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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Banned from the Bible
Upon watching History Channel’s “Banned from the Bible” I’m wondering why it is that people always endeavour to complicate things.
The documentary tries to give answers to why certain books did not make it into the Christian canon. The ideas that these people come up with astounds me. Why complicate it so?
There are three basic principles to remember when thinking of the Christian Bible.
Firstly, Christianity resulted as a metamorphosis out of Judaism. Like a caterpillar and butterfly, they might look very different, but in essence they are the same thing. The latter is merely the fruition of the former. Christianity is the fulfilment of the religion of Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew Prophets. Therefore, the Old Testament books of the Christian Bible, are in fact books from the Judaic religion – the Torah and the Tanakh. The Torah (or Pentateuch) being the first five books of the Bible, also known as the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is the rest of the primary books used in the Hebrew religion and usually called the Old Testament in the Christian tradition.
For this reason, any books written later in history and not from this Hebrew origin (i.e. from the Tanakh) is by default considered fraudulent. It makes very much sense that such fake books would not be included in the Old Testament section of the Bible, for they are not of the orthodox Hebrew origin. For example the text “The Life of Adam and Eve”, written a couple of thousand years after Moses wrote Genesis, is clearly not authentic.
Secondly, the New Testament books are collections that were written shortly after the earthly ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus and the apostolic church (the very first generation or two of converts). The authors of the New Testament scriptures were primarily eye-witnesses and these texts therefore eye-witness accounts and teachings based there on.
Therefore, any books that came afterwards, after these disciples (known as apostles or saints) died, are considered unauthentic accounts of what happened. These apocryphal books may have the names of disciples attributed to them (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), but it is well accepted that these texts only came into existence many years, often centuries, after the life of Jesus on earth, or the life of his disciples. Such later texts were not included into the Christian canon for the obvious reason that their origin is questionable.
Thirdly, the Biblical texts (Old and New Testaments) are in discourse with each other and they are all basically retelling the same themes that was set down in the Torah. There is an internal harmony in their motifs, often merely building out, clarifying, extending the same ideas. For example the Torah tells about the fall of man into sin, and God's promise to save man from sin, through the sacrificial death of the innocent "lamb". The New Testament Gospels retells this narrative as God saving sinful mankind through the death of the "Lamb of God", which is in fact God-Incarnate, i.e. Jesus the Christ. Any book which themes are wholly different than the rest of the Bible is clearly not part of the same discourse and such books were not included in the Christian canon.
And just in case you wonder how the possible inclusion or exclusion of a text from the Canon will influence Christian doctrine, well...not much. Sound Biblical doctrines are never based on single texts, but on a “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1), i.e. many texts throughout the canon. Consequently, these extra-biblical books doesn’t shake the sound doctrines of the Bible, since good biblical doctrine are based not on isolated ideas, but a combination of mutually affirming and balancing teachings.
The documentary tries to give answers to why certain books did not make it into the Christian canon. The ideas that these people come up with astounds me. Why complicate it so?
There are three basic principles to remember when thinking of the Christian Bible.
Firstly, Christianity resulted as a metamorphosis out of Judaism. Like a caterpillar and butterfly, they might look very different, but in essence they are the same thing. The latter is merely the fruition of the former. Christianity is the fulfilment of the religion of Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew Prophets. Therefore, the Old Testament books of the Christian Bible, are in fact books from the Judaic religion – the Torah and the Tanakh. The Torah (or Pentateuch) being the first five books of the Bible, also known as the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is the rest of the primary books used in the Hebrew religion and usually called the Old Testament in the Christian tradition.
For this reason, any books written later in history and not from this Hebrew origin (i.e. from the Tanakh) is by default considered fraudulent. It makes very much sense that such fake books would not be included in the Old Testament section of the Bible, for they are not of the orthodox Hebrew origin. For example the text “The Life of Adam and Eve”, written a couple of thousand years after Moses wrote Genesis, is clearly not authentic.
Secondly, the New Testament books are collections that were written shortly after the earthly ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus and the apostolic church (the very first generation or two of converts). The authors of the New Testament scriptures were primarily eye-witnesses and these texts therefore eye-witness accounts and teachings based there on.
Therefore, any books that came afterwards, after these disciples (known as apostles or saints) died, are considered unauthentic accounts of what happened. These apocryphal books may have the names of disciples attributed to them (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), but it is well accepted that these texts only came into existence many years, often centuries, after the life of Jesus on earth, or the life of his disciples. Such later texts were not included into the Christian canon for the obvious reason that their origin is questionable.
Thirdly, the Biblical texts (Old and New Testaments) are in discourse with each other and they are all basically retelling the same themes that was set down in the Torah. There is an internal harmony in their motifs, often merely building out, clarifying, extending the same ideas. For example the Torah tells about the fall of man into sin, and God's promise to save man from sin, through the sacrificial death of the innocent "lamb". The New Testament Gospels retells this narrative as God saving sinful mankind through the death of the "Lamb of God", which is in fact God-Incarnate, i.e. Jesus the Christ. Any book which themes are wholly different than the rest of the Bible is clearly not part of the same discourse and such books were not included in the Christian canon.
And just in case you wonder how the possible inclusion or exclusion of a text from the Canon will influence Christian doctrine, well...not much. Sound Biblical doctrines are never based on single texts, but on a “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1), i.e. many texts throughout the canon. Consequently, these extra-biblical books doesn’t shake the sound doctrines of the Bible, since good biblical doctrine are based not on isolated ideas, but a combination of mutually affirming and balancing teachings.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Bible Prophecy 101
Eschatological prophecies (prophecies about the end-time) is an exciting study, and not that difficult once you understand the basic principles of interpreting Bible prophecies.A basic rule of thumb is that the Bible usually interprets itself. It is seldom necessary for us to do too much guess work. Once you’ve deciphered the symbolism (all of which are revealed in Scripture) it is fairly easy to get the general idea of eschatological prophecies. Add to this some archeology and historical research and you would stand amazed at the Bible. No other religious text does what the Bible does, in predicting future events hundreds and sometimes thousands of years in advance.
To get an idea for Bible Prophecy look at the prophecy in chapter 2 in the Book of Daniel.
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon had a dream which no one could interpret. But then Daniel, the man of God, comes to the rescue.
Here is the dream (Dan. 2:31-36):
As for you, O king, while you were in your bed your thoughts turned to future things. The revealer of mysteries has made known to you what will take place. As for me, this mystery was revealed to me not because I possess more wisdom than any other living person, but so that the king may understand the interpretation and comprehend the thoughts of your mind. “You, O king, were watching as a great statue – one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness – was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay. You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth. This was the dream. Now we will set forth before the king its interpretation.Daniel then continues (Dan. 2:37-49) to explain that the golden head represents Babylon, the arms of silver is the next kingdom to conquer Babylon, the hips of bronze is the kingdom that overthrew the silver kingdom, which in turn is followed by the last great kingdom, represented by the legs of iron. This last kingdom would not be followed by one great kingdom, but instead would splinter into smaller kingdoms (“fear…partly of iron and partly of clay”). Lastly, everything will be destroyed and replaced with God's Kingdom.
A simple look at history makes everything quite clear. The kingdom that conquered Babylon was the combined kingdom of Medo-Persia, represented by the chest and arms. Medo-Persia was conquered by Greece, the hips of bronze. Greece in turn was followed by the iron empire of Rome. Rome was never followed by any single great kingdom, instead the Roman Empire splintered into many smaller kingdoms. We are now living in the final stages of the feet-era.
Daniel lived at the end of the great Babylonian Empire and was still alive to see the Medo-Persians conquer Babylon.
The accuracy of this prophecy still astounds scholars to this day.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hebrew Document - Older than Dead Sea Scrolls - Found
A pottery shard a thousand years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found, with Hebrew inscriptions on it. That would make it the oldest Hebrew document ever found. You can listen to the short podcast, or read more, here.
Monday, November 10, 2008
It's in His Message, not His Tomb
Photo by APIn Jerusalem Christian monks brawled yesterday at the supposed sight of Jesus’ tomb, and the supposed cross that was used to crucify Jesus and discovered in the 4th Century. The brawl broke out between monks from the Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches.
The New York Daily News has as its story headline: “Not Very Christian!”
These claims to holy sites and religious artefacts are very much outside of Jesus Christ’s legacy. Jesus did not leave any tangible stuff behind – knowing fully well that man would be tempted to worship such earthly things. He did not even write anything down. There are no manuscripts written by him. The one occasion He wrote, he wrote in the sand. We are not to be tempted to worship things or places. What Jesus left us was a message, which we call the Good News – the Gospel. Jesus is not to be found in objects or special holy sites. It is in his message that we can find him, and nobody (and no church) has a monopoly over that message.
The Daily News is correct. Such emphasis on things and places are not very Christian.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Halloween or Intimidation?
Black Panthers stood at polling stations armed with batons... Halloween gone too far, or intimidation of voters?
Monday, November 3, 2008
God
One of my favourite topics of contemplation is God. My musings are somewhat theological, or rather philosophical with theological implications.
Recently I’ve been pondering God’s perfection. God is perfect (this idea includes God’s self-sufficiency; i.e. God has no external needs but is completely fulfilled within God-self). Assuming this is so, then God does not require anything from us. We often hear people say that God requires us to love Him, or God requires us to be good. Although these things might be true, in the sense that God prefers love (a perfect ideal) over hate (imperfect), or goodness (perfect ideal) over evil (imperfect), whatever we do will never affect God’s self-sufficiency. Unlike the gods in fantasy books and computer games that wither away when they are not worshipped, God does not need our worship. (God may appreciate it, but definitely do not need it in any intrinsic sense.)
Such thoughts must sound strange coming from a Christian, but then again, I consider my Christianity founded on philosophical understandings, more than religious traditions.
I think it is because Christians sometimes forget these basic truths about God’s essence (such as God’s self-sufficiency) that they come up with all kinds of strange dogmas. Some people think that if they do certain things, or if they don’t do other things, God will love them more (or conversely like them less). Can you see the problem with this type of thinking? God doesn’t need anything and therefore your doing or not doing will not influence how God feels about you. As a Christian I believe that God is Love, and as such God loves all people unconditionally, regardless of their doings and non-doings.
A possible problem with this focus on God’s self-sufficiency is that one can easily find oneself on a logical slippery-slope resulting in an aloof deistic god. Because all of its needs are met within itself, it is completely inward focussed (self-centred) and as some philosophers of old thought, such a god, dazed in its self-generated ecstasy, would be completely oblivious to anything outside of itself; completely inward-focussed.
This is not at all what I think of God. I think that God’s self-sufficiency is creating exactly the opposite effect; God is completely outward-focussed. It is precisely because all God’s needs are met within God-self, that God can act perfectly unselfishly. God’s actions towards us are without any hidden agendas or selfish pursuits. God’s actions towards us are an immanent outflow of God’s unselfish character.
It is because of God’s self-sufficiency that God can truly love us unconditionally. Humans almost (or probably) never love unconditionally. We usually love other people because of what they do for us, or how they make us feel, or because of their love towards us, or how the act of loving makes us feel, or other such variables. God, on the other hand, does not love us because what we do for God or how we make God feel, and so on; rather, God loves us purely because that is who God is. God is love. God has no need that we can fulfil in God; therefore God’s love towards us is perfect. No strings attached. Unlike us, God does not need to love something, or be loved in return. God is self-fulfilled. But still God loves us because that is God’s character. Just as the sun do not need to shine, it merely shine because that is it’s nature, so God loves, because that is who God is.
Many Christians believe that God loves humanity because of the price paid by Jesus Christ on the cross. This notion implies that God had a (vengeful / retributive) need to be fulfilled and so Jesus supplied that need by being tortured and killed. But this is a completely wrong concept of what happened at the Cross. As one writer puts it: “The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’, 2 Corinthians 5:19.” [“Propitiation” means something that appeases a Deity.]
Jesus Christ did many things at the Cross, one of them we can understand to be a type of payment [“propitiation”] for the sins of humanity, but whatever happened at the Cross it was not intended to change God’s attitude towards us. God is a constant. God is perfect. And God loves us perfectly.
The idea of God’s perfection and self-sufficiency should also rid us of all our attempts at saving ourselves; rid us of all our self-righteousness. If God is perfect, then what on earth can we give as sacrifice that could satisfy a self-sufficient, perfect God? Not even our love can add to God’s self-sufficiency. There is nothing that God needs from us. That is why Christianity believes, that if propitiation is needed, only God can supply such a sacrifice. And only something innately perfect can be such an offer. Only God-self could be such an offer (as only God is innately perfect) – and that is, what we understand Christ, as God-Incarnate, to be.
The text quoted above, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, says that it is not God that is in enmity towards us, but we are enemies with God and through the ministry of Christ, God could reconcile us to “Himself”. In other words, through Christ, God could help us change, from being enemies with God, to being friends with God.
Whatever God requests from us, is not for God’s good, but for our good. If God requires us to love God, it is not because God needs to be loved, but it is because we need to love God. If God requires us not to steel or kill or any such moral principle, it is not because our wrong doing is going to deduct from God in some mystical way. Rather, wrong doing will negatively affect our lives, or the lives of other people. God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules by a spoilsport grandfather in the sky that wants to ruin our fun; instead, God’s commandments are for our good, and for the good of our fellow men and women. They are precepts for a life of unselfishness.
Understanding this, a theologian might ask: “If God doesn’t need anything from us, how then can anybody be lost? Aren’t you advocating some kind of universalism where everyone is saved?”
This too, would be a misunderstanding of God’s essence. If God is love, then God will never force Himself onto us. Forced loved is not real love – it is a selfish act, which we call “rape”. No, in God’s love, God will always allow us freedom of choice. Therefore we are always free not to choose God. Unfortunately this choice also means damnation. Not because God arbitrarily damns us, but because God is the Source of Life, love and all creative and regenerative power. Only when we choose God do we have access to these sustaining and restorative forces. So only in a relationship with God can we have salvation. Apart from God there is no salvation.
Recently I’ve been pondering God’s perfection. God is perfect (this idea includes God’s self-sufficiency; i.e. God has no external needs but is completely fulfilled within God-self). Assuming this is so, then God does not require anything from us. We often hear people say that God requires us to love Him, or God requires us to be good. Although these things might be true, in the sense that God prefers love (a perfect ideal) over hate (imperfect), or goodness (perfect ideal) over evil (imperfect), whatever we do will never affect God’s self-sufficiency. Unlike the gods in fantasy books and computer games that wither away when they are not worshipped, God does not need our worship. (God may appreciate it, but definitely do not need it in any intrinsic sense.)
Such thoughts must sound strange coming from a Christian, but then again, I consider my Christianity founded on philosophical understandings, more than religious traditions.
I think it is because Christians sometimes forget these basic truths about God’s essence (such as God’s self-sufficiency) that they come up with all kinds of strange dogmas. Some people think that if they do certain things, or if they don’t do other things, God will love them more (or conversely like them less). Can you see the problem with this type of thinking? God doesn’t need anything and therefore your doing or not doing will not influence how God feels about you. As a Christian I believe that God is Love, and as such God loves all people unconditionally, regardless of their doings and non-doings.
A possible problem with this focus on God’s self-sufficiency is that one can easily find oneself on a logical slippery-slope resulting in an aloof deistic god. Because all of its needs are met within itself, it is completely inward focussed (self-centred) and as some philosophers of old thought, such a god, dazed in its self-generated ecstasy, would be completely oblivious to anything outside of itself; completely inward-focussed.
This is not at all what I think of God. I think that God’s self-sufficiency is creating exactly the opposite effect; God is completely outward-focussed. It is precisely because all God’s needs are met within God-self, that God can act perfectly unselfishly. God’s actions towards us are without any hidden agendas or selfish pursuits. God’s actions towards us are an immanent outflow of God’s unselfish character.
It is because of God’s self-sufficiency that God can truly love us unconditionally. Humans almost (or probably) never love unconditionally. We usually love other people because of what they do for us, or how they make us feel, or because of their love towards us, or how the act of loving makes us feel, or other such variables. God, on the other hand, does not love us because what we do for God or how we make God feel, and so on; rather, God loves us purely because that is who God is. God is love. God has no need that we can fulfil in God; therefore God’s love towards us is perfect. No strings attached. Unlike us, God does not need to love something, or be loved in return. God is self-fulfilled. But still God loves us because that is God’s character. Just as the sun do not need to shine, it merely shine because that is it’s nature, so God loves, because that is who God is.
Many Christians believe that God loves humanity because of the price paid by Jesus Christ on the cross. This notion implies that God had a (vengeful / retributive) need to be fulfilled and so Jesus supplied that need by being tortured and killed. But this is a completely wrong concept of what happened at the Cross. As one writer puts it: “The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’, 2 Corinthians 5:19.” [“Propitiation” means something that appeases a Deity.]
Jesus Christ did many things at the Cross, one of them we can understand to be a type of payment [“propitiation”] for the sins of humanity, but whatever happened at the Cross it was not intended to change God’s attitude towards us. God is a constant. God is perfect. And God loves us perfectly.
The idea of God’s perfection and self-sufficiency should also rid us of all our attempts at saving ourselves; rid us of all our self-righteousness. If God is perfect, then what on earth can we give as sacrifice that could satisfy a self-sufficient, perfect God? Not even our love can add to God’s self-sufficiency. There is nothing that God needs from us. That is why Christianity believes, that if propitiation is needed, only God can supply such a sacrifice. And only something innately perfect can be such an offer. Only God-self could be such an offer (as only God is innately perfect) – and that is, what we understand Christ, as God-Incarnate, to be.
The text quoted above, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, says that it is not God that is in enmity towards us, but we are enemies with God and through the ministry of Christ, God could reconcile us to “Himself”. In other words, through Christ, God could help us change, from being enemies with God, to being friends with God.
Whatever God requests from us, is not for God’s good, but for our good. If God requires us to love God, it is not because God needs to be loved, but it is because we need to love God. If God requires us not to steel or kill or any such moral principle, it is not because our wrong doing is going to deduct from God in some mystical way. Rather, wrong doing will negatively affect our lives, or the lives of other people. God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules by a spoilsport grandfather in the sky that wants to ruin our fun; instead, God’s commandments are for our good, and for the good of our fellow men and women. They are precepts for a life of unselfishness.
Understanding this, a theologian might ask: “If God doesn’t need anything from us, how then can anybody be lost? Aren’t you advocating some kind of universalism where everyone is saved?”
This too, would be a misunderstanding of God’s essence. If God is love, then God will never force Himself onto us. Forced loved is not real love – it is a selfish act, which we call “rape”. No, in God’s love, God will always allow us freedom of choice. Therefore we are always free not to choose God. Unfortunately this choice also means damnation. Not because God arbitrarily damns us, but because God is the Source of Life, love and all creative and regenerative power. Only when we choose God do we have access to these sustaining and restorative forces. So only in a relationship with God can we have salvation. Apart from God there is no salvation.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Joe the Country Singer
Two posts ago I wrote about Joe the Plumber. Well, it seems that the media types saw an opportunity and guess what?! Joe signed a deal with a Nashville company. Apparently he is going to record a country music album.
All those illegal checks into Joe's background by the-powers-that-be has created enough media hype to turn Joe the Plumber into a small time celebrity. Who knows, this guy might have enough of a singing voice and charisma to turn into a big time singing cowboy!
Here is the article.
All those illegal checks into Joe's background by the-powers-that-be has created enough media hype to turn Joe the Plumber into a small time celebrity. Who knows, this guy might have enough of a singing voice and charisma to turn into a big time singing cowboy!
Here is the article.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Evangelicals and a Golden Calf
A friend sent me a link to a blog post showing Christians praying at a statue of a golden [calf]. The irony is terribly sensational.Now the idea of laying your hands on a person and praying for them is not foreign to the Bible. But laying your hands on a statue... a golden bull at that! There is a reason why the Second Commandment says: "Though shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt no bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20:4,5)
Grant it, they were not praying at the bull, but for the economy, but still, no matter how I look at that picture, I cannot help but shakes my head.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Joe the Plumber has no Privacy
Barack Obama and Joe the Plumber. Photo by Jae C. Hong, for the Associated Press.Joseph Wurselbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber”, has become an interesting mascot during the election race in the US. As an icon for the average middle class American, Joe the Plumber has been used by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their debates – especially the third debate on 15 October 2008.
Joe isn’t anybody unusual. He just happened to be someone who asked Obama a question [See YouTube-Video] about taxes, and then McCain took "Joe the Plumber" as a “face” for the typical American that would be affected by Obama’s suggested tax changes. [Here is more on Joe and the Obama-McCain debate.]
Now what interests me is not that the candidates are hijacking Joe the Plumber as a symbol for the middle class, but rather the sinister privacy breaches.
“State and local officials are investigating whether state and law-enforcement computer systems were used illegally to obtain personal information about "Joe the Plumber",” reports the Columbus Dispatch. The New York Times ads: “The illegal access case is just one of four similar incidents involving Wurzelbacher's information after the plumber shot into the news following McCain's repeated use of his name to highlight a point about Obama's tax plans.”
Here’s this guy; haphazardly his name is used by some politicians for their own agendas. And then suddenly, although quite innocent himself, he has “illegal” background checks done on him. Who is doing it? Of course both the McCain group and the Obama group are accusing each other. But that is not my issue; to me the real issue is that such privacy violations are happening all the time in America. It is just accidental that we actually heard about it in this case.
Indeed, Joe the Plumber is really an icon for the typical middle-class American; the typical American whose privacy is at stake.
Friday, October 24, 2008
One World Government?
Will there be a One World Government, as predicted by many paranoid prophets [aka conspiracy theorists] as myself?
Well the Eschatological Prophecies (fancy phrase for End-Time Prophecies) doesn’t say so exactly. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 2, says that the many kingdoms at the end of time will not “cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” (verse 43). Similarly, Revelation talks of many kings, in other words many kingdoms (i.e. countries). The whole world will not change into one giant country ruled by a single individual (at least not initially). What Revelation does say is that “These [kings] have one mind...” (Reverlation 17:13). These kings have “one mind”, meaning they are one in purpose, they follow the same agenda.
One (physical) World Government, most unlikely. One World Order (i.e. many governments following the same agenda), quite possible.
Well the Eschatological Prophecies (fancy phrase for End-Time Prophecies) doesn’t say so exactly. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 2, says that the many kingdoms at the end of time will not “cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” (verse 43). Similarly, Revelation talks of many kings, in other words many kingdoms (i.e. countries). The whole world will not change into one giant country ruled by a single individual (at least not initially). What Revelation does say is that “These [kings] have one mind...” (Reverlation 17:13). These kings have “one mind”, meaning they are one in purpose, they follow the same agenda.
One (physical) World Government, most unlikely. One World Order (i.e. many governments following the same agenda), quite possible.
Like father (Bush), like son (Obama)?
I was curious as to why George W. Bush would push certain policies to go through, knowing fully well that it is the end of his term in office and that he would personally not benefit from those Orwell-policies. Can it be true, as some suggest, that they (all those big time politicians) are part of the same cloak-and-daggers agenda?
Adam posted the followABC News article on his blog. The article has Sen. Joe Biden making statements about crises that America will face within the first year of Sen. Barak Obama’s presidency. The only way the draconian laws of the Bush Administration can be lifted is if it is done by the next administration, but if the next presidency is faced with “an international crisis, a generated crisis”, as Biden warns, there is no way the next president will abolish these laws. He will be using those laws and it will be “possibly unpopular, decisions”.
The American government has been pushing these freedom-fettering policies because they are preparing for something. Danger looms on the horizon.
Adam posted the followABC News article on his blog. The article has Sen. Joe Biden making statements about crises that America will face within the first year of Sen. Barak Obama’s presidency. The only way the draconian laws of the Bush Administration can be lifted is if it is done by the next administration, but if the next presidency is faced with “an international crisis, a generated crisis”, as Biden warns, there is no way the next president will abolish these laws. He will be using those laws and it will be “possibly unpopular, decisions”.
The American government has been pushing these freedom-fettering policies because they are preparing for something. Danger looms on the horizon.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Death of a President's Bodyguard
About a month ago the ruling political party in South Africa requested the then president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, to resign as president. He complied with hardly a complaint. Everyone was surprised at how smoothly the transition went from Mbeki to Mothlante.
What is not focussed on is that Mbeki's closest bodyguard was murdered three days before the ANC requested Mbeki to step down. The bodyguard, who had served Mbeki for 13 years, was shot dead in his bedroom. His wife was left unharmed and nothing was stolen. An assassination?
No wonder Mbeki immediately accepted the request to resign.
Below are two news reports(and the only two South African reports I could find). Why is the media so quiet about this?
Mbeki's Bodyguard Executed?
Mbeki Bodyguard Murder Unsolved
What is not focussed on is that Mbeki's closest bodyguard was murdered three days before the ANC requested Mbeki to step down. The bodyguard, who had served Mbeki for 13 years, was shot dead in his bedroom. His wife was left unharmed and nothing was stolen. An assassination?
No wonder Mbeki immediately accepted the request to resign.
Below are two news reports(and the only two South African reports I could find). Why is the media so quiet about this?
Mbeki's Bodyguard Executed?
Mbeki Bodyguard Murder Unsolved
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Quran 9:11
Two posts ago I complained about people using the Bible incorrectly. Following is an even worse case of supposed Quran-usage.
I just received an email stating that in Quran 9:11 it says: "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace."
This verse is not in the Quran and definitely not conveniently in chapter 9 verse 11. The verse was made up by "The War on Terror"-enthusiasts. The idea is that America is the Eagle cleansing the Middle East (Iraq).
This is just another example of how people use and misuse (and in this case blatantly invent) passages from religious texts to legitimise their fraudulent agendas.
Don't be fooled by religious propaganda and wayward forwards.
I just received an email stating that in Quran 9:11 it says: "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace."
This verse is not in the Quran and definitely not conveniently in chapter 9 verse 11. The verse was made up by "The War on Terror"-enthusiasts. The idea is that America is the Eagle cleansing the Middle East (Iraq).
This is just another example of how people use and misuse (and in this case blatantly invent) passages from religious texts to legitimise their fraudulent agendas.
Don't be fooled by religious propaganda and wayward forwards.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Grass is not Greener in Iceland
“When reading your blog, I’m wondering if it would not be better to move somewhere else,” writes a friend. He lives in South Africa. His motivation is in part also to protect his wife and children from the high crime rate in the country.
My suggestion to him was to consider Northern Europe: Very low crime rate; prosperous; high on freedom of speech and religion.
And then, this morning another friend sent me the link to a blogpost by someone in Iceland. And suddenly Northern Europe doesn’t seem like such a good suggestion anymore. The blogger writes: “It’s like we know the system is broken, we know it’s gone, but we can’t see it. We can’t tell what’s real, what’s still there, and what are just the ghosts of yesterday, when Iceland was one of the richest countries in the world. A pale reflection of the golden age in Icelandic economy which is now going up in flames. Where’s the smoke?”
I don’t know how to end off this post. What does one say before the brink of disaster? I cannot even say God have mercy, ‘cause that will insinuate that God is somehow to blame and that I don’t believe for a minute. We are to blame. We humans, and our greed and selfishness, are to blame.
My suggestion to him was to consider Northern Europe: Very low crime rate; prosperous; high on freedom of speech and religion.
And then, this morning another friend sent me the link to a blogpost by someone in Iceland. And suddenly Northern Europe doesn’t seem like such a good suggestion anymore. The blogger writes: “It’s like we know the system is broken, we know it’s gone, but we can’t see it. We can’t tell what’s real, what’s still there, and what are just the ghosts of yesterday, when Iceland was one of the richest countries in the world. A pale reflection of the golden age in Icelandic economy which is now going up in flames. Where’s the smoke?”
I don’t know how to end off this post. What does one say before the brink of disaster? I cannot even say God have mercy, ‘cause that will insinuate that God is somehow to blame and that I don’t believe for a minute. We are to blame. We humans, and our greed and selfishness, are to blame.
Criticising the Bible
I don’t mind people criticizing the Bible. But when they do, let there be some research to it – not just statements thrown out there without looking up what the Bible really teaches.
Why my sudden disconcert? Well, I’m reading this book by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly called Finding Flow (1997) and on p. 59 is this statement: “The Bible’s suggestion that man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work for it does not seem to jibe with the facts. Without the goal and the challenges usually provided by a job, only a rare self-discipline can keep the mind focused enough to insure a meaningful life.”
The statement is flawed in at least two ways.
First, the Bible does not teach that man was created to be idle and merely enjoy the bounty without work.
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2:15. Here is Adam, in the sinless, unfallen, perfect, bountiful, Garden of Eden. Does God tell him to sit back so that the angels can pluck fruit from the trees and feed him? No. God tells Adam to do gardening. He is to “work [the garden] and take care of it.”
Nor does the Bible teach idleness in Heaven. Talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, the Bible says: “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.”
The idea that “man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work”, and Csikszentmihaly suggestion that the Bible is thus clearly false, is based upon his bad (or lack of reading) of the Bible.
Second, these periods in the Bible of bountiful abundance are both in times of sinlessness; when man will actually have the kind of self-discipline Csikszentmihaly speaks about.
Such (bad) scholarship on Csikszentmihaly's part suddenly makes me wonder how much of his book is based on assumptions rather than proper research.
Criticize if you must, but don’t do so on hearsay. You can get away with amateurism on the Internet, in blogs and so on, but in supposed well researched books?!
Read the texts. Read the contexts. And then enter the discourse.
Why my sudden disconcert? Well, I’m reading this book by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly called Finding Flow (1997) and on p. 59 is this statement: “The Bible’s suggestion that man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work for it does not seem to jibe with the facts. Without the goal and the challenges usually provided by a job, only a rare self-discipline can keep the mind focused enough to insure a meaningful life.”
The statement is flawed in at least two ways.
First, the Bible does not teach that man was created to be idle and merely enjoy the bounty without work.
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2:15. Here is Adam, in the sinless, unfallen, perfect, bountiful, Garden of Eden. Does God tell him to sit back so that the angels can pluck fruit from the trees and feed him? No. God tells Adam to do gardening. He is to “work [the garden] and take care of it.”
Nor does the Bible teach idleness in Heaven. Talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, the Bible says: “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.”
The idea that “man was made to enjoy the bounty of creation without having to work”, and Csikszentmihaly suggestion that the Bible is thus clearly false, is based upon his bad (or lack of reading) of the Bible.
Second, these periods in the Bible of bountiful abundance are both in times of sinlessness; when man will actually have the kind of self-discipline Csikszentmihaly speaks about.
Such (bad) scholarship on Csikszentmihaly's part suddenly makes me wonder how much of his book is based on assumptions rather than proper research.
Criticize if you must, but don’t do so on hearsay. You can get away with amateurism on the Internet, in blogs and so on, but in supposed well researched books?!
Read the texts. Read the contexts. And then enter the discourse.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Messiah Obama
My aversion with America’s Republicans is the Religious Right movement. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many of these people are sincerely thinking that they are doing the right thing, in promulgating Christian values in politics. Unfortunately, in their ignorance they are mixing an explosive concoction: politics and religion. The past has showed us time and again that throwing these two ingredients in the same pot will awaken a beast.
Surely the Democrats would not make this same mistake. Silly Prophet Kangnamgu. You’ve clearly not been watching closely. Not only are the Liberal Left mixing politics and religion, they are adding blasphemy to insult. Barack Obama is hailed as the Messiah. He is made to be not merely a political figure, but a spiritual figure heralding in a new era for America and the world.
He often uses religious rhetoric and his followers use religious jargon to praise his name. He is depicted as a source of light, in the style reminiscent of Great Leaders. (Isn’t that what they call Kim Jong Il too?).
“[Obama] won’t just heal our city-states and souls. He won’t just bring the Heavenly Kingdom — dreamt of in both Platonism and Christianity — to earth. He will heal the earth itself,” writes Micah Tillman, lecturer in philosophy at The Catholic University of America. Should we read her statement as academic jest, or take it seriously. She is an admitted Obama-supporter.
Unlike the Republicans that seem somewhat exclusivist Christian, the Democrats seem inclusivist towards all other religions. (This is a good thing if we want freedom of religion to prevail. However...) Obama clearly has a strong Christian following, and we all know of Obama’s reverent’s pulpit politics. But it is these other religious groups’ praising of Obama which is interesting. The Sify News reports prayers offered to Hanuman (the monkey-god) by Hindu priests for Obama. New Agers are embracing Obama as a Lightworker; i.e. someone who can raise the consciousness of other people and make the world spiritually a better place. (I know the New Age jargon – been there, done that, have New Ager friends, understand the paradigm, still do the diet and believe in telepathy.)
My concern is not with Obama the person, he seems to be a nice guy with the wits to boot (but let's not forget that he is a politician after all). My concern is with this obsession – this religious obsession with Obama. It is clear that religion and politics are mixing.
The Bible Prophecies foretell that America will become a religious-state. I just always thought it would happen under Republican rule.
When (is it still appropriate to talk of “if”?) Obama becomes the President of the United States look out for his interaction with other religious leaders. Especially, watch carefully his interaction with the Pope.
Isn't it exciting to see how the prophecies unfold?! How this puzzle will fit together is going to be a big surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)