Paranoid Prophet

Every Breath You Take, Every Move You Make – 14 New Ways That The Government Is Watching You

2011-11-15T01:25:00.002+09:00

From: Excerpts from an article from The End of America.

#1 In many areas of the United States today, you will be arrested if you do not produce proper identification for the police.

#2 The federal government has decided that what you and I share with one another on Facebook and on Twitter could be a threat to national security.

#3 New high-tech street lights that are being funded by the federal government and that are being installed all over the nation can also be used as surveillance cameras, can be used by the DHS to make "security announcements" and can even be used to record personal conversations.

#4 More than a million hotel television sets all over America are now broadcasting propaganda messages from the Department of Homeland Security promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. In essence, the federal government wants all of us to become "informants" and to start spying on one another constantly.

#5 The FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States.

#6 TSA VIPR teams are now conducting random inspections at bus stations and on interstate highways all over the United States.

#7 Thermal imaging face scanners are becoming much more sophisticated. Law enforcement authorities in the western world are getting very excited about "pre-crime" tools such as this that will enable them to "prevent crimes" before they happen.

#8 Another "pre-crime" technology currently being tested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) program.

#9 Sadly, "pre-crime" technology is even being used on our children. The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders" in specific prevention and education programs.

#10 Our children are being programmed to accept the fact that they will be watched and monitored constantly.

#11 The U.S. government is also increasingly using "polls" and "surveys" as tools to gather information about all of us.

the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes the following....

*paying with cash

*missing a hand or fingers

*"strange odors"

*making "extreme religious statements"

*"radical theology"

*purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers

*purchasing meals ready to eat

*purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

Do any of those "signs of suspicious activity" apply to you?

#13 In some areas of the country, law enforcement authorities are pulling data out of cell phones for no reason whatsoever.

#14 The government can spy on us and record our conversations seemingly without any limitation, but in many areas of the country it has become illegal to watch them or record them in public.

Read the full article here.

Join or Die

2011-07-02T11:46:00.004+09:00

So, if you are not completely convinced about the dangers of carbon emissions, then this is what the global elite has in mind for you. (By the way, carbon dioxide is a natural by-product of living; it is used by plants to grow and reconverted into oxygen.)

The real message send by this disturbing video is that you are not allowed to disagree. Regardless of the fact that many scientific studies are questioning the global warming from man-made carbon emissions narrative. The global elite pushing this campaign are also the people who wants to reduce the world's population drastically. What it comes down to is mass genocide: covertly at first, but if they are not actively resisted it will eventually become overt murders all in the name of "saving the planet".

10 Indications America is a Dictatorship

2011-05-25T12:45:00.003+09:00

Rule by force, not by law

Crushing peaceful protest

Checkpoints

Citizen spy network

Executive orders

Control of regulatory agencies

President declares war unilatery

Torture

Gulags

Control over communications

Read the full article here to see how this is already the case in the United States.

Our World

2010-12-11T00:39:00.001+09:00

The Casualties -- "War is Business"

2010-11-29T14:03:00.000+09:00

War Is Business

No time to run, permission to go, times running in,
with troops, and bombs, and guns.
From the left and right, people are fighting,
screaming, shooting, fighting, hanging from the ground.

One, two, call the death squad.
War is business, war is business.

Arrogate, fall out, stand in line.

Why do our lives have to go with indecisions,
we have permission to take, to decide, to fight!
More and more fighting its making me sick.
We fought with them, the rich don't have to fight.

One two call the death squad,
War is business, war is business.

Death squad, collision, finish this.

As long as we are here you wont need to worry,
just close your eyes, decide, think on your own.
Can you hear bodies their fucking dead in the streets,
just close your eyes, and you will think and see.

One two call the death squad,
War is business, war is business.

Arrogate, fall out, stand in line

Bankrun 2010

2010-11-24T09:39:00.002+09:00

Read more about the Bankrun -- aka "Break the Bank Day" (FB-group page) aka "Anti-banking Solidarity Movement" -- planned for December 7th, 2010.

Facebook Privacy Breach

2010-10-20T12:20:00.003+09:00

The Washington Post reported a few days ago on privacy breaches through Facebook and other concerns. Good grief! Me, and thousands of other people have been voicing these concerns for years now! The first post I wrote here regarding the disconcerting problems of Facebook was written in 2007. Should it really take years before the main news media wakes up to this?

Banker's Song -- We Didn't See It Comin'

2010-08-28T22:30:00.001+09:00

Over the last two years of the housing bubble, Wall Street bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history. -- ProPublica

You're being watched

2010-08-10T12:36:00.002+09:00

Few people even consider the invasive nature of CCTV-cameras. This project dramatizes surveillance.

Atheism vs Atheism

2010-07-02T16:14:00.003+09:00

Bill Maher and S.E. Cupp, two atheists, in opposition.

Drone Planes Headed for the USA

2010-06-15T10:11:00.003+09:00

CIA officers say drones are doing more harm than good.

Numerous innocent Pakistani and Afghan people have been the victims of America’s drone planes. The UN has called these drone attacks illegal.While the CIA claims that these highly precise drones are used only to target enemies, it is a well established fact a great number of innocent civilians have been killed as well; for instance the 23 Afghan civilians killed in February. One estimate suggests that "approximately 30 per cent of the total reported fatalities" have been civilians.

But while concern over the drone attacks is growing, there is actually people that want to bring these vehicles of murder into home skies. "The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions" in the US, reports the Associated Press.

This just opens a can of worms in my mind. Surely it will be easier to hijack / hack an unmanned plane and fly it into a building. There's even concern, raised by other people, that the controller and the plane may lose contact and the planes plummet into buildings. Then there is the trouble with these pilotless planes flying in busy airspace, creating possible collisions with other planes, weather balloons, and the like. Not to mention that these planes -- some so small that they can enter a building through an open window -- will most definitely be used as an extension of CCTV spying on people.

This will be just one more, of the already ridiculously many, steps towards America becoming an Orwellian state. Welcome to the land of the free.

Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul and Abortion

2010-04-23T23:38:00.004+09:00

I wrote about the ethics regarding the doctrine of the innate immortality of the soul before. I recently stumbled on this picture, although I can unfortunately not recall where anymore. It so fittingly supports my previous discussion that I just had to post it here.

Bad Vaccination Campaign

2010-04-10T13:24:00.004+09:00

Now this type of advertising would just never work on me. Appealling to my herd-mentallity?!

Image from here.

Michelle Obama says Barak's Home Country is Kenya

2010-04-07T20:17:00.002+09:00

Did I hear correctly? Barak Obamma's home country is Kenya?!

Did she mean his "ancestral home country," or did she actually mean his home country?

Reasons for believing in Democracy

2010-04-07T00:21:00.001+09:00

...there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. -- C. S. Lewis

Who's afraid of Google?

2010-03-30T16:44:00.001+09:00

Critical Thinking

2009-12-26T18:24:00.000+09:00

US Let Bin Laden Get Away For Justification of Iraq War

2009-12-01T15:28:00.000+09:00

Global Warming?

2009-11-27T18:10:00.001+09:00

Find God in 60 Days, or Your Money Back!

2009-11-20T09:56:00.000+09:00

Some Thoughts on the State of the US

2009-11-03T12:25:00.001+09:00

If you are an American and do not wish to get depressed, I suggest you skip this part. However, if you are an American, this might be just the part for you to read.

Like in my previous letter I’m not going to talk in detail about what’s happening in the United States. What I’ve learned from previously letters is that, as many people before me have found out for themselves, the bearer of bad news is seldom liked. People, especially Americans, feel offended by the things I mention, thinking that my critique is somehow aimed at them; I guess by proxy of being American. Let me reiterate that my “critique,” if one is really to call it that, is intended as observations, and where applicable as warnings. I’m merely noticing things that I find significant and mention them.

If there is one recent incident that should send shivers down the spine of every American citizen then it is the G20 meeting that was held in Pittsburg in September. Unfortunately few Americans actually know what happened there, since the media did a very good job of under reporting the peripheral events occurring outside the meeting. The mainstream media did not reveal the truth of how ordinary citizens (i.e. non-protesters) were attacked, both physically and with military weapons, including rubber bullets, teargas and experimental sonic weapons. It is clear from this event that the mainstream media in America is actually suppressing news and that free press is a rarity these days. I serious advice people to stop following the pre-packaged news agencies like CNN and start listening to independent news agencies, such as Democracy Now: The War and News Report, or other similar news agencies. Or if you can speak another language, listen to American news as covered by non-American broadcasters. Germany, for one, seems to present clearer description of big newsworthy events (i.e., not Michael Jackson or Britney Spears) in the USA. I’ve also seen some good stuff on Russia Today.

Most Americans do not know this but much the anti-protest police used in Pittsburg during the G20 meeting was made up of foreign military forces, and police forces from outside of Pittsburg. This is terrifying in itself, but also makes good sense – you don’t want the militia you’re using to feel sentimental about the people they are oppressing, do you?

People were arrested for using Twitter, warning fellow citizens in Pittsburg to stay clear of certain areas. Twitter, if you don’t know, is an Internet based text-messaging system that allows one to send simultaneous messages to everyone that is registered to your account. Well, people used their Twitter-accounts to warn other people to avoid certain areas where this anti-riot police, or rather militia, was at. (And for good reason, the militia were harassing innocent civilians, beating them, shooting them with rubber bullets, or sonic devices, or teargas – I’d be quite thankful if someone forewarned me to avoid such danger zones.) For this, some of these Twitter-users were thrown in jail, and / or raided by the FBI, for, (get this!) interfering with police activities. What does this say about the future of freedom of speech in America?

The ironic thing is that the USA condemned Iran’s oppression of Twitter-users just a couple of months earlier when Iranian freedom of speech activists used Twitter as a networking tool. Now, in America users of Twitter are raided, treated as terrorists and thrown in jail.

During the Pittsburg event members of the press was detained, and the main news media broadcasters were quiet. Or if they covered the event it showed a skewed reality. Thank goodness that, for now, the Internet is still an open resource. Many students from the University of Pittsburg recorded some of the events on their cell phones and uploaded it onto YouTube. You can easily search for it. But how long will the Internet stay open? There are already movements towards muzzling it – think of the Cyber Bullying Act which is one step in the wrong direction, no matter how well intended.

Should I mention how children in some American schools are taught songs of praise to glorify the President? Really, this is seriously disconcerting. I don’t have anything personally against Mr. Obama, how could I? I’m not American. But this reconfirms a grave trend I’ve noticed even before his election – a type of worship similar to little North Korean children singing praises to the Great Leader. And while such Obama-worship is happening on the one side of the spectrum, a colleague told me that she heard how people are having bets on the date the First Lady of America will become a widow; and I also heard of a poll that was on Facebook asking whether or not the president should be assassinated. So while the Obama-mania is still sweeping one segment of America, there seems to be a counter-wave as well. And in between are the normal folk, who will become caught in the crossfire.

Did you know that a private company, with the convenient title of “American Police Force” is buying up prisons to be privately owned. With private companies having names such as “American Police Force,” and foreign militia running the streets pretending to be local police or military, how is one to know who is friend and who is foe, who is protector and who is predator? And I just recently heard that some of these privately owned jails bribed judges to get more prisoners. So much for a fare trial!

And let met not even begin talking about the Swine Flu and the recent declaration of a “national emergency.” Sweden was the first country to start swine flu vaccinations and it is also the first to report deaths related to the injection. The fact that a “national emergency” was declared, which basically give authorities the power to forcefully quarantine and vaccinate people against their will, seems not to make the headlines at all. The fact that there are carcinogens and mercury in some of the vaccinations doesn’t seem much of a media headline either – in fact, some of the media reports actually lie about the vaccine ingredients. I wonder how much the pharmaceutical companies have invested in these media broadcasters. The swine flu is not fake (although some do think it artificial), and I would not be surprised if it was engineered by these pharmaceutical companies who made millions selling vaccines to governments.

Want to hear more? How about the FBI’s application to renew three Patriot Act spying provisions, without them having to reveal their conduct (aka “gag power”). Melissa Goodman, the ACLU Staff Attorney explains that the “gag power has allowed the FBI to manipulate the debate, to suppress evidence of its misuse of the NSL power, and to deprive Congress and the public of important information it needs to inform whether these intrusive surveillance and gag powers should be reformed.” It was announced that the Supreme Court will review, at least parts of, the controversial Patriot Act, to ascertain it constitutionality – but one has to wonder about their “creative interpretations” sometimes.

The Dollar keeps dropping in value (which is no surprise as more money is continually printed—“stimulus”—without any physical backing like gold). Latin American countries have announced a new Latin American Currency to replace dependency on the Dollar. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are in negotiations to find an alternative currency than the US Dollar to trade in.

And the United States is increasing its three foreign wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan), with the current Administration considered sending more and more young soldiers; many of them to die in wars based on lies: “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Does the US Administration really think that it is making America a safer place by increasing its oppression of these countries? Rather, it is fuelling emotions of revenge which is bound to increase terrorists’ attacks and one would not be surprised to see more of that in the future.

Surely seeing such trends one must be concerned for the future of the country? And I am especially concerned for the future of all my American friends and acquaintances. I’m not sharing these things because I take pleasure out of pointing the issues in America; rather, I’m sharing it because I am seriously troubled by it.

Imagine if America took all those billions of dollars it is pumping into these wars, and instead of using it to destroy “and keep order,” the money is used to build up, provide food, schools, hospitals, homes…

There is a story in the Bible where Syria came to destroy Israel, but through miraculous events Israel got the upper hand. The king of Israel asked council from the prophet Elisha: “My father, shall I smite them?” Elisha gave a surprising answer: “Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and [let them] go to their master.” The king listened and “he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.” (You can read the story in II Kings 6.) This is how you make peace with your enemy.

The principle in this story was mentioned before by the Sage-King Solomon: “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink…” (Proverbs 25:21). Centuries later the Messiah came to make this principle clearest, by saying “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you…” (Matthew 5:43).

If it was possible for the US government to take such an approach to their enemies they would make friends of them, and will then need little fear of terrorist attacks. Of course, this will not happen. The way of the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Way of Unconditional Love and Peace and “good will toward men,” is not the way of earthly governments—American or any other government; after all, Jesus did say that his “kingdom is not of this world.”

Making friends of its enemies is not the agenda of the USA. America’s culture of violence has it conditioned into believing that conquering is the way. It may be a way, but it is definitely not the way to long lasting peace. Instead it creates enemies intend on revenge. Do not be fooled; America’s wars are far from over and President Obama’s campaign promises were at best wishful thinking. While American tactics involve drone planes blasting away civilians, who can expect peace?

I said that I’d not go into detail concerning America. I didn’t. The few points I’ve mentioned I hardly discussed, and these were merely a blip of the things that happened over the last two months.

Some Hope in the (Financial) Crisis

2009-10-20T13:13:00.003+09:00

I've been quite negative about the state of the world, but the following TED-Talk video by John Gerzema gives me a little hope. Don't get me wrong, I do not for a moment think that the financial crisis is over. In fact, I'm very much convinced that financially the worst is yet to come. Nevertheless, it would seem that the world may be a little bit better prepared for it.

Now while the financial crisis is something to be concerned about, it is not my main worry. What I'm really worried about is governments continued effort to confine, restrict, muzzle, and basically cattle their citizens increasingly more and more. Good luck with that.

Gangster Government

2009-10-05T15:54:00.001+09:00

Facebook for Parents

2009-10-03T01:30:00.000+09:00

"Facebook, Twitter Revolutionizing How Parents Stalk Their College-Aged Kids"

America -- Land of the Free; or is it?!

2009-09-28T23:44:00.003+09:00

In what was possibly the most surreal, horrific, and unimaginable thing I have ever witnessed in my life, 1200 Riot Police and Military Personal rabidly attacked a group of well under 300 American citizens, many of them just students that were unaware there was even a protest going on. They then expanded their perimeter and shut large areas of Oakland down. This is how my last experience at the G20 in Pittsburgh went down, out of control authorities mercilessly attacking an unarmed crowd with batons, tear gas, pepper spray, sound weapons, and rubber bullets. Around 10pm on Friday night, long after the vast majority of dignitaries and protesters had left, it became evident that the outrageous show of force by the Military and Police was not enough to stave off their thirst for blood. Read more here...

The War Against Us All

2009-09-28T23:35:00.000+09:00

Flu Vaccine Ingredients for the Whole Family

2009-09-28T23:33:00.001+09:00

Want to know who is behind the Swine Flu?

2009-09-23T11:52:00.001+09:00

Or visit FluScam.Com.

The Land of the Bloody

2009-09-23T00:22:00.004+09:00

So these days in America you can be stopped at a roadblock and have a blood sample forcibly taken from you. The "Land of the Free" looks more and more like Nazi Germany... but hey, the major news being covered is Kanye West's antics at the MTV-awards. Not to mention that such bodily violation is against the Fourth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and who knows which other law is being broken.

On "Liberal" Christianity

2009-09-18T22:44:00.000+09:00

The Political Power of Iconography

2009-09-18T22:04:00.002+09:00

In the video below the powerful influence of icons and branding is discussed within the context of politics, specifically American politics. As someone who was once a graphic designer (and who have designed my share of logos) and also an avid believer in the need visual literacy in the times we live, I found this an excellent analysis well worth watching.

Eckhart Tolle and New Age

2009-09-18T21:57:00.003+09:00

The pastors from Woodland Hills Church has a sound Q&A regarding Eckhart Tolle's worldview and similar New Age trends. You can view it here. They also made comments that resonated with my "Why I'll Never Be a Pantheist Again".

Eckhart Tolle is the author of the book The New Earth, which is endorsed by Oprah Winfrey -- this of course made it a secure best seller.

Eight Years Later: Speak Out Against the War in Afghanistan

2009-09-16T13:12:00.000+09:00

A video by Code Pink: Women for Peace.

Obama Banking Too Much On Banks

2009-09-16T12:51:00.002+09:00

A very informative article by Nomi Prins, a former investment banker that became a journalist.

Obama Banking Too Much On Banks

On Monday—one year after the once-mighty Lehman Brothers collapsed in the nation’s biggest bankruptcy—President Obama addressed the state of the economy and again outlined his proposals for what he calls reform. The location—Federal Hall at 26 Wall Street, near the New York Stock Exchange and New York Federal Reserve Bank—was fitting. George Washington took his presidential oath there, a precursor for how intertwined Washington and Wall Street would become. And Obama’s speech indicates that he’s still making the grave error of mistaking the health of Wall Street for the health of the American economy.

Obama chose not to deliver his speech on, say, the streets of Bend, Oregon, or Fresno, California, which provide different indicators of our economic predicament. That’s because Washington’s approach to the crisis has been to focus on the banking system, throw a few crumbs to citizens, and hope everything else will magically work itself out.

The problem with concentrating on the banking system is that it allows the administration to present an overly optimistic assessment of its actions. "The storms of the past two years are beginning to break," Obama pronounced, attributing this to a government that "moved quickly on all fronts, initializing a financial stability plan to rescue the system from the crisis and restart lending for all those affected by the crisis." He continued: "By taking aggressive and innovative steps in credit markets, we spurred lending not just to banks, but to folks looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses. Our home ownership plan has helped responsible homeowners refinance to stem the tide of lost homes and lost home values."

Those steps were certainly aggressive. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, the government, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury Department, has flushed the banking systems and other components of the financial markets with $17.5 trillion worth of loans, guarantees, and other forms of support. About another $1 trillion has been provided to citizens through the recovery package, first-time homeowner tax benefits, auto purchase credits, and approximately $800 billion to help guarantee the loans of certain lenders—which somewhat helps borrowers, but helps lenders more.

But these measures have hardly brought the economy back from the brink. They brought Wall Street back from capital starvation and prevented the possibility of more big banks going bankrupt—instead of the slew of smaller and mid-size ones that have since met the same fate as Lehman Brothers. Taking credit for stabilizing the financial system after feeding it with massive amounts of federal money is like a teacher bragging about turning around the academic performance of a failing student after handing them all the answers to the big tests.

Here’s how the economy is really faring (and how Washington is failing to take adequate steps to fix it):

* National unemployment is at 9.7 percent, higher than last year’s 5.8 percent, with double digit jobless rates in 139 metropolitan areas this July, compared to 14 last July.
* The number of foreclosures is greater than last year: nearly 2 million new foreclosure filings occurred in the first half of 2009, up 15 percent from the same period in 2008.
* While homes in some areas have begun to slowly sell again, they are doing so at deeply depressed prices, in many instances below their mortgage value.
* Wall Street bonuses are back to pre-crisis levels. For some firms, such as Goldman Sachs, they are even higher.
* Bank leverage, or excessive borrowing on the back of risky assets—a major cause of the meltdown—is rising again.
* Geithner recently reported that his program to enable private financial firms to buy up toxic assets with government help will wind up costing less than the $1 trillion he had first envisioned. However, he did not mention that there are less toxic assets available to buy partly because the Fed has allowed banks to use some toxic assets as collateral in return for cheap loans.
* Big banks are bigger than they were last year. Since the Fed blessed more mergers last fall, the nation’s three largest banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo—hold the maximum percentage of legally permissable US deposits or more.
* Mid-size and smaller banks keep closing. This year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has closed 92 banks and depleted its deposit insurance money in the process.
* We still don’t have detailed information on the trillions of dollars of loans the Fed handed out to the banking sector or about the quality of the collateral banks provided in return.

Obama did acknowledge that the picture isn’t entirely rosy. He also outlined his ideas for avoiding another catastrophe: reshuffle the decks of regulatory agencies, slap a few trading constraints on some derivatives, and create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). But while Obama's rhetoric was stern—"normalcy cannot lead to complacency," he vowed—the proposals themselves are hardly sweeping.

Obama’s plan calls for eliminating the Office of Thrift Supervision and providing greater oversight by the Fed of “systemically important” institutions. The Senate is trying to water that down, in part because some members of both parties in Congress remain skeptical about the power of the Fed itself. The Senate also wants to consolidate regulatory authority into fewer entities, but leave oversight to a council of regulators. Of course, consolidating regulatory oversight only works if regulators are doing their jobs and the banking system is transparent enough to allow them to do so.

The last leg of Obama’s proposal would be establishing the CFPA, which would monitor financial products in an effort to protect consumers from risky instruments such as subprime mortgages. Legislation to create such an agency is expected to be taken up this year by the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass).

A strong CFPA is a sensible plan. Right now there is no other body imbued with the power not just to protect consumers but also to foster the general economic stability that would be achieved by closely monitoring the integrity of financial products. This proposal has drawn the most ire from the banking community, so you know it’s good. The Chamber of Commerce launched a $2 million ad campaign to convince people that a CFPA would mean that local butcher couldn’t extend credit to his customers without government interference.

But Obama's reforms do not strike deeply enough. The banking crisis has been subdued, not fixed, because of enormous amounts of government assistance. Ignoring that fact, and failing to overhaul the sector, leaves us open to another crisis. And the next round will be worse, because there is now so much more federal money invested in the banks.

Simply funding the banking system without reforming it is an expensive and dangerous game. Obama is capable of truly fixing things—by dividing up the Wall Street mega-banks with a new Glass Steagall Act, thereby enabling the success of more extensive regulatory reforms. Or, he could introduce a set of cosmetic changes that allow banks to keep doing what they did before last year’s crisis and that put us on the path for the next one.

Charlie Sheen's Questions to the President

2009-09-13T17:44:00.000+09:00

How Not To Use Facebook

2009-08-27T13:00:00.002+09:00

From: FriendFeed

Jailed for What You're Gonna Do

2009-08-26T03:11:00.002+09:00

A couple of months old, but still relevant.

The fact that Rachel Maddow should take such a strong position against President Obama should in itself be something of note. She is considered one of the most liberal radio personalities in America.

The Good News of Christianity's Demise

2009-08-22T15:17:00.004+09:00

A while back I responded to a news report on the demise of American Christianity. The report stated five reasons why people give up on Christianity, to which I gave five responses. Below is a similar blog post by Greg Boyd -- of all things, a megachurch pastor and author of insightful theological books. I say "of all things", because those are the type of preachers I mistrust the most. However, Boyd's "brand" of Christianity is one I find very much in line with the version Jesus taught. He is thinking preacher, always studying and contemplating, and always focussing on Jesus. I've written about Greg Boyd before on this blog, in one of my very first posts (the 6th post to be exact, nearly two years ago), "The Scary Right". I mentioned the fabulous CNN three part documentary, God's Warriors, I admitted that of all the high profile Christians interviewed in the documentary, Boyd was the only person I could associate myself with. You can see the segment of Boyd in the documentary God's Warriors on his website here.

His post below discusses why "the demise of American Christianity" is good news for "Real Christianity".

Don’t Weep For the Demise of American Christianity

Hello bloggers,

I’ve come across two very interesting and insightful essays this week on the demise of American Christianity. The first is Michael Spencer’s “The coming evangelical collapse” published in the Christian Science Monitor, and the second is Jon Meacham’s “The End of Christian America” published in Newsweek. Meacham discusses the decline of Christianity in America in general while Spencer discusses what he believes is the soon and inevitable demise of Evangelicalism in particular. In this post I’d like to provide a brief overview of both articles (supplemented by some information from Christine Wicker’s The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church (HarperCollins, 2008), and then offer my own assessment of this demise.

The Demise of Christianity

There are many indications that Christianity in America is in rather rapid decline. For example, the percentage of self-identifying Christians has fallen 10 points over the last decade (down to 76 percent). According to a recent Newsweek Poll, the percentage of people who think that America is “a Christian Nation” has dropped 7 percent in the last year (down to 62 percent). And the percent of those who say that religion “can answer all or most of today’s problems” is at a historic low – down to 48 percent (it never dropped below 58 percent until the last few years).

There are indications that conservative Christianity (Evangelicalism) is being hit particularly hard by this downward turn. (See Christine Wicker’s The Fall of the Evangelical Nation for superb research supporting this claim). While some megachurches continue to grow, the majority of smaller evangelical churches are shrinking (in part because many of their members are migrating to the “full service oriented” model of the megachurches). Yet, there is an over-all net loss of church attenders each year, though this is somewhat concealed by the fact that most conservative churches are reticent to take members off their membership rolls as well as by the tendency of evangelical churches and organizations [especially Southern Baptists, according to Wicker] to grossly exaggerate their numbers (see The Fall of the Evangelical Nation for a full exposé on this trend).

Also significant is the fact that the average age of attendees in conservative churches is rising and there are many indications that the largely personality driven mega-church phenomenon was a “baby-boomer” trend that will likely die with this generation. In light of these and other indications, Spencer goes so far as to predict that ”[w]ithin two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants.” “The end of evangelicalism as we know it,” he argues, “ is close.” More generally, Meacham argues that America is entering into a “post-Christian” epoch.

The Cause of the Decline

What has brought about this decline? The answer to this question is, of course, very complex, but from these essays two factors stand out.

First, as Spencer notes, American evangelical churches have been, to a large degree, gutted by good old fashion American pragmatism. We’ve become preoccupied with being “relevant” and “efficient” at the expense of holding fast to the theological depth of our biblically based traditions. Megachurches in particular are guilty of this – which in part explains why they become megachurches, for relevance and efficiency sell well to baby boomers. (To younger folks, not so much.) Spencer refers to this, quite appropriately, as the “megachurch vacuity.”

Spencer wonders whether “the coming collapse” of Evangelicalism will “get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power?” He’s not very optimistic, however. While he’s quite sure Evangelicalism will continue to decline, he also somewhat caustically anticipates that “[t]he purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church’s problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.”

A second important factor, which both Spencer and Meacham stress, is that Evangelicals “have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism.” Spencer notes that “[w]e fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.” Even some of the staunchest guards of conservative Evangelicalism are beginning to see this.

For example, Alert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, concedes that “[t]he worst fault of evangelicals in terms of politics over the last 30 years has been an incredible naiveté about politics and politicians and parties.” Manifesting typical Constantinian triumphalism, many conservative American Christians naively thought we could transform American society in a “Christian” direction by acquiring political power to enforce our (self-proclaimed) superior views on selected topics (especially abortion, gay marriage, creationism in schools and stem cell research) on the broader culture. It has not gone well, to say the least.

After 40 years of intense political involvement, Evangelicals have little positive to show for their efforts. To the contrary, we’ve arguably only succeeded in getting multitudes of non-Christians [or simply non-Evangelicals] to distain us and the “Good News” message we’re supposed to be bringing. (A great book on the [mostly negative] non-Christian perceptions of Evangelicals in America is UnChristian by David Kinnamen and Gabe Lyons). Now that the political parties and positions Evangelicals largely identified with have fallen on hard times, Evangelicals have, to a significant extent, fallen with them.

Is The Demise of the Christian Religion a Bad Thing?

For those who are heavily invested in the Christian religion, at least as it’s usually been understood in America, the news that America is entering into a “post-Christian” epoch is understandably alarming. As Meacham makes apparent in his article, people like Albert Mohler find the indisputable evidence of Christianity’s demise in America deeply disturbing. Mohler vows to fight this demise tooth and nail, predicting that a “new generation of young pastors” is about to rise up “to push back against hell in bold and visionary ministry.” “Expect to see the sparks fly,” he adds.

Personally, I strongly suspect that all such “spark flying” efforts on the part the righteous to protect us sinners from ourselves will only speed Christianity’s demise.

Others of us interpret the demise of Christianity and America’s descent into a “post-Christian” epoch quite differently. Indeed, I and many others see this as good news! Yes, the loss of a Judeo-Christian civic religion may bring about a greater degree of moral and religious relativism and intensify American’s moral decadence. This is admittedly unnerving. But here are six reasons why I do not think Kingdom people should weep over the demise of American Christianity.

1. America has never been, and will never be, a “Christian” nation in any significant sense. Among other things, America, like every other fallen, demonically-oppressed nation (see Lk. 4:5-7; 2 Cor. 4:4; I Jn. 5:19; Rev. 13), is incapable of loving its enemies, doing good to those who mistreat it or blessing those who persecute it (Lk. 6:27-35). By applying the term “Christian” to America, we’ve massively watered down its meaning — which undoubedly helps explain why the vast majority of American Christians assume being “Christian” is perfectly compatible with hating and killing your national enemies if and when your earthly Commander and Chief asks you to. The sooner the label “Christian” gets divorced form this country, the better. It provides hope that someday the word “Christian” might actually mean “Christ-like” once again.

2. Related to this, there’s a good bit of research demonstrating that the majority of American’s identify themselves as “Christian” when asked by a pollster, but when asked what this label actually means in terms of core values and lifestyle choices, it becomes apparent that for the majority of them the meaning of “Christian” is basically “American.” I submit that the main problem Kingdom people confront in spreading the Kingdom in America is that a majority of people assume they are already in the Kingdom — they are “Christian” — simply by virtue of being American or because they prayed a certain prayer or go to Church once a year, or whatever. If fewer people are identifying themselves as “Christian,” this is good, for it means there’s one less major illusion that Kingdom people have to confront and work through as they invite these folks into the Kingdom.

3. If Evangelicals lose all their political clout, we may be less tempted to lust after political power, which means we may have one less distraction from actually doing what God called us to do — namely, manifesting God’s reign by how we humbly live, love and serve.

4. As my friend Alan Hirsch demonstrates in his great book, The Forgotten Ways, the Kingdom has always thrived — and really, has only thrived — when it was on the margins of society. The Kingdom is, by its very nature, a “contrast society.” If Christians lose all their power and position in society and become marginalized, this can’t help but be good for the Kingdom. If Christians become persecuted, it likely will be even better. We’d be turning back the clock from the disaster of Constantinian triumphalist Christianity in the direction of Apostolic, servant Christianity.

5. The “Christian” element of American culture was never deeper than the thin veneer of a shared civic religion. A major problem Kingdom people have faced on the mission field of America is that the majority of people mistook the civic religion for the real thing. So it is that so many think that being “Christian” is focused on preserving the civic religion (e.g. fighting for prayer before sports events, keeping the ten commandments on government buildings, holding onto a “Christian” definition of marriage within our government, etc.). Not only this, but this veneer of Christianity causes Jesus followers not to notice the many ways foundational assumptions that permeate American culture are diametrically opposed to the values of the Kingdom. If the civic religion of Christianity were to die, Kingdom people would be less tempted to associate Christianity with symbolic civic functions and would become more aware of how the Kingdom sharply contrasts with foundational aspects of American culture.

6. Finally, and closely related to this, if Jesus followers lose all their position and power and become a minority (or better, revealed to have always been a minority) in American culture, this will expose the idol of American individualism we have bought into for far too long and perhaps help us realize that we need to cling to each other and that the Kingdom is inherently communal. We are called to manifest God’s uniquely beautiful love and bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ by how we share our lives and serve one another (e.g. Jn. 17:20-26; Acts 2: 42-47. 4: 42-45). But its very difficult for many of us to embrace radical Kingdom community when we can get along very well (by American standards of “well”) without it. The demise of Constantinian American Christianity would serve us well by stripping us of the privilege of individualistic living.

Other possible positive outcomes of the demise of American Christianity could be listed, but this must suffice for now. I hope it is enough to show that, from a Kingdom perspective, the demise of American Christianity is not something we should weep over. To the contrary, its actually good news. Yes, it will likely bring about cultural disarray. But, as has often been noted, the Kingdom thrives best when the broader cultural is falling apart. The God-given mandate to Kingdom people is not to keep the broader culture from falling apart, but to offer all who are hungry a radically different, far more beautiful, way of doing life. And often people will not take this offer seriously until everything else is crumbling around them.

Let the civic religion die. And if the culture crumbles, it crumbles. Our task is to live in a way that gives people hope.

Think about it,

Greg

The Battle of Good and Evil (A Sermon)

2009-08-22T14:46:00.003+09:00

Not loading? Go here.

Locational Privacy

2009-08-20T10:29:00.002+09:00

Locational privacy (also known as "location privacy") is the ability of an individual to move in public space with the expectation that under normal circumstances their location will not be systematically and secretly recorded for later use.

How much locational privacy do you have? How many CCTV cameras record your comings-and-goings everyday? Are your photo taken at the ATM every time you make a withdrawal? Is there a log at your local library of the books that you read -- and is this log really private? How safe are your surfing habits from Internet spying? Did you suddenly get spam mail, email, cell phone text messaging, after you signed up for a new account with a store, bank, or other service? Are your movements "tracked" via your cellphone, without you knowing?

Benito Mussolini

2009-08-18T14:11:00.003+09:00

"Speeches made to the people are essential to the arousing of enthusiasm for a war."

"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State. "

Anatomy of a Collapse

2009-08-15T23:57:00.005+09:00

The graphic above is an interesting interpretation of the predicament. It was designed by Wall Stats. There is also another (more colourful) diagram on Flickr.

Some ponderings...

2009-08-12T11:57:00.002+09:00

I have been quite negative the last couple of weeks and months. Most of it relates to the state of the world and how I see people’s liberties taken away without them even flinching, with how I see economies being manipulated and money “legally” stolen by governments and corporate powers working together, with manipulating people’s fears to get them submissive and obeying, with governments “fixing” the economic problems by printing more money and so devaluing the system even further, with political two-faced tactics where the front man says one thing, but the administration another.

But I’m gaining hope. In a letter to my friends I wrote sometime back that one of the only ways to get out of this depression is if something wonderful is discovered, like a cheap alternative energy source. A friend recently sent me a link to current experiments happening in this area. This is wonderful, and if it is not squashed by the oil syndicates, then the world can change dramatically for the better.

The other thing that is giving me hope is the amount of protests worldwide. More and more people are standing up to their governments and making themselves heard. The powers-that-be will try and fear monger the masses into submission with anything from military involvement to swine flu epidemics. If the people can rise above such fear-terrorism employed by their governments, then I have a little more hope for the world.

Good luck everyone. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride ahead.

Napoleon Bonaparte is a Solar Myth

2009-08-11T17:59:00.006+09:00

So you still believe Jesus Christ never existed, but is merely a fictional character based on a Solar Myth? That, at least, is what Peter Joseph (writer, director, editor and producer) of the Zeitgeist movie claimed, and thousands of gullible people were persuaded by his argument. More than a century ago Jean-Baptise wrote the treatise below (see full text here), proving (by using the same logic as Peter Joseph) that Napoleon Bonaparte did not exist and is just a fictional character based on a Solar Myth.

So if you want to insist that Jesus Christ was in fact just a Solar Myth, then by implication you have to insist the same regarding Napoleon Bonaparte.

GRAND ERRATUM. THE NON-EXISTENCE OF NAPOLEON PROVED.

BY JEAN-BAPTISTE

Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom so much has been said and written, never even existed. He is nothing more than an allegorical personage. He is the personification of the sun; and we can prove our assertion by showing how everything related of Napoleon the Great has been borrowed from the great luminary. Let us see briefly what we are told of this remarkable man.

Ye are told:

That he was called Napoleon Bonaparte:

That he was born in an island in the Mediterranean sea;

That his mother's name was Letitia;

That he had three sisters and four brothers, three of whom
were kings;

That he had two wives, one of whom bore him a son;

That he put an end to a great revolution;

That he had under him sixteen marshals of the empire, twelve of whom were in active service;

That he prevailed in the South, and was defeated in the North;

To conclude, that after a reign of twelve years, begun upon his arrival from the East, he departed, and disappeared in the Western seas.

It remains for us to ascertain whether these various details are borrowed from the sun, and we hope that every reader of this disquisition will rise convinced that this is the case.

i. In the first place, every one knows that the sun is called Apollo by the poets. Now, the difference between Apollo and Napoleon is not a great one, and it will appear very much less still if we go back to the meaning and origin of these names. It is unquestionable that the word Apollo means Exterminator; and it seems that this name was given by the Greeks to the sun on account of the injury it did them before Troy, where a part of their army perished from the excessive heat, and from the pestilence that followed at the time of the outrage perpetrated by Agamemnon on Chryses, priest of the sun, as we read at the beginning of the "Iliad" of Homer. The brilliant imagination of the Greek poets transformed the rays of the luminary into flaming arrows, hurled on all sides by the angry god, who would soon have exterminated everything if his wrath had not been appeased by the release of Chrysei's, daughter of Chryses, the sacrificial priest.

This, then, is probably the reason why the sun was called Apollo. But whatever the cause or circumstance which occasioned the giving of such a name to this luminary, it is certain that the name means Exterminator.

Now, Apollo is the same word as Apoleon. They are derived from Apollyo, or Apoleo, two Greek verbs which are really the same, and which mean "destroy," “kill," "exterminate."

Thus, if the fictitious hero of our century were called Apoleon, he would have the same name as the sun, and would besides fulfil the meaning of the name; for he is pictured to us as the greatest exterminator of men who ever existed. But this personage is called Napoleon, and thus his name contains an initial letter which we do not find in the name of the sun. Yes, there is an
extra letter, an extra syllable even; for, according to the inscriptions cut in every part of the capital (Paris), the real name of this supposed hero was Neapoleon, or Neapolion. This is more particularly to be seen on the column of the Place Vendome.

Now, this extra syllable makes no difference whatever. The svllable, no doubt, like the rest of the name, is Greek; and in Greek ne, or nai, is one of the strongest affirmations, equivalent to our veritably, or yea. Whence it follows that Napoleon means Veritable Exterminator, Veritable Apollo; it
means, in truth, the sun.

But what is to be said of his other name? What connection can there be between the word Bonaparte and the star of the day? At first it is not at all evident, but this at least can be understood: that as bona parte means "good part," it has no doubt to do with something consisting of two parts, a good and a bad, with something which in addition is connected with the sun, Napoleon.

Now, nothing is more directly connected with the sun than the results of his diurnal revolution, and these results are day and night, light and darkness; the light produced by his presence, and that darkness which prevails during his absence. This is an allegory borrowed from the Persians. They have the reign of Ormuzd and Ahriman, of light and darkness, of good and bad spirits. And it is to these last, spirits of evil and darkness, that people used formerly to devote their foes, using the following imprecation: Abi in malam partem. If by mala parte was meant darkness, no doubt bona parte meant light, day as opposed to night. There can then be no doubt that this name is connected with the sun, especially 'when it is seen to be associated with
Napoleon, who is himself the sun, as has been already demonstrated.

2. According to Greek mythology. Apollo was born in an island in the Mediterranean (the Isle of Delos): an island in the Mediterranean has, therefore, been fabled as the birthplace of Napoleon; and the preference has been given to Corsica, because the relative positions of Corsica and France, where he was to be made to reign, correspond best to those of Greece and Delos, where were situated the chief temples and oracles of Apollo.

Pausanias, it is true, calls Apollo an Egyptian divinity; but it does not follow that an Egyptian divinity must be born in Egypt: it is enough that he should be there regarded as a god, and that is what Pausanias meant. He designed to inform us that the Egyptians worshipped Apollo, and that establishes yet another connection between Napoleon and the sun; for Napoleon is said to have been held in Egypt to be invested with supernatural qualities, to have been regarded as the friend of Mahomet, and to have received homage partaking of the nature of adoration.

3. His mother is said to have been named Letitia. But by the word Letitia (or "joy") was meant the dawn whose first tender light fills all nature with joy. It is the dawn, say the poets, which brings forth the sun, flinging wide for him the portals of the Kast with her rosy-tipped fingers.

Again it is worthy of remark that, according to Greek mythology, the mother of Apollo was called Leto. But if the Romans made Latona of Leto, it has been preferred in our century to change it into Letitia. Then, this Letitia, no 1ess than her son, belongs to Greek mythology.

4. According to tradition, this son of Letitia had three sisters, and there can be no doubt that these three sisters are the three Graces, who, with their companions the Muses, were the ornaments of their brother Apollo's court.

5. This modern Apollo is said to have had four brothers. Now, as we shall show, these four brothers are the four seasons of the year. Let us not be startled, at the outset, at seeing the seasons represented by men rather than women. It ought not even to seem an innovation, since, in French, only one of the four seasons, the autumn, is feminine; and even with respect to that
our grammarians are disagreed. But in Latin autumnus is no more feminine than the other three seasons, so there is no difficulty on that point. The four brothers of Napoleon may very well represent the four seasons, and what follows proves that they really do so.

Of Napoleon's four brothers, three, they tell us, were kings; these three kings are Spring, who reigns over the flowers; Summer, who reigns over the harvest; and Autumn, who reigns over the fruit. As these three seasons derive all their potent influence from the sun, we are told that Napoleon's three brothers held their sovereignty at his hands, and reigned only by his authority. And when it is added that of Napoleon's four brothers one was not a king, it is because one of the four seasons Winter, reigns over nothing. But if, to invalidate our parallel, it were alleged that Winter was not without sway, and if it were wished to ascribe to him the dismal principality of the frosts and snows which whiten our land at this melancholy season, our answer would be ready: that, we should say, is what was designed to be shown by the empty and ridiculous principality with which this brother of Napoleon is said to have been invested after the fall of all his family. This principality has been described as in connection with the village of Canino, in preference to any other, because Canino comes from cani, which denotes the white hairs of chill old age, and they recall winter. For, to the poet, the forests crowning our hill-sides are locks of hair; and when Winter covers them with his hoar frost, it is the white hairs of failing nature in the old age of the year.

Cum gelidus crescit canis in montibus humor.

Thus the pretended Prince of Canino is nothing more than the personification of winter. Winter begins when nothing more is left of the three good seasons, and the sun is at his greatest distance from our country, which is invaded the furious children of the north, the poet's name for the winds: the winds come from northern climes, discolor our land, and cover it with a detested
whiteness. This has given rise to the fabulous account of the invasion of the northern nations into France, where they are said to have done away with a parti-colored flag adorning it and to have substituted a white one which entirely covered it, after the exile of the fabulous Napoleon. It would be idle to repeat that this is merely emblematical of the rime that the winds from the north produce in the winter, and which obliterates the charming colors that the sun produced in our land, before he waned and departed from us. It is easy to see the analogy of all these things with the ingenious fables conceived in our century.

6. According to these same fables, Napoleon had two wives; hence two wives have been attributed to the sun. These two wives are the moon and the earth : the moon according to the Greeks (Plutarch is our authority), and the earth according to the Egyptians ; with this noteworthy difference, that by the moon the sun had no issue, and by the earth he had a son, an only son. This child was the little Horus, son of Osiris and Isis; that is to say, of the sun and the earth, as may be seen in the "History of the Heavens," Vol. I., p. 61 and following. It is an Egyptian allegory, where the little Horus, born from the earth impregnated by the sun, represents the fruits of agriculture. Even so the birth of the supposed son of Napoleon has been fixed at the
2Oth of March, the period of the vernal equinox, because in the spring agricultural produce undergoes its most important phase of development.

7. Napoleon is said to have put an end to a devastating scourge which terrorized France, and was called the Hydra of the Revolution. Now, a hydra is a serpent, of what kind matters little, especially when the serpent is fabulous. The Python, an enormous serpent, was the cause of great terror in Greece; Apollo slew the monster, and dissipated the fear of the people; this was his first exploit. Hence we are told that Napoleon began his reign by crushing the French Revolution, which is itself as much a chimera as everything else. For revolution is obviously derived from the Latin word rwolutus, which denotes a curled-up serpent. The Revolution is the Python, neither more nor less.

8. The celebrated warrior of the nineteenth century had under him, we are told, twelve marshals at the head of his armies, and four were not in active service. Now, the twelve first are obviously the twelve signs of the zodiac, marching under the orders of the sun Napoleon, each of them commanding a division of the innumerable army of the stars, which is called the celestial host in the Bible, and is divided into twelve parts, corresponding to the twelve signs of the zodiac. Such are the twelve marshals who, according to our mythical chronicles, were actively employed under the Emperor Napoleon. The four others, in all probability, are the four cardinal points, which, fixed amid universal motion, are very well symbolised by the inactivity of which we have spoken.

Thus, all these marshals, active and inactive, are purely symbolical beings, with no more reality than their leader.

9. We are told that this leader of so many brilliant armies overran in triumph the countries of the south, but that, having penetrated too far north, he was there unable to maintain himself. Now, these details precisely apply to the sun's course. The sun, it is well known, rules supreme in the south, as is said of the Emperor Napoleon. But it is most worthy of note that, after the vernal equinox, the sun makes for the northern regions, and moves further away from the Equator. But when he has taken his course in this direction for three months, he encounters the North Tropic, which compels him to retreat and go back the way he came to the south, following the sign Cancer, or Crab ; which sign, according to Macrobius, derives its name from the retrograde course of the sun in this region of the globe. This, then, is the material from which has been drawn Napoleon's imaginary northern expedition to Moscow, together with the humiliating retreat by which it is said to have been followed.

Thus everything we have been told of the success or defeat of this strange warrior is nothing more than a series of allusions to the course of the sun.

10. Finally, and this needs no explanation, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as all the world knows. But to the spectators at the extremities of the earth, the sun seems to rise from the eastern sea in the morning and to plunge into the western sea at night. It is, moreover, thus that poets describe his rising and setting.

That, then, is all we are to understand when we are told that Napoleon came by sea from the east (Egypt) to reign over France, and that he disappeared in the western seas after a reign of twelve years. The twelve years are nothing more than the twelve hours of the day during which the sun shines on the horizon.

"He reigned but a day," says the author of "Les Nouvelles Messeniennes," speaking of Napoleon: and the way in which- he describes his rise, decline, and fall shows that, like ourselves, this delightful poet saw in Napoleon nothing more than an image of the sun. And in truth he is nothing more. His name proves it: his mother's name proves it; his three sisters, his four brothers, his two wives, his son, his marshals, his exploits. all prove it.
It is proved, moreover, by his birthplace; by the regions whence we are told, he came before entering on his career of dominion; by the time he employed in traversing those regions; by the countries where he prevailed, by those where he succumbed; and by the place where he vanished, pale and discroivned, after his brilliant course, to quote the poet Casimir Delavigne.

It has, then, been proved that the supposed hero of our century is nothing more than an allegorical personage, deriving his attributes from the sun. It follows that Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom so much has been said and written, never even existed; and this fallacy, into which so many people have fallen headlong, arises from the amusing blunder of mistaking the mythology of
the nineteenth century for history.

We might further have appealed in support of our contention to a great number of royal ordinances, whose indisputable dates are evidently irreconcilable with the reign of the pretended Napoleon; but we have had sound reasons for letting them alone.

Why so serious?

2009-08-10T00:01:00.005+09:00

The Obama-Joker poster has gone viral and is popping up all over the U.S.A, partially due to a $1000 competition run by InfoWars.Com, and partly because of anti-socialists. And probably because the image is a meme, and it carries strong memetic (propagating) qualities, much like a catchy tune that you can't get out of your head, even though you don't necessarily like it.

The point made on the CNN-clip below is a valid one: the Joker-character from Batman: The Dark Knight on which this poster is based is an anarchist, which probably contradicts Obama’s supposed socialist goals. Personally I don’t think America is really heading for Socialism (just yet). Instead, I’m convinced it is heading for Fascism (the merging of state and corporate powers), if it isn’t a fledgling little Fascist state already.

Swine Flu Scares

2009-08-07T00:47:00.004+09:00

A flu is coming. What you probably don't know is that it is most likely engineered and you will probably get it through the the vaccines your going to be urged, if not forced, to get. Even if the vaccines are not the carriers of death as the paranoid prophet is predicting, you should still not just blindly trust their safety. What do you actually know about this vaccine that was so rushed in its preparation.

What do we know about the vaccines' safety? Not enough

Pharmaceutical companies have started preparing vaccinations by the tons and governments have started buying it. For all we know the pharmacies created these virus strands and are now selling these antiviral vaccinations to the gullible public. It's simple economics. Identify a need, provide the need. Identify a problem, provide the solution. And if your really smart, just go ahead and create the need/problem and the come in like a hero and provide the solution.

There is going to be flu, it is going to be hyped up, there will be fear mongering and it will happen coming Fall.

But of course, you shouldn't heed my warning because this is a satirical blog. Go ahead, go get your vaccination. That's a good boy.

"Universal Soldier"

2009-08-04T20:03:00.000+09:00

"The Hell of War Comes Home"

2009-08-04T18:16:00.003+09:00

A number of soldiers returning from the Iraqi-war came back to America, bringing with them serious emotional and psychological problems and PTSD, resulting in many violent crimes, including rapes and brutal killings of American civilians.

Read David Phillips' two part expose, "Casualties of War", on this tragic reality of soldiers going berserk once home.

Part 1: "The Hell of War Comes Home"

Part 2: "Warning Signs"

See an interview with Phillips on CNN in the YouTube-video below:

Some Questions & Answers

2009-08-01T00:03:00.002+09:00

Q: How do I get to Heaven?

A: See "What to Do to be Saved".

Q: How do I become more Christ-like?

A: There is a simple principle in the Bible that can be summed up as “By beholding we are changed”, from: “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18). In other words, we change into the things we focus on.

By focussing on Christ our characters will change to His likeness. Many texts counsel us to be “in Christ”. We do this by being in a relationship with Him. How do we get in a relationship with Christ? Mainly, we spend time with Him in prayer, study and meditation of His Word.

The “by beholding we are changed”-principle counts for other things in life as well and therefore ought to impact the recreational choices we as Christians make. If we spend lots of time watching violent movies and playing violent video games and listening to aggressive music, we should not be surprised if we have violent outbursts. It’s simple: what we put in, we get out.

For this reason the Bible councils: “For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are noble, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are amiable, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if any praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8).

Q: In following the 10 commandments, isn't that half the job of getting to heaven and being with God? I figured the 10 Commandments are key. Stick to them, and I'll be fine.

A: Obeying the 10 Commandments as a means to salvation is useless, for we are saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8; Galatians 2:16). Paul explains: “…for if righteousness is by law, then Christ has died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21b). The law has no salvation ability. The law is based on the principle of love. Its function is to show us God’s standard (and Jesus came to show us the depth of this), on the one hand, and to show us how that we are not on par, on the other hand. The law, in other words, give us a simple outline of how Sin manifests. Sin (i.e. the opposite of love), manifests in sins (i.e. selfish deeds and harmful acts), for instance stealing, lying, murdering, worshipping idols, etc. The Ten Commandments gives us a guideline to identify these acts and avoid them. The law also points out our unrighteousness – like a magic mirror that shows us the dirt on our souls – and points us to the solution: “So that the law has been our tutor up to Christ, that we might be justified on the principle of faith” (Galatians 3:24).

So are we still to keep the Law? Of course! It’s like asking if we are still to worship God, or if, now that we are Christians, we are free to murder and steal and plunder and rape. Clearly this does not make sense. The law shows us what is good and right. However, the law does not contribute to our salvation in any way.

Q: Some would have me believe I have to read the whole bible, and take everything literally - live it out.

A: It is a good thing to read the Bible, and to have a thorough knowledge of it. As to how you have to take it (literally or not), depends on the context. Some parts are literal, some parts are figurative, and some parts are cultural. The context will usually clarify how it is supposed to be read.

Q: And, what does it mean to truly "Love God above all else" and "Love your neighbour as yourself"? How extreme does it go? Does "Love God above all else" mean that we must all become nuns/monks and do nothing but pray? What about the line in the bible that says for 6 days you must work and do what you must, and on the 7th day rest? Doesn't that mean that God intended for us to have lives outside of church?

The monastic lifestyle is not something advocated in the Bible as a requirement for salvation. Even the great apostle Paul, who was a single man and did lots of evangelizing, advocated marriage for some.

Your reading of the fourth commandment is indeed correct. Most people focus primarily on it being about keeping the Sabbath; however, the fourth command has two sides to it. It not merely commands rest on the Sabbath, it also commands us to be productive on the other days.

Loving God above all else means that God should get our highest priority. When you have to make a decision between two things that asks for your allegiance, or time, or effort – that is when you will know where your highest priority lies.

The “love your neighbour” commandment is indeed extreme. Jesus explained that our neighbour includes our enemy. Christ’s teachings are outrageously extreme and is humanly impossible but for the grace of God. Only with God’s help can we love those that we hate, can we love those that have hurt us, can we love those that want to do us harm. It is for this reason that I have often contended that the Christian religion is not a mortal invention, but a divine one.

Q: And, "love your neighbour as yourself", does that mean I have to provide all the hobo's in my area with cellphones? Isn't that a life choice they made? What about the glue sniffers? If I give them money or clothes, they'll just feed their addiction.

A: Firstly, we are called to provide in basic needs not in luxuries. Secondly, love means to help them out of their problems, not help them into their problems. If giving them money is going to feed their addiction then you ought not to give them money. Still, sometimes you might need to give them food or clothes (basic needs), regardless. Our role is not to judge, but to love. Pray for guidance as to who you ought to give to or not. I don’t think there is a list of criteria we could comfortably tick off to determine who deserves charity. Charity, like grace, would not be charity (or grace) if the beneficiaries deserved it.

Q: Then I was told being religious, and a good Christian is about doing what God wants you to do, not about being comfortable.

A: What God wants you to do is not necessarily what people wants you to do – sometimes people tries to coerce you into their ambitions, which might not be God’s ambitions for you. An honest, sincere, personal study of the Word and openheartedness to the Holy Spirit will convict you of what God requires of you. Following the Ten Commandments is within God’s greater requirement for all of us, also to do justly, love goodness and walking humbly with God. These things are not about being religious – it’s about being in a relationship with God; not about trying to go to Heaven, but about living a good life in response to God’s goodness. And just because it makes good sense not to go around murdering, stealing, committing adultery, and all the rest.

Indeed, sometimes what God wants us to do might feel uncomfortable to us, because our natures have been perverted. For instance, the taste for cigarettes is unnatural, the palate has been perverted and quitting the habit is uncomfortable. Regardless, “God does not require us to give up anything that is for our best interest to retain” – Steps to Christ.

Q: And, why do people think the bible needs to be interpreted? Wasn't it brought into existence, so we all could understand and follow?

A: It is true that there is room for interpretation of Scripture. All Christians interpret the Bible; if we did not we’d identify Christians as those people with eyes plucked out and hands chopped off. Also, since much of the Bible was written within specific cultural contexts, it is necessary for us to interpret it within its context. For instance, in the time Paul lived a woman with her head uncovered was advertising herself as a prostitute – therefore he admonished women to cover their heads. In our current Western culture an uncovered head has no sexual connotation. If Paul was living today he’d probably tell woman not to dress in extra short miniskirts and show too much cleavage.

Furthermore, if we really believe that the Bible is God inspired, we ought not be surprised that it is inexhaustible in truths. So, as we are growing in Truth, we will continue to interpret and reinterpret, building layer upon layer of understanding. Note however that true new Truth does not cancel out old Truth, but enriches it. Just as Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). True Truth, does however negate false “truth”, as Jesus so often did with the falsities propagated by the Pharisees.

Sincere interpretation is a good thing. We interpret everything all the time – it is part of being rational beings. And I am convinced that since Truth is unchangeable (it is our understanding of Truth that changes as our understanding increases), all people that honestly and sincerely and humbly search for Truth will come to similar conclusions.

I do believe, however, that if people read the Bible as a coherent collection of books, and not single out texts to build outrageous dogmas on, most people will come to the same conclusion. Also, the idea that only the priest or pastor or Church has a monopoly on Biblical understanding is nonsense. The Bible was written for the common people, and it is within a community, within a fellowship of believers, that we come to a balanced understanding of the Scriptures.

Q: I've always just prayed in my head, whenever. "God, the clouds look beautiful today. God, thank you for my husband; thank you for my baby; please help us if it is Your will." Is prayer only effective when done on the knees?

A: The Bible does not prescribe posture. There are many examples of many different postures throughout the Bible. Posture is an outward reflection of an inward reality, so make sure that your posture is sincere. If you are on your knees because you want to be there as a sign of your submission to your King, great! However, if you are on your knees just to “show” what a good Christian you are, you may fool others, but you won’t fool God. I think to God the posture of the heart is more important than the posture of the body.

There is room for serious prayer (which I personally do on my knees), but also for what I call conversational prayer – just candid thoughts send up to God anytime and anywhere.

Q: I figured God knows me, because my grandparents are hectically religious. Doesn't God show His love into the 1'000th generation of those who love Him?

Yes it is true that we might receive extra blessing because of our ancestors, but such blessings have nothing to do with our salvation. Each person’s salvation is a personal affair. We are not saved by proxy.

Q: I never really felt comfortable in church. It all seemed a bit forced, conservative, hypocritical. Some people can be so judgemental and ... hypocritical. There is pressure from the parents (both sides) to go to church... But, why? Why should we if it only freaks me out..?

A: God is not interested in coerced religion. If you go to church, but all the time feeling that you do not want to be there, you might fool your parents, but you’re not fooling God.

“Some people can be so judgemental and critical.” Yes, I agree. That’s why I don’t go to church for or because of other people. I go to church for myself. In truth, I don’t like church much either. Also, it is difficult to find churches that are, in my opinion, Bible centred and Jesus focussed, but it is not impossible to find them. The Bible makes it clear that a community of faith is important for one’s spiritual wellbeing; for this reason I do attend church. I’ve decided to attend Sabbath-keeping churches and try to keep my company with people that have a good understanding of God’s character as revealed in the life of Jesus.

Furthermore, remember that the church is not perfect. It is a rehab centre for sinners. The people in the church are all sinners in recovery. Don’t make them the criteria for what you think a Christian ought to be. The only example given to us is the Original – Christ.

Also remember that “church” is not a building; it is a community of believers. Maybe, instead of going to church, try to find a small group (cell group, Bible study group, prayer meeting group), which is usually more intimate and less formal (less forced and conservative).

Q: I think I lead a good life, I stick to the commandments. I don't read my bible as much as I suppose I should, and can't remember the last time I was in church. Does that make me a heathen?

A: No. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone – not by attending church.

Q: I believe on the inside. Every day. Is that enough?

A: “…for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

Obama and the Apollo Alliance Connection

2009-07-31T15:04:00.002+09:00

So is President Obama hand-in-hand with Communists? This expose by the Fox News Channel regarding the “Apollo Alliance” seems to suggest so. The real question is probably whether the Apollo Alliance can be trusted, and if not, how far and how deep is the Apollo Alliance’s influence on American policy? Definitely something to look into. Thanks to Adam for the scoop.

On a lighter note, what’s with Phil Kerpen's Cheshire Cat grin at 38 seconds into the video?!

Day the Dollar Die

2009-07-31T10:31:00.001+09:00

From the album Mystic Man (1979).

What to do to be saved?

2009-07-30T02:13:00.003+09:00

So you want to be saved and inherit eternal life, and want to know what to do?

The Bad News

The fact is there is nothing you can do.

The prophet Micah also wondered what he can do:

“Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6-8).

Burnt offerings? Thousands of rams? Ten thousands of rivers of oil? Your first born child? As if we could buy God’s favour?! We cannot bribe a perfect God with material things. The last part of the text above gives some hope. Maybe we can persuade God through good works: doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly before God. While these things are good, they are still not enough.

The prophet Isaiah makes it clear:

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). Our “righteousnesses”, in other words our good works, are like “an unclean thing” before God. Even the best we have to offer is not good enough for a perfect God.

The Apostle Paul makes it very clear: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

We have all sinned. The best we can offer is not good enough. Even if we devoted our life as did Mother Theresa, our good works are considered inept at gaining us salvation and eternal life.

The Good News

A perfect God can only accept absolute absolute perfection. Since none of us are perfect, we have nothing to offer God. Knowing this, and not wanting us to be lost, God provided the sacrifice Himself, since only a perfect God can supply a perfect propitiation.

“But this sacrifice was not made in order to create in the Father’s heart a love for man, not to make Him willing to save. No, no! “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. 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.” – Steps to Christ.

How are we saved? We are saved when we acknowledge our helplessness at attempting to save ourselves, and then call on God to save us. This is the big difference between real Christianity and any other religion. All other religions are about the things we do. True Christianity makes it clear – there is nothing we can do that will be good enough. Our only hope is in accepting our weakness, and accepting God’s strength in our stead.

Recounts Paul: “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

This acceptance of our weakness, of our imperfections, or our sinfulness; the realization that there is nothing that we can do to be saved and that our only hope is in God is called Repentance; i.e. a change of mind. We used to think that there is something that we can do, there is some kind of contribution we can make that will help in our salvation that will somehow make us good enough. Such thinking is the thinking of other religions. Christianity requires a paradigm shift: Repentance.

Once we’ve repented (i.e. accepted that only God can provide the perfect propitiation), we move on to confession. Consider confession the actual acknowledgement of your repentance. It is during confession that you tell God about all your attempts at saving yourself and all your failures (sins), and ask God to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. Through confession we actually give God permission to do for us what He is most eager to do.

“God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given” – Steps to Christ.

God does not force the Gift of Salvation onto us; love never forces. He offers it gladly, and we are free to accept or decline it. We are free to choose life or death; however, God pleads with us to choose the former life, not the latter (Ezekial 33:11).

Confession is what the tax-collector did: “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). In this action he acknowledged his helplessness and pleaded for God’s mercy. Jesus said about the tax-collector: “…this man went to his house justified… For every one who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:14).

This is it. This is how we get saved – we stop trusting in ourselves and we start trusting in God; we cease having faith in ourselves and we commence having faith in God. God promised that He will save us if we believe in the provision He made for us. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).

Since God is perfect, and the propitiation is perfect (after all, the sacrifice is God-self, incarnated in human flesh, i.e. Jesus the Christ), no amount of sin can make it of ill-effect. You cannot be too sinful for Jesus’ righteousness not to cover you.

“None are so sinful that they cannot find strength, purity, and righteousness in Jesus, who died for them. He is waiting to strip them of their garments stained and polluted in sin, and to put upon them the white robes of righteousness; He bids them live and not die.” – Steps to Christ.

So what about the Ten Commandments and Loving God and They Neighbour as Thyself?

Clearly these things are important, as they are reflections of God’s character. God’s character is love. In fact, God is love (1 John 4:16). By living out the Ten Commandments we are demonstrating love to God (first four commandments) and we are demonstrating love to our neighbour (remaining six commandments). But wonderful as such actions might be they should never be confused as having any merit for our salvation.

“There are those who profess to serve God, while they rely upon their own efforts to obey His law, to form a right character, and secure salvation. Their hearts are not moved by any deep sense of love of Christ, but they seek to perform the duties of the Christian life as that which God requires of them in order to gain heaven. Such religion is worth nothing.” – Steps to Christ.

No amount of good doing contributes to what God has done for us. If it did, it would insinuate that Jesus’ sacrifice was not good enough, was not perfect. Our salvation is not Jesus’ righteousness plus some of our righteousness. It is only Jesus’ righteousness on our behalf. It is Jesus only. The only contribution we make is to accept God’s perfect salvation for us.

When we accept God’s great gift of grace, when we allow God into our life, a steady transformation occurs:

“When Christ dwells in the heart, the soul will be filled with His love, with the joy of communion with Him, that it will cleave to Him; and in the contemplation of Him, self will be forgotten. Love to Christ will be the spring of action.” – Steps to Christ.

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3). Thus, keeping the commandments is not a duty, nor an attempt at going to heaven, but a natural outflow of our love to God. When we love God, we’re not following a law written on stone, but a law written on our hearts: “…saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33b).

I conclude with my favourite Bible passage: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). As one pastor so wonderfully summed it up: “By Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.”

God is good, Jesus lives!

What about the people in a “wrong” church?

2009-07-28T03:08:00.002+09:00

“…if one is, for example, a Mormon, and you believe what you're told 100%, and you're absolutely sure about it - you STILL end up in hell? …it just seems sort of unfair.”

So this is the question I received recently, and which I will try and attempt to answer. I don’t like to point fingers at specific denominations, but there are many strange denominations out there for which the question above seems relevant. In truth, I think it applies to most people in most churches – even the mainstream ones, because most churches are so far removed from true Biblical teaching that an honest Bible scholar stands confounded.

Other Sheep

I’ll start my answer by quoting Jesus: “And I have other sheep which are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).

I think the text is clear; there are other sheep in other folds (denominations, sects, even maybe religions) whom Jesus considers His sheep.

Ignorance Overlooked

My second quotations comes from Paul: “God therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent, because he has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead” (Acts 17:30, 31).

From this text it seems that in God’s mercy, God “overlooked the times of ignorance”. It appears consistent with God’s character, as I understand God. God do not judge us unfairly. We will be judged by the light we received. In other words, we are not judged by what we do not know, but by what we do know. I think it is for this reason that it is written somewhere that the (Bible) teachers and preachers will be held more accountable (because they knew more) than the laity.

The words above by Paul suggest also that once we learned a truth, we ought to live up to that Truth. Let’s say you are in a church lacking in some Biblical Truth, and you then learn a Truth; you have come out of ignorance and moved into knowledge of that Truth. Since you are not in ignorance anymore, God “…now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent…” The word “repent” is from the Greek word metanoeō, which means to “think differently afterwards”. Once you’ve moved from ignorance to knowledge of aTruth, God expects us to think differently (i.e. repent); in other words, we ought to live up to the Truth we have acquired.

Receive Plagues by Association

The third text I want to quote is from the visions shown to John the Apostle by Jesus.

“And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins, and that ye do not receive of her plagues: for her sins have been heaped on one another up to the heaven, and God has remembered her unrighteousnesses” (Revelation 18:4, 18:5).

The angel appeals to us living in the End Times to “come out of her”. The immediate context tells us who “she” is: “Babylon the great” (Revelation 18:2). In Bible prophecy a women represents a religious group. For instance, a pure woman is symbolic of God’s true followers, and an unchaste, adulterous woman is symbolic of God’s followers that became unfaithful. Babylon, in this passage, is symbolic of the religious systems (specifically the great Christian institutions), and her actions are described as follows: “For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies” (Revelation 18:3). A fitting description of what Christianity and world religions have become, making ties with kings (rules of countries, i.e. politicians) and merchants (corporate powers and businesses).

Well, the first text I quoted from Revelation suggests that we come out of Babylon, because she is going to receive “plagues”, and if we keep association with her, we will receive these plagues too. Although there is a period while God “overlooked the times of ignorance”, it seems that a time will come when Babylon will receive “plagues” and if we still find ourselves in Babylon, we will also receive these “plagues” with her. A time will come when we cannot continue to play the ignorance trump card; therefore the plea from the angel to "Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins."

Ignorance Is Not a Cop-out

Another text, by Paul again, also suggests that ignorance is not always a cop-out.

“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye should no longer walk as the rest of the nations walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in understanding, estranged from the life of God by reason of the ignorance which is in them, by reason of the hardness of their hearts, who having cast off all feeling, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greedy unsatisfied lust” (Ephesians 4:17-19).

Some people are ignorant because of the “hardness of their hearts.” In other words, they have hardened their hearts against Truth about God; they have deliberately resisted the Truth. Such “ignorance” will not be overlooked.

Short Answer

Will a sincere believer, whom lives up to the light he or she received, but whom happens to be in the wrong denomination, be lost? Probably not.

The (Real) Power of Human Energy

2009-07-27T01:48:00.001+09:00

Religulous

2009-07-26T22:16:00.006+09:00

Okay, so I saw Religulous (2008). After hearing so much bad rap about it, I was surprised by finding myself actually liking it. However, I didn’t find it funny. The only partially funny part of the documentary are the posters. Wasn't this film supposed to be humorous? It is after all hosted by comedian Bill Maher. For some reason I thought that comedy was the intention; but truly, I didn’t laugh once. Then again, I didn’t laugh watching Borat either – thought it was the stupidest film I’ve ever wasted time and money on. Why do I mention Religulous and Borat in the same sentence? Simple, they were both directed by Larry Charles.

Back to Religulous. I liked it because it highlights some very pertinent questions that I also ask. For instance, why do Christians believe in things that are not in the Bible? An example would be the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25th. Or keeping Sunday holy. These observances are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but still it is practiced as Biblical truth by the majority of Christendom. And that’s, in part, why I liked Religulous. It asks some valid questions.

A theme from Religulous is how Christianity does not reflect Jesus. I think this is in part what I tried to address in a post earlier this month: Religion vs Real Christianity. Maher asks some religious figures about the example of Jesus, versus their own; comparing religious figures with rock stars, which is so contrary to Jesus. Again, good and very valid questions. Standing in front of the Vatican Maher asks: “Does that look anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” A valid question. While I don’t believe God has anything against being wealthy (there were many examples of godly and wealthy men in the Bible), it is true that many religious figures seem to be in it for the money – this is foiled sharply against the example of Jesus. If anything, the purpose of the Church is NOT to make money for itself. Instead, it ought to be a conduit of encouragement, love and grace. And money received is to be channeled into helping others, not itself.

After an interview with some Christian truckers, Maher finishes his conversation with: “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.” How sad that there should be such a clear difference between Christians and the Christ they follow; and that the real thing is the exception, rather than the norm. It is for this reason that I often do not want to call myself a Christian. I honestly find little in common with Christianity, and the vindicative hateful “God” they represent.

For instance, in Religulous, Christians are shown with posters saying “God hates fags!” One lady announced “I don’t hate them [homosexuals]; God hates them!” (So one is to believe that, a mere mortal is more loving that the God of love?!) What these depictions show me is that these Christians do not know what the Bible teaches when read cohesively. God does not hate sinners, God hates sin; and God doesn’t hate sin arbitrarily, but because of how it hurt us or those around us. Actually, the Bible teaches the opposite of what these posters say: God loves sinners (Romans 5:8)! And speaking of homosexuals, in the Bible homosexuals are listed among a group of other sinners, like drunkards and envious people (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Why don’t we see Christians with posters shouting God hates drunkards and God hates envious people? Probably because half of them like to take to the bottle or are jealous of their neighbors. These kinds of double standards by “Christians” is a terrible blight on the religion. Jesus clearly taught not to point the finger, and on many occasions proved by word and example that He is not judgmental. Now, if a perfect person like Jesus did not judge the “sinners” of his day, who are we – full of faults and sins – to judge anybody?

I also have to agree with an Amen, when Maher says: “Two things that are completely incompatible is Christianity, as Jesus taught it, and nationalism.” This is probably one of the main purposes of this blog – my protest against Church and State. The Kingdom of God is not of this World, let us never forget it; and not try to make it otherwise.

Maher interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican observatory discussing religion versus science. The priest remarked: “The Scriptures are not teaching science.” How true. And that is part of the problem – people do not know how to read the Bible. I’ve written about that before too: Who Wrote the Bible? While I agree that the Bible is not a science book, I disagree with the assumption that Science and Religion are on all things mutually exclusive. There definitely are areas of overlap. And his blanket questions, like “Do you believe in Evolution?” is very much naïve on the topic. Firstly, there are many types of evolution. For instance, cosmological evolution, macro biological evolution, micro biological evolution and here we find three further types: divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. I, for instance do not believe in macro evolution, but I do believe in micro evolution. On many occasions in the documentary Maher would ask such blanket questions, and did not allow his interviewees to explain their views in full.

He also makes big deals out of strange things. For instance, the fact that the virgin birth is not recorded in all four of the Gospels is of pivotal value to Maher. Or the fact that very little is known of Jesus' childhood is heavily troublesome for Maher. Why should this be the case? Jesus’ childhood is actually of very little consequence for the Gospels. That Jesus’ birth is covered is what ought to be surprising. The Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) are not biographies, as Maher believes. A biography covers the majority of a person life. This is not what the Gospels do or intends to do. They only substantially cover the three years of Jesus’ ministry and only touch on the highlights. His criticism of the Gospel in this regard is unfounded. It’s like criticising a news article for not reading like a good screenplay.

Further, Maher addresses the great old Question of Evil: “Why doesn’t He [God] just obliterate the Devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world?” This is an old theological / philosophical question and which I addressed on this blog before as well. It is a question that Maher, who is a champion of freedom (and freedom of speech in particular), ought to be able to figure out the answer of for himself. I’ve addressed this dilemma in parts in various posts here before, but let’s try to summarize it:

God is Love and the highest value for God is Love and God wants us all to share in that Love. A requirement for Love is the Freedom of Choice. Forced love is an
oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s harassment. Forced love is not love, it’s rape. We, therefore, have freedom of choice to love or not to love. Many people choose selfishness, i.e. not to love, and the result is pain and suffering to others and ourselves. If I rape you, I have used my freedom of choice not to love you. Shockingly, God cannot do anything about it, without taking away my freedom of choice. It is all good and well to ask God to take away all the suffering in the world, but at what cost? To do so, God has to take away our freedom of choice, in which case God would not be Love, but a Tyrant.

Religulous’ reference to Christianity being a copycat religion I well addressed in my post on the Zeitgeist film, and it would seem that Religulous did exactly the same type of ridiculously lame scholarship that Zeitgeist did. Then again, that’s what one would expect from Hollywood, isn’t it?
Religulous also addresses Faith and Maher describes it as follows: “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” This is sadly, actually what most religions including the majority of Christianity does. This, of course, is not what Biblical faith involves as I explained in a recent post on "Faith". Maher praises doubt throughout the movie, saying: “Doubt is humble.” It is true in part. Admitting how little we know is humble. Not pretending to have all the answers is humble. But boasting doubt? It might be honest; I just don’t know whether it is humble.

I have a list of probably another ten points I can write about, but I think the above mentioned is enough.

To conclude, in general I liked Religulous for the simple reason that it asks some pertinent (and honest) questions. While there are some moments one could argue somewhat blasphemous, it was very clear to me that Maher actually have very high esteem for Jesus and much of his questions revolved around why Christianity are not like the "Christ" they profess. Much of the film, however, was based on the doubt of Maher (and assumingly also that of Larry Charles), and at times (deliberate?) misrepresentation of those involved. I cannot say that there was anything in this documentary that presented new questions, or facts to shake my trust in God. (It might shake one's faith in Religion, but that's nothing new -- my faith is not in Religion.)

In my opinion, a much better documentary on the topic of religious fundamentalism is CNN’s three part documentary God’s Warriors.

Comparative Religions

2009-07-26T04:07:00.003+09:00

From one site to another, I stumbled onto this great chart that compares the main features of over 40 religions. From my quick perusal it actually looks quite objective. So far, I'm quite impressed. It would have been nice, however, if I could get it ordered according to worldview; for instance, all the pantheistic religions together, all the monotheistic religions together, etc. Nonetheless, it is still a handy chart for people like me with interest in comparative religious studies. Now this is something that I would enjoy teaching one day.

If you're not sure where you fit in, start by asking yourself what's your worldview: theistic, deistic, pantheistic, atheistic. What ever you do, don't go for the cop-out.

I used to be a pantheist (New Age). Now I'm a theist.

The Good News Tour 2009

2009-07-25T02:33:00.003+09:00

A series of sermons about God -- the God I believe in.

In MP3-format. Right-click and "save as".

The Good News Tour 2009

1. Is There Really a God? -- Greg Boyd
2. What I Expect from God -- Marco Belmonte
3. What is God Like? -- Herb Montgomery
4. Prove to Me God is Love -- Greg Boyd
5. So Why All the Suffering? -- Herb Montgomery
6. Scary God or Scary People? -- Brad Cole
7. What Does a Christian Look Like? -- Greg Boyd

Martial Law Exercise

2009-07-23T04:54:00.005+09:00

Dear American serfs,

On July 27th through July 31st expect a martial law exercise across several states using US, Canadian, Australian, UK and corporate militaries. The National Level Exercise 2009 is in preparation for terrorists, and do not forget that you (yes you civilians) will be the test dummies. This, of course, makes complete sense, since it is in actual fact an exercise in preparation of you -- for when the day comes that you wake up and see yourselves slaves of a Big Brother state and you suddenly try to rise up against the Beast.

But don't worry; this coming couple of days is not the real thing. It is indeed just an exercise, and you will become exposed to more and more of these drills to desensitize you for the real thing.

The YouTube-video below is just to (--wet--) whet your apatite.

Religion vs. (Real) Christianity

2009-07-20T20:56:00.002+09:00

In my one native tongue, the word “religion”, when translated directly into English, means “God-service”, i.e. serving God. If we were to ask a number of people to define religion I am certain several will say something along the lines of “rituals or systems for pleasing God.” The idea of religion being the act of “serving God” seems to be core to what we understand a religion to be. There is one exception though, and that is true Christianity. In real Christianity the focus is not on us serving God, but rather on God serving us.

Does the idea of God serving us, of God being our servant, bother you? That is a normal reaction. In this world the custom is for the weak to serve the powerful. The powerful seldom serve the weak.

Keep in mind that according to Christianity, Jesus is the Incarnation of God; in other words, Jesus is God in human form. Therefore, when we study the character of Jesus, we in fact have a case study of God’s character. What do we see when we look at the ministry of Jesus? Jesus served the people. Sometimes we think that Jesus did what He did merely as an example to us. While it is true that we can learn from Jesus’ example, that is not the reason He served the sad, the hungry, the lame, the blind, the sick and sin stained souls. He served them, because that is His character – that is God’s character.

On one peculiar occasion, Jesus started to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13). Washing someone’s feet was considered the job of the lowest servant. One of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, vehemently protested. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet? You will never wash my feet!” Jesus interrupted his tangent, explaining that if He doesn’t wash Peter’s feet, the disciple cannot be part of Him. Why? Because, accepting Jesus (i.e. accepting God), is accepting this inverted role of power: God serving us, not us serving Him.

To be a Christian is first and foremost not about us serving God, it is about accepting God’s service to us. Firstly by acknowledging God’s redemptive deed at the Cross (however we understand it); and secondly, by accepting God’s continual service to us even now. That is an essential principle of true Christianity. Flowing from this is a remarkable transformation. When we comprehend how a Being of such unfathomable magnitude and power could become our “servant”, we respond with active gratitude. Because God serves us, because God demonstrated such undeserved love to us, we want to respond in loving service back to God.

This is the difference between true Christianity and other religions that worship deities. Worshipping God, serving God, is never in an attempt to appease or influence God. It is always in response to God’s goodness toward us: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 8:5).

As Joyce Meyers like to say: Jesus did not die on the cross so that we could have a religion. He died on the cross so that we could have a relationship with Him.

Learn How to Do an Obama

2009-07-14T23:54:00.002+09:00

Here is how it works: Contradict your administration all the time.

An example:

President Obama tells Anderson Cooper from CNN that he will look into an investigation of an Afghan massacre involving U.S. soldiers and possible war crimes: “I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war; and if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then, I think that uh, we have to know about that.” [My transcript from the interview.] (See this section from the interview on YouTube.)

Of course, this is contrary to the official standpoint of the Obama administration just two days earlier: “Obama administration officials said Friday they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces,” CBS News.

Just one example of many such cases that now have become a typical Obama-administration phenomenon.

Faith

2009-07-14T15:45:00.004+09:00

What is it? Specifically, what is faith within the Biblical context? Many people will have you believe that Christianity requires a blind faith. This is not the case. Faith, in the Bible, is not a blind surrender to superstition. God invites us: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…” (Isa 1:18). A whole book (Proverbs) in the Bible is devoted to Wisdom and throughout Scripture wisdom is praised and superstitious belief in idols (the illogical worship of inanimate objects) is scorned. Jesus talks about wise men and foolish men. In fact, Jesus is Himself described as the Word. The Greek term translated into “Word” in English is “Logos”, which means [logical] expression. Whatever faith is, it is clearly not a simpleton's acceptance of something that lacks reason; of something illogical.

So what does “faith” mean in the Bible? The first time the word faith is used in the Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:20: “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.” The Hebrew word for faith, from this passage is “'êmûn” and literally means “established”, “trusty” or “trustworthiness”.

When Jesus says in Matthew 6:30: “…if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”, the lack of faith in this section comes from the Greek word “oligopistos”, which means “lacking in confidence”.

Referring to the centurion that asked Jesus to heal his servant by merely speaking the word, Jesus answered: “…Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). The term “faith” in this passage comes from the Greek “pistis” which means “persuasion”, “conviction”, usually of Truth.

The implication is not blind faith, but acceptance of a Truth after being persuaded of its validity. The centurion was not hoping on some superstitious belief, but he was convinced that Jesus could heal his servant because he knew about Jesus’ ability. He had probably heard of the many instances where Jesus healed the sick and might even have witnessed some of these miracles. He was persuaded about Jesus’ power; he was convinced of His authority over sickness.

Throughout the New Testament the word translated into faith in English is the same Greek word “pistis”, i.e. persuasion of truth, or the negative “oligopistos”, i.e. a lack in confidence -- not trusting something. A better modern translation than “faith” would probably be “trust”. Trust is something that comes from experience; to have confidence in something. That is why “faith in God” is not merely saying the words “I believe in God”, nay, true faith, is trusting God. And trusting God comes from having a relationship with Him.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith. -- Steps to Christ; Chapter 12.

[This little book, Steps to Christ, is basically Christianity in a nutshell. Two great chapters regarding faith is Chapter 6: Faith and Acceptance and Chapter 12: What to Do with Doubt. Or download the whole book in pdf-format here. For more formats, including audio, visit this website.]

Critiquing America

2009-07-12T14:28:00.002+09:00

Every month I write a lengthy letter that I send to family and friends. After my previous letter a very good (American) friend of mine emailed me, admitting that she took offence to my negative opinions of America and how the current government is addressing the economic problems.

Lest I offend any more people, I would like to say here publically, as I replied to my friend in private, that my comments on America are not critique, as much as it is vocalized observation. In other words, my purpose is not to criticize America in these letters. (For that I have this blog ;-) .) It is primarily to note the symptoms, ponder on the causes, and extrapolate possible future results.

Let me give you an example. When Zimbabwe started to feel an economic hardship they started to print extra money. This money was not based on anything real, like gold. Such printing of unsubstantiated money created inflation (i.e. you needed more money to pay for things), and the government tried to “solve” this problem by printing even more money. Again, since the money was not substantiated by something real its value decreased. A cursory look at Zimbabwe’s complete depreciation in currency is a glimpse into what will happen to the American Dollar if America continues to print more money. I’d like to mention two other observations that are underscoring the issue with this continued printing of unsubstantiated money in America. The first is the Chancellor of Germany’s critique of America’s economic plan. From experience, Germany knows all too well the type of reality where you need a wheelbarrow load of money to buy bread. The second is China, Russia, Brazil and India’s discussion of abandoning the US Dollar as the trade currency of choice. If these countries have lost faith in the American Dollar, it should say something – keeping in mind that these countries are some of the biggest exporters in the world.

My friend asked me a very serious and probably fair question: “What would YOU do instead of what is being done with the banks?” Firstly, let me not pretend to have the solutions to this problem. As I said in a previous letter, this problem is too big for any one person (i.e. Obama or any president and his cabinet) to fix. One thing I would not do is to continue to print valueless money. Printing unsubstantiated money is not solving the problem. It is merely prolonging the inevitable, and by doing so it is increasing the seriousness of the collapse when it occurs. Obama’s recent proposal to give the Federal Reserve Bank more power is another thing I would not do. The US’s Federal Reserve Bank is not “federal”, it is a private company. As I heard one guy say, the Federal Reserve Bank is as “federal” as Federal Express. Part of the mess the US is in, is because companies have gotten too much power over government. Increasing their power will increase the problem.

Also, I don’t think bailing out the these “too big to fail” companies will solve the problem, and here is why: The premise is that by helping these companies the money pumped into them will tinkle down from top-to-bottom until the common man at grassroots level benefits. This is mostly not the case. The money dumped into these companies will mostly be used to pay off the debt (often abroad). In other words, the money will not somehow soak down to the average citizen that needs it the most; instead, the money will go out of America, or save the butts of the rich elite whom have their own savings, yachts, holiday houses in tropical countries and European sports cars.

What would I do instead? Personally I would distrust these major companies, and if need be let them fail.
What I would do with all these billions of dollars in bailout money is invest from the bottom up. I’d invest in emergency projects, encourage entrepreneurial businesses, improved education, build up the infrastructure and not cut infrastructural budgets (like that of the education system, police, etc.). The basic difference between what is being done, and what I think ought to be done can best be described by an analogy of a very sick person. Currently the sick person’s symptoms are being treated. I propose that the person’s immune system be boosted. If one continue to treat the symptoms the person might superficially seem to improve (and that is what the continual printing of money will achieve in the short run), but suddenly the sickness will flare up and the inevitable will happen. (The printing of money will only go so far, until Zimbabwean results occur.) On the other hand, if you focus not on the symptoms, but on boosting the immune system, the patient will be in serious pain and suffering at first, but there is a very good chance that the person will start to heal naturally if you make sure that the causes are not still in place. This healing will not be a superficial covering of the symptoms, but actual recovery. The focus should not be on improved comfort and relief, but on actual healing.

Of course, I do not pretend to know it all – I’m not a politician or economist. I’m merely an observer.

To come back to my criticism of Obama, let me be clear that I’m not criticizing him in particular. (Again, I’m not so much a critic as an observer.) I’ve been equally critical of Bush, even more so, but for different reasons. Bush moved America towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. Obama has done very little to counter that momentum. However, I must admit that I’ve lost my faith in Obama long ago. Any true perusing of the media will reveal that what Obama says often contradicts what his administration says. It would seem that his job is mostly PR.

I do not trust politicians. I didn’t trust Bush. I do not trust Obama.

Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

2009-07-09T00:55:00.001+09:00

Britain's Spy Chief's Cover Blown on Facebook

2009-07-05T22:20:00.004+09:00

That's one for Facebook and zero for Lady Sawyers (wife of the [now ex] Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service). The bright Lady Sawyers posted family pictures, including that of her husband, on her Facebook account. Now the whole world knows who Britain's Spy Chief is.

From News24.Com:

Spy Chief's Cover Blown

2009-07-05 14:20

London - The wife of the new head of Britain's spy agency has posted pictures of her husband, family and friends on internet networking site facebook, details which could compromise security, a newspaper said on Sunday.

Sir John Sawers is due to take over as head of the Secret Intelligence Service in November. The SIS, popularly known as MI6, is Britain's global intelligence-gathering organisation.

In what the Mail on Sunday called an "extraordinary lapse", the new spy chief's wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, posted family pictures and exposed details of where the couple live and take their holidays and who their friends and relatives are.

The details could be viewed by any of the many millions of facebook users around the world, but were swiftly removed once authorities were alerted by the newspaper's enquiries.

"There were fears that the hugely embarrassing blunder could have compromised the safety of Sir John's family and friends," the newspaper said.

Publishing the story on its front page and the pictures on a double-page spread, the Mail on Sunday said the information "could potentially be useful to hostile foreign powers or terrorists".

It was the latest in a string of security blunders, lapses and leaks by British officials that have embarrassed the government of embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

- Reuters

Obama, an Eugenicist?

2009-06-30T00:46:00.003+09:00

These are serious accusations -- Obama, an eugenicist! What do you think?

Your Facebook Password for a Job

2009-06-30T00:33:00.003+09:00

How strongly do you want that job? Strongly enough to give up your privacy? Applying for a job at the city of Bozeman, Montana, requires you to give your passwords to your blogs, Facebook and other social networking accounts and email accounts to the potential employer.

Is this even legal? If so, I can imagine how in the future employers may attempt similar invasion of privacy in order to see if you are a "...a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities..."

Read the article at Cnet News.

Israel or Palestine?

2009-06-26T19:27:00.000+09:00

So, are you for Israel or for Palestine?

The Rise of the Terminator

2009-06-21T21:14:00.001+09:00

So this is how Skynet began . . .

Ozymandias

2009-06-16T00:43:00.002+09:00

A lyrical interpretation by The Black League of Percy Bysshe Shelley's
"Ozymandias":

5 Reasons People Give Up on Christianity and 5 Replies

2009-05-31T01:48:00.004+09:00

Earlier this month, a friend sent me a link to a news article reporting on a presentation by Prof. Scott McKnight, a New Testament theologian at North Park University, Chicago. McKnight revealed the trend of numerous people leaving the Christian faith. This is something I’ve noticed amongst friends and acquaintances when I visited South Africa earlier this year as well. McKnight proposes five reasons why former Christians gave up on Christianity.

(1)

The first, he says, is the rigid doctrine of Biblical infallibility / inerrancy. When Christians actually start to read the Bible for themselves, instead of sitting back and waiting for their pastors and priests to do their reading and thinking for them, they are disillusioned when they find contradictions in the Bible. This shakes their faith and they abandon Christianity. I wrote a post on this called “Who Wrote the Bible?” on my blog, showing that there are in fact errors (contradictions) in the Bible, but that this does not lessen the inspirational quality of the Bible. Inspiration is not spirit-possession. When God inspired the Bible writers, God did not possess them like a spirit possesses a medium and literally “write through them”; nor did God always dictate. Rather, God inspired them with thoughts and they transformed these thoughts into words, using their own cultural paradigms, their own words, their own understanding. As one writer puts it: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” Also, the Bible is not a handbook with principles clearly spelled out in bulleted points. Instead, it is a compilation of case studies. It is our responsibility to identify the principles in these case studies. One preacher I recently listened to explained it in similar terms: “The Bible is not a codebook; it’s a casebook.”

For my post on “Who Wrote the Bible?” you can go here.

(2)

The second reason McKnight believes so many people are leaving Christianity is because of the clash between faith and science. This is a sad turn of events, and not as clear cut as people would like us to believe. The pioneers of modern science saw no such dichotomy between faith and science. Isaac Newton, for instance, felt no need to give up his faith while pursuing scientific truth. There need be no “clash” between faith and science. Science, I believe, is the discovery of the marvel of God’s creation. I like how the little book Steps to Christ put it: “Nature and revelation alike testify of God’s love”; “Nature speaks to our senses without ceasing”; “The poet and naturalist have many things to say about nature, but it is the Christian who enjoys the beauty of the earth with the highest appreciation, because he recognizes his Father’s handiwork and perceives His love in flower and shrub and tree. No one can fully appreciate the significance of hill and vale, river and sea, who does not look upon them as an expression of God’s love to man.” While science and faith have areas of overlap, there are also areas where each is wholly in a sphere of its own. For instance, there is a limit to what science can say about God, in the same way there is a limit to what the art critic can say about the artist. While it is true that the artwork reveals somewhat of the artist, it only reveals a fraction. Science’s study of creation only reveals a fraction of the Creator.

(3)

McKnight’s third point for why so many people are leaving Christianity is the example of Christians; and he specifically refers to the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA. I think there are two points that need to be made here. Firstly, the Christianity itself teaches (or should I rather say, the Bible teaches) that the Church will become utterly corrupt. The Bible’s critique of the latter day church is much worse than ours. She is called Babylon: “fallen”, “the habitation of devils” and “foul spirits”, the “Mother of harlots and abominations of the Earth” (Revelation 18:2, 17:5). The Church’s degradation should in fact strengthen our faith in the validity of the Christian religion; while at the same time it should make us highly critical of the institutions (the “Church”). We are warned, thus, to think for ourselves, to be weary of the Church – even to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). One need not be in a mainstream church to be a Christian. However, the Bible is clear that we ought to be part of a community of faith; there is thus room for “church”, but let’s be careful not to deify the church. The “church” is not the Christian goal – Jesus Christ is the goal.

This brings me to the second point I’d like to make here: The Church has never been intended to be the “example” for what a Christian is supposed to be. After all, the Church is a hospital for sick people (sick with sin) – it is not a little heaven-on-earth. The only example, the only true pattern for Christianity is the Christ, Jesus. No fallible man is to be our model, no fallible Christian our guide. Christ alone is the example for the Christian life. The moment you take your eyes of Jesus and start criticising the church, make sure that you make a clear distinction. The “Church”, is not the essence of Christianity.

(4)

The fourth point why many people are leaving the Christian faith is the (unbiblical idea) of Hell where God keeps souls alive so that He can torture them for ceaseless millennia for the sins they committed during their relatively short lives. This is, I believe, a sick doctrine rooted in pagan traditions and an honest and true study of Scripture shows that it is not Biblical.

I’ve written about this and related topics on my blog as well:

“The Shaky Pillars of Hell”

“I Don’t Have a Soul, I Am a Soul”

“Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop”

“The Hell of Heaven”

“The Comfort of Sleeping the Sleep of Death”

(5)

McKnight’s final point for why so many people are leaving the Church is the terrifying “God of the Bible”. According to McKnight the age old Question of Evil, is a prime reason for abandonment of faith. The dilemma goes something like this: If God is all-powerful, He cannot be Good, for the world would not have been so full of Evil. And if He is Good, He cannot be all-powerful, for then He would have done something about the Evil.

This argument is flawed, because God’s Goodness (or rather God’s Love) is not properly understood. The Bible is clear that God’s greatest priority is Love. In fact, the Bible says “…God is Love…” (1 John 4:16). For Love to exist there must be Freedom of Choice. For this very reason the Evil in this world should not be surprising. As I wrote in a previous update letter: “A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.” This is the reason why Evil can exist and at the same time God can be both Good and All-powerful, because Love so important that God refuses to take away people’s freedom of choice. If God did, then Love could not exist. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay – people are using their free choice, not to love, but to hurt, to pursue their own selfish desires.

I’ve written about God and this topic to some degree on my blog as well:

“God”

“Life and Death in a Nutshell”

“Christ vs. Church”

“Why I’ll Never Be a Pantheist Again”

“A Freewill Dilemma”

Another point I ought to make here, specifically with people reading the Bible and particularly their abhorrence of the God of the Old Testament, is that Christians have a reference for understanding Scripture. Jesus Christ is our example of who God is, and what God is like. “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son…” (Heb. 1:1,2a). There is a hierarchy of the revelation of God’s character – while the prophets in the Old Testament revealed some of it, it was the Son who has “the express image” of God (Heb 1:3), who said “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (Joh. 14:9), that showed us what God is really like. We understand therefore the Old Testament revelation of God filtered through the example of Jesus’ character.

Paranoid Arab Boy

2009-05-30T19:58:00.001+09:00

Rumsfeld = God (?)

2009-05-21T15:00:00.002+09:00

Image from The Guardian

In 2003, then US President, George Bush, declared that God told him: “George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan” and “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.”

It turns out that the “Voice of God” was Donald Rumsfeld. An article by GQ-magazine reveals that Rumsfeld often prepared top secret reports on the Afghan and Iraqi wars, with quotes from the Bible, often juxtaposed with images from the battlefront. While the verses are frequently comforting and motivational, their effect when placed in association with the images creates a tone reminiscent of the Crusades. “This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine,” writes Robert Draper.

It would seem that George Bush was hearing a voice; he just mistook whose voice it was.

The Value of the Conscience...

2009-05-18T01:10:00.001+09:00

I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. -- Martin Luther

Some Thoughts on Zeitgeist the Movie

2009-05-06T00:45:00.007+09:00

Have you wondered about the claims Zeitgeist: The Movie makes regarding Christianity? If so, this post is for you.

More and more people are swept up by the whole Zeitgeist-movement, spurred on by the controversial Zeitgeist documentary movies. “Zeitgeist” is a German term literally meaning “time-ghost”, i.e. the spirit of the time. The time we are living in at present is called Postmodernism. Postmodernism is known for its subversion of grand narratives; in other words, Postmodernism questions and rebels against claims of authority and grand truths. For instance conventional science, conventional governmental regimes and major religious systems are all grand narratives that are challenged and undermined. Therefore, the name “Zeitgeist”, and its implied reference to the postmodern-zeitgeist in particular, is a very apt name for these films as the main function of these films are to question just such grand narratives: religion and government. The first Zeitgeist-film is divided into three parts. The first part, named “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, questions the legitimacy of all major world religions and continues to argue that all major religions are basically based on pagan sun-worship – Christianity included. The second part, called “All the World’s a Stage”, shows how the 9/11 catastrophe was actually an inside job masterminded not by terrorists outside of America, but by key players within the American governmental and economical institutions. The last section is called “Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain” and proposes that all the major wars since the 20th century were actually instigated by “international bankers” who benefited tremendously from these wars. It also shows how these power-mongering “international bankers” created the Great Depression and by implication this includes this latest Global Economic Collapse we are facing at present as well.

Let me start by saying that these documentaries are very well crafted, and uses extremely persuasive cinematographic and rhetoric techniques. I will also concur that much of these conspiracy theories are grounded in fact. I agree that a great deal of what we understand to be modern Christianity is heavily blighted with pagan influences; that the 9/11 incident—specifically at Ground Zero—is very questionable, since the engineers that build the Twin Towers actually designed them to withstand being hit by airplanes and the buildings collapsed in practically the exact fashion that a controlled demolition would occur; and lastly, that the banks are really intend more on making profit than caring for the wellbeing of their customers, as any one that works in the banking industry can attest. However, I would like to consider for a moment the first part, regarding Christianity, and point out some obvious flaws in their argument, mostly due to really bad scholarship. Nevertheless, my argument will not be to try and redeem orthodox Christianity, since I believe that the maker of Zeitgeist does have a point. Christianity as it is practiced today is indeed heavily influenced with pagan ideas, including sun-worship ideologies.

A Summary of Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told

In short, “Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told” argues that most religious are based on pagan and sun-worship cults derived from astronomical facts and astrological mythologies. These are all basically telling the same narrative—the same “Greatest Story”. The aim of Part I is to prove that Christianity is essentially a conglomeration of pagan myths weaved into a Jewish-turned-Roman narrative. The following quotation by Thomas Paine is presented in the Zeitgeist movie: “The Christian religion is a parody on the Worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and give him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” To prove their hypothesis they present an interpretive reading of the Christian story from an astrological perspective and also point out similarities between Jesus Christ and other sun-god myths, for instance Horus, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. Similarities identified are the Virgin Birth, 25 December as the birth date, three kings or magi bringing tribute to the god-infant, the child-teacher, twelve disciples, death by crucifixion, a three day burial—descend into hell—and eventual resurrection, and the performing of miracles. These elements are explained as myths that describe astrological events; for instance, the twelve disciples depict the twelve months or zodiac signs; the Virgin Birth and birth date is basically the Winter Solstice at December 25 when the sun rises in the area of Virgo (the Virgin); the three Magi are the “Three Kings”, the three starts in Orion’s Belt, and so on.

These similarities are, indeed, quite clear. Orthodox Christianity does teach that Jesus was born from a virgin on December 25th, that there were three Kings or Magi that brought Him tribute, that he had twelve disciples, that He died by Crucifixion, that He descended into hell, and that He was raised from the dead after three days.

Orthodox Christianity versus Untainted Christianity

Unfortunately the reasoning of Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist’s writer, director, editor and producer) is flawed because he fails to make the distinction between Orthodox Christianity and Untainted Christianity. Allow me to explain the distinction. With “Orthodox Christianity” I mean Christianity as it has been practiced at large since the early Roman Church, including its various modern manifestations in most present day denominations, counting the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, as well as the protestant evangelical and charismatic movements. Orthodox Christianity is blighted with pagan ideas, rightly noted by the Zeitgeist creator. On the other hand, Untainted Christianity is not derived from pagan traditions and any similarities are purely coincidental, based on mythical universals (archetypes). With “Untainted Christianity” I mean Christianity as was manifested by the “Early” or “Apostolic Church”, in other words the type of Christianity that started directly after Jesus’ earthly ministry and developed under the leadership of His original followers. I call this type of Christianity “untainted” because it was not yet influenced by any outside pagan influences, as was the case with Christianity under the Roman rule. Pure Christianity is characterized by “Sola Scriptura”; i.e. solely Scripture, or the Bible alone. Some pockets of this type of Christianity have survived, or have been revived, but they are not common. Unfortunately, by far the greater majority of Christianity today is not Untainted Christianity. Many Orthodox Christian churches believe themselves to be based on Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, but we know for a fact that they are not and this is something that the Zeitgeist movie reveals clearly. In this, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few denominations that are honest about her hybrid character. The Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that she does not base her dogmas on Sola Scriptura, but instead, Catholic beliefs are a combination of Scripture and Tradition.

Much of what is believed to be Christian is actually pagan and not based on Scripture at all. Here are some examples: The Bible never states that Jesus was born on December 25th. We do not know from Scripture when Jesus was born. What we do know is that it would not have been during December (high winter in the northern hemisphere), because the story tells of shepherds with their sheep sleeping outside in the hills. During the winter months the shepherds and their flocks took shelter and would not have been outside, open to the elements. The Zeitgeist-producer is completely correct in saying that December 25 is a pagan holy-day and that it is the birth date of many of the sun deities. When Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas as a holy-day, they are doing so based on the traditions of paganism.

Let’s look at some other examples. Tradition has it that three Magi brought tribute to the baby Jesus. The Bible is completely silent about the number of Magi; for all we know they could have been 56 in number! Orthodox Christianity teaches that after Jesus’ death, He descended into Hell. This idea is also foreign to the Bible; it’s a completely pagan idea – indeed, part of a sun-deity myth where the sun-god descends into the Underworld to fight off the god of death or the god of winter, depending on the variation, and then rises again to bring light (or summer) back to the world. Another example would be the weekly worship on Sunday, named after the sun because this is the day whereupon sun-worshippers venerated the Sun-god. Christians that really follow the Bible should worship on the Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, as have been done by the Jews to this day and was the custom and example of Jesus.

(When people ask me what my religion is, or if I am a Christian, I sometimes find it quite difficult to answer them; their idea of “Christianity” and my idea of “Christianity” are worlds apart. I have not celebrated Christmas as a holy-day for many years now. I also worship the Creator-God on the seventh day Sabbath, instead of the typical pagan Sunday. Therefore, my religious or spiritual practices are quite foreign from what people would usually consider to be typical Christian practise; and they would be correct, I am not an Orthodox Christian. Nevertheless, I do consider myself to be a Christian as I believe that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, i.e. God in human form, and I do try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in their pure Sola Scriptura rendition, rather than as taught through church traditions derived from pagan religions. I also use sound philosophical reasoning, based on Biblical premises – for instance that God is Love, or God is the source of Life. Strangely, my attempt to practise a purer version of Christianity is considered sectarian, cultic of fanatical by mainstream Christianity.)

Similarity Claims and Terrible Scholarship

Having made this distinction between Orthodox and Untainted Christianity let’s continue to see why I say that the Peter Joseph made use of terrible scholarship.

Most of the similarities listed between Jesus and these other sun-god deities are just plain false. My conclusion has to be that Peter Joseph did not read the myths he assert are the basis for the “Jesus Myth”, conversely he did not read the Bible that recounts the story of Jesus. As mentioned earlier, it is claimed that the story of Jesus and these other deities share some of the following: Born on December 25th, from a virgin, three kings or magi venerated him, he was a child-teacher, was baptised at age 30, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, died by crucifixion, descended into hell, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into heaven.

Let’s start by the similarity-claim between Jesus and Horus.

It is claimed that Horus was born on December 25 (not that this matters since Jesus was not born on that date), that he was born from a virgin by “immaculate conception”, that there was a star in the East signalling his birth, that he was adorned by three kings, that he was a teacher at 12, baptised at 30 and had 12 disciples.

Horus’s mother is Isis and his father is Osiris; however, before Osiris could father the child he is killed. Isis finds his body and with a magic spell brings him back to life just long enough to impregnate her and then he dies again. Another version has it that Osiris is chopped into pieces by his brother Set. Isis retrieves the pieces and puts Osiris back together again, but his penis is missing (it was eaten by fish), so she makes an artificial phallus, puts it on the mummy and has sex with it and Horus is the result. Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist that Horus’s “immaculate conception” is “exactly like the story of Jesus’ miracle conception”. Well, you be the judge, not to mention that the phrase “immaculate conception” is wrongly used, as it used in Roman Catholicism to refer to Mary’s conception, not Jesus’ conception. Also, it is not Horus that is resurrected, as claimed by Peter Joseph, but Osiris. However, Osiris is resurrected as ruler of the Underworld. In other worlds, he is alive in the Realm of Death; meaning that he was never physically resurrected. This is nothing like the Resurrection account of Jesus.

As for Krishna, Peter Joseph says that he is born of a virgin, there was a star in the east, he performed miracles and he was resurrected.

Krishna was the eighth child of his mother Devaki and his father Vasudeva. Clearly not a virgin birth. Some accounts have it that Vasudeva impregnated his wife psychically, in which case there was no sexual contact. Still, Devaki was not a virgin. Interestingly, Krishna was born in July, which is probably closer to Jesus’ real birth date than December 25th. That Krishna performed miracles ought not to be thought significant as that is what one would expect of a deity. He was a child-teacher, true. I don’t know about the Star in the East.

Another supposed parallel to Jesus listed is Dionysus (or Bacchus). Supposedly he is also born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, is called “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega” and is resurrected.

Dionysus was not born of a virgin. His mother Semele was impregnated by Zeus, one of many mortals with whom Zeus had intercourse. Neither was Dionysus resurrected – although he was “twice born”. When Zeus’s wife, Hera, found out of her husband’s infidelity she devised a plan to get Semele killed. Zeus rescued the foetus of Dionysus by implanting it into his thigh. Dionysus is later “born again” from his father’s thigh, full grown. This can hardly be called a resurrection as Dionysus never actually died. I can find no authentic appellation accounts of Dionysys as either “King of Kings” or “Alpha and Omega”. He was known among other things as “Ruler”, “twice born”, “the thunderer” and “liberator”. The latter refers to his ability to free his devotees from by making them go into ecstasy or go mad, or through the over consumption of wine. This is quite contrary to Jesus who actually made madmen sane.

Another supposed parallel is Mithra, the Persian sun-god and deity of Zoroastrianism. According to Joseph Peter Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was resurrected, is worshipped on Sunday and is known as the “Truth” and the “Light”. Mithra might have been born on December 25th, but that has no bearing on the real Jesus. Mithra was not born of a virgin. Actually, he was born of no one. He came fully grown out of a solid rock. Unless Joseph Peter’s consider the rock to be the “virgin”, this is clearly not a virgin-birth. There is no account of him having twelve disciples, apart from a depiction of him standing in the centre with six people at either side of him. This depiction dates well after Christianity developed, which may well indicate that the artist plagiarised Christianity, rather than Christianity copying from Mithraism. Also, there is no pre-Christian account of Mithra’s resurrection. As mentioned before, Sunday-worship is not authentically Christian and while it does incriminate Sunday observance by the majority of Christians today, it does not weaken the authenticity of Christianity in its Sola Scriptura form.

Asserting that the Judeo-Christian religious ideas are just plagiarized renditions from earlier pagan ideas are either proof of ignorance or of wilful deceit. The Judeo-Christian ideas about God are in essence nothing like any of the other religions of antiquity. For one, all the other religions involved pantheisms or polytheisms. The monotheistic idea of a single God, outside of creation, that created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing), is completely foreign to anything typically conceivable to early man. The monotheistic paradigm, which started within the Hebrew nation (Israelites), is a complete mystery when compared to any of the other ancient cultures from Judeo-Christian thought was supposed to have sprung. As I said, claiming that the Judeo-Christian religion is a spoof of earlier pagan ideas reveals either ignorance or deceitfulness. Either those claiming it have not done proper research, or they are wilfully lying to their audience.

The "Jesus Myth"

Peter Joseph clearly does not understand mythology and has probably never properly read ancient myths and compared them to the “Jesus Myth”. Take a typical mythological version of a virgin-birth, death and resurrection as an example:

The “virgin-birth” story of Attis goes something like this: Zeus (or Jupiter) dropped semen on Mount Agdistis, which then began to grow male and female attributes, including a phallus. The other Olympian gods were disgusted with Agdistis and cuts off its phallus and throws it away. There where the phallus landed an almond-tree grew and bore fruit. One day, Nana, the daughter of Sangarios River, passes by, picks an almond and lays it in her lap. The almond assimilates into her; the impregnation results in the birth of Attis. Abandoned by his mother, Attis is raised by a he-goat. Later in life, Attis is to mary the daughter of King Pessions. Agdistis (who is in effect Attis’ mother) in the form of Cybelle (the Mountain-Mother Goddess, or Earth Goddess, known as Gaia in Greek) wedding-crashes the ceremony. She has fallen in love with her offspring and is jealous of his relation with his bride-to-be. This causes Attis to go insane and cut off his genitals, or go into ecstasy and cut of his genitals – depending on the version. For some reason King Pessinons also castrates himself. Attis dies from his wounds, but Agdistis ensures his rebirth (resurrection?) in the form of an evergreen Pine Tree.

Compare this story with the Virgin-Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and decide for yourself how striking the similarities are. Clearly, when reading the Jesus-story it lacks practically all mythological elements. Compared with the other myths, be it Egyptian or Greek, the Jesus-story is just plain too boring, lacks adequate archetypal imagery and is void of typical mythical elements to even come close to anything one would expect of proper mythology. Saying that the Jesus-story is a copycat of older myths or even saying that the Jesus-story is a mythological narrative screams of ignorance regarding mythological narratives.

Conclusion

Basically none of the similarity-claims made by Joseph resembles anything like the Jesus story. There are no real virgin-births and no real resurrections. The claim that most of these other sun-deities were crucified is also bogus. Besides, crucifixion as a means of execution was a Roman invention.

Peter Joseph continues to try and debunk the authenticity of Christianity (as a fairytale invented for political reasons) and of Jesus, but does so with very selective quotations and over all bad scholarship. Frankly, I have to wonder whether Peter Joseph did any proper research at all. The numerous sources listed at the end of the movie are dubious at best. Among them are Acharya S and D. M. Murdock (they are the same person), a controversial author of many “Jesus Myth”-books. Also Gerald Massey, a 19th century spiritualist poet (similar to William Blake). Another 19th century reference is John E. Rembsburg, who disbelieved the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, something that is doubted by very few scholars today. Most scholars of history believe that Jesus was a real historic figure, hence all the books about the “Historic Jesus”. They may not believe in his divinity, but they do not question his historicity.

As I said before, Peter Joseph is either ignorant or guilty of really bad scholarship. Alternatively, he is wilfully deceiving his audience.

There is so much more I can write about Part I of this film, but it hardly feels worth the effort. A superficial scratching at the surface of this section of the documentary, as I have done, reveals such uncomplimentary mistakes, and plain lies, that it is hard to take it serious at all.

I do, however, believe that some good can come out of Joseph’s faulty film. It will give those nominal Christians that do not really want to be part of their faith an excuse to leave it. Conversely, it will force the other Christians to re-examine what they believe and hopefully get rid of the pagan influences that have blighted Christianity for so long. Hopefully Zeitgeist will cause a revival for Sola Scriptura Untainted Christianity.

A Return to Slavery in the USA

2009-04-23T11:28:00.003+09:00

Will America condone slavery once more? Although the very idea sounds rediculous, the pawns are already moving into place.

Recently Obama signed a bill [HR1444] that will, among other things, research: "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

Now, I have nothing against the Obama Administration's focus on volunteer work, but this is clearly not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is "mandatory service required for all". A government is probably allowed to draft people during times of war (although that is in itself questionable, since these wars are often caused by daft governments and ought not be supported). However, expecting involuntary servitude is reminiscent of Hitler Jugend, and many are finding it ironic that the first American president of colour should consider anything tainting of slavery.

Will mandatory service occur during Obama's presidency? Maybe not. But that is the issue. The issue is that laws will be instated which the next president could use to inaugarate the Facist state, which America is steadily moving towards.

Reasons for the Death of a President (JFK)

2009-04-20T14:12:00.005+09:00

I think this is why JFK was assassinated, and yes, I believe it was an inside-job.

Speech to the American Newspaper Publishing Association. You can listen to it here.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Time Bombs

2009-04-19T03:47:00.001+09:00

"The world is now pocked with cities that feel as if they are perched on top of bombs. The bombs have yet to explode, but the fuses have been lit, and there’s nothing anyone can do to extinguish them." Michael Lewis (2008)

Global Warming on Other Planets?

2009-04-07T14:08:00.006+09:00

Global Warming by ~SordxMaelstrom on deviant ART

What does it mean if global warming occurs on Mars and the moons of Jupiter too?

I really believed that global warming is the cause of man’s selfish destruction of the environment, of cattle farts and burps, of bad gasses in our spray canisters and refrigerators, of car exhaust fumes. I watched Al Gore’s documentary, Inconvenient Truth. I recycle. Regardless, I may need to review how I think about global warming; not only I, but everyone that's honestly looking at the (newly discovered) facts.

Research of other planets in our solar system, planets without people and their exhaust fumes, without burping cattle, without factories, show that they are also experiencing global warming.

While I still believe in our God-given duty to take care of Nature (hence I'll continue to recycle), it is crucial for us to reconsider our views on global warming given new findings and alternative theories on global warming.

La Rage

2009-04-07T13:36:00.003+09:00

This is the future . . . People are becoming more and more angry at their governments, international institutions, conglomerate companies, modernist authorities . . .

This part really struck me:

The rage, for this world does not suit us, but does feed us with false dreams and true ramparts. / The rage, for this world does not fit us, and Babylon grows fat and starves us to death.

The truth about the Babylon-system, spoke about in the Book of Revelation, is slowly seeping into the consciousness of the common man.

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

MTV Martial Law Warnings

2009-04-05T03:47:00.001+09:00

Hopefully some of the people watching these warnings that aired on MTV took notice.

Requirement for Love

2009-04-03T22:00:00.000+09:00

A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.

Ramsfeld's slip

2009-03-29T01:38:00.001+09:00

Uhh... did I hear right?

Implanted with a chip from a distance

2009-03-28T23:12:00.004+09:00

With this ID Sniper Rifle you can be implanted with a identity microchip from a distance and not even notice. It will feel like a mosquito-sting, and you will probably think that is all it was. Welcome to the brave new world of privacy infringement. Did I say privacy? What privacy?

New World Order

2009-03-28T22:56:00.004+09:00

It would seem that my suspicions were not unfounded. How many paranoid prophets will it take to agree and propagate that the New World Order is on the way before the masses take head?

The Infamous "We the People"/"Second American Revolution" Videos

2009-03-28T22:32:00.003+09:00

Tyranny vs Liberty

2009-03-28T22:03:00.001+09:00

When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fear the people there is liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson

Post 9/11 Blues

2009-03-28T21:50:00.000+09:00

China's Fur Production

2009-03-28T18:21:00.004+09:00

I posted some of PETA's anti animal cruelty campaigns before. Although PETA sometimes give biased accounts, they often reflect the truth too. And the truth are at times worse.

I didn't watch through the whole of the video below. It is disturbing. It shows animals being skinned for fur while they are still alive. You may wish to give it a skip.

Pledge to go fur-free at PETA.org.

The real question is, how can we make a difference? PETA suggests the following:

The globalization of the fur trade has made it impossible to know where fur products come from. Skins move through international auction houses and are purchased and distributed to manufacturers around the world, and finished goods are often exported. China supplies more than half of the finished fur garments imported for sale in the United States. Even if a fur garment's label says it was made in a European country, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered elsewhere—possibly on an unregulated Chinese fur farm.

Because a fur's origin can't be traced, anyone who wears any fur at all shares the blame for the horrific conditions on Chinese fur farms. The only way to prevent such unimaginable cruelty is never to wear any fur.

CCTV Game

2009-03-22T19:41:00.003+09:00

Starting tomorrow I'm going to begin to play a new game. I'm going to attempt to avoid being captured by CCTV cameras. Where I cannot avoid them, I'm going to use hats and baseball caps and other types of manoeuvring, turning away and covering up, to avoid unnecessary photos taken of me.

It is not that I'm camera shy, having anything to hide or suffer from major paranoia -- I am, however, against societies turning into Big Brother conglomerates and don't want to be a blind drone, mindlessly following the stream. There's not much I can do about it, I know -- but at least I can play the game, fully aware that it exists.

The past several years has seen a dramatic increase in CCTV surveillance of public space. Video cameras peer at us from the sides of buildings, from ATM machines, from traffic lights, capturing our every move for observation by police officers and private security guards that often act with very little public or legislative oversight. While the effectiveness of these devices in reducing crime is dubious at best, recent cases of misuse by public and private authorities serve to question the appropriateness of video monitoring in public space. [From i-See.]

We just don't know how often CCTV surveillance is abused -- with any of us being potential victims.

Instead of it bothering me too much, I'm going to make a game of it and turn "normal" outings into "extraordinary" cloak-and-dagger events. Who's joining in?

Another Reason for Disliking Facebook

2009-03-22T19:02:00.003+09:00

I've ranted about the dangers of Facebook in the past -- but did you ever consider this...

Other people posting things about you on Facebook. Take for instance this guy, who literally has his most humiliating moments photographed and posted on Facebook.

Another New York Calamity?

2009-03-15T19:16:00.008+09:00

Will New York City be struck by more tragedies, as the one that befell it in 2001? Some “prophets” seem to think so.

David Wilkerson, a New York based pastor, is one such a “prophet” that seems to think so. Yes this is the same David Wilkerson of "The Cross and the Switchblade".

Recently Wilkerson said that he has been impressed by the Holy Spirit that :

“An earth-shattering calamity is about to happen. It is going to be so frightening, we are all going to tremble – even the godliest among us.

“For 10 years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires – such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago.”

Wilkerson is not the first to have impressions of New York City on fire. A lady, thought by many to be a prophet of God, named Ellen White, wrote about it over a century ago, before there were majestic skyscrapers decorating the cityscape of New York.

“On one occasion, when in New York City, I was in the night season called upon to behold buildings rising story after story toward heaven. These buildings were warranted to be fireproof, and they were erected to glorify the owners and builders. Higher and still higher these buildings rose, and in them the most costly material was used. Those to whom these buildings belonged were not asking themselves: “How can we best glorify God?” The Lord was not in their thoughts.

“The scene that next passed before me was an alarm of fire. Men looked at the lofty and supposedly fire-proof buildings and said: “They are perfectly safe.” But these buildings were consumed as if made of pitch. The fire engines could do nothing to stay the destruction. The firemen were unable to operate the engines.”

Also the politicians seem to prophecy doom for America. Remember Joe Biden’s ghastly prediction:

“Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy [Obama]. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen.”

I’m forced to ask, like blogger Adam asked, how does Joe Biden know this? Is it all part of a masterminded plan? Or is he also a “prophet” in tune with the inspiration of God? I don’t know.

What I do know is that I won’t be surprised if the visions of Wilkerson and White, or the political rhetoric of Biden comes to pass. Calamity is in the air. You can smell it, can't you?

Atheism Campaign in UK

2009-02-06T08:08:00.002+09:00

Apparently there's an atheism campaign (instigated by Richard Dawkins) running in the UK. These are some of their ads... What d'ya think?

Politically Correct Holiday Greetings

2009-01-07T13:56:00.001+09:00

From Good Clean Fun Archives.

To all my Democrat Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all;

PLUS

A fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or choice of computer platform.

(Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher who assumes no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit.)

To all my Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Factory Farming & The Meatrix

2009-01-02T20:04:00.004+09:00

Do you know where the meat you eat comes from? The documentary below is a rather moderate depiction of the actual realities of factory farming. The days of happy farmers loving their animals is mostly long gone. When you decide to eat meat, make sure it is an informed decision.

Or for a more animated disillusionment, follow funny "The Meatrix"-series.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?!

2008-12-17T21:33:00.000+09:00

“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.

Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremists -- not all bad...

2008-11-30T01:23:00.004+09:00

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.

Banned from the Bible

2008-11-21T23:22:00.002+09:00

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.

Bible Prophecy 101

2008-11-19T18:40:00.005+09:00

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.

Hebrew Document - Older than Dead Sea Scrolls - Found

2008-11-13T23:15:00.004+09:00

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.

It's in His Message, not His Tomb

2008-11-10T18:07:00.002+09:00

Photo by AP

In 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.