Christ vs Church

"Christ does not drive but draws men unto Him. The only compulsion which He employs is the constraint of love. When the church begins to seek for the support of secular power, it is evident that she is devoid of the power of Christ--the constraint of divine love."

How fittingly the above quotation describes what's happening in Croatia and other parts of the world where the church "seek[s] for the support of secular power" in the form of national laws and so on.

To D or not to D

I was speaking to a friend (a doctor and lecturer at my university) the other day and he mentioned two things he regret. Firstly he regrets not doing his PhD thesis in English. And secondly, not doing it somewhere else.

And then it hit me, I too have done all three my degrees at the same place. Am I not restricting myself to certain points of view and set ways of thinking? So I consulted with a couple of professors, telling them of my concern and intention to do my PhD somewhere else. And all of them affirmed my concern and agreed that it would be beneficial to do it somewhere else.

So yesterday I went to tell my promoter that I'm considering to quit my PhD and take it up at another university. She expressed her sadness in losing me as a postgraduate, but said: "In the end it is your decision; it is your time; it is your money." And then we discussed some possibilities both locally and abroad.

I'm not going to make an overly haste decision. I will give myself a while to scout the options - and seeing as I'm relocating within a couple of days, I probably shouldn't be making any rash decisions just yet.

I'm looking for a university that (1) has a program for Creative Writing at PhD level, (2) caters for both academic and practiced based research, and (3) will allow me to study telematically (i.e. distance education, via email or other media). Any suggestions?

Croatia forces Sunday observance

Croatia’s parliament passed a law that forces shops to close on Sunday, in a concession to the Roman Catholic Church (see here.) The law will be effective as of January 1st, 2009.

These are the beginnings of Church-State autocracy. Let’s say that I want to keep the Biblical Sabbath (which is Saturday and not Sunday); this law effectively forces me not to do business on Sunday (which to my faith would be a normal working day). This is reminiscent of end-time prophecies that warn us that a time is coming “…that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:17).

Of course this is not the “Mark of the Beast” in full swing, but it is moving in that direction. Croatia is only one of many countries that aim to implement Sunday Laws (or “Blue Laws”), and in effect trying to force people into Sunday-observance. Such forced religion is not of God, but of the “beast”, described in Revelation.

Blue Laws have been in the decline over the past couple of years – especially in America, but it is again flaring up. This might have potentially serious consequences. And lead to the fettering of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.

Although I completely agree with the importance of “Sabbath” observance for Christians, I seriously disagree with any government forcing such observance onto anyone, and forcing a specific sabbath day onto anyone.

Types of --theisms

Fundamental worldviews are the first building blocks of any religion or ideology. A single fundamental worldview can be subdivided into different further types. For instance there are many types of theism. One can be a monotheist (the belief in a single Godhead) or polytheist (the belief in multiple gods).

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).

Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)

Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)

In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.

The fifth (copout) worldview

In the previous post on worldviews I listed the four fundamental worldviews, namely theism, deism, pantheism and atheism.

I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.

Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.

Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.

Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.

Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.

If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.

A freewill dilemma

In response to my post on pantheism, fellow blogger, Mary-Jane IX, posted the following hypothetical question:

“If God gave us all the power of choice; what right does any of us have to deny someone their God-given right? If someone wants to rape a child, how can we deny that person the power of that choice?” (Read the full post here.)

This is an interesting dilemma.

I think the answer lies not in the fact that we have God-given freedom of choice, per se. Rather we should ask: Why did God give us freewill in the first place? The answer is: Love.

Love requires freewill. Love cannot be forced. It has to be a free choice. Forced love is not love – it is rape.

God gave everyone freedom of choice, including the rapist, as well as the raped child. The rapist uses his freedom of choice to violate the child’s choice not to have sex. The rapist takes away the child’s choice. By doing so the rapist is transgressing the very purpose freewill was given in the first place.

If he doesn’t allow the freewill of another, does he deserve his own freedom?

Worldviews

There are basically four worldviews – ideas of how everything came about and function.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.

Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.



Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.



Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.



Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)


For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.

Why I'll never be a pantheist again...

I used to be a pantheist (someone that believes that God is in everything and everything is God) and avid New Age practitioner. But I can never return to that paradigm. If pantheism is true, then it is okay for the rapist to rape a child. After all, it is only God raping itself.

Everything that happens to you, says New Age teaching, happens to you because you wanted it to happen to you for your own spiritual development. Before you were born you requested to go through certain trials in this life. In other words, that raped child requested to be raped so that she can grow spiritually. You be the one to go look her in the eye and tell her: “You wanted to be raped so that you can grow spiritually.”

I can never return to being a pantheist.

No more privacy on YouTube

I can’t believe I’m stumbling onto this news only now a month later. And by chance! Why is the world so quiet about it? People are being fettered and they don’t even struggle—or notice!

A federal court ordered Google at the beginning of July to make available all “records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses”, to Viacom.

This means, a third party have complete access to everything you have ever watched on YouTube. Viacom (an international multimedia conglomerate), representing many of the film studios, will be able to legally prosecute you for watching sections of their movies on YouTube.

This third party now knows your viewing habits, your interests, and possibly even guess your political and religious views. They have your login name; which you likely use also on other services as well, so they can probably spy on you on the other platforms you use too. Why should they have access to such private detail? And why are people so nonchalant about it?

If personal information can be handed around so easily, can we have any sense of privacy left? US Government is giving more and more companies the legal authority to spy on ordinary citizens. To what end? Of course they don't call it spying...

It is true that Viacom may not have such malicious intend, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that personal data is being handed around more and more easily and doing so under a "legal"-charade. Government, instead of protecting its citizens, is bowing before wealthy companies.

The result is forthright rebellion. Many of the boards I've read on the topic people are reacting against Viacom in a rebellious way. Some posters said that they are now determined more than ever to boycott Viacom, by deliberately pirating Viacom pictures. Laws should make sense. These laws do not. The governments are in effect now causing millions of lawbreakers (i.e. criminals), because they are not re-evaluating laws, and changing them to adapt with the times.

For more detail on the Google-Viacom case view these sites:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983511-7.html
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/ongoing-analysis-of-youtube-viacom.html
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html

And this YouTube video, if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbCWJNQUYI

Also download and listen to Lawrence Lessig's audio book, Free Culture, on Copyright Law and the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/free-culture-audiobook

One more forward will kill me

I’m so irritated with getting nonsensical forwards that I’ve started to write angry emails in return, in a hope to wake people up from their zombie-obedience. An email ends with: “Send this to everyone”, and people just blindly obey.

The worst kinds of forwards are those where the forwarder actually thinks he or she is doing the forwardee a service. For instance the recent forward I received warning me: BIG VIRUS COMING!!! PLEASE READ & FORWARD!!

The email claims that there’s a devilish virus on the way with the ability to burn your hard drive, and it was said by CNN to be the worst virus ever. The virus-warning even claims that Snopes.Com vouches its authenticity.

Well, Snopes.Com did say that it is a real virus, but it is not a BIG VIRUS COMING. It’s been around for a long time. Which means that any half-decent anti-virus program will render it harmless.

Why not double check with CNN, before forwarding your benevolent email. It’s easy. Go to CNN.Com and type in “worst virus ever” in the search field. And lo and behold – there is no listing of CNN making any such claim. Instead you find other people, like myself, voicing their irritation.

It’s always good to check on Snopes.Com – but don’t do as millions of others have done and actually believe someone else because they had supposedly checked on Snopes.Com. Stop being lazy and do it yourself.

Probably what irritates me the most is that people do not take a moment to think about the claims of these emails. They just believe it without a moments thought. For instance, the virus will burn your hard drive… How can a piece of program code, a series of 0s and 1s, make fire to your hardware? Program code is not magic. It’s like thinking that the words on this blog has the ability to steal your car. It doesn’t make sense. Are people really that gullible? It doesn't take an Einstein... And people think I’m paranoid?!

So please, I beg of you, stop killing me with your forwards. (As if that made sense, but I’m sure you get the idea.)

Dear American Citizen. Your phone is tapped and there's nothing you can do about it.

A friend send me the link to an article reporting on the new “Spy Bill” that has been passed by the US Senate. Basically the bill gives immunity to all telephone companies from past, present and future spying for government. In other words, telephone companies cannot be sued for tapping possible terrorists. This is all nice, if only potential “terrorists” weren’t such an elusive concept. With a little spin-doctoring anybody can be made out to be a potential terrorist. Have you criticised the president lately? You’re a potential terrorist. Do you know any Muslims? You’re probably a terrorist. Are you questioning America’s involvement in Iraq? Most likely you’re a terrorist. Do you adhere to the idea that God’s laws are above a country’s laws? Yip, you’re definitely a fanatical zealot terrorist.

The president said that the bill will “protect Americans’ civil liberties”. What about the Bill of Rights that guarantees an individual’s right to privacy?! Does the Bill of Rights stand for anything anymore?

Death matters

It is hard to have patience with people who say "There is no death" or "Death doesn't matter." There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn't matter. -- C. S. Lewis

I think I can understand why people would want to believe in the innate immortality of the soul. It is a comforting thought to think that I'll never die. The truth is, I will die. People die all the time. But what is more comforting to me is that the "souls" of the dead are not now being tortured somewhere by some arbitrary deity that says: You better love me, or burn!

What distresses me is how many people actually want such a deity... How many people finds pleasure in the idea of people being tortured throughout eternity. Some years back I helped my brother, whom is a theologian, with a series of Bible seminars. During this series he clearly showed how the Bible does not teach the orthodox idea of God torturing people throughout eternity. I was shocked at how many people were angry at hearing this. There must be so much anger and hatred and self-righteousness that people would find pleasure in the idea of others suffering (and of course, themselves escaping such a penalty).

Ashamed of "Christians"

I see this photo* and I shudder. It is an anti-gay sign saying that Jesus’ plan for the lives of gays is hell. I see this and I’m disgusted with how we have perverted Christianity and how we misrepresent Christ. Hell is not the plan Jesus has for anyone – and don’t go add “love” as sarcasm.

These Christians are doing unthinkable damage to the Christian-faith. Their distorted representation of Jesus and God makes me cringe. May God forgive us for such atrocities we do in His name. I look at this and I feel ashamed to be a Christian.

Please do not judge Christianity by such distortions of the gospel. The example for Christianity is always Christ, and not “Christians” that hi-jack the faith for their own agendas.

* The photo is by Tami Barnes and relates to the whole polemic in California regarding gay marriages on which I posted before.

The Comfort of Sleeping the Sleep of Death

“I hope he’s alright,” said a friend (let’s call him Sam), regarding another mutual friend (Conrad) that died a couple of days ago after a caving accident.

The statement just didn’t make sense to me. “‘I hope he’s alright?!’ What do you mean? His dead,” I thought. “‘Alright’ and ‘not-alright’ are irrelevant to a deceased.”

And then, of course, it hit me. We have two completely different paradigms. Sam is Catholic. And in Sam’s paradigm our friend Conrad is most likely now in purgatory burning off his sins.

In my paradigm Conrad is dead. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. There is no consciousness – no bliss in heaven, nor torture in purgatory or hell. “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have any more a reward…” (Ecclesiastics 9:5).

For many people the idea of life after death (i.e. innate immortality of the soul) brings comfort. It is heartening to think that ones departed mom or child or friend is in Heaven. But I guess for many the idea of life after death can also be disheartening, because they might not be in Heaven, but instead experience serious anguish in purgatory or Hell.

Personally I find comfort in the idea that the dead are unconscious – that they are “sleeping the sleep of death” (Psalm 13:3), not suffering in some spiritual realm, and oblivious to the sufferings occurring in this sinful world. Until that wonderful moment at the Second Coming when “…the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise… Therefore comfort one another with these words” (I Thessalonians 4:16, 18).

The Rich Man and Lazarus

“But what about the Rich Man and Lazarus?” they ask. They always ask this. Every time I mention in passing to a Christian friend that I do not believe in consciousness after death (i.e. the innate immortality of the soul) they always bring up this story (Luke 16:19-31).

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable. It cannot be interpreted as anything else otherwise it is in conflict with too much in the rest of the Bible. It has to be understood as an allegory.

Problems with a literal interpretation

Here are some problems with interpreting it as reality – instead of a parable.

Read literally the parable suggests that Abraham is in heaven. However, according to Genesis 15:13-15 Abraham went to his fathers. Abraham’s ancestors were idolaters (Joshua 24:2). So if Abraham went to his fathers he should be in hell, not heaven. No Abraham is neither in hell nor heaven, but dead – buried with his ancestors. Hebrew 11:8-10, 13 says that Abraham died without receiving the promise (the Promised Land, i.e. Heaven).

According to Scripture one does not get ones reward upon death, but “they that have done good, [receives] the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, [receives] the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28, 29). It is at the Second Coming that the reward is given “to every man according as his work shall be” (Revelation 22:12). The reward is given to all the Righteous at the same time (Hebrews 11:39, 40). Both the Dead Righteous and the Living Righteous will go with Jesus to Heaven at the same time (I Thess. 4:16, 17).

Reason for the parable

Jesus used the parable to chastise the Pharisees for their money-loving (Luke 16:14, 19-21).

The parable also warns that miracles from the netherworld (i.e. “Crossing Over with John Edwards”) will not bring people to repentance (Luke 16:30). Truth comes not from the spirits of the deceased, but from the Scriptures – “Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:31).

Jesus habitually talked in parables (Matthew 13:34, 35). It was His preferred method of teaching (Mark 4:33, 34) and he often used the common metaphors of his audience. Using the metaphors from the Pharisees own (erroneous) paradigms he showed them on their covetousness.

Life on Mars came from Earth…

I’ve often heard the theory that life on Earth came from outer space and according to some specifically from Mars. But I never really thought of the opposite scenario – that bacteria found on Mars could just as well have come from Earth. It’s more probably anyway.

I got the following from another blog. Unfortunately the article ended up being somewhat of a Creationist propaganda, which is a pity as I would have liked a more unbiased reading. But then again, it’s not as if most of the scientific community is unbiased when it comes to the whole evolution vs creation drama.

Recently, the headlines are filled with statements from NASA that soil on Mars may contain microbial life. What if this is true after all? Would such a discovery confirm evolutionary theory? No.

First, such a discovery would not prove that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we do find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth!

In the Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

“We think there’s about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars”, says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. “You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth” [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. Furthermore, MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book In The Beginning points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria.

About dictators

I feel I ought to comment on the farce in Zimbabwe, but I just don’t feel like talking about it. What is there to say? It’s been ridiculous from the start – the election was not legal. “Mugabe was the sole candidate in Friday's vote. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew, saying his supporters had become targets of brutal state-sponsored violence,” explains one reporter. (Robert Mugabe’s soldiers actually coerced people into voting, many of them “assisted” at the poll box.) Last night I even saw Archbishop Desmond Tutu doing a public prayer for Mugabe (83) to abdicate. Probably the most outrageous issue is that at today’s summit of the African Union Mugabe’s fraudulent election wasn’t the main topic of contentment – only the problem of violence in the country was discussed. Well that depends on the sources one reads. (Another source says Zim was the central topic.) And it seemed that only Kenya acted seriously concerned about the Zim-issue.

From one dictatorship to another – North Korea recently destroyed the main cooling tower of a main nuclear reactor. This was to act as a symbol of their commitment to dismantle their nuclear program. In return the U.S. promised to take Pyongyang off the “Terrorist list” and also awarded the communist regime’s good behaviour with food. “Korea sit!” says America. Korea sits. “Good doggy…here’s a snack.” Apparently this is not the scenarioy. According to U.S. spokesperson, Tom Casey, the U.S.’s gastric gift coinciding with North Korea’s good behaviour is purely coincidental.

The thing about dictatorships is that there is someone specific to blame for the suffering. Who is to be blamed for the outlandish raise in child murders in South Africa? Child murders went up with 22% from last year!

When I read the news I turn from Kangnamgu the Paranoid Prophet to Jeremiah the Depressed Prophet.

A future without privacy

This tongue-in-cheek YouTube video is prophetic.

Cut the silly jargon

Remember in George Orwell’s "1984" how Big Brother banned certain words from use? Well in a strange twist British bureaucrats have been warned to “lay off buzz words”. A list of 100 “non-words” were circulated. But unlike the Orwellian tale where the words are banned because of their potential to make people think—and entice rebellion—these “non-words”, often used at the level of local government, are banned because they confuse people.

Looking at the list I’ve come to the conclusion that the words were not chosen really too confuse, but rather to impress. They want to make it sound that what they are doing is more important than it really is.

The Collapse of Sweden’s Freedom

What on earth happened to Sweden?! This is a Big Brother nightmare! And the worst thing about it is that it happened so silently that most of the international community is still oblivious to such dreadful violations on liberty.

A lawhas been passed that allows the tapping of all international communication (including email correspondences).

As one blogger lists, the Swedes can now look forward to the following intrusions:

• the FRA will NOT be required to obtain a court order to undertake surveillance of citizens’ communications.
• the FRA will be at liberty to snoop: read emails, eavesdrop on phone conversations, investigate what websites citizens are visiting, create sociograms to map out a citizen’s social network/linkages with friends
• the creation of a society in which innocent people will be fearful of what they can say and who might be listening in
• despite saying that only cross-border communications will be monitored, some internet servers are located abroad and the FRA one presumes would check all communications to establish whether they have “crossed the border”. Let’s be honest here: there are no clear borders when it comes to a global communications network. So if a Swedish citizen let’s say emails someone in Denmark, then the Danish citizen becomes trapped in the FRA dragnet surveillance. Sweden is a member of the EU and EU values (to some extent) privacy - will the EU be happy to be dragged into Sweden’s attack on privacy? Already questions are being asked. Benoît Hamon, a member of the European Parliament from France, has a whole list of questions the Swedes might wish to answer. Go here to the European Parliament site to access Hamon’s question on the remit of the FRA.
• all telephone and internet operators will be required to attach a cable to the FRA’s supercomputer so that there will be a record of ALL emails, conversations, sms, faxes, internet searches conducted by Swedes.
• EVERY Swedish citizen will be caught in this general snooping - not just suspected terrorists or criminals
• 20 hubs will apparently be installed across Sweden by the FRA to help collect communications data for this massive snooping and data-mining project. The FRA is saying it will only monitor international traffic against 250,000 criteria and that it will filter out domestic stuff - yeah, right.

The FRA, by the way, is a private organisation – which in itself is a scary thought.

Once while standing in a bookshop someone asked me out of the blue if I think George Orwell’s book “1984” is still relevant. My quick answer was, yes, look at the USA and North Korea.

And now, look at Sweden. . .