From Good Clean Fun Archives.
To all my Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all;
PLUS
A fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or choice of computer platform.
(Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher who assumes no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit.)
To all my Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
Factory Farming & The Meatrix
Do you know where the meat you eat comes from? The documentary below is a rather moderate depiction of the actual realities of factory farming. The days of happy farmers loving their animals is mostly long gone. When you decide to eat meat, make sure it is an informed decision.
Or for a more animated disillusionment, follow funny "The Meatrix"-series.
Or for a more animated disillusionment, follow funny "The Meatrix"-series.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?!
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?!” This lamentation by Jesus Christ while hanging on the cross, is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27.
For a long time I could not understand what this meant. Did God really forsake his Son?
I heard many explanations trying to solve this enigmatic exclamation of Jesus in his dying hour. Some said that because the sin of the world was placed on the Jesus, he in fact “became sin for us”, God who despises sin, therefore removed Himself from his Son. And so the explanations go on.
My personal opinion is not that Jesus were forsaken by his Father, or that Jesus succumb in his dying moments under his human-nature. Instead, I believe that Jesus was making a very clear reference to an Old Testament prophecy that foretold in shocking detail this very scene happening.
In Jesus called out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” he was in fact reciting directly the first line of Psalm 22. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (Psalm 22:1). The Jews standing close by, familiar with the Hebrew Psalms, would immediately have recognised this line from the famous Psalm. They would also have made the obvious connections.
In Psalm 22:7, 8 it is written: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” Recounting the Crucifixion Matthew writes: “And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads... Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said... He trusted in God: let him deliver him now, if he will have him...” (Matthew 27:39-43).
Psalm 22:16 says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion.
Verse 18 says: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” Matthew (27:35) recounts: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots...”
It is my understanding that when Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”, he was deliberately reminding the spectators of Psalm 22 that described the death of the Messiah. Those that knew this psalm would easily have made the connection, seeing that Jesus’ crucifixion (piercing of hands and feet), even the gambling over his clothes, were foretold by Scripture centuries in advance.
Jesus Christ’s exclamation was clearly not merely a hopeless lament; rather it was a deliberate quote from a Messianic Prophecy foretelling the last moments of his death. Even in his hour of death, He was proving his claim as the Messiah.
For a long time I could not understand what this meant. Did God really forsake his Son?
I heard many explanations trying to solve this enigmatic exclamation of Jesus in his dying hour. Some said that because the sin of the world was placed on the Jesus, he in fact “became sin for us”, God who despises sin, therefore removed Himself from his Son. And so the explanations go on.
My personal opinion is not that Jesus were forsaken by his Father, or that Jesus succumb in his dying moments under his human-nature. Instead, I believe that Jesus was making a very clear reference to an Old Testament prophecy that foretold in shocking detail this very scene happening.
In Jesus called out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” he was in fact reciting directly the first line of Psalm 22. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (Psalm 22:1). The Jews standing close by, familiar with the Hebrew Psalms, would immediately have recognised this line from the famous Psalm. They would also have made the obvious connections.
In Psalm 22:7, 8 it is written: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” Recounting the Crucifixion Matthew writes: “And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads... Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said... He trusted in God: let him deliver him now, if he will have him...” (Matthew 27:39-43).
Psalm 22:16 says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion.
Verse 18 says: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” Matthew (27:35) recounts: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots...”
It is my understanding that when Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”, he was deliberately reminding the spectators of Psalm 22 that described the death of the Messiah. Those that knew this psalm would easily have made the connection, seeing that Jesus’ crucifixion (piercing of hands and feet), even the gambling over his clothes, were foretold by Scripture centuries in advance.
Jesus Christ’s exclamation was clearly not merely a hopeless lament; rather it was a deliberate quote from a Messianic Prophecy foretelling the last moments of his death. Even in his hour of death, He was proving his claim as the Messiah.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremists -- not all bad...
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)