“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?!” This lamentation by Jesus Christ while hanging on the cross, is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27.
For a long time I could not understand what this meant. Did God really forsake his Son?
I heard many explanations trying to solve this enigmatic exclamation of Jesus in his dying hour. Some said that because the sin of the world was placed on the Jesus, he in fact “became sin for us”, God who despises sin, therefore removed Himself from his Son. And so the explanations go on.
My personal opinion is not that Jesus were forsaken by his Father, or that Jesus succumb in his dying moments under his human-nature. Instead, I believe that Jesus was making a very clear reference to an Old Testament prophecy that foretold in shocking detail this very scene happening.
In Jesus called out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” he was in fact reciting directly the first line of Psalm 22. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (Psalm 22:1). The Jews standing close by, familiar with the Hebrew Psalms, would immediately have recognised this line from the famous Psalm. They would also have made the obvious connections.
In Psalm 22:7, 8 it is written: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” Recounting the Crucifixion Matthew writes: “And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads... Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said... He trusted in God: let him deliver him now, if he will have him...” (Matthew 27:39-43).
Psalm 22:16 says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion.
Verse 18 says: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” Matthew (27:35) recounts: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots...”
It is my understanding that when Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”, he was deliberately reminding the spectators of Psalm 22 that described the death of the Messiah. Those that knew this psalm would easily have made the connection, seeing that Jesus’ crucifixion (piercing of hands and feet), even the gambling over his clothes, were foretold by Scripture centuries in advance.
Jesus Christ’s exclamation was clearly not merely a hopeless lament; rather it was a deliberate quote from a Messianic Prophecy foretelling the last moments of his death. Even in his hour of death, He was proving his claim as the Messiah.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremists -- not all bad...
The terror attacks in Mumbai, India, considered the worst terror attacks since 9/11, has come to an end with Indian commandos killing the last three gunmen on Saturday. The terrorists were after Americans (or anyone that looked American, i.e. any Westerners) and Jews. But the range of foreigners that died also included Germans, Canadians, Israelis, British, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Australians and Singaporeans – 195 deceased not counting the killed terrorists.
Few people doubt the religious motivation behind such attacks by Islamic militants. It is for this very reason that critical dialogue about religions should not be stifled.
A while back fellow blogger, Adam, sent me a link to an article by Fox News about a UN resolution “intended to curtail speech that offends religion – particularly Islam”. This is a serious concern. When people are acting out in such terrible ways, and that in the name of their religion, how can we “curtail speech”? I’m not saying hate speech – but a spade needs to be called a spade. If a religious group acts in an aggressive and brutal way one shouldn’t be afraid of offending the sensibilities of skewed religious views.
I have been told that Islam is not a militant religion – these are just a small extremist section of the religion. I know some Muslims, so I’m not taking the stereotypical route of accusing all of Islam of being militant. That would not only be unfair, but not the truth. However, we cannot sugarcoat dangerous sectarian groups.
Still, one should be careful. It can be easy to call all sectarians groups (any religious group that is different from the mainstream) extremist and fanatical and mean it derogatorily. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with extremists and fanatics; as long as their extremist or fanatical behaviour doesn’t harm others. Take the Amish as an example. They would probably be labelled extremists or fanatics, but they don’t bother anybody and there Anabaptist background means that they practise non-resistance. In other words, they won’t turn into terrorists. So even if they are fundamentalist fanatical extremists – that’s okay. Fanaticism is not a danger to society in and of itself. In fact, it might even be a good thing: I’m sure the Amish are better at protecting the environment; they don’t consume much energy or add substantially to pollution; they are self-sustaining and therefore do not rely on government assistance like Social Security; they encourage family life and simple living (opposed to the overindulgence that caused the worldwide financial crisis), etc.
Few people doubt the religious motivation behind such attacks by Islamic militants. It is for this very reason that critical dialogue about religions should not be stifled.
A while back fellow blogger, Adam, sent me a link to an article by Fox News about a UN resolution “intended to curtail speech that offends religion – particularly Islam”. This is a serious concern. When people are acting out in such terrible ways, and that in the name of their religion, how can we “curtail speech”? I’m not saying hate speech – but a spade needs to be called a spade. If a religious group acts in an aggressive and brutal way one shouldn’t be afraid of offending the sensibilities of skewed religious views.
I have been told that Islam is not a militant religion – these are just a small extremist section of the religion. I know some Muslims, so I’m not taking the stereotypical route of accusing all of Islam of being militant. That would not only be unfair, but not the truth. However, we cannot sugarcoat dangerous sectarian groups.
Still, one should be careful. It can be easy to call all sectarians groups (any religious group that is different from the mainstream) extremist and fanatical and mean it derogatorily. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with extremists and fanatics; as long as their extremist or fanatical behaviour doesn’t harm others. Take the Amish as an example. They would probably be labelled extremists or fanatics, but they don’t bother anybody and there Anabaptist background means that they practise non-resistance. In other words, they won’t turn into terrorists. So even if they are fundamentalist fanatical extremists – that’s okay. Fanaticism is not a danger to society in and of itself. In fact, it might even be a good thing: I’m sure the Amish are better at protecting the environment; they don’t consume much energy or add substantially to pollution; they are self-sustaining and therefore do not rely on government assistance like Social Security; they encourage family life and simple living (opposed to the overindulgence that caused the worldwide financial crisis), etc.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Banned from the Bible
Upon watching History Channel’s “Banned from the Bible” I’m wondering why it is that people always endeavour to complicate things.
The documentary tries to give answers to why certain books did not make it into the Christian canon. The ideas that these people come up with astounds me. Why complicate it so?
There are three basic principles to remember when thinking of the Christian Bible.
Firstly, Christianity resulted as a metamorphosis out of Judaism. Like a caterpillar and butterfly, they might look very different, but in essence they are the same thing. The latter is merely the fruition of the former. Christianity is the fulfilment of the religion of Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew Prophets. Therefore, the Old Testament books of the Christian Bible, are in fact books from the Judaic religion – the Torah and the Tanakh. The Torah (or Pentateuch) being the first five books of the Bible, also known as the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is the rest of the primary books used in the Hebrew religion and usually called the Old Testament in the Christian tradition.
For this reason, any books written later in history and not from this Hebrew origin (i.e. from the Tanakh) is by default considered fraudulent. It makes very much sense that such fake books would not be included in the Old Testament section of the Bible, for they are not of the orthodox Hebrew origin. For example the text “The Life of Adam and Eve”, written a couple of thousand years after Moses wrote Genesis, is clearly not authentic.
Secondly, the New Testament books are collections that were written shortly after the earthly ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus and the apostolic church (the very first generation or two of converts). The authors of the New Testament scriptures were primarily eye-witnesses and these texts therefore eye-witness accounts and teachings based there on.
Therefore, any books that came afterwards, after these disciples (known as apostles or saints) died, are considered unauthentic accounts of what happened. These apocryphal books may have the names of disciples attributed to them (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), but it is well accepted that these texts only came into existence many years, often centuries, after the life of Jesus on earth, or the life of his disciples. Such later texts were not included into the Christian canon for the obvious reason that their origin is questionable.
Thirdly, the Biblical texts (Old and New Testaments) are in discourse with each other and they are all basically retelling the same themes that was set down in the Torah. There is an internal harmony in their motifs, often merely building out, clarifying, extending the same ideas. For example the Torah tells about the fall of man into sin, and God's promise to save man from sin, through the sacrificial death of the innocent "lamb". The New Testament Gospels retells this narrative as God saving sinful mankind through the death of the "Lamb of God", which is in fact God-Incarnate, i.e. Jesus the Christ. Any book which themes are wholly different than the rest of the Bible is clearly not part of the same discourse and such books were not included in the Christian canon.
And just in case you wonder how the possible inclusion or exclusion of a text from the Canon will influence Christian doctrine, well...not much. Sound Biblical doctrines are never based on single texts, but on a “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1), i.e. many texts throughout the canon. Consequently, these extra-biblical books doesn’t shake the sound doctrines of the Bible, since good biblical doctrine are based not on isolated ideas, but a combination of mutually affirming and balancing teachings.
The documentary tries to give answers to why certain books did not make it into the Christian canon. The ideas that these people come up with astounds me. Why complicate it so?
There are three basic principles to remember when thinking of the Christian Bible.
Firstly, Christianity resulted as a metamorphosis out of Judaism. Like a caterpillar and butterfly, they might look very different, but in essence they are the same thing. The latter is merely the fruition of the former. Christianity is the fulfilment of the religion of Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew Prophets. Therefore, the Old Testament books of the Christian Bible, are in fact books from the Judaic religion – the Torah and the Tanakh. The Torah (or Pentateuch) being the first five books of the Bible, also known as the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is the rest of the primary books used in the Hebrew religion and usually called the Old Testament in the Christian tradition.
For this reason, any books written later in history and not from this Hebrew origin (i.e. from the Tanakh) is by default considered fraudulent. It makes very much sense that such fake books would not be included in the Old Testament section of the Bible, for they are not of the orthodox Hebrew origin. For example the text “The Life of Adam and Eve”, written a couple of thousand years after Moses wrote Genesis, is clearly not authentic.
Secondly, the New Testament books are collections that were written shortly after the earthly ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus and the apostolic church (the very first generation or two of converts). The authors of the New Testament scriptures were primarily eye-witnesses and these texts therefore eye-witness accounts and teachings based there on.
Therefore, any books that came afterwards, after these disciples (known as apostles or saints) died, are considered unauthentic accounts of what happened. These apocryphal books may have the names of disciples attributed to them (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), but it is well accepted that these texts only came into existence many years, often centuries, after the life of Jesus on earth, or the life of his disciples. Such later texts were not included into the Christian canon for the obvious reason that their origin is questionable.
Thirdly, the Biblical texts (Old and New Testaments) are in discourse with each other and they are all basically retelling the same themes that was set down in the Torah. There is an internal harmony in their motifs, often merely building out, clarifying, extending the same ideas. For example the Torah tells about the fall of man into sin, and God's promise to save man from sin, through the sacrificial death of the innocent "lamb". The New Testament Gospels retells this narrative as God saving sinful mankind through the death of the "Lamb of God", which is in fact God-Incarnate, i.e. Jesus the Christ. Any book which themes are wholly different than the rest of the Bible is clearly not part of the same discourse and such books were not included in the Christian canon.
And just in case you wonder how the possible inclusion or exclusion of a text from the Canon will influence Christian doctrine, well...not much. Sound Biblical doctrines are never based on single texts, but on a “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1), i.e. many texts throughout the canon. Consequently, these extra-biblical books doesn’t shake the sound doctrines of the Bible, since good biblical doctrine are based not on isolated ideas, but a combination of mutually affirming and balancing teachings.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Bible Prophecy 101
Eschatological prophecies (prophecies about the end-time) is an exciting study, and not that difficult once you understand the basic principles of interpreting Bible prophecies.A basic rule of thumb is that the Bible usually interprets itself. It is seldom necessary for us to do too much guess work. Once you’ve deciphered the symbolism (all of which are revealed in Scripture) it is fairly easy to get the general idea of eschatological prophecies. Add to this some archeology and historical research and you would stand amazed at the Bible. No other religious text does what the Bible does, in predicting future events hundreds and sometimes thousands of years in advance.
To get an idea for Bible Prophecy look at the prophecy in chapter 2 in the Book of Daniel.
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon had a dream which no one could interpret. But then Daniel, the man of God, comes to the rescue.
Here is the dream (Dan. 2:31-36):
As for you, O king, while you were in your bed your thoughts turned to future things. The revealer of mysteries has made known to you what will take place. As for me, this mystery was revealed to me not because I possess more wisdom than any other living person, but so that the king may understand the interpretation and comprehend the thoughts of your mind. “You, O king, were watching as a great statue – one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness – was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay. You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth. This was the dream. Now we will set forth before the king its interpretation.Daniel then continues (Dan. 2:37-49) to explain that the golden head represents Babylon, the arms of silver is the next kingdom to conquer Babylon, the hips of bronze is the kingdom that overthrew the silver kingdom, which in turn is followed by the last great kingdom, represented by the legs of iron. This last kingdom would not be followed by one great kingdom, but instead would splinter into smaller kingdoms (“fear…partly of iron and partly of clay”). Lastly, everything will be destroyed and replaced with God's Kingdom.
A simple look at history makes everything quite clear. The kingdom that conquered Babylon was the combined kingdom of Medo-Persia, represented by the chest and arms. Medo-Persia was conquered by Greece, the hips of bronze. Greece in turn was followed by the iron empire of Rome. Rome was never followed by any single great kingdom, instead the Roman Empire splintered into many smaller kingdoms. We are now living in the final stages of the feet-era.
Daniel lived at the end of the great Babylonian Empire and was still alive to see the Medo-Persians conquer Babylon.
The accuracy of this prophecy still astounds scholars to this day.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hebrew Document - Older than Dead Sea Scrolls - Found
A pottery shard a thousand years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found, with Hebrew inscriptions on it. That would make it the oldest Hebrew document ever found. You can listen to the short podcast, or read more, here.
Monday, November 10, 2008
It's in His Message, not His Tomb
Photo by APIn Jerusalem Christian monks brawled yesterday at the supposed sight of Jesus’ tomb, and the supposed cross that was used to crucify Jesus and discovered in the 4th Century. The brawl broke out between monks from the Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches.
The New York Daily News has as its story headline: “Not Very Christian!”
These claims to holy sites and religious artefacts are very much outside of Jesus Christ’s legacy. Jesus did not leave any tangible stuff behind – knowing fully well that man would be tempted to worship such earthly things. He did not even write anything down. There are no manuscripts written by him. The one occasion He wrote, he wrote in the sand. We are not to be tempted to worship things or places. What Jesus left us was a message, which we call the Good News – the Gospel. Jesus is not to be found in objects or special holy sites. It is in his message that we can find him, and nobody (and no church) has a monopoly over that message.
The Daily News is correct. Such emphasis on things and places are not very Christian.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Halloween or Intimidation?
Black Panthers stood at polling stations armed with batons... Halloween gone too far, or intimidation of voters?
Monday, November 3, 2008
God
One of my favourite topics of contemplation is God. My musings are somewhat theological, or rather philosophical with theological implications.
Recently I’ve been pondering God’s perfection. God is perfect (this idea includes God’s self-sufficiency; i.e. God has no external needs but is completely fulfilled within God-self). Assuming this is so, then God does not require anything from us. We often hear people say that God requires us to love Him, or God requires us to be good. Although these things might be true, in the sense that God prefers love (a perfect ideal) over hate (imperfect), or goodness (perfect ideal) over evil (imperfect), whatever we do will never affect God’s self-sufficiency. Unlike the gods in fantasy books and computer games that wither away when they are not worshipped, God does not need our worship. (God may appreciate it, but definitely do not need it in any intrinsic sense.)
Such thoughts must sound strange coming from a Christian, but then again, I consider my Christianity founded on philosophical understandings, more than religious traditions.
I think it is because Christians sometimes forget these basic truths about God’s essence (such as God’s self-sufficiency) that they come up with all kinds of strange dogmas. Some people think that if they do certain things, or if they don’t do other things, God will love them more (or conversely like them less). Can you see the problem with this type of thinking? God doesn’t need anything and therefore your doing or not doing will not influence how God feels about you. As a Christian I believe that God is Love, and as such God loves all people unconditionally, regardless of their doings and non-doings.
A possible problem with this focus on God’s self-sufficiency is that one can easily find oneself on a logical slippery-slope resulting in an aloof deistic god. Because all of its needs are met within itself, it is completely inward focussed (self-centred) and as some philosophers of old thought, such a god, dazed in its self-generated ecstasy, would be completely oblivious to anything outside of itself; completely inward-focussed.
This is not at all what I think of God. I think that God’s self-sufficiency is creating exactly the opposite effect; God is completely outward-focussed. It is precisely because all God’s needs are met within God-self, that God can act perfectly unselfishly. God’s actions towards us are without any hidden agendas or selfish pursuits. God’s actions towards us are an immanent outflow of God’s unselfish character.
It is because of God’s self-sufficiency that God can truly love us unconditionally. Humans almost (or probably) never love unconditionally. We usually love other people because of what they do for us, or how they make us feel, or because of their love towards us, or how the act of loving makes us feel, or other such variables. God, on the other hand, does not love us because what we do for God or how we make God feel, and so on; rather, God loves us purely because that is who God is. God is love. God has no need that we can fulfil in God; therefore God’s love towards us is perfect. No strings attached. Unlike us, God does not need to love something, or be loved in return. God is self-fulfilled. But still God loves us because that is God’s character. Just as the sun do not need to shine, it merely shine because that is it’s nature, so God loves, because that is who God is.
Many Christians believe that God loves humanity because of the price paid by Jesus Christ on the cross. This notion implies that God had a (vengeful / retributive) need to be fulfilled and so Jesus supplied that need by being tortured and killed. But this is a completely wrong concept of what happened at the Cross. As one writer puts it: “The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’, 2 Corinthians 5:19.” [“Propitiation” means something that appeases a Deity.]
Jesus Christ did many things at the Cross, one of them we can understand to be a type of payment [“propitiation”] for the sins of humanity, but whatever happened at the Cross it was not intended to change God’s attitude towards us. God is a constant. God is perfect. And God loves us perfectly.
The idea of God’s perfection and self-sufficiency should also rid us of all our attempts at saving ourselves; rid us of all our self-righteousness. If God is perfect, then what on earth can we give as sacrifice that could satisfy a self-sufficient, perfect God? Not even our love can add to God’s self-sufficiency. There is nothing that God needs from us. That is why Christianity believes, that if propitiation is needed, only God can supply such a sacrifice. And only something innately perfect can be such an offer. Only God-self could be such an offer (as only God is innately perfect) – and that is, what we understand Christ, as God-Incarnate, to be.
The text quoted above, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, says that it is not God that is in enmity towards us, but we are enemies with God and through the ministry of Christ, God could reconcile us to “Himself”. In other words, through Christ, God could help us change, from being enemies with God, to being friends with God.
Whatever God requests from us, is not for God’s good, but for our good. If God requires us to love God, it is not because God needs to be loved, but it is because we need to love God. If God requires us not to steel or kill or any such moral principle, it is not because our wrong doing is going to deduct from God in some mystical way. Rather, wrong doing will negatively affect our lives, or the lives of other people. God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules by a spoilsport grandfather in the sky that wants to ruin our fun; instead, God’s commandments are for our good, and for the good of our fellow men and women. They are precepts for a life of unselfishness.
Understanding this, a theologian might ask: “If God doesn’t need anything from us, how then can anybody be lost? Aren’t you advocating some kind of universalism where everyone is saved?”
This too, would be a misunderstanding of God’s essence. If God is love, then God will never force Himself onto us. Forced loved is not real love – it is a selfish act, which we call “rape”. No, in God’s love, God will always allow us freedom of choice. Therefore we are always free not to choose God. Unfortunately this choice also means damnation. Not because God arbitrarily damns us, but because God is the Source of Life, love and all creative and regenerative power. Only when we choose God do we have access to these sustaining and restorative forces. So only in a relationship with God can we have salvation. Apart from God there is no salvation.
Recently I’ve been pondering God’s perfection. God is perfect (this idea includes God’s self-sufficiency; i.e. God has no external needs but is completely fulfilled within God-self). Assuming this is so, then God does not require anything from us. We often hear people say that God requires us to love Him, or God requires us to be good. Although these things might be true, in the sense that God prefers love (a perfect ideal) over hate (imperfect), or goodness (perfect ideal) over evil (imperfect), whatever we do will never affect God’s self-sufficiency. Unlike the gods in fantasy books and computer games that wither away when they are not worshipped, God does not need our worship. (God may appreciate it, but definitely do not need it in any intrinsic sense.)
Such thoughts must sound strange coming from a Christian, but then again, I consider my Christianity founded on philosophical understandings, more than religious traditions.
I think it is because Christians sometimes forget these basic truths about God’s essence (such as God’s self-sufficiency) that they come up with all kinds of strange dogmas. Some people think that if they do certain things, or if they don’t do other things, God will love them more (or conversely like them less). Can you see the problem with this type of thinking? God doesn’t need anything and therefore your doing or not doing will not influence how God feels about you. As a Christian I believe that God is Love, and as such God loves all people unconditionally, regardless of their doings and non-doings.
A possible problem with this focus on God’s self-sufficiency is that one can easily find oneself on a logical slippery-slope resulting in an aloof deistic god. Because all of its needs are met within itself, it is completely inward focussed (self-centred) and as some philosophers of old thought, such a god, dazed in its self-generated ecstasy, would be completely oblivious to anything outside of itself; completely inward-focussed.
This is not at all what I think of God. I think that God’s self-sufficiency is creating exactly the opposite effect; God is completely outward-focussed. It is precisely because all God’s needs are met within God-self, that God can act perfectly unselfishly. God’s actions towards us are without any hidden agendas or selfish pursuits. God’s actions towards us are an immanent outflow of God’s unselfish character.
It is because of God’s self-sufficiency that God can truly love us unconditionally. Humans almost (or probably) never love unconditionally. We usually love other people because of what they do for us, or how they make us feel, or because of their love towards us, or how the act of loving makes us feel, or other such variables. God, on the other hand, does not love us because what we do for God or how we make God feel, and so on; rather, God loves us purely because that is who God is. God is love. God has no need that we can fulfil in God; therefore God’s love towards us is perfect. No strings attached. Unlike us, God does not need to love something, or be loved in return. God is self-fulfilled. But still God loves us because that is God’s character. Just as the sun do not need to shine, it merely shine because that is it’s nature, so God loves, because that is who God is.
Many Christians believe that God loves humanity because of the price paid by Jesus Christ on the cross. This notion implies that God had a (vengeful / retributive) need to be fulfilled and so Jesus supplied that need by being tortured and killed. But this is a completely wrong concept of what happened at the Cross. As one writer puts it: “The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’, 2 Corinthians 5:19.” [“Propitiation” means something that appeases a Deity.]
Jesus Christ did many things at the Cross, one of them we can understand to be a type of payment [“propitiation”] for the sins of humanity, but whatever happened at the Cross it was not intended to change God’s attitude towards us. God is a constant. God is perfect. And God loves us perfectly.
The idea of God’s perfection and self-sufficiency should also rid us of all our attempts at saving ourselves; rid us of all our self-righteousness. If God is perfect, then what on earth can we give as sacrifice that could satisfy a self-sufficient, perfect God? Not even our love can add to God’s self-sufficiency. There is nothing that God needs from us. That is why Christianity believes, that if propitiation is needed, only God can supply such a sacrifice. And only something innately perfect can be such an offer. Only God-self could be such an offer (as only God is innately perfect) – and that is, what we understand Christ, as God-Incarnate, to be.
The text quoted above, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, says that it is not God that is in enmity towards us, but we are enemies with God and through the ministry of Christ, God could reconcile us to “Himself”. In other words, through Christ, God could help us change, from being enemies with God, to being friends with God.
Whatever God requests from us, is not for God’s good, but for our good. If God requires us to love God, it is not because God needs to be loved, but it is because we need to love God. If God requires us not to steel or kill or any such moral principle, it is not because our wrong doing is going to deduct from God in some mystical way. Rather, wrong doing will negatively affect our lives, or the lives of other people. God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules by a spoilsport grandfather in the sky that wants to ruin our fun; instead, God’s commandments are for our good, and for the good of our fellow men and women. They are precepts for a life of unselfishness.
Understanding this, a theologian might ask: “If God doesn’t need anything from us, how then can anybody be lost? Aren’t you advocating some kind of universalism where everyone is saved?”
This too, would be a misunderstanding of God’s essence. If God is love, then God will never force Himself onto us. Forced loved is not real love – it is a selfish act, which we call “rape”. No, in God’s love, God will always allow us freedom of choice. Therefore we are always free not to choose God. Unfortunately this choice also means damnation. Not because God arbitrarily damns us, but because God is the Source of Life, love and all creative and regenerative power. Only when we choose God do we have access to these sustaining and restorative forces. So only in a relationship with God can we have salvation. Apart from God there is no salvation.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Joe the Country Singer
Two posts ago I wrote about Joe the Plumber. Well, it seems that the media types saw an opportunity and guess what?! Joe signed a deal with a Nashville company. Apparently he is going to record a country music album.
All those illegal checks into Joe's background by the-powers-that-be has created enough media hype to turn Joe the Plumber into a small time celebrity. Who knows, this guy might have enough of a singing voice and charisma to turn into a big time singing cowboy!
Here is the article.
All those illegal checks into Joe's background by the-powers-that-be has created enough media hype to turn Joe the Plumber into a small time celebrity. Who knows, this guy might have enough of a singing voice and charisma to turn into a big time singing cowboy!
Here is the article.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Evangelicals and a Golden Calf
A friend sent me a link to a blog post showing Christians praying at a statue of a golden [calf]. The irony is terribly sensational.Now the idea of laying your hands on a person and praying for them is not foreign to the Bible. But laying your hands on a statue... a golden bull at that! There is a reason why the Second Commandment says: "Though shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt no bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20:4,5)
Grant it, they were not praying at the bull, but for the economy, but still, no matter how I look at that picture, I cannot help but shakes my head.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Joe the Plumber has no Privacy
Barack Obama and Joe the Plumber. Photo by Jae C. Hong, for the Associated Press.Joseph Wurselbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber”, has become an interesting mascot during the election race in the US. As an icon for the average middle class American, Joe the Plumber has been used by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their debates – especially the third debate on 15 October 2008.
Joe isn’t anybody unusual. He just happened to be someone who asked Obama a question [See YouTube-Video] about taxes, and then McCain took "Joe the Plumber" as a “face” for the typical American that would be affected by Obama’s suggested tax changes. [Here is more on Joe and the Obama-McCain debate.]
Now what interests me is not that the candidates are hijacking Joe the Plumber as a symbol for the middle class, but rather the sinister privacy breaches.
“State and local officials are investigating whether state and law-enforcement computer systems were used illegally to obtain personal information about "Joe the Plumber",” reports the Columbus Dispatch. The New York Times ads: “The illegal access case is just one of four similar incidents involving Wurzelbacher's information after the plumber shot into the news following McCain's repeated use of his name to highlight a point about Obama's tax plans.”
Here’s this guy; haphazardly his name is used by some politicians for their own agendas. And then suddenly, although quite innocent himself, he has “illegal” background checks done on him. Who is doing it? Of course both the McCain group and the Obama group are accusing each other. But that is not my issue; to me the real issue is that such privacy violations are happening all the time in America. It is just accidental that we actually heard about it in this case.
Indeed, Joe the Plumber is really an icon for the typical middle-class American; the typical American whose privacy is at stake.
Friday, October 24, 2008
One World Government?
Will there be a One World Government, as predicted by many paranoid prophets [aka conspiracy theorists] as myself?
Well the Eschatological Prophecies (fancy phrase for End-Time Prophecies) doesn’t say so exactly. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 2, says that the many kingdoms at the end of time will not “cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” (verse 43). Similarly, Revelation talks of many kings, in other words many kingdoms (i.e. countries). The whole world will not change into one giant country ruled by a single individual (at least not initially). What Revelation does say is that “These [kings] have one mind...” (Reverlation 17:13). These kings have “one mind”, meaning they are one in purpose, they follow the same agenda.
One (physical) World Government, most unlikely. One World Order (i.e. many governments following the same agenda), quite possible.
Well the Eschatological Prophecies (fancy phrase for End-Time Prophecies) doesn’t say so exactly. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 2, says that the many kingdoms at the end of time will not “cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” (verse 43). Similarly, Revelation talks of many kings, in other words many kingdoms (i.e. countries). The whole world will not change into one giant country ruled by a single individual (at least not initially). What Revelation does say is that “These [kings] have one mind...” (Reverlation 17:13). These kings have “one mind”, meaning they are one in purpose, they follow the same agenda.
One (physical) World Government, most unlikely. One World Order (i.e. many governments following the same agenda), quite possible.
Like father (Bush), like son (Obama)?
I was curious as to why George W. Bush would push certain policies to go through, knowing fully well that it is the end of his term in office and that he would personally not benefit from those Orwell-policies. Can it be true, as some suggest, that they (all those big time politicians) are part of the same cloak-and-daggers agenda?
Adam posted the followABC News article on his blog. The article has Sen. Joe Biden making statements about crises that America will face within the first year of Sen. Barak Obama’s presidency. The only way the draconian laws of the Bush Administration can be lifted is if it is done by the next administration, but if the next presidency is faced with “an international crisis, a generated crisis”, as Biden warns, there is no way the next president will abolish these laws. He will be using those laws and it will be “possibly unpopular, decisions”.
The American government has been pushing these freedom-fettering policies because they are preparing for something. Danger looms on the horizon.
Adam posted the followABC News article on his blog. The article has Sen. Joe Biden making statements about crises that America will face within the first year of Sen. Barak Obama’s presidency. The only way the draconian laws of the Bush Administration can be lifted is if it is done by the next administration, but if the next presidency is faced with “an international crisis, a generated crisis”, as Biden warns, there is no way the next president will abolish these laws. He will be using those laws and it will be “possibly unpopular, decisions”.
The American government has been pushing these freedom-fettering policies because they are preparing for something. Danger looms on the horizon.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Death of a President's Bodyguard
About a month ago the ruling political party in South Africa requested the then president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, to resign as president. He complied with hardly a complaint. Everyone was surprised at how smoothly the transition went from Mbeki to Mothlante.
What is not focussed on is that Mbeki's closest bodyguard was murdered three days before the ANC requested Mbeki to step down. The bodyguard, who had served Mbeki for 13 years, was shot dead in his bedroom. His wife was left unharmed and nothing was stolen. An assassination?
No wonder Mbeki immediately accepted the request to resign.
Below are two news reports(and the only two South African reports I could find). Why is the media so quiet about this?
Mbeki's Bodyguard Executed?
Mbeki Bodyguard Murder Unsolved
What is not focussed on is that Mbeki's closest bodyguard was murdered three days before the ANC requested Mbeki to step down. The bodyguard, who had served Mbeki for 13 years, was shot dead in his bedroom. His wife was left unharmed and nothing was stolen. An assassination?
No wonder Mbeki immediately accepted the request to resign.
Below are two news reports(and the only two South African reports I could find). Why is the media so quiet about this?
Mbeki's Bodyguard Executed?
Mbeki Bodyguard Murder Unsolved
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Quran 9:11
Two posts ago I complained about people using the Bible incorrectly. Following is an even worse case of supposed Quran-usage.
I just received an email stating that in Quran 9:11 it says: "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace."
This verse is not in the Quran and definitely not conveniently in chapter 9 verse 11. The verse was made up by "The War on Terror"-enthusiasts. The idea is that America is the Eagle cleansing the Middle East (Iraq).
This is just another example of how people use and misuse (and in this case blatantly invent) passages from religious texts to legitimise their fraudulent agendas.
Don't be fooled by religious propaganda and wayward forwards.
I just received an email stating that in Quran 9:11 it says: "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace."
This verse is not in the Quran and definitely not conveniently in chapter 9 verse 11. The verse was made up by "The War on Terror"-enthusiasts. The idea is that America is the Eagle cleansing the Middle East (Iraq).
This is just another example of how people use and misuse (and in this case blatantly invent) passages from religious texts to legitimise their fraudulent agendas.
Don't be fooled by religious propaganda and wayward forwards.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Grass is not Greener in Iceland
“When reading your blog, I’m wondering if it would not be better to move somewhere else,” writes a friend. He lives in South Africa. His motivation is in part also to protect his wife and children from the high crime rate in the country.
My suggestion to him was to consider Northern Europe: Very low crime rate; prosperous; high on freedom of speech and religion.
And then, this morning another friend sent me the link to a blogpost by someone in Iceland. And suddenly Northern Europe doesn’t seem like such a good suggestion anymore. The blogger writes: “It’s like we know the system is broken, we know it’s gone, but we can’t see it. We can’t tell what’s real, what’s still there, and what are just the ghosts of yesterday, when Iceland was one of the richest countries in the world. A pale reflection of the golden age in Icelandic economy which is now going up in flames. Where’s the smoke?”
I don’t know how to end off this post. What does one say before the brink of disaster? I cannot even say God have mercy, ‘cause that will insinuate that God is somehow to blame and that I don’t believe for a minute. We are to blame. We humans, and our greed and selfishness, are to blame.
My suggestion to him was to consider Northern Europe: Very low crime rate; prosperous; high on freedom of speech and religion.
And then, this morning another friend sent me the link to a blogpost by someone in Iceland. And suddenly Northern Europe doesn’t seem like such a good suggestion anymore. The blogger writes: “It’s like we know the system is broken, we know it’s gone, but we can’t see it. We can’t tell what’s real, what’s still there, and what are just the ghosts of yesterday, when Iceland was one of the richest countries in the world. A pale reflection of the golden age in Icelandic economy which is now going up in flames. Where’s the smoke?”
I don’t know how to end off this post. What does one say before the brink of disaster? I cannot even say God have mercy, ‘cause that will insinuate that God is somehow to blame and that I don’t believe for a minute. We are to blame. We humans, and our greed and selfishness, are to blame.
Criticising the Bible
I don’t mind people criticizing the Bible. But when they do, let there be some research to it – not just statements thrown out there without looking up what the Bible really teaches.
Why my sudden disconcert? Well, I’m reading this book by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly called Finding Flow (1997) and on p. 59 is this statement: “The Bible’s suggestion that man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work for it does not seem to jibe with the facts. Without the goal and the challenges usually provided by a job, only a rare self-discipline can keep the mind focused enough to insure a meaningful life.”
The statement is flawed in at least two ways.
First, the Bible does not teach that man was created to be idle and merely enjoy the bounty without work.
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2:15. Here is Adam, in the sinless, unfallen, perfect, bountiful, Garden of Eden. Does God tell him to sit back so that the angels can pluck fruit from the trees and feed him? No. God tells Adam to do gardening. He is to “work [the garden] and take care of it.”
Nor does the Bible teach idleness in Heaven. Talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, the Bible says: “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.”
The idea that “man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work”, and Csikszentmihaly suggestion that the Bible is thus clearly false, is based upon his bad (or lack of reading) of the Bible.
Second, these periods in the Bible of bountiful abundance are both in times of sinlessness; when man will actually have the kind of self-discipline Csikszentmihaly speaks about.
Such (bad) scholarship on Csikszentmihaly's part suddenly makes me wonder how much of his book is based on assumptions rather than proper research.
Criticize if you must, but don’t do so on hearsay. You can get away with amateurism on the Internet, in blogs and so on, but in supposed well researched books?!
Read the texts. Read the contexts. And then enter the discourse.
Why my sudden disconcert? Well, I’m reading this book by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly called Finding Flow (1997) and on p. 59 is this statement: “The Bible’s suggestion that man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work for it does not seem to jibe with the facts. Without the goal and the challenges usually provided by a job, only a rare self-discipline can keep the mind focused enough to insure a meaningful life.”
The statement is flawed in at least two ways.
First, the Bible does not teach that man was created to be idle and merely enjoy the bounty without work.
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2:15. Here is Adam, in the sinless, unfallen, perfect, bountiful, Garden of Eden. Does God tell him to sit back so that the angels can pluck fruit from the trees and feed him? No. God tells Adam to do gardening. He is to “work [the garden] and take care of it.”
Nor does the Bible teach idleness in Heaven. Talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, the Bible says: “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.”
The idea that “man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work”, and Csikszentmihaly suggestion that the Bible is thus clearly false, is based upon his bad (or lack of reading) of the Bible.
Second, these periods in the Bible of bountiful abundance are both in times of sinlessness; when man will actually have the kind of self-discipline Csikszentmihaly speaks about.
Such (bad) scholarship on Csikszentmihaly's part suddenly makes me wonder how much of his book is based on assumptions rather than proper research.
Criticize if you must, but don’t do so on hearsay. You can get away with amateurism on the Internet, in blogs and so on, but in supposed well researched books?!
Read the texts. Read the contexts. And then enter the discourse.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Messiah Obama
My aversion with America’s Republicans is the Religious Right movement. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many of these people are sincerely thinking that they are doing the right thing, in promulgating Christian values in politics. Unfortunately, in their ignorance they are mixing an explosive concoction: politics and religion. The past has showed us time and again that throwing these two ingredients in the same pot will awaken a beast.
Surely the Democrats would not make this same mistake. Silly Prophet Kangnamgu. You’ve clearly not been watching closely. Not only are the Liberal Left mixing politics and religion, they are adding blasphemy to insult. Barack Obama is hailed as the Messiah. He is made to be not merely a political figure, but a spiritual figure heralding in a new era for America and the world.
He often uses religious rhetoric and his followers use religious jargon to praise his name. He is depicted as a source of light, in the style reminiscent of Great Leaders. (Isn’t that what they call Kim Jong Il too?).
“[Obama] won’t just heal our city-states and souls. He won’t just bring the Heavenly Kingdom — dreamt of in both Platonism and Christianity — to earth. He will heal the earth itself,” writes Micah Tillman, lecturer in philosophy at The Catholic University of America. Should we read her statement as academic jest, or take it seriously. She is an admitted Obama-supporter.
Unlike the Republicans that seem somewhat exclusivist Christian, the Democrats seem inclusivist towards all other religions. (This is a good thing if we want freedom of religion to prevail. However...) Obama clearly has a strong Christian following, and we all know of Obama’s reverent’s pulpit politics. But it is these other religious groups’ praising of Obama which is interesting. The Sify News reports prayers offered to Hanuman (the monkey-god) by Hindu priests for Obama. New Agers are embracing Obama as a Lightworker; i.e. someone who can raise the consciousness of other people and make the world spiritually a better place. (I know the New Age jargon – been there, done that, have New Ager friends, understand the paradigm, still do the diet and believe in telepathy.)
My concern is not with Obama the person, he seems to be a nice guy with the wits to boot (but let's not forget that he is a politician after all). My concern is with this obsession – this religious obsession with Obama. It is clear that religion and politics are mixing.
The Bible Prophecies foretell that America will become a religious-state. I just always thought it would happen under Republican rule.
When (is it still appropriate to talk of “if”?) Obama becomes the President of the United States look out for his interaction with other religious leaders. Especially, watch carefully his interaction with the Pope.
Isn't it exciting to see how the prophecies unfold?! How this puzzle will fit together is going to be a big surprise.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Democrats and Free Speech
I’m really enjoying Adam’s education of me regarding the Democrats. In a reply to a previous post of mine, Adam pointed out how the Democrats are actually working against Freedom of Speech, by trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (sorry for linking to Wikipedia) policy. “Fairness is Censorship” is how the Washington Times describe the Fairness Doctrine and the Bussiness & Media Institute highlights how this policy could fetter Internet freedom and net neutrality. (Here is another interesting source about the problems with the Fairness Doctrine.)
I become more and more convinced that freedom in America is under serious assault, regardless of the political parties.
Thanks Adam.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Fascist America
Naomi Wolf’s book Fascist America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot was published in September 2007. The following article from the UK’s The Guardian is a synopsis of the book. Are Naomi Wolf’s observations truer, or less true, a year later?
Naomi states: “Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree…”
I think part of the problem for many Americans is that they do not have a reference point to judge what is happening in America. In a sense, and this is my suspicion, people from outside of America is probably more aware of the radical changes happening than the US citizens themselves. Americans have had freedom for so long that they have forgotten what it took to get that freedom. Why did the Founding Fathers flee Europe in search of freedom in the New World? Why was the Bill of Rights created exactly as it was?
(Of course, in the end I am not an American and might just be wrong.)
Here are the 10 steps as set out by Wolf and which she claims the US government is guilty of. Read the full article at The Gaurdian.
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Tuesday April 24 2007, The Guardian
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.
We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.
Naomi states: “Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree…”
I think part of the problem for many Americans is that they do not have a reference point to judge what is happening in America. In a sense, and this is my suspicion, people from outside of America is probably more aware of the radical changes happening than the US citizens themselves. Americans have had freedom for so long that they have forgotten what it took to get that freedom. Why did the Founding Fathers flee Europe in search of freedom in the New World? Why was the Bill of Rights created exactly as it was?
(Of course, in the end I am not an American and might just be wrong.)
Here are the 10 steps as set out by Wolf and which she claims the US government is guilty of. Read the full article at The Gaurdian.
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Tuesday April 24 2007, The Guardian
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.
We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.
Satirical Politics
There's nothing like the Onion News Network to put a cynical smile on your phase. They have the uncanny ability to use satire in a way that help you to look at politics in a new way. Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter. What matters is that satire forces you to reevaluate your views.
Monday, October 6, 2008
America, noticed more soldiers back home?
From one of my favourite blogs, I linked to this article, “Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct 1” on the Army Times-website. It is not unusual for an active-army unit to be “at home” in times of crisis – such as when a natural disaster struck, e.g. Hurricane Katrina. But it is very unusual in any other circumstances.
Clearly the Bush Administration expected serious civil unrest with the recent economic collapse. There must definitely have been fear of civilian “terror” – surpassing the fear of the terror in Iraq. The news article says that this home-based active army “…may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”
What is really scary is the announcement that this active army on home soil is going to be a permanent feature. After this initial 12 months of the 1st Brigade Combat Team’s active duty on home soil, it is expected that “another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.”
America is moving towards a dictatorship regime with unprecedented speed. Everything is in place. With Bush’s signing of the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act”, the president can declare Martial Law at a whim – he merely has to announce that there is some civil unrest and viola!, we have Dictator Mr. President.
Bible prophecy is occurring before our very eyes. The lamb is starting to speak like the dragon.
Here are two YouTube-videos to get you thinking...
Clearly the Bush Administration expected serious civil unrest with the recent economic collapse. There must definitely have been fear of civilian “terror” – surpassing the fear of the terror in Iraq. The news article says that this home-based active army “…may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”
What is really scary is the announcement that this active army on home soil is going to be a permanent feature. After this initial 12 months of the 1st Brigade Combat Team’s active duty on home soil, it is expected that “another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.”
America is moving towards a dictatorship regime with unprecedented speed. Everything is in place. With Bush’s signing of the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act”, the president can declare Martial Law at a whim – he merely has to announce that there is some civil unrest and viola!, we have Dictator Mr. President.
Bible prophecy is occurring before our very eyes. The lamb is starting to speak like the dragon.
Here are two YouTube-videos to get you thinking...
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Internet Security
Even after many security updates to some of the chief browsers, we are still in harms way. This according to the following article.
It is disturbing how few people take their Internet Security seriously and even more disturbing when the internet security specialists tell us:
It is disturbing how few people take their Internet Security seriously and even more disturbing when the internet security specialists tell us:
- "I wouldn't tell you not to use the internet, but I would certainly never tell you you're safe, which is a pretty horrible thing to say to someone"
- "I have very low confidence in any of the browsers' ability to keep me safe"
- "I really don't think people are in a good position from a technology perspective to defend themselves with what they're given by default in a browser."
Paranoia: Savvis
Our computers are constantly bombarded with servers trying to access our systems, where they glean some of our data. I’m not sure what they are looking for; maybe the websites we visit? Most web users are oblivious to this fact because it all happens in the background.
In any case, this morning I was showered with access attempts by Savvis-Incorporated. I have PeerGuardian2 installed which blocks access from various servers to my computer. This morning PeerGuardian2 was without stopping denying requests from Savvis to my computer from 00:59:42 until I eventually gave permission at 14:14:46, just so that the assault could stop. My system was really slow and I was desperately searching for a solution.
Now why do Savvis request access to my system? Savvis is an international communication and data corporation. Are they trying to find dirt on people in order to extort them like their co-founder was recently found guilty off?
The interesting thing is that I’m blocked (somehow) from opening their website: http://www.savvis.net
I had to use a proxy browser to access their website under a fake IP.
In my own silly little retaliation here is some of their information. I suggest you use a program to block their IP-address from getting access to your system too.
Here is the IP-address of Savvis’ server: 216.34.181.97
And some more personal information:
Of course, I’m paranoid, so don’t listen to a word I say.
In any case, this morning I was showered with access attempts by Savvis-Incorporated. I have PeerGuardian2 installed which blocks access from various servers to my computer. This morning PeerGuardian2 was without stopping denying requests from Savvis to my computer from 00:59:42 until I eventually gave permission at 14:14:46, just so that the assault could stop. My system was really slow and I was desperately searching for a solution.
Now why do Savvis request access to my system? Savvis is an international communication and data corporation. Are they trying to find dirt on people in order to extort them like their co-founder was recently found guilty off?
The interesting thing is that I’m blocked (somehow) from opening their website: http://www.savvis.net
I had to use a proxy browser to access their website under a fake IP.
In my own silly little retaliation here is some of their information. I suggest you use a program to block their IP-address from getting access to your system too.
Here is the IP-address of Savvis’ server: 216.34.181.97
And some more personal information:
OrgNOCHandle: NOC99-ARIN
OrgNOCName: SAVVIS Support Center
OrgNOCPhone: + 1-888-638-6771
OrgNOCEmail: ipnoc@savvis.net
OrgTechHandle: UIAA-ARIN
OrgTechName: US IP Address Administration
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-638-6771
OrgTechEmail: kelli.coburn@savvis.net
Of course, I’m paranoid, so don’t listen to a word I say.
An American Perspective
I requested an American blogger-friend to help me understand the financial crisis in America a little better. Below is part of his reply posted with permission:
This economic crisis is a disaster. Basically it all started in the 90's when some activist groups started lobbying the democrats to enact laws which would make it easier to obtain loans. They wanted this done because they were claiming that there was racism on the part of the lenders.... that a black man with the same or more qualifications as a white man was being turned down for a home loan. The examples they were using to back up their case actually turned out to be inaccurate and false, but, alas the legislation had already gone through and the politicians were not going to admit that they made a mistake so it stayed on the books. Then it turned into a 'one-up' game between the politicians and banks...one would say everybody should be able to get a loan who has a job...then the other guy would say, hey! we won't even check if you have a job and you can get a loan....then the other guy would say, hey! we won't even check if you're a US citizen. Both parties are guilty, but the bulk seems to land on the left.This certainly helped me in contextualizing the current issue. Thank you!
My wife used to work for a firm that payed lobbiests to lobby some of these senators who are involved in this whole debacle, so we know how the system works. She has since left that position....good thing too because I'd really hate to be associated with these guys and this mess. Our politicians are not working for the people of the country; they are working for special interest groups who fund them.
Friday, October 3, 2008
[Continued] Christians Slaughtered in India
The following email was forwarded to me. Was it not for this email I would never have heard of the atrocities currently happening against religious freedom in India.
In the end the persecution lasted longer than the expected fourteen days. In my previous post I complained about the media of the West not mentioning these events, but I think my criticism was overzealous. It would seem that India's own government was lax in responding to these reports. An example of the Indian government's nonchalant attitude is the case of the nun that was raped.
"More than one month after she filed a complaint, the Orissa government on Friday ordered a probe into a nun's allegation that she was raped and paraded naked in a village in Kandhamal district while a dozen policemen watched", reports one newspaper. It took them a month!
We have never seen anything like this. We knew that Orissa was the most resistant and hostile State in India as far as the Gospel is concerned. And we brushed off the continuous threats and harassment we faced as we went about His work. But none of our staff imagined that they would see this kind of carnage....And it seems to be totally under the radar of the Western Media ....Let me explain.... A militant Hindu priest and 4 of his attendants, who were zealously going around the villages of Orissa and 'reconverting' people back to Hinduism, were gunned down by unknown assailants in Central Orissa last weekend. Immediately the Christians were blamed. The cry rose up...'Kill the Christians!' And the horror began.... In the past 4 days, we have first hand witness to hundreds of churches being blown up or burned and many, many dozens of Christian tribes have been slaughtered. For no other reason than they bear the name of Christ.
Night and day I have been in touch with our Good News India Directors spread across 14 Dream Centers in Orissa... they are right in the middle of all this chaos. In Tihidi, just after the police came to offer protection, a group of 70 blood-thirsty militants came to kill our staff and destroy the home. They were not allowed to get in, but they did a lot of damage to our Dream Center by throwing rocks and bricks and smashing our gate, etc. They have promised to come back and 'finish the job.' Our kids and staff are locked inside and have stayed that way with doors and windows shut for the past 3 days. It has been a time of desperately calling on the Lord in prayer.
More police have come to offer protection. In Kalahandi, the police and some local sympathizers got to our dream center and gave our staff and kids about 3 minute s notice to vacate. No one had time to even grab a change of clothes or any personal belonging. As they fled, the blood thirsty mob came to kill everyone in the building. We would have had a mass funeral there, but for His grace. In Phulbani, the mob came looking for Christian homes and missions. The local Hindu people, our neighbors turned them away by saying that there were no Christians in this area. So they left.
We had favor. The same thing happened in Balasore.
All our dream centers are under lock down with the kids and staff huddled inside and police outside. The fanatics are circling outside waiting for a chance to kill. Others were not so fortunate. In a nearby Catholic orphanage, the mob allowed the kids to leave and locked up a Priest and a computer teacher in house and burned them to death. Many believers have been killed and hacked into pieces and left on the road.... even women and children. At another orphanage run by another organization, when this began, the Director and his wife jumped on their motorbike and simply fled, leaving all the children and staff behind. Every one of our GNI directors that I have spoken to said: 'We stay with our kids.... we live together or die together, but we will never abandon what God has called us to do.' More than 5000 Christian families have had their homes burned or destroyed. They have fled into the jungles and are living in great fear waiting for the authorities to bring about peace. But so far, no peace is foreseen. This will continue for another 10 days.... supposedly the 14 day mourning period for the slain Hindu priest. Many more Christians will die and their houses destroyed. Many more churches will be smashed down. The Federal government is trying to restore order and perhaps things will calm down. We ask for your prayers. Only the Hand of God can calm this storm. None of us know the meaning of persecution. But now our kids and staff know what that means. So many of our kids coming from Hindu backgrounds are confused and totally bewildered at what is happening around them. So many of their guardians have fled into the jungles and are unable to come and get them during these trying times.
Through all this, I am more determined than ever to continue with our goal: the transformation of a community by transforming its children. Orissa will be saved... that is our heart's cry. If we can take these thousands of throw-away children and help them to become disciples of Jesus, they will transform an entire region. It is a long term goal, but it is strategic thinking in terms of the Great Commission. What can you do? First, please uphold all this in fervent prayer. Second, pass this e-mail on to as many friends as you can. We must get the word out and increase our prayer base for this is spiritual warfare at its most basic meaning. We are literally fighting the devil in order to live for His Kingdom. The next 10 days are crucial. We pray for peace and calm to pervade across Orissa. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please pass it on and help us to get as many people to partner with us on this cutting edge effort to fulfill His mandate: Go and make disciples of all nations....Prayer works!
Blessings, Chip & Sandy Wanner Col 2:2 MBI
Team Facilitators to YWAM frontlines
In the end the persecution lasted longer than the expected fourteen days. In my previous post I complained about the media of the West not mentioning these events, but I think my criticism was overzealous. It would seem that India's own government was lax in responding to these reports. An example of the Indian government's nonchalant attitude is the case of the nun that was raped.
"More than one month after she filed a complaint, the Orissa government on Friday ordered a probe into a nun's allegation that she was raped and paraded naked in a village in Kandhamal district while a dozen policemen watched", reports one newspaper. It took them a month!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Christians Slaugtered in India
The last couple of days have seen carnage in Orissa, a state in India. Apparently it all started when a militant Hindu priest and four of his assistance were killed. The Hindu priest was known for his fierce proselytistic “reconversion” of people back to Hinduism. His murder was blamed on Christians and since then Hindus have been on a Christian killing spree in Orissa. It is said that it will continue for fourteen days – the mourning period for the priest’s death. Many Christian facilities such as churches, schools and clinics have been destroyed. Some were burned down with people inside. The killings are not denomination specific; both Catholics and Protestants face the same danger. According to a news report “…thousands of people have been rendered homeless, many churches attacked and at least 33 people killed in [Orissa].” There has been at least one case of a nun being raped. This in full view of police officers that just stood idly by -- they are most likely Hindus. How sad that people can only get police protection from violence, rape and murder if they share the religion of the police.
Probably the most distressing part about this whole thing is how uneventful it seems in the eyes of the media – especially the media of the West. It appears that a couple of religious murders somewhere in the obscurities of India is of little importance to the rest of the world.
Browsing the “World News” sections of some of the leading news agencies it is clear that news that doesn’t somehow affect the U.S. is not worth mentioning.
I find this troubling.
Probably the most distressing part about this whole thing is how uneventful it seems in the eyes of the media – especially the media of the West. It appears that a couple of religious murders somewhere in the obscurities of India is of little importance to the rest of the world.
Browsing the “World News” sections of some of the leading news agencies it is clear that news that doesn’t somehow affect the U.S. is not worth mentioning.
I find this troubling.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Postmodern Factuality
Paging through a textbook in preparation for a class I’m teaching my eye caught a reference. I froze. Can this really be true? Is this really allowed in a textbook? The source is Wikipedia! Now don’t get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great quick reference and I use it often, but it is certainly not trustworthy source. No self-respecting scholar would be caught dead quoting Wikipedia.
Or have trustworthiness and factuality and truth so deteriorated in our postmodern zeitgeist that any source would do. Have facts just become opinions, and all opinions equal? Is the professor speaking about his field of expertise and the freshman speaking about the same field equally quotable sources?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a child of postmodernity, a Generation Xer par excellence; I feel strangely at home in this fragmented zeitgeist, but I also value the knowledgeable over the laity. All narratives are not equal.
Or have trustworthiness and factuality and truth so deteriorated in our postmodern zeitgeist that any source would do. Have facts just become opinions, and all opinions equal? Is the professor speaking about his field of expertise and the freshman speaking about the same field equally quotable sources?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a child of postmodernity, a Generation Xer par excellence; I feel strangely at home in this fragmented zeitgeist, but I also value the knowledgeable over the laity. All narratives are not equal.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Conservatives and Liberals
So Adam is slowly convincing me that I am not as liberal as I thought. Of course my blogging-friend is being selective of what he reveals about the general darftness of the Democrats, but that is okay. We are all selective about how we present information. Even supposed objective journalist do their profession from an inevitable paradigm. That is why it is so important to get as many different perspectives on important news as possible.
But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.
Conservatives:
Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.
Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.
The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.
Liberals:
What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.
Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.
Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.
O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!
But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.
Conservatives:
Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.
Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.
The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.
Liberals:
What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.
Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.
Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.
O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Hell of Heaven
"The sinner could not be happy in God's presence; he would shrink from the companionship of holy beings. Could he be permitted to enter heaven, it would have no joy for him. The spirit of unselfish love that reigns there--every heart responding to the heart of Infinite Love--would touch no answering chord in his soul. His thoughts, his interests, his motives, would be alien to those that actuate sinless dwellers there. He would be a discordant note in the melody of heaven. Heaven would be to him a place of torture; he would long to be hidden from Him who is its light, and the center of its joy. It is no arbitrary decree on the part of God that excludes the wicked from heaven; they are shut out by their own unfitness for its companionship. The glory of God would be to them a consuming fire. They would welcome destruction..."
An insightful and interesting quote.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Christian God
“Christians,” writes my friend recently, “can never grasp how great God really is.”
And for a moment I wanted to take offence at his blanket statement. If not Christians, who? Buddhists? They are historically atheists and therefore teaches nothing about God. Pantheists? They limit God to this creation; I can learn more from mathematicians and physicists about God’s greatness than I can from pantheism. Where should I turn if I want learn about God’s greatness? Honestly, there is no greater God than the one that created everything out of nothing - ex nihilo. And which other religion can teach me about true unselfishness - true love - if not Christianity as demonstrated in the life and teachings of Christ?
But then I remembered again where my friend is coming from. His idea of “Christians” is the same one I feel distanced from. That nominal mainstream Christianity of today, founded more on cultural preference and political disposition than on divine inspiration. It is because of them that I feel uncomfortable calling myself a Christian.
That god - the one proclaimed by nominal mainstream Christianity - the one that tortures people throughout eternity, that arbitrary deity, that is not my god. Thank God (literally), that there are more views of God.
And for a moment I wanted to take offence at his blanket statement. If not Christians, who? Buddhists? They are historically atheists and therefore teaches nothing about God. Pantheists? They limit God to this creation; I can learn more from mathematicians and physicists about God’s greatness than I can from pantheism. Where should I turn if I want learn about God’s greatness? Honestly, there is no greater God than the one that created everything out of nothing - ex nihilo. And which other religion can teach me about true unselfishness - true love - if not Christianity as demonstrated in the life and teachings of Christ?
But then I remembered again where my friend is coming from. His idea of “Christians” is the same one I feel distanced from. That nominal mainstream Christianity of today, founded more on cultural preference and political disposition than on divine inspiration. It is because of them that I feel uncomfortable calling myself a Christian.
That god - the one proclaimed by nominal mainstream Christianity - the one that tortures people throughout eternity, that arbitrary deity, that is not my god. Thank God (literally), that there are more views of God.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
I was reading MorbidNeko's blog and was shocked when she mentioned it being the 7th anniversary of 9/11 today. The date didn't register at all with me.
So was 9/11 a conspiracy by the US-government? More and more experts (or are they just loony conspiracy theorists?) are suggesting that the WTC-towers collapsed onto themselves exactly like buildings in controlled demolitions. See for instance this YouTube-video.
A new movie that reconsiders the events in the light of American architecture, controlled demolitions, etc. can be watched at this website: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html . And did any of you see the documentary film Loose Change? (Loose Change blog, Online Google Video.) And there is of course many websites such as Conspiracy Planet and 911Truth that feels strongly about the US government's involvement in these sinister events.
On the other hand are the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, such as this Special Report by Popular Mechanics or this website.
So who do we believe?
Being the Paranoid Prophet that I am, I'm inclined to lean towards the conspiracy theorists. To the total dismay of this terrorist interviewed on the Onion News Network:
So was 9/11 a conspiracy by the US-government? More and more experts (or are they just loony conspiracy theorists?) are suggesting that the WTC-towers collapsed onto themselves exactly like buildings in controlled demolitions. See for instance this YouTube-video.
A new movie that reconsiders the events in the light of American architecture, controlled demolitions, etc. can be watched at this website: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html . And did any of you see the documentary film Loose Change? (Loose Change blog, Online Google Video.) And there is of course many websites such as Conspiracy Planet and 911Truth that feels strongly about the US government's involvement in these sinister events.
On the other hand are the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, such as this Special Report by Popular Mechanics or this website.
So who do we believe?
Being the Paranoid Prophet that I am, I'm inclined to lean towards the conspiracy theorists. To the total dismay of this terrorist interviewed on the Onion News Network:
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
What's the world coming too?
You know the world is wacky when:
- the Pope embraces Martin Luther;
- Catholics take over from the Protestants to identify the current (RC) Church as the “Whore of Babylon” (This "traditional" Catholic website just blew my socks off: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/);
- Churches woo for members by opening up wine bars;
- and the latest fad is religious candy!
Assumptions
A fellow blogger (Adam) recently pointed out how skewed scientific observations can be. For instance he pointed to two news articles. The first blames the serious melting of the arctic icecaps to global warming. And then the other report recounts the recent underwater volcanic activity in the arctic. (And although the latter article does not say it, it is obvious - and inferred to by Adam - that the arctic might be heating, not because of global warming, but because of localized volcanic activity.) What this tells us is that the scientific data on which the first article is based is making assumptions as to the reasons for the melting of the ice.
While I believe in the value of scientific study, I think that the scientific community is often ignorant of the many assumptions their findings are built on.
And not only the scientific community, but us all have assumptions from which we interpret the world. I doubt such assumptions are inescapably – we need a paradigm to work from. But our assumptions often prevent us from seeing other possibilities, solutions, alternatives.
Thus my challenge: Identify assumptions and evaluate alternatives.
While I believe in the value of scientific study, I think that the scientific community is often ignorant of the many assumptions their findings are built on.
And not only the scientific community, but us all have assumptions from which we interpret the world. I doubt such assumptions are inescapably – we need a paradigm to work from. But our assumptions often prevent us from seeing other possibilities, solutions, alternatives.
Thus my challenge: Identify assumptions and evaluate alternatives.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Christ vs Church
"Christ does not drive but draws men unto Him. The only compulsion which He employs is the constraint of love. When the church begins to seek for the support of secular power, it is evident that she is devoid of the power of Christ--the constraint of divine love."
How fittingly the above quotation describes what's happening in Croatia and other parts of the world where the church "seek[s] for the support of secular power" in the form of national laws and so on.
To D or not to D
I was speaking to a friend (a doctor and lecturer at my university) the other day and he mentioned two things he regret. Firstly he regrets not doing his PhD thesis in English. And secondly, not doing it somewhere else.
And then it hit me, I too have done all three my degrees at the same place. Am I not restricting myself to certain points of view and set ways of thinking? So I consulted with a couple of professors, telling them of my concern and intention to do my PhD somewhere else. And all of them affirmed my concern and agreed that it would be beneficial to do it somewhere else.
So yesterday I went to tell my promoter that I'm considering to quit my PhD and take it up at another university. She expressed her sadness in losing me as a postgraduate, but said: "In the end it is your decision; it is your time; it is your money." And then we discussed some possibilities both locally and abroad.
I'm not going to make an overly haste decision. I will give myself a while to scout the options - and seeing as I'm relocating within a couple of days, I probably shouldn't be making any rash decisions just yet.
I'm looking for a university that (1) has a program for Creative Writing at PhD level, (2) caters for both academic and practiced based research, and (3) will allow me to study telematically (i.e. distance education, via email or other media). Any suggestions?
And then it hit me, I too have done all three my degrees at the same place. Am I not restricting myself to certain points of view and set ways of thinking? So I consulted with a couple of professors, telling them of my concern and intention to do my PhD somewhere else. And all of them affirmed my concern and agreed that it would be beneficial to do it somewhere else.
So yesterday I went to tell my promoter that I'm considering to quit my PhD and take it up at another university. She expressed her sadness in losing me as a postgraduate, but said: "In the end it is your decision; it is your time; it is your money." And then we discussed some possibilities both locally and abroad.
I'm not going to make an overly haste decision. I will give myself a while to scout the options - and seeing as I'm relocating within a couple of days, I probably shouldn't be making any rash decisions just yet.
I'm looking for a university that (1) has a program for Creative Writing at PhD level, (2) caters for both academic and practiced based research, and (3) will allow me to study telematically (i.e. distance education, via email or other media). Any suggestions?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Croatia forces Sunday observance
Croatia’s parliament passed a law that forces shops to close on Sunday, in a concession to the Roman Catholic Church (see here.) The law will be effective as of January 1st, 2009.
These are the beginnings of Church-State autocracy. Let’s say that I want to keep the Biblical Sabbath (which is Saturday and not Sunday); this law effectively forces me not to do business on Sunday (which to my faith would be a normal working day). This is reminiscent of end-time prophecies that warn us that a time is coming “…that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:17).
Of course this is not the “Mark of the Beast” in full swing, but it is moving in that direction. Croatia is only one of many countries that aim to implement Sunday Laws (or “Blue Laws”), and in effect trying to force people into Sunday-observance. Such forced religion is not of God, but of the “beast”, described in Revelation.
Blue Laws have been in the decline over the past couple of years – especially in America, but it is again flaring up. This might have potentially serious consequences. And lead to the fettering of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.
Although I completely agree with the importance of “Sabbath” observance for Christians, I seriously disagree with any government forcing such observance onto anyone, and forcing a specific sabbath day onto anyone.
These are the beginnings of Church-State autocracy. Let’s say that I want to keep the Biblical Sabbath (which is Saturday and not Sunday); this law effectively forces me not to do business on Sunday (which to my faith would be a normal working day). This is reminiscent of end-time prophecies that warn us that a time is coming “…that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:17).
Of course this is not the “Mark of the Beast” in full swing, but it is moving in that direction. Croatia is only one of many countries that aim to implement Sunday Laws (or “Blue Laws”), and in effect trying to force people into Sunday-observance. Such forced religion is not of God, but of the “beast”, described in Revelation.
Blue Laws have been in the decline over the past couple of years – especially in America, but it is again flaring up. This might have potentially serious consequences. And lead to the fettering of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.
Although I completely agree with the importance of “Sabbath” observance for Christians, I seriously disagree with any government forcing such observance onto anyone, and forcing a specific sabbath day onto anyone.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Types of --theisms
Fundamental worldviews are the first building blocks of any religion or ideology. A single fundamental worldview can be subdivided into different further types. For instance there are many types of theism. One can be a monotheist (the belief in a single Godhead) or polytheist (the belief in multiple gods).
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).
Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.
Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)
Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)
In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).
Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.
Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)
Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)
In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.
The fifth (copout) worldview
In the previous post on worldviews I listed the four fundamental worldviews, namely theism, deism, pantheism and atheism.
I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.
Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.
Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.
Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.
Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.
If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.
I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.
Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.
Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.
Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.
Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.
If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.
A freewill dilemma
In response to my post on pantheism, fellow blogger, Mary-Jane IX, posted the following hypothetical question:
“If God gave us all the power of choice; what right does any of us have to deny someone their God-given right? If someone wants to rape a child, how can we deny that person the power of that choice?” (Read the full post here.)
This is an interesting dilemma.
I think the answer lies not in the fact that we have God-given freedom of choice, per se. Rather we should ask: Why did God give us freewill in the first place? The answer is: Love.
Love requires freewill. Love cannot be forced. It has to be a free choice. Forced love is not love – it is rape.
God gave everyone freedom of choice, including the rapist, as well as the raped child. The rapist uses his freedom of choice to violate the child’s choice not to have sex. The rapist takes away the child’s choice. By doing so the rapist is transgressing the very purpose freewill was given in the first place.
If he doesn’t allow the freewill of another, does he deserve his own freedom?
“If God gave us all the power of choice; what right does any of us have to deny someone their God-given right? If someone wants to rape a child, how can we deny that person the power of that choice?” (Read the full post here.)
This is an interesting dilemma.
I think the answer lies not in the fact that we have God-given freedom of choice, per se. Rather we should ask: Why did God give us freewill in the first place? The answer is: Love.
Love requires freewill. Love cannot be forced. It has to be a free choice. Forced love is not love – it is rape.
God gave everyone freedom of choice, including the rapist, as well as the raped child. The rapist uses his freedom of choice to violate the child’s choice not to have sex. The rapist takes away the child’s choice. By doing so the rapist is transgressing the very purpose freewill was given in the first place.
If he doesn’t allow the freewill of another, does he deserve his own freedom?
Worldviews
There are basically four worldviews – ideas of how everything came about and function.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.
Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.
Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.
Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)
For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.
Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.
Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.
Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)
For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Why I'll never be a pantheist again...
I used to be a pantheist (someone that believes that God is in everything and everything is God) and avid New Age practitioner. But I can never return to that paradigm. If pantheism is true, then it is okay for the rapist to rape a child. After all, it is only God raping itself.
Everything that happens to you, says New Age teaching, happens to you because you wanted it to happen to you for your own spiritual development. Before you were born you requested to go through certain trials in this life. In other words, that raped child requested to be raped so that she can grow spiritually. You be the one to go look her in the eye and tell her: “You wanted to be raped so that you can grow spiritually.”
I can never return to being a pantheist.
Everything that happens to you, says New Age teaching, happens to you because you wanted it to happen to you for your own spiritual development. Before you were born you requested to go through certain trials in this life. In other words, that raped child requested to be raped so that she can grow spiritually. You be the one to go look her in the eye and tell her: “You wanted to be raped so that you can grow spiritually.”
I can never return to being a pantheist.
Friday, August 1, 2008
No more privacy on YouTube
I can’t believe I’m stumbling onto this news only now a month later. And by chance! Why is the world so quiet about it? People are being fettered and they don’t even struggle—or notice!
A federal court ordered Google at the beginning of July to make available all “records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses”, to Viacom.
This means, a third party have complete access to everything you have ever watched on YouTube. Viacom (an international multimedia conglomerate), representing many of the film studios, will be able to legally prosecute you for watching sections of their movies on YouTube.
This third party now knows your viewing habits, your interests, and possibly even guess your political and religious views. They have your login name; which you likely use also on other services as well, so they can probably spy on you on the other platforms you use too. Why should they have access to such private detail? And why are people so nonchalant about it?
If personal information can be handed around so easily, can we have any sense of privacy left? US Government is giving more and more companies the legal authority to spy on ordinary citizens. To what end? Of course they don't call it spying...
It is true that Viacom may not have such malicious intend, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that personal data is being handed around more and more easily and doing so under a "legal"-charade. Government, instead of protecting its citizens, is bowing before wealthy companies.
The result is forthright rebellion. Many of the boards I've read on the topic people are reacting against Viacom in a rebellious way. Some posters said that they are now determined more than ever to boycott Viacom, by deliberately pirating Viacom pictures. Laws should make sense. These laws do not. The governments are in effect now causing millions of lawbreakers (i.e. criminals), because they are not re-evaluating laws, and changing them to adapt with the times.
For more detail on the Google-Viacom case view these sites:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983511-7.html
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/ongoing-analysis-of-youtube-viacom.html
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html
And this YouTube video, if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbCWJNQUYI
Also download and listen to Lawrence Lessig's audio book, Free Culture, on Copyright Law and the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/free-culture-audiobook
A federal court ordered Google at the beginning of July to make available all “records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses”, to Viacom.
This means, a third party have complete access to everything you have ever watched on YouTube. Viacom (an international multimedia conglomerate), representing many of the film studios, will be able to legally prosecute you for watching sections of their movies on YouTube.
This third party now knows your viewing habits, your interests, and possibly even guess your political and religious views. They have your login name; which you likely use also on other services as well, so they can probably spy on you on the other platforms you use too. Why should they have access to such private detail? And why are people so nonchalant about it?
If personal information can be handed around so easily, can we have any sense of privacy left? US Government is giving more and more companies the legal authority to spy on ordinary citizens. To what end? Of course they don't call it spying...
It is true that Viacom may not have such malicious intend, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that personal data is being handed around more and more easily and doing so under a "legal"-charade. Government, instead of protecting its citizens, is bowing before wealthy companies.
The result is forthright rebellion. Many of the boards I've read on the topic people are reacting against Viacom in a rebellious way. Some posters said that they are now determined more than ever to boycott Viacom, by deliberately pirating Viacom pictures. Laws should make sense. These laws do not. The governments are in effect now causing millions of lawbreakers (i.e. criminals), because they are not re-evaluating laws, and changing them to adapt with the times.
For more detail on the Google-Viacom case view these sites:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983511-7.html
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/ongoing-analysis-of-youtube-viacom.html
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html
And this YouTube video, if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbCWJNQUYI
Also download and listen to Lawrence Lessig's audio book, Free Culture, on Copyright Law and the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/free-culture-audiobook
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
One more forward will kill me
I’m so irritated with getting nonsensical forwards that I’ve started to write angry emails in return, in a hope to wake people up from their zombie-obedience. An email ends with: “Send this to everyone”, and people just blindly obey.
The worst kinds of forwards are those where the forwarder actually thinks he or she is doing the forwardee a service. For instance the recent forward I received warning me: BIG VIRUS COMING!!! PLEASE READ & FORWARD!!
The email claims that there’s a devilish virus on the way with the ability to burn your hard drive, and it was said by CNN to be the worst virus ever. The virus-warning even claims that Snopes.Com vouches its authenticity.
Well, Snopes.Com did say that it is a real virus, but it is not a BIG VIRUS COMING. It’s been around for a long time. Which means that any half-decent anti-virus program will render it harmless.
Why not double check with CNN, before forwarding your benevolent email. It’s easy. Go to CNN.Com and type in “worst virus ever” in the search field. And lo and behold – there is no listing of CNN making any such claim. Instead you find other people, like myself, voicing their irritation.
It’s always good to check on Snopes.Com – but don’t do as millions of others have done and actually believe someone else because they had supposedly checked on Snopes.Com. Stop being lazy and do it yourself.
Probably what irritates me the most is that people do not take a moment to think about the claims of these emails. They just believe it without a moments thought. For instance, the virus will burn your hard drive… How can a piece of program code, a series of 0s and 1s, make fire to your hardware? Program code is not magic. It’s like thinking that the words on this blog has the ability to steal your car. It doesn’t make sense. Are people really that gullible? It doesn't take an Einstein... And people think I’m paranoid?!
So please, I beg of you, stop killing me with your forwards. (As if that made sense, but I’m sure you get the idea.)
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Dear American Citizen. Your phone is tapped and there's nothing you can do about it.
A friend send me the link to an article reporting on the new “Spy Bill” that has been passed by the US Senate. Basically the bill gives immunity to all telephone companies from past, present and future spying for government. In other words, telephone companies cannot be sued for tapping possible terrorists. This is all nice, if only potential “terrorists” weren’t such an elusive concept. With a little spin-doctoring anybody can be made out to be a potential terrorist. Have you criticised the president lately? You’re a potential terrorist. Do you know any Muslims? You’re probably a terrorist. Are you questioning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)