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. . .

True friend of Israel...

“She’s a true friend of Israel.”* I heard this said yesterday by someone on a radio news report about Hillary Clinton.

Why should her “true friend[ship]” even be an issue?

Unfortunately, in U.S. politics it is very important, and I think for all the wrong reasons. There is a large pro-Israel movement in the U.S., backed mostly by Religious Right voters. Clinton is trying to get the backing of these Republican voters.

But here is my real issue and concern.

These Religious Right have been brain washed to believe some silly apocalyptic mumbo-jumbo. According to many Evangelical movements, after the Secret Rapture (which is not a sound Biblical doctrine) Israel will become the ruling state of the world – a peaceful reign for a thousand years!

These Evangelicals believe that their loyalties should lie with Israel, since Israel is the blessed nation of God.

What surprise me is that these people clearly do not study their Bibles. Israel has stopped being pivotal when the Gospel was sent to all nations. Paul makes it clear that the Church is spiritually part of the Jewish nation (Romans 2:29). The promises are to spiritual Israel, not literal Israel. The conditional prophecies of the Old Testament towards Israel and the Jews were revoked because they refused the Messiah. There will never be a grand Israel state controlling the world.

What doesn’t surprise me is that politicians would suck up for any vote. My concern is how strong the “religious”-vote is. How is it possible that a nation founded on the importance of Separation of Church and State could have turned blind so quickly? Haven’t they learned from the past?! Also, the Jewish-American economy is extremely strong so she is probably begging for some financial support for her campaign.

…ooOoo…

* The expression “…true friend of Israel” was first used by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert towards prior British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007.

Fallible doesn't equal sinful

“Prophet...” asks Morbid Neko in reply to my post Love your enemies, “if God had wanted infallible people, why didn’t He make humans that way?”

What an interesting question. After some consideration I came to the conclusion that it is not what God wants. What God wants are not infallible people, but sinless people.

These concepts (fallibility and sinfulness) are not synonyms. When I miscalculate a difficult equation, I’m proving my fallibility, but I didn’t sin. It is not necessarily morally wrong to be bad at maths! God wanted people to grow, to develop, to learn. If they were infallible (in the sense that God is infallible) they would not have been able to do these things, as there would have been no room for growth.

Sometimes we fail because we are fallible, but that is part of the growth process. For example a child often falls when learning to walk. We do not scold it for falling. We encourage the child’s attempts at walking. In fact we actually praise it! Other times we fail because we are sinful. Such failures we consider morally wrong and these we usually do not encourage, nor praise.

So Morbid Neko, your question should rather be “if God had wanted sinless people, why didn’t He make humans that way?” And my answer to this question is, He did. It was Man, not God, that made himself sinful.

My virtuous suicide

“Please switch me off”, I said.

My partner was distraught at the idea. Our discussion happened over dinner in a restaurant.

“There is no quality of life and it also diminishes the quality of life of the loved-ones. Not to mention the extreme emotional and financial strain put on everyone. So, by all means, pull the plug!”

If ever I’m in a vegetative state, kept alive by machines, that is my wish. She, of course, was very shocked at my candid (and probably somewhat logically-cold) utterance.

Does this constitute as suicide and mortal sin? I don’t think so. Sin, is primarily selfishness. My wish to be “switched off” is primarily unselfish. I know the extreme strain, both emotionally and financially, caused by a terminally ill family member. Rather have them cherish the sweet memories of me, than stain their memories with suffering, toil, serious financial strain, and the like.

Furthermore, suicide, although easy to judge by the clergy, is not as straight forward at all. Firstly, people that commit suicide are usually not healthy – suffering from serious clinical depression. Chemically they are imbalanced, and do not think straight. Their actions are skewed by a mental illness, and I’m convinced that God, far more than man, will take this into account.

But my choice to have the “plug pulled” is a cognitive decision which I’m making now, while I’m in a healthy mental state. And this brings me to my second point. In Scripture there are at least two examples of people that committed suicides of sort, which we deduce from the contexts were not considered sins. The first is Samson who asked God to give him strength to kill some Philistines and himself:

“And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life” (Jdg 16:28-30).

The other is the Passion of Jesus. Jesus knew very well that His return to Jerusalem would certain His death. In fact, it was His mission to die for humanity. Wasn’t this, in a sense, a suicide mission? Of course, not selfish suicide, but in fact, unselflish suicide. And I guess that is my point. Suicide, whether active or passive, can be a selfish and therefore sinful act, or unselfish and therefore a virtuous act. Obviously on a cosmic scale, as in the case of Jesus, it is much easier to discern whether it was selfish or unselfish. In our own lives it becomes much harder to distinguish the morality of suicide. But still, it doesn’t negate the possibility of unselfish suicide. I am of the opinion that my current clear-headed decision to have the machines switched of in case of a possible future situation of a vegetative state is primarily an unselfish act. I wish to spare my family grave continuous emotional and financial suffering.

Some might say that it is just masked selfishness – I just selfishly do not wish to be in a vegetative state. Which is true; I do not wish to be in a vegetative state with no quality of life. But me not wanting to be in a vegetative state doesn’t equal me being selfish. Selfishness means something done at the expense of someone else.

What's Myanmar's government hiding?

So what is happening in Myanmar? The country is devastated by the recent Cyclone Nargis. I find it suspicious that the militant government is downplaying outside assistance. There is no question that the country is in a pandemic crisis. What is Myanmar’s government hiding?

I posted something about Myanmar in September 2007. At that time it concerned the uprising of Buddhist monks and fighting for religious freedom (and lowered petrol prices). Now it's a fight for survival against natural disasters and a apathetic government.

With a world in ruin, I really need to count my blessings!

What government unites, let no man seperate...

I’m reading about the whole controversy regarding same sex marriages in California, at present.

I'm thinking out loud...

Should a country’s law govern marriages, in the sanctimonious sense, at all? Shouldn’t Church and State be separate?

Let people partner up contractually if they want to, in the form of civil unions and domestic partnerships (which are already possibilities in California). This then becomes a legal contract between two entities about sharing money, responsibilities, etc.

And then, if religious people want to make another contract with God – a sanctimonious covenant – let them do so within the confines of their religious persuasion. This shouldn’t be a matter of State, but a personal (religious) matter; a matter between a couple and their God.

Marriage in a legal sense and marriage in a sanctimonious sense are not the same, why should we try to get government to merge the two? America is a country rooted on the principle of separation between State and Religion. Keep it separate.

C. S. Lewis on Living in Global Uncertainty

"If we are going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things -- praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts -- not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They might break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds." C.S. Lewis

Lewis’ counsel is probably equally valuable regardless the danger, be it an atomic bomb, or a terrorist invasion, or outlandishly high violent crimes... They may break our bodies, but they need not dominate our minds.

The cloak of anti-terrorism

“The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak, of anti-communism.”

American Politician - Adlai Stevenson (February 5, 1900 – July 14, 1965).

In a Boston Legal episode, a character repeats this quote and says that “anti-communism” can easily be replaced with “anti-terrorism”. How shockingly true.

May America not forget this insight from her past.

The fishy state of North America

The US economy is in a crisis. In the meantime the governments of the USA, Canada and Mexico have been involved in trilateral agreements. The latter had been happening quite hush-hush. Most citizens are unaware of their governments' threesome-flirtations. For now the idea of a North American Union is still downplayed, and maybe even a farce, but a new North American currency, the Amero, is quite plausible. Imagine a total collapse of the US economy? Imagine the US Dollar suddenly losing all value… In such a case, only the combined forces of Canada, Mexico and the USA could save the North American economy from total disaster. (After all, both Canada and Mexico are siamesed to the USA, that if their big brother should collapse, they are sure to collapse with it.)

Such grandiose economic merging might be a Utopian ideal, and will surely save the US from utter depression, but at what cost? Something about the whole thing smells of aquatic vertebrates.

Surely it is all just silly conspiracy theories, isn't it?

Love your enemies

“Die voetewassing van Jacob Zuma” / “The Feet-washing of Jacob Zuma”

Recently I taught a Bible class and we spoke about Jesus’ inclusive character – how He treated the ostracised of society with grace and forgiveness. I also referred to Jesus’ radical teaching in the Oliviet Discourse, and the extreme teaching of loving your enemies.

To try and make it practical I asked the members in my Bible class to each name someone they consider enemies. Being good Christian folk they don’t have enemies and so I had to change my approach. “Who then,” I asked “if you had to choose, do you not like?”

Two names came up as statistically significant. Both political figures – Robert Mugabe, the dicatator-president of our neighbouring country, Zimbabwe, and our own once vice-president, Jacob Zuma. The latter came up the most. Zuma is a notorious presence in South Africa. Recently voted as the president of the ruling party, the Afican National Congress, Zuma is likely to become the next president of South Africa in 2009. Although a democracy, South Africa is not a healthy democracy as there are no real opposition parties to balance the ruling party. To many, the idea of Zuma as our next president is a chilling thought.

Zuma is infamous for his unruly behaviour. He was let off from his position as vice-president by the current president, Thabo Mbeki, for alleged corruption. He is notorious for his sexual escapades, polygamy and hordes of children (many out of wedlock). He shocked the nation during a rape-trial (him being the accused) for admitting to having had unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman (decades his junior) and then taking a shower afterwards as infection-prevention. This single act negated years of AIDS-prevention education amongst the black community who look up to Zuma as a role model.

Regardless of his unconventional lifestyle, Zuma is a charismatic character with a large following of political supporters, especially under the black male youths. His example only encourages licentiousness and chauvinism.

It, therefore, makes much sense to me that my group of Bible study students should list Jacob Zuma as somebody they dislike.

And then I dropped the bombshell: “Jesus teaches that you should love Jacob Zuma.” Love the sinner, not the sins – yes, but do love the sinner!

In demonstration of this principle Jesus washed the feet not only of his loyal disciples, but also of Judas Iscariot, the “friend” that would stab him in the back. Jesus had mercy on the whores, and cared for the downtrodden. Jesus audibly forgave those that spat on and tortured him. Jesus loved his enemies.

The challenge of being a disciple of Christ is a radical one – a most unnatural one. It does not come naturally to us to love those we dislike – not to mention our enemies! It is not merely unnatural - it is supernatural.

But for the grace of God, it is impossible! To love your enemies is a wholly divine act. Christianity is a wholly divine religion.