Zionist Christians

Certainly, some of the most visible and troubling manifestations of racism in society's recent memory has involved anti-Semitism. Simply put, the Jewish people have put up with a lot of nasty discrimination over the last two millenia; much of it with Christian roots.

Having said that, the Zionist movement itself has been accused of racism towards Arabs. This charge has been made mostly by Muslem nations, in different colourful and dramatic ways. They try and get this message out, but the empathy has not been pouring in. Its hard for me not to agree with them; at the very least I think that one would have to admit a strong potential for this sort of racism in Zionism, if not its actual presence.

But then many people don't see this at all. God gave them (the Jewish people) that land, so the Arab squatters, who have been squatting there a long time now, can just go find a new home. There's a line from a Roger Waters' song that seems appropriate here; 'What God wants, God gets; God help us all'.

Things are already ugly and ethically complicated, but it gets even worse. This brings us to what has to be the biggest group supporting the Zionist dream, and that would be Zionist Christians. Those familiar with the eschatology of conservative Christianity will know what lies at the heart of all this. For those who don't, let me explain.

First of all, eschatology is the branch of theology concerned with the end of the world. Conservative Christians have some interesting ideas about this, based on their reading of Revelation. Well, actually, they are quite childish ideas. They, the born again believers, will be whisked off to heaven (the rapture) while the rest of us nonbelievers scratch our heads trying to figure out where our very religious neigbours and family members wandered off to. Then a series of very nasty things will happen to us (the tribulation) while they are forced to gleefully watch. They've warned us about this countless times; it could happen any day now.

Now, I don't keep up with all the details, and perhaps some of them have changed recently. Hal Lindsay's books no longer make much sense, so perhaps they've been busy reinterpreting Revelation in the light of the present political landscape, as is their custom. Regardless, Zionist Christians supported, and continue to support the state of Isreal for one reason; to usher on the end of the world. And they're growing restless.

Mohammed on Christianity

Islam has an interesting tradition when it comes to its views on Christianity. I would imagine most Christians would find them somewhat bizarre.

As I understand it, this is a brief overview of the Moslem position on Jesus. The virgin birth is accepted, Christ is the second greatest prophet (after Mohammed of course), Christ was not the son of God, nor was he 'literally' crucified, although it appeared as such. To me, the interesting question isn't whether the Muslims are right or not, but how these ideas formed and their original sources. I haven't found a good book explaining this, but looking at the puzzle pieces, I think I can make a reasonable conjecture. Of course, I think all my conjecture is reasonable, so take it with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that some of Islam's ideas are quite similar to Gnostic interpretations. I would think that Mohammed must have come into contact with different heterodox forms of Christianity in his travels, and in particular, Gnostic Christian groups. A strong similarity can certainly be seen with what the Koran says about the crucifixion. It appeared that Jesus was crucified, but this is not what happened. The exact same thing is said in some of the gnostic writings.

'Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.'

This is Irenaeus quoting a bit of Basilides, an early Gnostic. You find something very similar in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. In other gnostic texts the solution is similar, but not quite so extreme. For the most part, Gnostic's rejected Christ's humanity, because of their views on matter, and this meant different approaches towards what the crucifixion was or meant.

Within Islam is the notion that the books of the New Testament have been edited over time, and as such, the original meanings of the books have been lost, or at least have a spurious nature. I'm sure this view would not have been hard to come by among Gnostic circles as well. Or even some other heterodox form of Christianity.

Mohammed makes mention, and rejects, the doctrine of the Trinity, so perhaps there was contact with Orthodox Christianity as well. Of course, I have no idea which forms of Christianity Mohammed came into contact with, but approaching it objectively, I think certain conclusions could be drawn. Unfortunately, in doing so, you might be offending the nature of the sacred scriptures of both groups. Still, it's far to interesting to think that no one has even bothered to try.

The Politics of Christianity: Elaine Pagels

"The kind of Christianity that pervades the religious right in this country divides the world between the saved and the damned, between God's people and Satan's people, between good and evil. We have all seen how this is played out in our politics. I used to think that President Bush was using this language as a political ploy. I still think he is, but I also think—to my disappointment—that he also believes it. His conviction that he is God's chosen one to "rid the world of evildoers" blinds him to the evil that he—and we, as Americans—are capable of doing. The conviction that we are on the side of good—of God—is, however, an ancient one—enormously powerful.

Christians invoking terms such as "evil-doers" read the bible, as anyone does, selectively. They choose the parts they like and they leave out the parts they don't. In this case the parts they like are the parts about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that is—and a life for a life. If someone's taken a life, then their life is required. And that's certainly a biblical tenet. Of course, it's from the Old Testament. You don't hear much about forgiveness and turning the other cheek from our President and his administration. The Old Testament is what they choose for this occasion because it suits their purpose.

What I've learned through studying the Gospel of Thomas and the context of the politics of early Christianity, is that anyone who participates in Christian tradition without having learned anything about it—and that's most people who participate in it, because it's not taught in public or private schools for the most part—often think of their traditions as immutable, as if they've just come down from God."

Read the whole article here. Elaine Pagels well known for her books on early Christianity and Gnosticism; it is quite interesting to read her contrast of this to modern American politics.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html

Malm

Theologian Quiz

You scored as Paul Tillich. Paul Tillich sought to express Christian truth in an existentialist way. Our primary problem is alienation from the ground of our being, so that our life is meaningless. Great for psychotherapy, but no longer very influential.


>created with
QuizFarm.com

For Those Of Us Who Use The Wrong Hand

The Bad

Statistics show left-handed people are more likely to be schizophrenic, alcoholic, delinquent, dyslexic, and have Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as mental disabilities. They're also more likely to die young and get into accidents. So if evolutionary theory dictates survival of the fittest, why do lefties still exist?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=498707&page=1

Left-handedness has been associated with a wide range of indicators of reduced fitness, from the standpoint of natural selection. Left-handed people, the authors say, have a smaller number of offspring, higher number of spontaneous abortions, lower birth weight, higher number of serious accidents, higher rates of serious disorders, and a shorter life span. Left-handedness has similarly been linked to neural tube defects, autism, stuttering, and schizophrenia.
http://www.narth.com/docs/toxins.html

Research has suggested that left-handed people are more susceptible to a range of problems, including allergies, auto-immune diseases, depression, drug abuse, epilepsy, schizophrenia and sleeping disorders. Left-handers are thought to have poorer spatial skills, and thus to be more vulnerable to car crashes and other serious accidents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4242419.stm

A Dutch team found left-handed women were more than twice as likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer as non-left handed women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4274994.stm

The Good

Then again, as many lefties might point out, being left-handed can also offer intellectual prowess. Tests conducted by Alan Searleman from St Lawrence University in New York found there were more left-handed people with IQs over 140 than right-handed people. Famous left-handed thinkers in history from Albert Einstein to Isaac Newton to Benjamin Franklin seem to underline the point.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=498707&page=3

While there is no suggestion that left-handed people are more violent than the right-handed, it looks as though they are more successfully violent.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3471297

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4073775.stm

The Indifferent

Analyzing a number of studies, their paper concludes that male homosexuals are about one third (31%) more likely than heterosexuals to be left-handed (2), while lesbians are almost twice as likely (91%) to be left-handed as heterosexual women.
http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand.html

The fraction of left-handed people today is about the same as it was during the Ice Age, according to data from prehistoric handprints....In the general population today about 12% are left-handed, though populations vary considerably, between 3 and 30%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3485967.stm

Conclusion

It seems there are two different theories as to why some of us are still left-handed. One theory is that we are gifted with intuition and intelligence. The other is that we are gifted at violence.

I don't think the genetic factors are well understood. Perhaps the reason why you don't have an entirely right-handed society is the same reason you can't create a 'race' of blond-haired blue-eyed people; the way genes interact fortunately doesn't allow for this.

In the argument for the violent theory, it was mentioned that a particular ethnic group in Burkino Faso had a very low incident of violence, and only three percent of this population was left-handed. There is a problem with this, in that it is a culture where your right hand is used for sanitary things, like eating, and your left hand is used for 'dirty' things, like wiping your butt. I think this would tend to produce more 'right-handed' people. I could do an entire blog, just as long as this one is turning out to be, on cultural/religious bias against lefties.

Left-handed people are over-represented among the intelliectually elite. But we are also over-represented among the intellectually challenged. This tends to balance things out.

Religious Assent

To these doctrines we are so accustomed, that we never wonder at them: Though in a future age, it will probably become difficult to persuade some nations, that any human, two legged creature could ever embrace such principles. And it is a thousand to one, but these nations themselves shall have something full as absurd in their own creed, to which they will give a most implicit and most religious assent.

-David Hume

The Power of Imagination

I've been rereading some essays on David Hume, just to see if I actually have a decent understanding of his 'empirical psychology'. I came across a concept I thought quite interesting, relating to the power of imagination, versus reason.

Hume's tentative justification of causal inferences recognizes the imagination as their cause. The imagination, Hume claims, causes true beliefs; the imagination has not only weight but also authority. Hume claims that the imagination has authority because a benevolent Nature has implanted it within man to give him those true beliefs which are so indespensable for living. Not reason but the imagination is Nature's prime instrument for leading men to truth. Hume furthur suggests that nature has wisely chosen the imagination as its instrument, for the imagination can give rise to true beliefs without the reflection of which most men, all children, and all animals are incapable.

Upon closer examination of Hume's view we see that, strictly speaking, it is not their being caused by the imagination which justifies causal inferences. It is rather their being caused by what is 'permanent, irresistable, and universal' in all men's imaginations which justifies them. Only that core of the human imagination common to all men has, presumably, been implanted by Nature; other traits of the imagination which vary from man to man have been formed by other influences.

-Hume's Defence of Causal Inference, John W. Lenz

This is strikingly naïve coming from Hume, but still kind of a fascinating idea. Hume later rejected this 'proposed justification of causal beliefs', because well, it had some problems. Still, I could almost believe that it is my imagination, and not my ability to reason, which has kept me alive.

Caught in a Mousetrap

A very straight-forward dismantling of intelligent design from Natural History magazine.

"Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science."

Well, I'm just shocked to hear this.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Don't get me wrong, I think religion is important; I just don't think scientists should have to bow to Evangelicals who would like us all to live in the steel tower they've designed for us.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

'Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel.'

http://www.venganza.org/

Most Generous Nation

Here are some statistics regarding which nation is most generous per capita from.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

This chart is supposed to include government and private aid, although I would think determining that would be quite complicated. It probably gives a good rough idea. I'm sure that if you asked anyone which country is the most generous, they would probably say their own. Unless you live in northern europe, you are probably wrong.

Sweden	0.5
Denmark	0.48
Netherlands	0.45
Norway	0.4
France	0.23
Belgium	0.21
Switzerland	0.21
Finland	0.19
United Kingdom	0.19
Austria	0.15
Germany	0.15
Canada	0.14
Ireland	0.12
Australia	0.11
Italy	0.11
Portugal	0.1
Japan	0.09
Greece	0.07
Spain	0.07
United States	0.07
New Zealand	0.03

Another site has a chart comparing government spending on foreign aid. This does not include private aid, so I'm sure the numbers were much easier to arrive at.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap

The Koran

At different blogs, I've seen some rather shocking claims about what is and what isn't in the Koran.

For someone who claims to be interested in religion, I know very little about Islam. I don't even own a Koran. But it's easy enough to find one online, and just for the sake of curiousity and laziness, I did a search of the Koran text for three words; 'Jew', 'Christian', and 'Messiah'. There were 22 hits for 'Jew', 14 hits for 'Christian', and 9 hits for 'Messiah'. Here are some examples for the word 'Jew'.

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[2.113] And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ.

[5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

[22.17] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associate (others with Allah)-- surely Allah will decide between them on the day of resurrection; surely Allah is a witness over all things.

Christians and Jews are almost always mentioned together. (The verse here that excited me the most is the last one mentioning the Magians. I know more about dead religions than I do about the largest religion on the planet, not that this is saying much.) The verse about Christians not behaving so proudly is an ironic one. So why didn't I include the verse where Mohammad calls the Jews and the Christians infidels worthy of death? Because, it seems, it isn't there. If it is, will somebody please show it to me? I wouldn't say Mohammed's attitude is always consistent; he seems a little miffed from time to time, but the worst thing he does is say that their fate it is up to Allah.

I think people are drawing the frightening quotes they are using from other Islamic sources. This really isn't fair. I could quote what different popes or Martin Luther and the reformers had to say about the Jews, and it would be equally as frightening, if not more.

And lastly, because of my ecumenical nature, lets see what Mohammed had to say about Christ.

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
[4.172] The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself.

Mohammad accepts the virgin birth, but his fierce monotheism rejects the diety of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, a Jew would accept none of this. I think it would be very interesting to study exactly which Christian sects Mohammed came into contact with. As well, it would be interesting to study his interaction with Jewish, Mandaean, Zoroastrian, and Manichaean groups.

I've had the Muslem attitude towards the Koran explained to me in the following manner. The Koran is the Logos, the Word of God. This seems a little different than the Christian approach to it's scriptures. In Christianity, the Logos, the Word of God, is Jesus Christ. If you think about this for a bit, it becomes obvious why defiling the Koran in any way horrifies a Moslem. And I have to admit that I think the Moslem structure just makes more sense.

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Parable of the Madman

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Colour Perception: Recycled Blog

This site has different educational tools, and a series of different colour perception illusions.

http://www.echalk.co.uk

The centre block of both images is the same colour. Seems ridiculous, but if you go to the site and put the cutout overtop, isolating these two blocks, you will see that yes, they are the same colour.

I now must go and add empirical data to my list of things I can't trust. Hume warned me about this.

Excerp From Phaedo

Must not genuine philosophers find themselves holding the sort of belief which will lead then to say, one to another, something like this: 'It would seem that we are guided as it were along a track to our goal by the fact that, so long as we have the body accompanying out reason in its inquiries, so long as our souls are befouled by this evil admixture, we shall assuredly never fully possess that which we desire, to wit truth. For by reason of the nurture which we must have, the body makes countless demands upon us, and furthurmore any sickness that may befall it hampers our pursuit of true being. Then too it fills us with desires and longings and fears and imaginations of all sorts, and such quantities of trash, that, as the common saying puts it, we really never have a moment to think about anything because of the body.'

-Socrates

Joseph Arthur

Nick Cave

Still just trying to figure things out around here.

Adding Pictures

Just figuring things out. A little fuzzy, but everyone likes Calvin and Hobbes.

The Blog Comparison

I've been posting using the MSN spaces blog.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/daleelama/

I'm curious to see if I like google's offering better. So I'm going to fiddle around with it and decide what I think. MSN spaces has it's problems, but it very easy to set up. We'll see if I'm ambitious enough to actually use this. Did I mention that I don't know a bloody thing about HTML?