Article link: Reflections on Hinduism

There was a write up in the local papers about Diwali, which got me to thinking about Hinduism. You might find the Reflections on Hinduism article at Stand to Reason, of some interest.

Towards a republic

“But suppose you are preaching from a text that says nothing about Christ? … Then I will go over hedge and ditch until I get to Him” – Anonymous

Ancient Greek thought has shaped much of our thinking and the area of politics is no exception. Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism can be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. In “The Republic”, Plato’s ideal republic consisted of three distinct groups: a commercial class formed by those dominated by their appetites; a spirited class, administrators and soldiers, responsible for the execution of the laws; and the guardians or philosopher-kings, who would be the lawmakers. Because Plato entrusted the guardians with the responsibility for maintaining a harmonious state, republicanism is often associated with goals established by a small segment of the community presumed to have a special insight into what constitutes the common good.

In “Politics”, Aristotle provided another republican concept, one that is prevalent in most of the Western world. Aristotle categorized governments on the basis of who rules: the one, the few, or the many. Most relevant to republicanism in the West, is Aristotle’s distinction between democracy: the perverted form of rule by the many, and its opposite “polity”, the good form. He believed that democracies were bound to experience turbulence and instability because the poor, who he assumed would be the majority in democracies, would seek an economic and social equality that would stifle individual initiative and enterprise. In contrast, “polity”, with a middle class capable of justly adjudicating conflicts between the rich and poor, would allow for rule by the many without the problems and chaos associated with democratic regimes.

Fast forward to the Russian Revolutions of 1917 when a new chapter in the history of republicanism was beginning. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state once again demonstrated that republic and democracy are not necessarily synonymous. This became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were similarly fashioned after the Soviet Union’s model of one-party “people’s republics”.

Of the new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have displayed an unmistakable trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships (pick your poison). In the last quarter of the 20th century, about three-fourths of the nations in the world deemed themselves republics, yet very few could be described as democracies.

Around 605 B.C. marks a very important part of human history. It was around this time that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and it was the start of a period of four successive dominant world empires: the Babylon empire, followed by the Medo-Persian empire, followed by the Grecian empire and of course the Roman empire. The Bible (specifically the book of Daniel) is clear that there would have been four such empires, followed by a final one built on the last empire (a revived Roman empire). Now unless you have been under a rock, it should be obvious that she is in the process of being (re)built. Once she is up and running, the second coming is inevitable. So take heed of the Lord’s words: “So keep on watching, because you don’t know on what day your Lord is coming. So you, too, must be ready, because at an hour you are not expecting him the Son of Man will come.” (Matthew 24:42, 44)

Scientific theory and theology

Science and religion are often portrayed as being at odds with each other. I take the view to the contrary. Take for example the apparent contradiction concerning how light is described in quantum theory, as outlined by Russell Stannard, emeritus professor of physics at Open University. In answering what is light, some experiments point to light being a wave, others to it being a stream of particles. Light is sometimes described as a wave, because it behaves like a wave in many situations. Quantum theory also describes light as a particle. Scientists revealed this aspect of light behavior in several experiments performed during the early 20th century. In one experiment, physicists discovered an interaction between light and particles in a metal. But how can light be a spread-out wave and, at the same time, be a small localized particle? Similar apparent contradictions have arisen when studies are made to determine the “stuff” of which matter is comprised. These experiments point to both the wave and particle aspects of matter.

The apparent contradiction of the Christian trinitarian concept is this: How can God be fully God – omnipresent and omnipotent – and fully man (in the person of Jesus) – limited by time and space in Palestine – at the same time? We put aside the infantile objection: “but the word trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible”, for now. These apparent contradictions in particle physics and Christian theology bring home what ancient theologians and philosophers knew long ago. Science can tell us nothing about the world in and of itself. It cannot answer the question of form or quiddity, which is: what is the essence of … ? For example, we cannot know what light is (its essence). We can simply know that light is (it exists), by observing how it interacts in our environment.

In the same way, God can only be known through His interactions with us: nature, the Word, Jesus in Palestine et cetera. That He is (existence) – is knowable. However, what He is (essence) is absolutely unknowable Therefore, whatever it is we are talking about – God, light or matter – we cannot know what they are (essence). We can acknowledge however, that they exist and talk about how they interact with us in the universe and our lives. As a postscript, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jerry Bergman for his help with the scientific aspect of this article.

General ramblings about nothing in particular

Right now I’m reading Jeremiah who I feel a sense of commonality with.

For some strange reason “cultured” people feel it is inappropriate to tell someone they are wrong. We have gone from the sublime to the asinine. If little Johnny gets up in class and says “1+1=91”, we must “appreciate little Johnny’s diverse views, the fresh thinking and approach he brings to mathematics and not tell him he is wrong”. What a bunch of twits (my political tact often tends towards 0). So if no one is “wrong”, how can we call sinners to repentance? There is always some high-sounding empty term to dress up all manner of sin and evil. No wonder this world is so messed up.

Take the part in Jeremiah where the Lord talks about idol worship, “For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jeremiah 10:3-8)

“But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities” = not politically correct by todays standards. I love the Old Testament!

Spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in the 21st century is bound to have you branded as “a hater of mankind”. Christians are expected to sit back and watch people slip gently into hell. Do not call sinners to repentance, can’t “offend” modern folk now. The Pharisees are the first to quote you “do as you would be done by” and “judge not lest you be judged”. They conveniently forget that the Lord also said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Even the enemies of the cross respect Jesus as a “great moral teacher”. So if there were other ways to God, why would He give The Great Commission? Why would He not say, “Go into the nations and whatever they believe, tell them God bless and carry on.” The fact is, He didn’t. The fact is Jesus is the only way to God. If you advocate religious pluralism you are forced to admit that you are also saying Jesus basically didn’t know what He was talking about and His work on the cross was all for naught. Blasphemy I say! So what about Islam, Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism and all the other “isms”? They are all wrong. Does this mean we “hate” the adherents of these belief systems? No. Although this is exactly the picture of Christians that some extremely simple-minded people try to paint. Why? Simple,

The world hates disciples. Read what the Lord said:

“If the world hates you, you should realize that it hated me before you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you. Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. They will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have any sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin. The person who hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have any sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:18-24)

Take two: Why the silence?

Now that an advocate of the theocratic rule has unashamedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” (spoken like a true terrorist indeed), we await the analysis from the local foreign policy experts. These experts would have us believe that they could have struck a deal with despotic rulers like Stalin and Saddam over a cup of afternoon tea. Is it a coincidence that this brazen statement has followed quickly on the heels of the recent furor over their nuclear program? Unfortunately, western intellectuals often become naive in the process of rearing the lofty edifices of their minds. The fact is, we have an ideology on our hands which will be satisfied with nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. The deafening silence from certain parts of the globe on “the statement” can attest to this. Ironically, or tragically, we westerners will as usual be content to focus our attention on demonizing the American and British Zionist forces for their “immoral wars”. In light of the psalmist’s words that, “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4), what we should be asking is, “why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1).

Article link: How did different "races" arise (from Noah’s family)?

Read the answer at Answers in Genesis

Article link: Rastafarianism, A brief Christian critique

C.S. Lewis warned about trying to reason with people who are "always shifting their ground". Members of this movement are a prime example of what Lewis was talking about.

For example, a local writer who as far as I can tell is a Rastafari, made the following comment, "Even worse – as history can attest – these groups are quite prepared, if conversion fails, to persecute, conquer and, if necessary, burn at the stake and kill those who do not share their beliefs. The Old Testament is replete with commands to slaughter all the people of another faith – all in the name of God."

Yet, on another day, they will use the Old Testament to (a) justify the smoking of weed or (b) trace the lineage of Haile Selassie to "prove" he was a seed out of the line of David.

I find this a bit odd. On one hand we demonize The Bible, then when opportunity knocks, we gladly quote it and reference it to suit our agenda. The article is pretty informative and I agree with its conclusion, "Rastafarianism is a web whose strands are not easily broken or escaped."

Read the full article here...

Beyond time and into eternity

“We cannot all argue, but we can all pray; we cannot all be leaders, but we can all be pleaders; we cannot all be mighty in rhetoric, but we can all be prevalent in prayer” – Charles Haddon Spurgeon

One of the difficulties people have concerning prayer, is trying to understand how God handles the petitions of several of believers, at the same time. What is at the root of this difficulty is the idea that God has to somehow fit millions of requests into one moment of time. Now it is certain that God is not in time but inhabits eternity. To be in time means to change and God does not change, for He is in every way immutable and inhabits eternity (the state of timelessness, with no beginning or end). This is confirmed in the Scriptures: “For I am the LORD, I change not (Malachi 3:6) and “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever”(Hebrews 13:8).

The following illustration from C.S. Lewis gives an idea of what God’s timelessness is like: Suppose I am writing a novel. I write, “Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!” For Mary who has to live in this imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary’s maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of the sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary’s time (the time inside the story) at all.

I agree with Lewis that this is not a perfect example, but it does give us a glimpse into eternity. God is not hurried along in the time-stream of this universe any more than the author of a book is hurried along in the imaginary time-stream in a novel. God has infinite attention to give to each one of us. He listens to, cares for, and answers each of us individually. When He died on the cross, He died for each of us individually as if we were the only person in existence who needed to be reconciled with Him. If that is not reason enough to love Him, I don’t know what is.

On sexual morality

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is: Either marriage (to one member of the opposite sex) with complete faithfulness, or else total abstinence. Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, in its current state, has gone wrong. My argument is based on the latter being true. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. Now if we ate as much as we wanted and whenever we wanted, most of us will eat too much; but not terribly too much. We may eat enough for two or three, but not enough for twenty. On the other hand, if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, he could easily populate a small community. This appetite is overly in excess of its function.

Modern people are always saying “sex is nothing to be ashamed of”. If they mean there is nothing wrong with the fact that humans reproduce in a certain way that gives pleasure; then they are right. Christianity says the same thing. It is not the thing nor the pleasure. However, if they mean the state to which our sexual instinct has now gotten into is “nothing to be ashamed of”, they are very wrong. There is nothing to be ashamed off in enjoying your food. There would be something very wrong if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food, dribbling and smacking their lips.

At the individual level we are not totally to blame. Poster after poster, movie after movie, song after song are released in unison with the intended purpose of keeping our sexual instincts in this state. The purpose of course is to make money. After all, someone with an addiction has very little sales resistance. Having inflamed these desires, we are then led to believe that any attempt to resist them is abnormal. Asinine fatuity, is what we should attribute to such a claim. Any reasonable person has a set of principles by which they choose to reject some desires and permit others. Some do this on Christian principles, another, based on another set of principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and “natural desires”, but between Christianity and the other worldly principles in control of “natural desires”. The mandate from God isn’t meant to cramp our style, it is for our own good. He knows best. “He that formed the eye, shall he not see (Psalms 94:9), “or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?” (Isaiah 29:16)

Response by Answering Islam to "one-sided" charges

I referenced the Answering Islam website in two of my previous articles and it [the site] was charged with being “one-sided”. Below is their response:

Is www.answering-islam.org "one sided"? Let me answer it this way. Those of us who contribute to the site have a deep love for Muslims and long for Them to know the peace and assurance of salvation that we enjoy as believers In Christ Jesus. My wife and I have spent most of the past 24 years in a country where 99% of our neighbors are Muslims. We love and genuinely care about and our neighbors--both for their well-being in this world and for their eternal destiny in the life to come. It is this same love for Muslims that drives www.answering-islam.org .

Those of us who contribute to the site seek to present the truth in a fair and balanced way. We answer all emails which come to us. We link to scores of Muslim sites. We seek to present solid arguments and evidence in response to the attacks which Islam levels against the Bible and its Good News message, and then let folks chose for themselves what they will believe. For some samples of our answers, see our email dialogs section.

From time to time we receive messages from Muslims who complain that we are being deceptive because of the name of our website. They feel that the name Answering-Islam gives the impression that we are an Islamic site; that we are leading Muslims astray by feeding them anti-islamic material while pretending to be Muslim. Perhaps there are some who think that any phrase that includes the word "Islam" is automatically Islamic. Of course, anyone who understands the English language reasonably well knows that "Answering Islam" is synonymous with "Countering Islam", "Refuting Islam", or "Exposing Islam." They all mean similar things, except that the phrase "Answering Islam" is a more friendly and most polite version. We prefer the friendlier version.

We want a respectful dialog and factual discussion with Muslims. We want to give answers to their questions and responses to the attacks they raise against the Christian Faith. Just as "Answering Atheism" is understood as a presentation of arguments to help atheists understand why it is rational to reject Atheism and accept the Genesis account of God and creation, so “Answering Islam” exists to help Muslims understand why it makes good sense to embrace the unalterable, age-old message of the Scriptures of the very prophets they claim to honor.

Preparing the mind for action

“He [Christ] wants a child’s heart but a grown-up’s head” – C.S. Lewis

The mind is like a muscle. If it is not exercised regularly and strenuously, it loses some of its capacities and strength. If we are to be of any help to this present generation we must, amongst other things, change our reading habits and fast. If I am correct in my interpretation of certain views which have been expressed in the press, it seems that people no longer base their decisions on a careful use of abstract reasoning in assessing pertinent issues. Nor are they as capable of doing so compared to earlier generations.

In earlier generations thought was primarily communicated by writing and abstract ideas, not images. Nowadays, people are basically passive in terms of receiving ideas. We are continuously fed images, video et cetera via the television. People therefore tend to regard paragraphs, blurbs, thirty-second sound bites and pretty pictures as more important than numerous words on a page minus the pictures or abstract thoughts. With the ubiquitousness of gadgets like silent leashes (cellular phones), people now have very short attention spans and are not able to stay with an idea as it is being carefully developed.

In 1941, Harvard sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote a book called, “The Crisis of Our Age.” In it, he claimed that cultures come in two major types: sensate and ideational. In a sensate culture, people believe in only the reality of the physical universe which can be experienced with the senses. By contrast, the ideational culture embraces the sensory world but also accepts the notion that an immaterial world – consisting of God, the soul and so on – can be known. Sorokin claimed that a sensate culture will eventually disintegrate because it lacks the intellectual resources necessary to sustain both a public and private life conducive to human flourishing. This is exactly what is happening to modern society. Drop Everything And Read is an excellent step towards correcting this disintegration. No movement – political, religious, social or otherwise – can survive without an active reader base. It will become marginalized and easily led. For the love of God and for the love of country – Drop Everything And Read. “For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” (Proverbs 8:11)

The victim mentality

I would like to share my thoughts on the: “I am a victim. The world owes me something because my ancestors were slaves” mentality. I’ll start with the obvious. This mentality has it’s philosophical roots in Marxism, which for the most part explains its errancy. The basic premise is that society is divided into two categories – “victims” and “oppressors”. The oppressors are always wrong and the victims are always right. The goal of political activity (and everything regarded as political) is to disempower the oppressors and to empower the victims (so that the victims can jolly well get on with some oppressing of their own).

However, in the all the furor, rules that were formerly absolute, such as freedom of thought and expression, are discarded whenever the victims’ interests so demand. If an oppressor says something that offends a designated victim, they are immediately sentenced to sensitivity training. Of course the victims may abuse the oppressors all they like.

This mentality is supposedly based on a passion for “tolerance” and “dialogue” but the passion only lasts until the victims have enough power to turn on the oppressors. This is of course self-contradictory. The designated “victims” are in fact victimized, but in another sense. The effect of this mentality is to keep the victims in a state of dependency so they can be manipulated by demagogues.

People who are festering with resentment for real and imagined grievances can be easily persuaded that their welfare depends on following the demagogues and extortionists who promise to wrest concessions from the oppressors (reparations, for example). The real question we should be asking is: “How can we help the “victims” to understand that the manipulators who endeavour to keep them in a state of sullen resentment are their worst enemies?” It is impossible to perpetually see oneself as a victim and amount to anything in this life. So as you think in your heart, so shall it be (Proverbs 23:7).

God's revelation through nature

British pastor John Scott was asked to reflect on fifty years of ministry and give advice to a new generation of Christian leaders. This is part of what he said, “My main exhortation would be this: Don’t neglect your critical faculties. Remember that God is a rational God, who has made us in His own image. God invites and expects us to explore His double revelation, in nature and Scripture …” The Old Testament clearly teaches that God reveals Himself through nature. Isaiah 28:23-29 and Proverbs 6:6 are but a few examples. Most importantly, from Jesus’ sermons and parabolic teachings, it is evident that He was a keen observer of nature. Over and over again we read, “the kingdom of God is like…” then Jesus “likens the kingdom” to an aspect of nature: the sowing of seeds (Mark 4:31), the pearl (Matthew 13:45), the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31) and so on. When Paul penned Romans 1:19-20, with the Spirit of the living God and not with ink, he showed the fruit of observing God’s creation.

You cannot want it anymore straightforward than: cause and effect. God is not an effect, therefore He has no cause. Yet, even though God exceeds all senses, some of His effects (one of which is nature), are sensible. The origin of our knowledge from senses hold even when what is known exceeds the senses. Therefore, God can be known through His sensible effects (like nature), even though the essence (quiddity) of God, is in every way beyond our senses. This principle is present in both the Old and New Testament. Most importantly, Jesus taught it. That a 1930s Nobel prize winner advocated a view to the contrary is inconsequential.

Why I write

This quotation by Leo C. Rosten pretty much sums up why writers write: “A writer writes not because he is educated but because he is driven by the need to communicate. Behind the need to communicate is the need to share. Behind the need to share is the need to be understood. The writer wants to be understood much more than he wants to be respected or praised or even loved. And that perhaps, is what makes him different from others.”

I write to serve a name, not to make one for myself. I write because it is written, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:27-28).

And concerning originality, I share C.S. Lewis’ views on this when he said, “Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”

On social morality

Sometime back a writer expressed their frustration and suggested that one of the local newspapers should “get off their moral high horse”. After all, why all this chatter about morality, values et cetera when there are roads to be fixed, an economy to drive forward. In other words, let’s deal with “real issues”. But who drives the economy, fixes roads and deals with other problems in society? People do. And unless people are changed drastically from the inside, we are merely wasting time with “real issues”. If you check human history, I am sure you will find that when we work towards the proverbial state of utopia by merely humanistic means, it does not work; period. In almost every case greed, envy, malice and hatred somehow surface and we are back at square one.

Yet even though morality is important, it still misses the mark. For a society content with its own “niceness” and looking no further, will eventually become a morally degenerate society. Mere improvement in behaviour does not result in redemption, but redemption always improves people to a level we cannot possibly imagine. God became man to turn us into His sons. He did not come to produce better men but to produce men of a new kind. Of course the local arm of the intelligentsia will object with the usual, “no place for a theocracy”, “narrow minded bigots” et cetera. We will hold symposium A, discussion B and workshop C. Everyone seems to know what is wrong, yet no one is solving the problem. The truth is, we are reaping exactly what we have sown and will continue to do so unless we get Jesus’ message. In the words of Spurgeon that message is, “Every generation needs regeneration”.

Paying the price for success

“Nothing worthwhile comes easily. Half effort does not produce half results. It produces no results. Work, continuous work and hard work, is the only way to accomplish results that last” – Hamilton Holt

From cradle to the grave we are exhorted to succeed at work, school, play and all that good stuff. Yet there seems to be this unwritten rule that applies to our generation. It goes something like this: Be all you can be. Excel at every worthwhile endeavour. But whatever you do; do not ever reach a level of success that would remind me of what I could become if I worked harder, applied myself even more et cetera. I think this is why there are so many successful people, sports teams, companies and countries that some people just “love to hate”. But, this is just a hypothesis from casual observation. There couldn’t possibly be any truth to it, could there?

Why Muslims become Christians

The following is a link to the testimonies section at Answering Islam. I referenced this site in an article and some have claimed that it is one sided. However, the people who have made comments to that effect have, consciously or unconsciously, chosen not to read the testimonies.

Jesus causes sparks to fly

Eyes light up when we talk about God as this impersonal force out there with no feelings, an abstract concept to whom we are not accountable. But as soon as you mention Jesus, the temperature drops and the pupils start to dilate. With Jesus, there is no middle ground, “He that is not with me is against me …” (Matthew 12:30). If the claims Jesus made to be God are not true, then He cannot be a great moral teacher. He would be a liar. You must make your choice.

As nice as Gandhi’s statement sounds, it is still false. Error does not become truth, because it was stated by someone we consider to be a great moral teacher. But I suppose conventional thinking says that we all simply nod, smile at each other and go home none the wiser. How can the teachings of the great moral teachers, concerning the soul, contradict each other? Christ said that there is no hope for anyone apart from salvation through Him (John 14:6). All the others say, “Rubbish, all roads lead to Rome.” Someone has to be lying, who is it?

Of course any answer will sidestep Jesus’ truth claim in John 14:6, and we will get the usual discourse on the intolerant Christian bigots. Deep down, secular liberals know that all religions cannot be right. In fact they believe that none are right, but that is another story. Faced with this fact, we are left with three options: ignore the contradictions, combine all the views or distinguish right from wrong. The number of rival conceptions of God and philosophies on the marketplace seemingly tends towards infinity, so most people just choose option one or two. God forbid we have to think for ourselves.

The most precious piece of real estate

Do you not find it even remotely eerie that Palestine, where God walked amongst us in the person of Jesus, is consistently at the fore of world affairs? From west to east: the coastal plain, the hills and mountains of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea; the valley of the Jordan River; and the eastern plateau – always in the news. Not to mention that the Gaza Strip, the most controversial 146 square miles on earth, just happens to be near the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe. This is the perfect place to start spreading the gospel to the world, fulfilling the promise God gave to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, “and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”. Jesus Christ and His message, represents the best that the world was ever blessed with. Feed yourself on soft soap and wishful thinking by calling it coincidence, if you wish. All right thinking people know, it is Divine Providence.

First things first

“The ‘historical’ Jesus then, however dangerous He may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged” – The Screwtape Letters

In discussions about Jesus people often miss the whole point. Some only debate the historical Jesus. Others, obsessed with race to the point of crassness, only focus on His colour. Whilst all of these discussions have their place, the most important advice about Jesus was given by His earthly mother: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). And what did he “saith unto” us? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!” (Matthew 4:17). That is what must be obeyed, that is what is most important to Jesus. He has nothing more to say to us, as far as I can tell, unless we first repent. When you get to know Him for who He really is, all of the other things like His historicity and race, become secondary. They fade away, like a distant memory. No more infantile discourses, for you’ve met the real man. Do you know the man of whom I speak? If not, you need to take care of first things first. You can do so right now, if you wish.

Why the silence?

The ink seems to have dried up from the pens of the writers who took great pleasure in demonizing the American and British administrations vis-à-vis the “immoral” war in Iraq. These writers would have us believe that they could have struck a deal with the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin and Saddam over a cup of afternoon tea. But what about Iran and their defiance surrounding their nuclear ambitions? Why the silence? Contrary to what the modern incarnation of Averroës would have us believe; the problems in Muslim countries are not the result of the imperialistic, western Zionist forces. If western nations completely severed ties with these countries, especially the major faces of political Islam today – Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – it would not end there. The fact is, we have an ideology on our hands which will not be satisfied until Israel, along with the Jewish people, are wiped completely off the map. Of course some “moderate” leaders in the Middle East, vehemently deny this. Yet their denials are phrased in such a way as to pacify the western leaders, whilst simultaneously, not offending the terrorists. Ironically, western democratic leaders could learn something from the theocratic public relations machinery in the Middle East that automatically kicks in after attacks in the west. We seem to have forgotten that the communists sometimes followed a policy of peaceful coexistence when it seemed convenient? Whilst they seem to have forgotten the words of David: “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4).