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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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