here's the deal. Shortly after this scene the White House Chief of Staff is talking to the National Security Advisor (who headed up the Ellie inquisition) and asking him what he thinks of the 18 hours of static on her recording device when apparently she took seconds to fall through the machine. Nothing is made of this. It wasn't raised at the Congressional investigation. He basically snorts in response but why wasn't this raised as evidence?

When Ellie comes back on video after her "so called fake" journey she asked in a groggy tone, "What day is it?" "How long have I been gone?". They respond by saying it was only seconds, she fell right through. Yet, at the beginning of her testimony she mentions a journey of 18 hours!!. Didn't notice this until I watched it this time around. Where the hell did that come from! She had no idea how long she was gone. If the 18 hours came from the static on the tape why not mention that as evidence. Pretty conclusive considering that's impossible given the time frames.

When I got to thinking I wondered about the chair they added to the sphere for her safety. During the insane wormhole journey it became dislodged or better put ripped from it's mooring. How is that explained if the pod simply dropped as expected. It couldn't handle the drop? It was designed as a safety device to at least handle the drop. She was magnetically locked into it. It fell off when she hit the net and subsequent water? It would have killed her if it smashed her head into the side of the sphere. Solid evidence that something beyond what they cameras captured had occurred.

Along with this is that she was on the floor of the pod. To get there she had to undo herself from the gear that had locked her into the seat. She was flat on her face, completely disorientated. Did she really have time, in the milliseconds that she dropped through the machine, to have the presence of mind to undo the suit and drop to the floor. And why would she, she's clinging to the chair out of sheer terror and imminent potential death.

My final point is the phenomena that the machine itself caused. When the translucence began to occur on the sphere it was accompanied by an unbelievable generation of energy from the machine. No one had predicted or even knew how the machine operated. When it ramped up to 100% the light and power was blinding or how about mind blowing. This isn't even discussed as evidence that something beyond the sphere simply falling through had occurred. How did the rotation of the massive rings cause this phenomenal energy release? Why assume it was simply a light show with no purpose?

When reading some reviews/discussions of this movie, Zemeckis (director) stated that he "intended the message of the film to be that science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps." I guess that's the core of why I'm blogging about this movie. They present a scientist who in the end acts like a non-scientist or better said, an idiot. And they present religion as nothing like it is in reality. So in that regard they do coexist, in the fantasy land that belongs to Contact. In the real world, science and religion do coexist, and in fact are one and the same. No effort needs to be made to align them with one another.

But this is only if we're talking about real religion and real science. Not the pseudo science of evolution or the people who believe anything that makes them feel good regardless of the evidence. Jesus encouraged Thomas to put his hands in the holes in his sides (evidence) and believe the truth of his resurrection. (conclusion) If you don't believe that historical written record, then state why you don't and provide evidence that it's not what it's purported to be. What is common is that neither area is using evidence anymore. It is the subjective world of opinion that is preferred and best serves the needs of this current generation. How long am I to bear with you.

The Integrated Mind Map

It didn’t take me as long as I thought it would. I wanted to get something up while my train of thinking was still warm. There is a matching concept for each box from one side to the other. The left side falls out of the Christian faith while the right side falls out of a denial of the same. There’s a few other things I have already thought of adding but I’ll leave it as is for now. I’ll probably post a more comprehensive version in a few months. As important as the thoughts are in themselves, the way they are inexorably tied to one another is probably more critical.

Integration and Integrity

Introduction

While I had the kernel of what I was going to say on this ‘topic’, I nevertheless performed an obligatory Google search. What I came up with simply added fuel to the already burning fire. In their reference article to integrity the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: “Integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms. It is also perhaps the most puzzling.” The reason for this is that there are two camps in defining the meaning of the word. On one side is the thinking that there is a moral aspect to this personal trait and in fact integrity is synonymous being moral. On the other side, the moral connection is removed so that “Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally.” What they do possess is a oneness or holistic way of thinking that supposedly avoids inner mental contradictions. Consistent with this is the following description of the roots of the word:

The root of integrity is from the Latin word integritatem, meaning “soundness” or “wholeness.” In 1450, the French took that root a step farther and coined the word integrite, which meant to them not just to be whole, but to be “in perfect condition.” (etymonline.com)

What this gives us is a somewhat vague definition that causes us to think it is good to have integrity but not really sure why. This fits perfectly into what my discourse was going to be. In fact I would say that a lack of integrity is the very reason the word isn’t conclusively defined. From this post I hope to show whether moral standards should encroach on the meaning of the word and in the process show how it isn’t possible to possess much real integrity without being spiritual.

This topic may have been my Master’s thesis if I had had the time and money to finish those last 4 courses in 1979. Fortunately my path was diverted so that I could add a lifetime of experiences and flesh out the topic; a far more important endeavor.

A Contrast in Thinking Methodology

I will start with a relatively straight forward topic and show how it applies. As referred to in an earlier blog post, JFK’s assassination was an event I took some interest in. The handling of the information surrounding the event by various parties gives a clear example of integration and the lack thereof. When a studying physicist (David Lifton) finally saw the Zapruder film he was immediately thrown into a tailspin as to how Kennedy’s head went back when he was shot from behind. On the other hand the Warren Commission didn’t seem to express any concern over this fact. They spun an implausible tale as to how the shots could come from a lone assassin behind the President when the evidence was quite contrary to that conclusion.

Lifton was compelled to search for a theory that explained all the facts at hand, while the commission was not. They were looking to put forth some type of conclusive public statement that would explain the majority of the evidence and assuage public unrest. Both goals have a purpose but Lifton’s is open ended so that he has no requirement to ignore anything. The commission on the other hand had a limited time frame and a stated need to ‘sew up the wound’ in the public consciousness. The latter purpose allowed the bending and/or ignoring of readily available information that was contrary to that purpose. Thus, none of the ‘grassy knoll’ eye witnesses reports are included in the Commission’s renderings; none.

This is simply an example. It’s a common day occurrence to have neither the time nor the inclination to gather all the facts. We respond to what’s easily available and do quick calculations of the return value on further investigation. Do I spend another 3 days searching on the internet for a cheaper product or does the 2 hrs I’ve already done suffice given the cost and travel time necessary to pick up the article in question? Now in the case of purchasing some towels or toe nail clippers it might not matter all that much. But when it is life determining information it’s a ‘whole other country’ as Forrest Gump would say.

So when a group of people are brought together to determine how a standing President of the United States get’s shot and killed in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses they should necessarily be forced to explain everything they can get their hands on. This would be what I call integrating the information which would naturally be done by men of integrity. Neither was the case.

Spiritual and Political

As I began earlier, the kernel of thought for this post was already in my mind. It had been precipitated by something I read in the introduction of William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale. I had many thoughts on the issue as the topic permeates all of everyday life in various degrees, but it was a particular event that was recounted in the introduction to that book which inspired putting keys to screen.

Buckley had skirted with the implication that your religious thinking would impact your political thinking/leaning. As can be readily observed there is a connection between Christian – South - Republican and the corollary Non-Christian – West/East Coast, North - Democrat. Yes, there are some exceptions, and some are prominent, but on the whole it is indisputable that these are the national tendencies. And it usually ends there.

In the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition Buckley states: (pg xxxii)

I spoke earlier about a set of sentences that many critics found especially galling. When I saw the suggested formulation, written out on the margin of my manuscript, in Willmoore Kendall’s bold green script, I suspected they would cause difficulty. But there was a nice rhetorical resonance and an intrinsic, almost nonchalant suggestion of an exciting symbiosis, so I let it pass: “I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.” The words “same struggle reproduced on another level” were not originally my own. In the prolonged defense of the book I did not renounce them...

He gives a part reason why he did not ‘adjust’ the editor’s rewrite as “I was tickled by the audacity of the sally and not unamused by the sputtering outrage of its critics”.

So what was so objectionable, perhaps the most in his entire book, by formulating a direct connection between the spiritual and political struggles? So much so that Buckley refers to it as audacious.

Buckley answers: “The widespread objection was not only on the point that to suggest an affinity between eschatological prospects of heaven and hell and the correct role of the state in achieving full employment was something on the order of blasphemy. It was fueled by the ideological conviction of many Christian modernists that the road to Christianity, on earth, lies through the federal government.” (pg xxxiii)

So basically people like to keep their religion away from their politics and vice versa? The thinking that Christian nirvana is to be achieved through the government doesn’t appear that implausible. Again, why the objection? While I can see the reality of the objection, with the numerous levels of evidence to support, the cause is obscured. What’s so problematic about a Christian perspective being determinative of our political views? Isn’t it the case regardless? Don’t our views of life, love, values, eternity, creation/evolution completely determine our political leanings as well as all of our actions?

Lack of Integration

It might be helpful to exhibit what I consider to be a supreme example of a lack of integration.

And you need to understand, the people I speak of are integrated in a certain way. In fact I think everyone is integrated, meaning their actions are consistent with their viewpoints; as in the Warren Commission not including the ‘grassy knoll’ witnesses. To many this appears unconscionable but when you understand their mandate, their training, their method of choosing the ‘Best Evidence’ (Lifton) and discarding the rest, there is a displayed consistency.

In the above example the physicist would regard the Commission’s activities as ignoring critical facts, gross negligence and distorting the truth. The Commission would most likely think the physicist is involving irrelevant information and wasting time on endless details all the while placing too little emphasis on what’s obvious.

So the premises that you approach the information with will predetermine your results. And for the purposes of becoming integrated, in an all encompassing way, there is no alternative but to come with no presuppositions. This is akin to the physicist ‘style’ who attempts to explain all phenomena not just bits and pieces that might support his theory. In fact the validity of his theory will depend solely on its ability to do this.

The Turner Example

I was watching Oprah’s Master Class - Ted Turner, only because Mr. Turner was the topic and I had some respect for what he did to create CNN. I watched him with concern regarding his slide into the Time Warner merger then the AOL debacle as well his marriage/divorce to Jane Fonda. So I was a bit interested to hear what he had to say.

He commented on Carter boycotting the summer Olympics. “He made the decision to boycott it (Olympics) because the Soviets were in Afghanistan. We’re in Afghanistan now and they’re not boycotting our sporting events, thank goodness. Back in those days there wasn’t much else we could do I guess.” It sounds as though he makes no distinction between Soviet and American efforts in Afghanistan. Actually I would say he doesn’t make a distinction.

It wasn’t just Carter. Sixty-one nations boycotted the 1980 Olympics starting with Saudi Arabia. Carter called it “gross interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan” and a “blatant violation of accepted international rules of behavior.” Clearly the Soviet’s were the aggressors in this scenario consistent with their history of ‘invasion’ type expansions. (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.) That was their M.O.

So Turner equates that activity with America’s presence in Afghanistan? We should be thankful that they don’t boycott us because we’re in there defending the Afghan people against a totalitarian takeover of their country? It doesn’t end here.

The Soviets followed up with a boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They claimed their athletes might be subjected to physical attacks and it was not safe in America. America has “chauvinistic sentiments and anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in this country”. Not that America had invaded another country without provocation, but that there were anti-Soviet sentiments within the US. Then President Reagan called this a “blatant political decision for which there was no real justification. The result being it had been 12 years since the Soviets and Americans had competed head to head. To resolve this deadlock Turner started the Goodwill Games to bring these two powerhouses together again. At the ceremonies Turner summed up his view in the statement, “All the people of the world can cooperate together in sports and other endeavors in a worthwhile and beneficial manner irrespective of our different political, religious and other beliefs”.

From where I sit this is the perfect expression of a complete lack of integration. To some degree it boggles my mind. I know somehow to Mr. Turner this all fits, but it’s hard to see how. Clearly the wish and desire to be together supersedes everything else. Despite the fact that the Soviets had relentlessly pursued the subjugation and domination of neighboring countries both overtly and subvertly since they came into existence, Turner would propose we ignore this and be friends. Is this not like allowing a pedophile to play with children at a playground in hopes that they will become friends. The goal of friendship between human beings overrides the historically patterned danger one poses to the other. Is it not the same?

If we put aside our beliefs, both religious and the politics that fall out of them, why does anything matter or have value after that? To internally segregate the confirmed activities of an avowed enemy and separate them from an overwhelming desire to become friends is patently insane. Is it any wonder Turner lost $7 billion in his business dealings with Time Warner/AOL. How would Turners chosen inability to separate friends from enemies not affect his business activities? It wouldn’t.

Integrating Information

It is generally understood that incorporating all available information in making your decisions/choices is the best course of action. What you don’t know can only hurt you. And it’s not just having the information but knowing what it means that affects our lives.

It is helpful to return to the case of David Lifton’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination. What intrigued David initially was the physics rejecting, rearward head snap coupled with the supposed shot from behind. As he combed through and reviewed the evidence he was forced to some conclusions that terrified him to the core. It challenged his fundamental views of how America worked and how he perceived life. My thesis is that when confronted with this type of life changing evidence, rather than process it to the dismantling/rebuilding of all that we have previously thought; we opt for a mental compartmentalization. Same would be true for Turner who prefers a pretend universe of fake friendship between nations to hide the awful reality of the conscious attempt by an enemy to destroy another nation.

Thus when Buckley suggests, or more precisely his chosen editor suggests, that there is a connection between religious and political views all hell breaks loose, literally. The centuries developed compartments between religion and any other mental disciplines are being called into question. That cannot happen, partly because there is so much at stake. Your views on religion or faith dramatically affect every aspect of your life, as they should. So here, more than anywhere, you will see extreme displays of ignoring information/facts so that preferred world views and activities can be maintained.

In the two cases cited so far, and probably every other example that will come to mind (endless), the desire for mankind to be fundamentally good is unstoppable. Directly contrary to this is the Christian view, or more accurately God’s view, that man is not fundamentally good. His goodness can only be attained through a death and resurrection. These opposing camps are in a knock down drag out fight until the last day. The removal of religion and ones views surrounding it are the bedrock from which all else springs. Not just political views, but social, familial, financial, moral and any other thought that comes to mind. One can extrapolate how embedded this thinking has become considering the violent reaction to a line in a book, written by a student in 1951. And the desire of the world is to continue to severe any connection between what your core views of life are and the necessary implications of those views.  In support of this perspective I’ve taken it upon myself to make a mindmap (next post) showing the necessary views that fall out between Christian and non-Christian. In the current compartmentalized universe we live in, people may adhere to conflicting end mental products. For various and serious reasons, they have not followed through fully on the implications of their fundamental thinking. Not unlike Buckley’s fearful amusement at the fallout from crossing certain mental lines. As I have a comprehensive basis for connecting these dots, I welcome any challenge to how these should or should not align.

Summary

In summary this is really about allowing a seed to take root. That seed is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is unearthly pressure to prevent that from occurring. There are powerful mantras, accusations, world opinions that would ostracize you from society if you are to follow to those logical conclusions. These get further blurred on a daily basis. What was once outrageous, becomes accepted, then advocated, then demanded with consequences. I don’t see this trend abating in anyway. As my mentor once said, “As the world gets darker, the lights will only shine brighter”.

Piers Morgan, Michelle Bachman, Kirk Cameron and being Gay

While on an out of town training course, I was having dinner in my hotel room when I happened to flip through an interview on Piers Morgan’s show. I’d watched him a few times before and not much since then. I guess I was just thinking he seemed normal and pleasant enough, but nothing to write home about. He was interviewing Joel Osteen at the time along with his wife. This time around he was going after Michelle Bachman.

What prompted me to put fingers to keyboard was what appears as an inconsistency on Piers part and also, an across the board weak ass response to his questioning.

The topic on the screen was Michelle’s views of homosexuality, sin or not sin. She did everything she could to circumvent the question and saying “I am not judgmental.” Piers would have none of it and provided an on screen quote that conclusively showed she had some pretty clear and conclusive judgments on the matter. Again she refused and avoided answering the question. Her repeated response was that she believed marriage is between a man and a woman.

Piers had thrown at her Rush Limbaugh’s recent statement calling Sandra Fluke a slut as well as Kirk Cameron’s statement that a gay lifestyle is unnatural, detrimental and destructive. Michelle wouldn’t take the bait and stumbled around the questions with the elegance of an elephant in a pottery barn. It was transparent she wanted nothing to do with this line of questioning, repeatedly calling Piers rude.

Following Cameron's more straightforward remarks, he was relentless attacked through out the media so much so that Piers himself defended his right to have these views and brave for being honest about them; simply calling the view antiquated.

The same is going on for Rush. As Laura Ingram pointed out, Obama never called her after Ed Shultz called her a slut. But Obama couldn’t wait to voice his support for Sandra. These people are like vampires who smell blood. They will fight to drain every drop even if they can’t kill the victim. Not that calling her a slut was a smart move. But I think his point was $3,000/yr for contraceptives? If you calculate it by condoms (not everyone’s choice grant you) at $0.50 to $0.75 we’re talking around 4,000 condoms divided by 365 days = 11 times a day. His point is also what has this to do with health care. Yeah the odd case might be medically related but not worthy of this nationwide news media flooding.

It looks like there’s lots going on here but actually there’s not. The world is trying to find any issue and make it a watershed. Frankly, the way it’s stacking up I will place my bets on homosexuality. If you’re opposed, then it’s a hate crime; in the end with legal consequences. To say you disagree offends all of them so you shouldn’t be allowed to say such things. They may succeed. This is nothing new in the left wings tactics to demonize the right. If they can’t shut them up there, next in line is abortion (‘women’s right to health care’) which is directly tied to your views on creation/evolution and contraception. Get used to it because it won’t be ending until he returns.

What I did find strange was that Piers didn’t take Osteen to task when he answered in the affirmative, that homosexuality is a sin. It was a rather limp response claiming he had no choice because the bible said it was, nevertheless Piers had no comeback. Along the same lines he gave some support to Cameron. Perhaps Piers hasn’t quite shed his Catholic upbringing and if you’re coming from a religious perspective, as both Joel and Kirk were, Piers cuts some form of ‘tax exempt’ status. Bachman, on the other hand, was in the political arena so the gloves were off, also she wasn’t showing her true colors which probably annoyed him.

What I don’t like is the weak way it’s being handled. We need to face up to the fact that the world does, and will continue to hate Christians for their beliefs. We are the salt of the earth. Don’t lose our saltness. The bible does say homosexuality is a sin. For most Christians that would mean, not a good thing. And if you don’t already realize it, the world doesn’t give a shit about what Christians think is or is not a sin. They don’t believe in it period; no such thing in their world view.

When Sandra says she was ‘hurt’ by Rush’s comments I would highly doubt it. You don’t get hurt by people you don’t have any respect for. (On the other hand the liberal mentality is that everyone has to love you so maybe she was a little hurt.) Like Piers, when he asks Bachman if it’s a sin, her response should be, “I don’t know Piers, how would you define sin.” Don’t let them hang you with your own tools, especially when for them, they are meaningless. These people want to destroy any and all remnants of Christianity. They are on a seek and destroy mission. We should be doing the same. Yes, it’s a friggin sin, but what do you care? There is no common ground, don’t pretend you can walk on it.

China - J.Goldberg

I regularly read Jonah Goldberg who writes for National Review Online. He wrote something this week that I have linked to the title below. I have been waiting for something like this since the evidence clearly points in that direction. Mr. Goldberg says it like no one else can:

Why We Need Not Envy China 
Would we honestly trade our problems for theirs?

Immanuel Velikovsky

While attending Wycliffe Theological College in Toronto, Ontario my pastor mentioned the name Velikovsky in passing. I hadn’t heard of him before so began a bit of an investigation into what he’s about. In the end I purchased a number of his works (Ages in Chaos, Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval) and read them front to back. If the work had not been of interest I wouldn’t have got past the first few pages. I won’t usually read anything that is clearly flawed unless it was necessary to a part of my formal education.

What Velikovsky proposed didn’t seem to be that big of a deal to me. Of course I had grown up with little vested interest in history per se or much concern for the movement of the planets (outside their normal orbits) as I held most of this to be speculation. The work of Clark Pinnock in Set Forth Your Case gave me a swift kick to the side of the head as well as the heart which caused history to begin to matter. I was still in the early stages of integrating this reality (although I’m pretty quick about these things) when Velikovsky’s reordered chronologies entered my thinking.

Basically Velikovsky believed that there were catastrophic events on earth from near misses by Venus and Mars which would not have the orbits they currently enjoy. Venus was a recent planet that was an offshoot from Jupiter. It’s near passing of earth was related to the events accounted for in the plagues prior to the exodus. He had gathered a number of records from ancient cultures around the globe that describe in a somewhat similar fashion what they saw and experience from the heavens. Based on this he realigned history to have this major catastrophic event be the lynch pin linking the historic timeline together.

In most cases does this really matter or better put, who cares? Well one of the key realignments was between Israel and Egypt. There were stories in Egyptian history that referenced similar events as described by the Old Testament during the plagues. When these are aligned the matching time period in Egyptian history is not the universally accepted 1250 BC but rather 1650 BC. On a bit of a lark I pulled out my course text book on Egypt called The Culture of Ancient Egypt by John A. Wilson. I flipped though until I found the time period under discussion. In the opening paragraph it was discussing the fall of the middle kingdom and the fact that it was virtually unknown how this occurred. Now this was the greatest era in one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man (gave us the pyramids), yet there was no evidence to determine how it came to an abrupt end????

Perhaps I read more into this than I should but I was blown away. This made way more sense than trying to jam it into 1250 BC where the Pharaohs don’t really line up or fit Israel’s timeline. Also, I had read this before while I was taking the class and this never stood out. Now it looked like the proverbial sore thumb. For the first time I was actually interested in history. I mean if these chronologies were lined up properly then there should be a serious windfall of matching corroborative evidence for both cultures including the Old Testament. Well that’s what Velikovsky did. He basically took some of the key events in the Old Testament and matched them to the same occurrences in Ancient Egypt. This read like a real history book. Not what I was used to which was basically a story with no evidence to support it. There were constant references back to this or that document. I especially remember the information on who was the Queen of Sheba. A comparison followed between the offering she brought to Solomon and a very similar listing from Egyptian documents of what was loaded onto a barge for the same purposes.

I also had to do a paper called “Who destroyed Shilo?” This was for a different course in a different college. Well I just added the 400 years and went back to Wilson’s Culture and low and behold found there were campaigns of plundering by the Egyptians into Mesopotamia at the time and Shilo was one of the cities that were listed by name. This was a bit freaky since these books had nothing to do with one another.

So I was pretty excited thinking this would open the door to endless corroboration of the Old Testament. It seemed to me there were relatively scant evidence and a whole lot of criticism. In my zeal I went to my Old Testament Professor to see if he’d heard of Velikovsky and the potential goldmine he’d unearthed. My meeting with R.K. Harrison was brief. He had taught at Richmond College when I was there and I had him again at Wycliffe. He was renowned for his tomb Introduction to the Old Testament which was a standard for anyone going through these doors. Sure enough Mr. Harrison had heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but gave zero credence to his postulations. The conversation did not last long and I left a little disheartened. I didn’t know why he was so convinced that Velikovsky was wrong but I sure knew that’s what he thought.

Only later did I discover that this was merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The entire scientific community was up in arms at Velikovsky’s suggested theories, to the point of extreme absurdity. Of course the bulk of Mr. Harrison’s work would require complete revision if he were to be correct.

I continue to ponder the Exodus. It made so much sense, if the Old Testament were accurate. At one point Pharaoh was concerned with how many Jews there were because they outnumbered their own people. They were slaves so clearly an enormous workforce. And you’d need a very large army to keep them in check. Also, they’d been at it for 400 years. It makes sense why Pharaoh would not want to let them go because the entire infrastructure of Egypt lay in the balance. Even after he agrees to release them he comes to his senses and goes after them. In the end Pharaoh and all his army are destroyed in the collapse of the Red Sea (Harrison called this the “Reed” sea) and over half the population of Egypt (the work force) is gone. This makes perfect sense as to why Middle Kingdom fell. Also, it is logical to assume the Jews actually built the pyramids which remain a wonder of the world.

Velikovsky’s work created an enormous divide in the scientific community. The majority opposed but some were open to new ideas and scientific query into the truth of the matter. I noted the unbridled vitriolic displayed by many (Shapely, Sagan) which are the sure signs of children with their toys removed from their possession. These men were supposed to be scientists not Hollywood rags working by slander and innuendo. The fact that such a nerve was touch pointed more to the potential validity of the theory rather than against it.

As one pro-Velikovskian person put it so many years later:

I mean that should one reasonably and incredulously ask: ‘Is there nowhere an anti-Velikovsky treatise of serious consequence?’ the answer, regrettably, is still ‘no.’ Not in general nor even in a special discipline such as astrophysics or archaeology. Thousands of scientists and scholars have impugned his work. A few have stepped up to bat against him or one of his team: they put on airs; they dance about; they come up unprepared; they take blundering swipes at the ball; they strike out. When all is done, they say that it was not a real professional ballgame.- Alfred de Grazia The Velikovsky Affair