How Not To Use Facebook

From: FriendFeed

Jailed for What You're Gonna Do

A couple of months old, but still relevant.



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

The Good News of Christianity's Demise

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

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

Don’t Weep For the Demise of American Christianity

Hello bloggers,

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

The Demise of Christianity

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

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

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

The Cause of the Decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is The Demise of the Christian Religion a Bad Thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it,

Greg

The Battle of Good and Evil (A Sermon)

Not loading? Go here.

Locational Privacy

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

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

Benito Mussolini

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

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

Anatomy of a Collapse

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

Some ponderings...

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

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

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

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

Napoleon Bonaparte is a Solar Myth

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

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

GRAND ERRATUM. THE NON-EXISTENCE OF NAPOLEON PROVED.

BY JEAN-BAPTISTE

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

Ye are told:

That he was called Napoleon Bonaparte:

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

That his mother's name was Letitia;

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

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

That he put an end to a great revolution;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cum gelidus crescit canis in montibus humor.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why so serious?

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

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

Swine Flu Scares

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

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

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

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

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

"Universal Soldier"

"The Hell of War Comes Home"

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

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

• Part 1: "The Hell of War Comes Home"

• Part 2: "Warning Signs"

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

Some Questions & Answers

Q: How do I get to Heaven?

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

Q: How do I become more Christ-like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and the Apollo Alliance Connection

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

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

Day the Dollar Die

From the album Mystic Man (1979).

What to do to be saved?

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

The Bad News

The fact is there is nothing you can do.

The prophet Micah also wondered what he can do:

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

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

The prophet Isaiah makes it clear:

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

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

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

The Good News

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

“But this sacrifice was not made in order to create in the Father’s heart a love for man, not to make Him willing to save. No, no! “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” 2 Corinthians 5:19.” – Steps to Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God is good, Jesus lives!

What about the people in a “wrong” church?

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

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

Other Sheep

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

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

Ignorance Overlooked

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

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

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

Receive Plagues by Association

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

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

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

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

Ignorance Is Not a Cop-out

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

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

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

Short Answer

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

The (Real) Power of Human Energy

Religulous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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