Non-relatively Speaking

Some Less Holy Trinities...

2010-05-17T01:39:00.000-07:00

Never praise someone just because they've fulfilled their moral obligations - don't confuse obligation with liberty and certainly not with virtue.

If you want to play your music very loud and your neighbour does not want to hear it, you are not being virtuous if you turn it down for his or her sake. Not encroaching on the peace of others should surely be seen as a basic requirement.

There are scales - people who do not appreciate what they already have, conceptually build up their desires until they become needs become rights.

Considering others - or better, putting others first, goes from being an obligation to a liberty to a virtue.

Moral standards slip. As soon as a society starts to tolerate a vice, pressure groups will ensure that it will gain acceptance until it becomes an open embrace (or promotion).

The Scriptures set standards: do not let those standards slip. My Bible does not describe a a progression from conservative to liberal to anarchist, but from mercy to covenant to deliverance.

All you need is love... and an AK-47

2010-05-11T22:12:00.000-07:00

Just a short post about a moment in a dream.

I was watching the news during some huge, epic battle scene from an armageddon style scenario and a police marksman was there struggling to hold back his battle creature - like some great guard dog and horse rolled into one... and the rain was tearing down into everyone's faces. And in that moment of stillness the soldier took one of his hands, his other still cradling his assault rifle, and gently stroked the build up of rain and sleep out of the corner of his animal companion's eye. And despite all the noise and terror going on around there was just that moment - a small detail you could almost miss, yet it was the most significant feeling or sight to be absorbed in. The love between this soldier - a great, big, powerful man, purposely desensitised to his feelings - and his great, big, powerful friend - his dog - his horse - it doesn't matter which...

I woke up and thought "wow - there's an amazing job - being an animal handler in the police or army. What a sense of purpose and love and I think I'll write about it on my blog because I'm not about to change career, but I can at least write it down".

All you need is love / G_d

Atheists & Doubt

2010-04-23T21:15:00.000-07:00

Atheists are unhappy because they doubt everything. They doubt everything because without G_d, the whole of reality becomes implausible. With G_d, things don't have to be plausible to you - they don't have to satisfy your idea of probability. You can simply accept that everything is as it is for good reason - whether you can personally appreciate it or not. When the universe is reduced to purely physical components, everything gets disconnected and that makes the significance of everything smaller. Suddenly each element is no longer part of a bigger picture or greater plan. The significance of even a living individual is reduced to space and mass, so we become miniscule. But once we accept that there is moral content and purpose within the universe, we cease to be isolated material phenomena. Every single thing, living or not, every scrap of matter can matter. We can have significance, just as we experience it. The thing I find most ironic is that the atheist doubts even their own experiences, and I'd have thought they'd need to hold on to them, given that they are all they have to go on. The faithful are more rational.

EDIT

There is an assumption - and it really is just an assumption - that the universe is governed by physical laws instead of a conscious and adaptable will. Really, the idea that the universe is governed by laws is idolatry and not really borne out by experience. How often are the meteorologists right? Almost never. They are basing what the weather will do on ideas of probability based on past weather records and there is actually no evidence to suggest that the weather will follow predictable patterns at all, let alone ones simple enough for us to calculate.

Necessity is the Mother of I... llness?

2010-04-08T00:23:00.000-07:00

The evolutionary process allows our bodies to adapt to change over time via the process of mutation. Putting the body under the stress whereby it needs to change is a necessary part of this process taking place - but I believe that this very process may also be the factor that causes illness.

From an evolutionary and dietary perspective, human beings are adapted herbivores. Rather like rats and mice, we are opportunistic feeders. It seems like we strike a tenuous balance at times, particularly when trying to find sources of protein, which makes sense as our bodies are best designed for plant matter rather than meat. Scientific research is starting to show the extent of the problem. Many beans and proteins are causing immune systems to overload and triggering all manner of autoimmune diseases. Problems include wheat gluten, barley and rye, cocoa beans, coffee beans, peanuts, soya beans, shellfish... some bodies are sensitive to dairy produce, others to yeast...

A protein that the body produces called zonulin controls the permeability of the gut. Introducing new foodstuffs to the body may cause the body to have to consider how much zonulin it is producing to allow for optimal nutrition to take place. Producing extra zonulin increases the permeability of the gut to allow larger mollecules to get through. When these larger mollecules, so often the protein mollecules found in substances such as wheat gluten, get into the bloodstream, the immune system may decide to treat them as hostile and may well start attacking the site of the intrusion. In this, the body can act rather like a bull in a china shop or a trigger happy general and start causing damage to the body itself.

Consequently diseases such as coeliac disease, sarcoidosis, interstitial lung problems, cancers (including brain cancers) to name a few are being triggered. Necessity - the very process of having to change - may well be the mother of invention, but it may also be the mother of illness. Mutation can evidently work for good or ill - just ask the X-Men and Magneto.

Cheese and Knives

2010-04-08T00:21:00.000-07:00

I recently bought a Sámi game knife. It is really valuable - so
much so that I don't know how I managed without it and can appreciate
why those vikings carried their hand axes everywhere. I've been using
it many times a day during the process of moving house, walking
Charlie and doing everyday things like shopping, eating, buying
clothes etc. It can get into packaging, remove clothes tags, trim
wall / rawl plugs, slice cheese.... yes cheese....
no I haven't gone mad... I have reintroduced cheese into my funny
vegan diet. Here's why.

I had to have a bone density scan to see how my skeleton is holding
out against the onslaught of steroids my lungs have been needing this
last year or so. I was asked about my calcium intake - cheese, milk,
yoghurt... well all I have been having is calcium enriched soya
products and I don't think it has been enough - not if my nails are
anything to go by, anyway. These things might work OK for some
metabolisms but research into my genetics and family health history
has given me a lot of reason to believe that my maternal ancestors for
59,000 years survived on a diet of reindeer meat, dairy produce and
fish, perhaps augmented by a little seal blubber if they lived further
north in Norway. They would not have had access to the most
problematic food allergens around at the moment - things that are
causing problems for many many more people than ever imagined -
glutenous grains, certain nuts, beans and pulses (wheat [+ barley, rye
& oats for the coeliac], peanuts, coffee beans, chocolate, soya....)
Sure, dairy can be a problem for some people, but maybe we are a
product of our genetic make-up more than we realise, just as a cat
finds it hard to be a healthy vegetarian. Since reintroducing cheese
I've been starting to feel stronger and my breathing has felt better -
my chest has been a little tighter, but stronger, if that doesn't
sound too weird... less watery anyway - like all the gunk is
thickening up and being better able to do its job of bashing germs.
I am pretty convinced my family health issues boil down to this food
sensitivity stuff. My mother was a coeliac, as is my brother. The
number 1 cancer that coeliac disease causes is non-hodgkins lymphoma,
which is exactly what I had between 12 and 15 years old. My cousin has
had IBS and has lupus and my aunt has rheumatoid arthritis - there is
also a history of various other physical and mental issues in my
family, including asthma, that are all related to coeliac type
sensitivity, which is part of a broader auto-immune disease food-
sensitivity problem.

Research is being done in the US into a protein the body produces
called zonulin. Apparently too much of this in response to certain
food stuffs cause increased gut permeability. What then happens is
that larger mollecules enter the blood stream and surrounding tissues
and fluids (such as the interstitial spaces next to the lungs or the
blood brain barrier next to the brain). The immune system then starts
attacking these areas which can lead to cancers and other destructive,
tissue destroying activity - an excessively warlike immune response
charging round like a bull in a China shop.

Anyway, the future could hold therapy based on balancing this natural
zonulin protein and solving a myriad of immune diseases including
cancers, sarcoidosis, coeliac disease, lupus and perhaps conditions
such as pemphigus (where the body attacks its own skin - a hungarian
friend of mine got this - slavs are more susceptible to these
sensitivities too - anyone whose ancestors did not eat a standard
western european diet until recent times). It's interesting - it has
made me think about the strict Jewish dietary laws too - perhaps they
had such precise food wisdom based on what it was healthy for their
specific genetic make-up to eat and not eat - they have all sorts of
food combination restrictions such as not mixing meat and dairy, not
having any leavened foods at times (yeast is another potential
allergen so perhaps taking regular breaks from it is a good idea), no
shellfish at all... Julie recently found out that pork has
historically been a significant carrier for a certain potentially-
fatal parasitic worm.

Enjoy your cheese. I like Caerphilly and Wensleydale, but find cheddar
a bit sickly. Charlie is in food heaven!!!!

All Things Sami

2010-03-10T23:15:00.001-08:00

Today I've been reading a lot about the Sami and feeling quite connected to that aspect of my ancestry. Reading about Sami experiences with religion, shamanism and alcohol have triggered a lot of connections for me to me and my family. Peoples is peoples, but sometimes peoples can make life quite difficult for each other. Or something. Yoik.

Watch a series of films on Youtube outlining Sami struggles over land rights and ecology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0Bzjw7CLw0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfxScuBfFt8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRjZM-GBbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC8CDCAD2iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rarzxyFOzD8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKJ7l1GP-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULUFtzTzZHs

It couldn't get much cooler

2010-03-07T15:23:00.001-08:00

Well as time goes on and I find out more about all this DNA stuff, it seems that not only am I of Ashkenazi heritage on my father's side, the ancestry could well be of the Rabbinic caste. Unusually within orthodox Judaism, this bloodline is patrilineal rather than matrilineal. People from this bloodline can trace their roots back through Aaron..., back to Jacob, to Isaac, to Abraham... That's got to be about as cool as it gets.

Shalom.

Confirmation

2010-03-03T00:31:00.001-08:00

Well, I had it confirmed yesterday that my most likely bloodline on my father's side is Jewish - that is my antic tribe on his side. Almost all of my genetic matches on his side are Ashkenazi (East European Jews).

It is a strange feeling - very exciting and exhilarating, but I also have something of a feeling of anti-climax now it has been confirmed. I suppose the hard thing is that I have no one I can really share the information with who would be particularly interested.

It is an amazing feeling knowing that I am related to Biblical people - Moses, King David, Jesus... perhaps even Elijah... well, OK, we are all related to each other ultimately, but obviously having a Jewish bloodline relates you in a closer or more linear way. Another reason I think it may feel a little anti-climatic is because according to orthodox Judaism I am not considered Jewish because the line is traced through the maternal line. I know this is a bit of a controversial issue between the orthodox and reform lines - it is apparent that lineage has been traced back through the patrilineal line in the past. At any rate - it is a part of my genetic heritage, whether or not "Jewishness" is officially recognised as my status. I am quite happy to accept that in order to identify as Jewish I would need to make a much bigger cultural commitment by officially converting.

But I stand divided. In the past I have felt close to my Catholic heritage and theologically I feel closer to Judaism right now. I am saddened by the tension, suspicion and aggression that has taken place in the past between these two peoples - and that is still all too apparent. I suppose my parents' divorce and the fact that I am no longer in touch with my father in any kind of meaningful way - he really wants nothing to do with me - is just a microcosmic reflection of the bigger picture.

Prayer

2010-02-24T21:45:00.001-08:00

L_rd G_d,
I am sorry I haven't been taking the time to talk to you much these days. It is all the confusion between Judaism and Christianity. I feel like I have let it drive a wedge between us.

I know no one benefits from the division. It only causes misery.

I love you - I try to keep loving you - I try to be grateful for everything you have given me, including the very life I experience it all with. But sometimes I struggle to keep hopeful. My recent illnesses have taken their toll and it has been hard for me at times to stay positive.

I am sorry I have failed in this regard. I know that however much I suffer there are always others who will suffer and who have suffered more. I also know you will not send me anything you do not think I can handle and that sometimes we need to be taken to the brink of disaster before you rescue us because it is the only way we will learn the lesson that is due to us.

I also know that we can never appreciate the bigger picture from our individual standpoint and that what seems unfair from an individual perspective might well be the best thing for all concerned on a larger scale. Not having the needs of an entire universe to juggle, I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to balance all of those conflicting interests.

I love you L_rd, Baruch HaShem, and I pray that you remain with me at the times when I let myself slide into despair. I know you will, so please help me to remain firm in that knowledge.

Bloodlines

2010-02-07T21:09:00.000-08:00

Been having DNA tests done recently to find out some details about my heritage. It seems that my maternal line is fairly undiluted Saami while my paternal side is Ashkenazi. Very cool and very weird, considering my religious experiences have concerned shamanic initiation into a reindeer herd and a vision of the lion of Judah - actually witnessed by a friend at the same time, so I know it wasn't just in my head.

Baruch HaShem.

Censored Again!

2010-01-20T15:20:00.000-08:00

Just a quick post. It is pathetic how little the atheists are prepared to engage in actual direct debate with theists in their forums and blogs. I have recently been involved in debating with a bunch of Young Australian Skeptics who kept hammering on against religion, especially Christianity and especially Catholic Christianity. The inevitable happened in the end, as it always does. I was banned and my last posts were censored. Accusations were thrown that I am some kind of troll or spammer. My links and quotes are allegedly hearsay whereas theirs are allegedly hard fact.

When my friend Julie posted a response after my ban which included a couple of important links, the links were removed, while the link an atheist posted in response stayed.

These are people who pride themselves on being free thinkers and who condemn the Church for censorship of ideas. It always ends up turning nasty, however pleasant and reasonable I try to be and however much I bear the jibes, playground-level insults and accusations. I suppose I'll just have to find solace in the fact that the vast majority of people in the world do believe in G_d and the noises a few vocal atheists make is unlikely to affect that overmuch. I'm just always taken aback a little by how much they reveal their true colours when subjected to the pressure of debate.

Nothing New Under The Sun

2010-01-11T22:06:00.000-08:00

I recently discovered that my last post is in keeping with Judaic thinking - which seems to be increasingly becoming a habit.

G_d is in charge, nothing happens by chance and bad stuff only happens to bring about greater good in the long run. Works for me :)

Positive and Negative

2009-12-12T00:06:00.000-08:00

We are conditioned to accept that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that positive and negative are held in equal balance. But such a situation would not yield a sustainable universe, since the negatives would always cancel out the positives before anything got off the ground. I think therefore it is more logical to think of a universe that is being sustained by a bias towards positivity. We see evidence of this all around us: programmed as we are for survival, adaptability and procreation. Therefore, I would suggest that for every perceivable negative in the micro, there must be a greater positive in the macro, whether or not we are able to see it. This answer makes sense of a benevolent creator creating a world that contains disasters, crises and wars.

Anti-sceptic Solution

2009-12-11T18:50:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from "Know Who You Are" by Rabbi Manis Friedman.
http://www.chabad.org/generic_cdo/aid/807781/jewish/The-Story-of-Life.htm

Rabbi Friedman had just discussed cultivating a Jewish identity in children. He went on to discuss the doubtful or sceptical mindset that creeps into adult minds....

So let's speak for a moment about what happens to adults. How does an adult lose that security? We lose it because we start to doubt. What is this thing called "doubt"? Somebody asks you, "do you really think G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians in it?" What are you supposed to say? What you're supposed to say is, "What, are you asking me? You're asking me about what happened three thousand years ago? Why do you expect me to know this? So if somebody says, "do you really think G_d split the sea?" If you say "Yes", where are you coming from? If you say "No", what are you talking about? The only correct answer is, "How am I supposed to know? What kind of question is this?" So do I think G_d split the sea? Crazy. They say he did, so, he did.

People who want to feel sophisticated will say, "Well, I doubt it." You doubt it? What does that mean? What's a doubt? You think maybe yes, but then again, maybe not? Huh? What are you thinking? You can't know whether it did or didn't happen so how can you be in doubt? So either you simply don't know, and that's for sure, no doubt about it. Or, it's written and they say it happened, then it happened and there's no doubt about it. Where does doubt come into it? Now, if you say, "Yes, G_d split the sea and the Egyptians were drowned in the waters. Absolutely, definitely." A person would say to you, "Oh, you have a very strong belief. Your faith is a very strong faith." Don't confuse me, I have no faith. Faith is a whole different subject. I know for sure that G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians because that's what people say what happened. People say something happened, then it happened. Not because of faith. Because of ... I mean, that's life ... somebody comes from Australia and says there are weird animals there, they hop around on their back legs. If you say "Don't be crazy, I can't believe that." You're just not intelligent. They came from Australia, yeah? And in Australia there are funny animals. Do you have to have faith to believe that? Must you go yourself and check it out before you can accept it? People who were there came back and said, "there are these animals there." Fine, so, there are those animals, I have no doubt. I have no REASON to doubt. Does that mean that I'm taking a leap of faith? No. Faith is a whole different thing. This is not faith, so we're confused with these various functions. There's intelligence, there's faith, there's fact, and there's doubt. We've got to unravel this.

... If somebody says that G_d created the world in 6 days, do you believe that? It's not a question of belief. Either He did or He didn't. So whether I believe it or not won't make any difference. Torah says, my Grandfather says, Jews have always believed that G_d created the world. So - that's the way it is. It's the status quo, not a leap of faith. So when a Jew says "we received the 10 commandments at Mt. Sinai, out there in the Sinai desert, that's a factual statement. Was I there? No. Can I prove it? Why do I need to prove it? If somebody comes from Australia and tells me there are kangaroos, then there are kangaroos. I have to prove it? How am I supposed to prove it? I was never in Australia. So if people tell us that G_d gave us the Torah at Mt. Sinai, on the 6th day of the month of Sivan 3,315 years ago, that's fine. That's true, it's factual, has nothing to do with faith, and there's no reason to doubt. Now a person would say "but wait a minute. G_d spoke? C'mon." What is the problem with G_d speaking? What's the problem? The problem is I never heard Him speak. In fact I don't know anyone who did hear Him speak. ... [but] the fact that I've never heard G_d speak, I don't know anyone who has heard G_d speak... it only happened that one time. So? That doesn't make it a subject of faith. It was a weird event. There was a Tsunami. Really? Hasn't been one in years. True, but there was one a few years ago. So it was an unusual event, it was a one time event, but it happened because people were there and they say that it happened. Do I need to have a leap of faith to trust what people experience? I don't. If I say I doubt it then ... I'm neither here nor there. What do you mean "you doubt it"? "Well you know, G_d speaking - that's weird!" G_d creating the world? I doubt that." What do you mean you doubt it? If it's so weird that you can't relate to it, then you reject it, you don't doubt it. If it's not that weird, then why are you doubting?

So, where does faith come in? G_d created the world. That's not faith. G_d gave us the Torah. That's not faith. G_d split the sea? That's not faith. G_d made a flood and an ark.. and Noah survived in an ark, that's the fact.... unless you have proof otherwise. But you can't say it didn't happen because you don't know anyone who was there. That's not intelligent. So if all of that is simply fact, then what's faith? Faith applies to subjects that can't be known. CAN'T be known. Can't be experienced. For example, G_d is deeply affected by how we behave. When we do a Mitzvah it gives Him great pleasure and when we do a sin it gives Him great pain. That's a matter of faith. Because - I don't understand that. How can what I do affect G_d? And how am I expected to know that? So if a bunch of people saw G_d split the sea? OK - so now I know. But how do we know how G_d feels? That's a matter of faith. So it's not something I can explain, G_d is infinite - why should He be affected by what I do? So it doesn't make sense. Nobody ever experienced it, 'cause we're talking about how G_d feels, not something He did. So there was no experience and it doesn't follow logically that that should be, therefore I have only one choice: believe it or don't believe it. But doubt? What's doubt?

In a class once we were talking about the subject, there was a woman there who was having a hard time with certainties. So everything that was discussed, her reaction was "but how can you be sure? Maybe not. But how do you know? But maybe not!" So finally one time I said to her "You know, this 'maybe not' is not a good argument. You're just torturing yourself. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe you're not really your mother's daughter, maybe you got switched in the hospital... I meant to be ridiculous, she said "aaahhh!! Oh my G_d!!" (Rabbi Friedman Laughs) Another thing to worry about. The maybes are not doubts, they're insecurities. So doubt really is an unnecessary and unhappy state of affairs. When you're in doubt, you don't know anything more than you did before, but you're less happy. Because doubts drain your enthusiasm for life. If you live with doubts, you're not a happy person.

And that's why when a person gets really intense about life, or life becomes intense, and there are difficulties, we naturally return to the simple facts of life. Who am I? Who am I? You've got to get back to the fundamentals when things gets tough. And the reason things are tough is because they're too complex. You've got to go back to simple facts. I am me, you are you, this is what we do. Simple.

... happiness comes from certainty. When things are certain, even if they're difficult, it's easy to take. When I know who I am and I know what I ought to be doing, then doing it becomes a lot easier, even if there are difficulties. So, raising a child without doubts, that is the foundation on which a healthy life can be built.

Afterword by Joanna:

I recently wrote the following on another blog:

.... a skeptic refuses to believe anything that cannot be proven. So if you reject objective moral standards on the grounds that they are unprovable or at least have not yet been proven, you have no moral standards as yet to live by.

This is why I’m skeptical of skepticism — I think it is unproven as an effective, consistent or even workable way to live. In fact I think it to be unsustainable — every skeptic I have ever talked to seems to apply their skepticism selectively.

I see no reason to replace my Judeo-Christian value base, which I think has proven itself, with a void. If someone tells me something, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I think I have reason not to do so. Yes, this does make a virtue of trust. If I feel compelled to do research and after researching whatever their statement was I find conflicting opinions, I might choose to be agnostic about it, but I could not assume to be negative about the issue until the positive is proven. That is a negative bias, which is not balanced. I’m neutral rather than nihilistic. In a court of law, lack of evidence is NOT in itself evidence of lack and circumstantial evidence is still viewed as evidence. That’s a workable system, but it is at least neutral rather than skeptical. In fact you could describe it as positive since an alleged criminal is considered innocent until proven guilty. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt reflects a positive basis.

The problem with skepticism is that it is deeply self-absorbed. If someone tells you something, they might well be sharing real wisdom with you. If you insist that they prove their statement, they might wonder why they should bother. They might not care much whether you believe them or not, or, at least, might not see it as their role to have to prove themselves to you. So you potentially shut yourself off from wisdom by insisting that the world owes you an explanation for everything.

A religion is a way of life - you live it. If you are part of a society and there are laws you don't agree with, so what? What makes you so important you can pick and choose which laws to abide by? If everyone just observed the laws they felt like observing, society would fall apart. We don't have the time or the space for bespoke cultures. Society is not about the individual, at least, not while he is thinking only of himself. The more a person harmonises his or her will with the will of G_d, the less conflict there will be between his will and that of the Creator. The closer a person gets to holiness, the better he or she will understand that what is best for G_d, what is best for the greatest good of all is also what is best for him or her as an individual. That's incidental, but it is also true - don't doubt it.

Read the Debate So Far...

2009-11-17T23:17:00.001-08:00

I wrote my last post in response to a debate I'm having over at the Young Australian Skeptics blog (after stumbling across their article on a martial arts forum). Anyway, I thought my readers might like to read the debate that promoted the posts so here's a link to the original article and the latest comments. Please feel free to go back and read the earlier comments too to get everything in context.

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/the-catholic-church-itd-be-good-for-a-laugh-if-it-wasnt-so-serious/

EDIT - OK - it looks like the debate is over now - they look like they have closed it (edit edit - actually they haven't so I got in a goodbye, but it's fairly clear they'd like to close it). Over the course of it I argued against abortion and contraception in my first instance and had a mind to challenge anti-Catholicism along the way as and when it emerged, which it was always likely to given the initial subject matter. That said, I tried to keep the debate on track and limit it to the abortion issue to start with. As time went on though, I felt that the abortion and contraception argument had been won and so let the debate move on to the question of the proof of the existence of G_d. My main angle here was to argue through the logic of the arguments and to try to present logic along with philosophy, theology and religion as worthwhile mental pursuits and indeed other avenues for finding truth. As the debate neared its end, I tried to point out that science also requires faith, that faith is not such a bad thing anyway, that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, that people should avoid prejudice, that religion is not just a force for evil and that atheism can be... hopefully the readership of the blog will have been given some food for thought, even if just one point goes in - they might become freer thinkers for it, instead of turning into jeering atheist thugs. There is a dangerous trend in our current popular cult of secularism to recruit and cultivate a kind of "Hitler Youth" that do their best to raise up the modern atheist fuhrers and drown out any opposition by clashing cymbals and blowing whistles.

I think it's "funny" how the atheists so often start gibbering meaninglessly and calling on pagan gods when they want to shut out your words, seemingly losing all ability to spell or say anything other than random chaos at the time - a reason I'm also wary of xenoglossia. "DISEMSOCKETED" is a new word on me - I can't even make out what it's meant to be.

EDIT Mk II
Actually they kept it open after all - it seems to be fizzling out though, and in reasonably good spirits (though they still haven't answered my main argument).

Evidence of G_d

2009-11-17T13:57:00.000-08:00

What does science - what does experience and evidence tell us about the essential nature of the universe?

Firstly we can say that we have never experienced anything bringing itself into being by itself. Everything we see being created is created or caused by something else. That is significant because rationally speaking it suggests very strongly that the universe itself cannot logically have brought itself into being.

Let's take as a basis the idea of a finite universe because science currently understands the universe to be finite. Where is the universe? When is the universe? It cannot be anywhere finite because that just creates the problem again of where and when within infinity a different finite entity might exist. Of course, if the universe is finite, as we suppose, there must be something outside of it and beyond it in terms of time and space precisely because a finite universe has edges - it runs out. What is beyond that? You might say "nothing" OK - so there is an infinite nothingness outside of the universe.

Now this infinite nothingness is the setting for our finite universe.

Returning to the original question, what was the catalyst that brought our finite universe into being? It cannot logically have brought itself into being because in order to do so it would have had to have existed before it existed in order to be able to bring itself into being and that is a contradiction. So the finite thing must have somehow been brought into being from outside of itself by something outside of itself. If we decide that the entity that brought the universe into being was another finite entity, we have to keep going back until we get to an uncaused cause - a prime mover - an infinite entity. Given that it brought the universe into being, it is fairer to perhaps call this infinite nothingness a somethingness but it doesn't matter a lot - it is infinite and we are not. Religious folk call this uncaused cause God. He has many names, not of all of them male. A Hindu saying states "there is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many different ways". We know He cannot be more than one because if He was more than one, none of them would be infinite - each would have limits of some kind.

Now let's quickly address the concept of an infinite universe. Personally I think this is another reasonable proposition, at least theologically. We know that all matter is energy moving at a given speed. The faster energy goes, the closer it is to light and the slower it goes, the closer it is to matter. Light energy alone is both wave and particle. It is the stuff of the universe. This tells us that everything - everything is light. Everything is energy. Nothing is really ever created or destroyed it only changes into something else. Such an infinite universe has simply always existed and will always exist, changing ad infinitum. Everything in such a universe is part of one big energy field manifesting in all manner of permutations of finite distinct entities including ourselves. In such a universe everything is the same as God is the same as the universe. We are one and distinct at the same time but ultimately there is nowhere and no when for us to go outside of the universe because it goes in forever in all directions ad infinitum. Such a universe is in itself at least as sentient as the sum total of the beings it manifests itself as, and possibly more so, perhaps having the benefit of collective as well as individual simultaneous consciousnesses. Even if we decide that there is a finite amount of energy or matter in such a universe, it is set within an infinite space and so we just need to include that space within our definition of what constitutes the universe.

Believers in a finite universe have a theological problem with the second thesis because it proposes that the universe itself breaks the rule of nothing being able to bring itself into being. This would be a problem if the universe was finite but if the universe is synonymous with G_d it wouldn't, which is why I don't have too much of a problem with it.

Evidence of Lack...

2009-11-11T02:06:00.000-08:00

A statement I heard this morning got me thinking.

That statement was "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

The implications of this statement are profound, significantly challenging the myth of secular objectivity.

Were I to say to someone "I had 6 corn crackers for breakfast today - 3 with peanut butter and 3 with strawberry jam" they would probably believe me, even though I could provide them with no evidence at all. Because it wouldn't challenge their world view in any way, they could probably just accept the statement as a fact.

However, were I to tell the average person that I saw an angel this morning, most people would say "no - that did not happen". I might even be able to produce an eye-witness - a friend who saw the angel too, but the sceptic would in all likelihood still say "no that did not happen."

I'm not suggesting that every statement that anyone could make is equally credible. Nor am I suggesting we should not exercise discernment when trying to ascertain truth. What I am saying is that this fact strongly calls into question the often accepted objectivity of the secular materialists.

Not that I can prove it, so you'll just have to trust me.

Proof Of God

2009-11-06T17:44:00.000-08:00

You want proof for the existence of God?

You're looking at it and you're thinking with it.

There is no other explanation for existence.

Note that I do not say there is no other credible or acceptable explanation.

There simply is no other explanation.

Those who deny the existence of God, merely evade the issue since evasion is the only option open to them. Denial of God is a deliberate act that flies in the face of reason.

Another One Bites The Dust

2009-11-05T00:48:00.000-08:00

Tragic to say that another relative has just died - this one aged 17 months - a case of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Those closest to her are keeping pretty quiet about the cause of her suddenly stopping breathing but I know the statistics. 81% of SIDS cases are connected to smoking in some way - whether the mother smoked during pregnancy or the child was subjected to smoke inhalation subsequently.

It is important people know the truth so that future similar events can be prevented, but from my dealings with them in recent years, i know that our customer-centred health service is very disinclined to tell people things they might not want to hear.

How many more innocent children will have to die before tobacco is banned completely?

Incidentally, I was raised in a smoke filled womb and a smoke filled house after that and now need supplemental oxygen 24 / 7. My prognosis due to parenchymal lung disease is rather pessimistic. I remain hopeful, but despite being just 41 years old, the chances of my ever living without oxygen and permanent steroid treatment are very slim (medically considered impossible).

Big Brother.... or Facebook

2009-09-15T03:10:00.001-07:00

Haven't written for a long while - life has been busy. Mostly I haven't had as much time to sit at my computer over the summer - too many other things to do!

Some junk mail today made me think. It seems like on Facebook, people are revealing a lot of information about themselves. Ironic isn't it then how much fuss people make about ID cards and how often people complain about being monitored by the state. It seems like "Big Brother" (whoever he is) can rely on plain old vanity publishing - the cult of EVERYONE is a celebrity - to get people to reveal their whereabouts and actions minute by minute.

And I've just added to it :O

Must go walk dog... then I'll be... oh, you know where to find me...

tnx 4 lstnng

Aim High and Expect Nothing

2009-03-06T23:58:00.000-08:00

I've been struggling a bit recently with some health problems that may possibly be related to the treatment I received over 25 years ago for a lymphatic cancer that almost killed me. I am nonetheless extremely grateful for that treatment. It is pretty much a miracle I am here at all - I really was brought back from the brink. I remember at the time people called me brave which used to annoy me tremendously. "How is it that someone with cancer automatically becomes brave?" I would snap. "I didn't choose this - if I had, I might be brave!" To this they might respond "but you cope with it - I don't know how you manage to cope with it" to which I would reply even more grumpily "and what's the alternative? Not coping? What would I have to do to not cope? Die presumably - well that's not an option. I put up with it because I have no other choice". I saw things very simply when I was 13 years old.

But it got me to thinking this morning about how we have to be grateful to God for all the good things we have. Even if, as one doctor suggested, ANY part of my recovery were down to me and how well I "coped", none of that is actually my doing because I didn't make me. But I know how atheists might retort - if that is the case how can I ever condemn a wrong action? If everything is predetermined anyway - God must be responsible for everything. Yet we know that is not the case - we know we have free will that we can use for good or ill.

The top and bottom of it is that if we "aim high and expect nothing" as I used to say, we can be happier, more productive and more useful people. I know there are many hedonists who would ask why we have to try - why can't we just seek pleasure? Why can't we just be totally selfish?

But the truth is we know that we can do BETTER. God has put on our hearts the knowledge and ability to aspire to something greater than that. If we are grateful for every blessing sent our way AND attribute all of our successes to God rather than to ourselves, this process produces the kindest and most helpful people on the planet. The world becomes a more benevolent place as a result. In this sense, we can be said to be made in God's image. We know what we are capable of and this removes any excuses we might have had for not trying to be good.

Now there will be those who say that this is what makes us distinct from animals, but I am not such a person. I would say that human beings are the only species we can speak authoritatively about in this regard. It is like, the Catholic Church does not say that only Christians will get to heaven. They recognise that there are truths in other faiths and sincere believers in those faiths who surely do get to heaven. But the Church can only speak authoritatively about Catholics. In much the same way we can only speak authoritatively for ourselves. We should not expect animals to live in the same way we prescribe for ourselves.

This probably also teaches us that we can only really speak for ourselves as individuals - we should not condemn humans who behave badly because we do not know their motives. But this somewhat contradicts the call to "rebuke the sinner".

Well, we are told to forgive each other "70 x 7 times" which is a poetic way of saying we should be indefinitely forgiving. But I suppose we also have to recognise that we are free to speak up and if we didn't make people aware of how they could live, then they are not going to know. The messages that liberal, pleasure-driven consumer culture sends out are to be selfish and greedy, and we have to present an alternative. We are as free to live our lives as they are to live theirs. We can no longer assume that people will know what Christian values are.

Of course in this respect we have to lead by example. We have to live lives others will be inspired by for them to listen to us at all. As St. Francis put it, we should "Proclaim the Gospel and when necessary use words".

Who's To Say?

2009-02-18T09:17:00.000-08:00

A popular batllecry of the cultural relativists - those who say we should all live and let live and not criticise the habits of other cultures, no matter how abhorrent - is "who's to say?" "who's to say what's right and wrong?". (I blame Star Trek and their "Prime Directive".)

Here's a good retort. "Who are you to say who's to say and who's not to say? I say I'm to say! What do you say about that? Are you going to tolerate that, or not?"

That should get them thinking. Hopefully.

The Reformation Legacy

2009-02-07T15:22:00.000-08:00

Secular society quickly reverts to paganism - with no sense of ultimate purpose, people feel pointless, life becomes superficial and self-absorbed. When we cease looking upwards and onwards and outwards stretching out into infinity to the greatest good imaginable (and unimaginable), we look inward and listen only to what our hungry senses ask for. A life lived sating these sensory pleasures becomes increasingly ensnared, enslaved and commanded by them.

A post-Christian culture buys the lie that we are doomed to live a wholly material and temporary existence. Selves become fleeting bit parts in an endless cycle of life, death and rebirth.

Our culture increasingly embraces deconstructionism, denial of reality, relativism, drug taking, nihilism, hedonism, temporal pleasure rather than lasting joy. Such pleasures cannot last because the more they are fed the more ingrained those hungers become. Thus people cultivate - nurture - their weaknesses and they grow ever stronger until they take over the whole person. Even if they do not take over the person's whole life immediately, they will take over as much of it as they can and will strive to extend their grip at all times.

I had a conversation today with someone who likes to smoke dope because he says it relaxes him. He does not realise that 10 spliffs are evil and that makes one spliff evil too. Such things are truly evil because they make the smoker immerse in themselves and forget others.

I have known many marijuana smokers in my time. Some were and I'm sure many still are are drug dealers - that is how they spend their time, paying for and feeding their habit. That is their whole existence. Quite a few are now dead, whether because they took a lethal cocktail of drugs or were murdered by other drug users. Some went to prison for murder. Many have settled into addiction to harder drugs such as the white powders, or sunk into alcoholism and habitual dope smoking. Even one spliff is evil (yes I genuinely use that word in an informed and considered way) because it makes the smoker immerse inwards into their own sensory gratification and that is the start of big problems. It leads to neurosis and even psychosis. The biggest mistake people make is thinking they can flirt with dark things and win. Pride invested in that myth can only grow into ever greater levels of prideful self-centredness.

Darkness is bigger, more intelligent more adaptable and more deceitful than any individual can know. The more a person allows their head to be filled with the pretension that they can handle their weakness, the more ensnared by its hold they become as they grow oblivious to its power. And thus the drug user says "I could stop any time I like." But they never do, until they turn their life around and stop completely. The only solution is to focus outwards - on the greatest good of all. Don't settle for anything less. We can all achieve ever greater levels of benevolence and goodness, but not while we fool ourselves into thinking that a little of what we fancy never does us any harm. It already has done us harm by making us believe that lie. We fool ourselves into saying things like "you've got to die of something" or "everything is harmful" or "in moderation, everything is OK".

These statements are factually inaccurate. All you have to do is think about it.

A healthy diet with lots of fresh fruit and vegetables is better for you than a diet of junk food. The times you lapse and eat junk food does not do your body good - it only harms it. Ten grease-ball burgers bad, one grease-ball burger bad.

Ten cigarettes are bad, but having just one is bad too. Having just one cigarette could potentially kill you or someone you make breathe in your smoke. The poisons it contains will certainly harm your health - they can do nothing else. There is no such thing as a healthy cigarette.

Medical opinion is a little divided on small amounts of alcohol, but the truth is that those small amounts that are said to beneficial are only said to be so because something in wine can help counteract cholesterol. Drinking is not getting to the root of the problem - lowering your cholesterol intake would be. And the low levels are much lower than most people who drink do drink. Getting drunk is decidedly unhealthy.

There is no such thing as "a healthy line of speed" or "heroin in healthy moderation". I personally don't believe in alcohol in moderation either: it is far too habit-forming and character changing. It clouds judgement. Anyone who has ever done something silly or something they have later regretted while drunk knows this. I know of several murders that have taken place because someone had sexual relations with someone they shouldn't have while they were both under the influence of drink and / or drugs. And then the drink and drug fueled boyfriend has murdered her or him or both - I know of each such instance...

Don't buy the lie that to be a so-called "free spirit" is a good thing. All too often people who fancy themselves to be "free spirits" are really just slaves to their temporal pleasures. There are more useful things to be and usefulness to the greater good is why we are here.

I truly believe that the Reformation began a major cultural decline.

From Calvin through Darwin through Marx through Freud... our actions have been said to be predetermined by God, by biology, by the state, by our upbringing...

These determinist, defeatist philosophies go against the reality of free will and personal responsibility. We are told that we are not responsible for our actions. We kid ourselves that the responsibility lies elsewhere. (Thanks to Fr. George Rutler for pointing this out.)

I know full well how hard lives can be, but the truth is universal. How we deal with whatever it is that life throws at us is down to us. We should not allow ourselves to get hysterical or emotional when we hear these words. Yes of course some people never get a chance, but we cannot allow that to blind us to the fact that the rest of us have at least some degree of control over our destinies and are able to make a great many choices. Most people reading this are in pretty fortunate circumstances considering the quality of life of all peoples and animals in all nations. So many good things that our modern culture takes for granted are the fruits of Catholic Christendom.

Let's pledge to make good choices. Let's strive to make each action as benevolent as possible, for goodness own sake.

Put down that spliff. Put down that rebellious record. Push aside the politics of scapegating and hatred. Say "no" to the new controversial philosophy. Put that shocking book back on its shelf. Don't be disaffected, don't be daring, Just be Good.

Try to remember what that means - it has almost become a dirty word. But goodness can only be a dirty word in a dirty world.

The Good News

2009-02-07T15:14:00.000-08:00

The Good News is that Jesus gave his life in one great final sacrifice - ending animal sacrifices and scapegoating - sacrificing the only life he had a right to sacrifice - his own.

He did this in atonement for the sins of the whole world, for all peoples in all times, past, present and future. His was a transcendental sacrifice. By doing this, the world was finally liberated from the pagan cyclic world of life, death and rebirth - from fatalism, karma, magic and neuroses - from false, human-devised paradigms that are only pale imitations of the complete reality. If we let our pride fool us into investing belief in such false models of the world, they will rule us through our fear.

All we have to qualify for this grace of atonement is be genuinely sorry for our shortcomings and strive to overcome them. We need to put our remorse into action - as James put it "faith without deeds is dead". A meaningful apology leads to a permanent change of behaviour. If no change follows, we were not sorry enough. Confession can heal the soul, knowing that God forgives you and loves you anyway however many times you fail. We need to know that He is endlessly forgiving so that we never give up on ourselves - we never believe the lie that it is too late for us. It is never too late.

I know someone who contacts me who is immersed in the Occult. I spedn time trying to help him in any way I can but of course he is totally closed to Christianity - it is "anything, ANYTHING but that" for him. Such revulsion is so very telling if peope could only see it. He feels he is under constant attack from spells, targeting his chakras and making him ill. I sometimes wish he could divert the magic that he feels is pointed at him and his so-called chakras and have it pointed at me instead where it could not take root, for I have no chakras. Like when people send a chain letter to be destroyed by someone who doesn't believe in bad luck.

A friend of mine in America has had people try to "disrupt his qi" and all that nonsense and it has had zero effect, the excuse being either that he has too much or too little qi. From my friend's perspective, he has never spent a moment cultivating qi - he doesn't believe in it. Consequently, he is unaffected by it. I've heard time and again qi-believers admit that a student has to be conditioned to be able to feel their "Master's qi" - they have to be conditioned into being qi-sensitive. They give themselves over to that hypnosis because pride tells them they are becoming special, deep, internal, elite, whatever... really they just willingly let down their guard and allow the brainwashing to commence.

A book I found genuinely useful on suh matters was "The Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, the only rather large snag being his atheism. I also watched a TV programme by Richard Dawkins and found myself agreeing with 95% of it. He was focussing on the new-age alternative health culture. But he felt that he had to throw in digs about religions too which were out of place and wholly unnecssary. Crucially they were just not relevant.

In a sense I do think atheism is a natural progression of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Prophets like Daniel and Elijah were the qi-busters of their day. But by rejecting God as well, people revert quickly back to pagan self-absorption. Without a sense of the objective benevolence - the greatest good of all - without a sense of purpose people once again allow themselves to be sucked into blind orbits of despair and fatalism. In such a world, self-gratification becomes the only thing a person lives for. They have ironically forgotten that how unimportant the individual is. Even self-loathing and suicidal thoughts are just self-absorption. Faith so lifts the heart that it must be True - the Greatest, Truest Truth of all. Faith works where atheism doesn't. We need to reject hopelessness, superstition and fatalism but we must replace them with faith, hope, charity, love...

That's the Good News, from my perspective.

Music, Art and New Beginnings

2009-01-04T11:20:00.000-08:00

Confucius said that you can tell the morality of a nation by its music. I think I know what he means. Although I grew up on a broad diet of popular music from the classic to the psychedelic and the progressive to the punk, there is little joy or hope to be found in any of the lyrics of the multiple music collections I have acquired, abandoned or rediscovered over my 40 years.

I often try to listen back to tapes and CDs only to find gut-wrenching misery in those lyrics. It is so disproportionate how many popular songs are about heartache, heartbreak and vengeance. If the subject matter is of a more political bent, it is amazing how much of it is cynical. Popular singers are largely just a bunch of critics.

The thing is though that I still like some of the sounds of popular and rock orientated music. We really do need more wholesome, happy, God-centred music to come and replace all the gangster rap and lusty broken relationship songs.

The thing is that I used to be a singer and a songwriter - I wasted many years pursuing that dream and when I finally had the opportunity of a record deal, my backing band pulled out. I tried to throw a new band together in time, but failed and decided ultimately that the music business was too fickle and uncertain a place to be putting all one's hopes and dreams. I decided then to do something where hard work guaranteed success and got into martial arts as my new career.

Several years ago I took a drastic step. I destroyed all of my own music recordings on the grounds that it had nothing positive to offer. Every word and every chord struck deep into the heart of the listener and offered them only bleakness, sadness, melancholy, hopelessness... my music was vast and spacious, ambient and crazy and had a negative power to influence and move people towards something wholly bad. So I felt. Recently (after a long absence) I bought a new guitar in the hope of creating something more positive, uplifting and devotional. I won't be pursuing any kind of musical career again, whatever the result.

I rarely wonder whether or not I did the right thing by destroying my own musical back-catalogue - anytime I think it through, with a slight shudder I feel glad that it has gone. If some might see my musical history as therapy (I was clearly not a very happy soul), I'd be inclined to answer that it was a part of the problem rather than the solution.

We CAN dwell on bleakness, or we can snap out of it and go and do something useful. Musicians and artists can be a self-indulgent lot and I genuinely wonder how useful such "art" is, if it can really be called art when it is not inspired by anything divine and speaks only of being entrenched in worldliness. Popular music caters to a niche of angst-ridden teenagers who are trying to get to grips with the world, but I think that all too often the musicians get stuck in that angst-ridden teen mindset and just stay there because their careers are built on it. Our teens surely need some more positive role models than the popular music world ever delivers. Hopefully those of us who grew up listening to those rock stars will grow out of it.

It isn't that I particularly wrote about the things that others would see as worldly. In fact my lyrics were quite philosophical in their own way. But they were still hugely self-indulgent. It is an easy trap to fall prey to in the world of performance where personality has become such a thing of status.

I had a rather animistic, Daoist or perhaps Hindu sense of Godness back then inasmuch as I did not really recognise the otherness of God. I saw God in everything and struggled to differentiate between Creator and creation. I had never been taken through Aquinas' logic concerning the un-produced producer and how a finite universe needed a separate and distinct creator.

Nothing can produce itself because to do so it would have to exist before it existed in order to bring itself into existence. I suppose the counter-argument would have to be that everything is part of the infinite and finite existence is just an illusion, but how are things which are inherently infinite fooled by such an illusion and why? It doesn't answer the fundamental question of HOW something infinite can manifest as something finite either. How do you create linear progressions of time within a single point of infinity with no beginning, middle or end? Surely you can't and the finite matter would have to be separate and distinct from its creator.

I'm sure God knows how it all works As for the rest of us, whether we're Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian or Sikh, we'll each have our own ways of trying to understand it, but I do believe that it is possible and probable that some of us are closer to The Truth (for such a thing truly must exist,) than others. It is pretty clear that none of us are gods, or we'd already know.

Daoist Philosophy and the Cult of Relativism.

2008-12-28T09:29:00.000-08:00

In certain circles, those identifying themselves as relativists are hugely drawn to Eastern philosophies such as Daoism and Zen and I think there can be much confusion between them. Nowhere is the popular Taiji (or Yin - Yang) symbol more misused than in the hands of those relativists and nihilists who are drawn to Eastern alternatives to Western spirituality.

Invariably these secular mystics focus in on one specific aspect of the most popular rendition of the Taiji symbol, that of the presence of the spot of Yin within the Yang half and the spot of Yang within the Yin. This, they think, means essentially that nothing is real, for each state contains within it an aspect of its opposite thereby canceling out the validity of either state as anything absolute. In truth this reveals a coffee table book understanding of Taiji philosophy.

It is true that Daoist philosophy along with Confucian philosophy (the Taiji symbol belongs no more to one than the other) does make certain observations of the phenomenal world inasmuch as day is seen to transform into night and from there back to day again. Seasons come and go in a continuous fluctuating cycle of change. Virtue might be said to be found in moderation - balanced between extreme behaviours. But none of this calls into question the validity of those extremes. Nor does it obliterate the reality of night and day, or that of winter and summer.

Something that the modern relativist thinkers don't get about Daoism is that it is a prescribed way - the fist classic writing is called the Classic of the Way of Virtue, acknowledging that there is a right way to live one's life and that there is such a thing as virtue.

There is a world of difference between recognising that virtue might be found within the delicate balancing of opposing stimuli and stating that neither vice nor virtue exist at all. There is also a vast difference between recognising the existence of subjectivity and relativity in the world and declaring that great self-contradictory battle-cry of the relativist, that everything is relative. Further, while the truth may at times reveal paradoxes, not every paradox is true. Paradox itself is not a virtue, sometimes it can simply be a meaningless and unhelpful intellectual conceit.

It is true to say that Daoism reveres what Aristotle and Confucius might have described as the Golden Mean - the desirable middle between two extremes, but in order to be able to recognise this state of balance, one must first acknowledge the reality of the two opposing forces being balanced and to do this one must be able to recognise the truth of absolute or objective existence. Any attempt to compromise between two subjectively shifting states would arrive at nothing other than confusion. But then every angle this new popular relativist philosophy takes makes no sense when simply taken to its natural and very real conclusion.

Crucially it is also necessary to re-iterate that for the balance to be seen as virtuous it is necessary to acknowledge that certain behaviours are considered to be more desirable or virtuous than others, thereby creating a scale with right action at one end and wrong action at the other.

Finally, relativism and situationism are not the same. Whatever subjective or extenuating conditions you place on a thing and however many shades or degrees you designate along the way, (and here it may be worth pointing out that the Taiji symbol depicts clear halves of back and white rather than being a circle of mid-grey) for those conditions to relate to anything at all you must begin by discerning the reality of this and that.

I'll finish with a quote from an Incredible String Band Song:

"I mixed stones and water just to see what it would do
and the water it got stony and the stones got watery too.
So I mixed my feet with water just to see what could be seen
and the water it got dirty, and the feet they got quite clean."

Virgin Birth

2008-12-13T03:18:00.000-08:00

I had a very simple thought yesterday about a significant component of our contemporary pagan culture that is in direct opposition to the virgin birth of Christ.

Whereas the Virgin Mary gave birth to life without having sexual intercourse, the current trend is to have sexual intercourse without producing life (thwarting the development of life by use of various contraceptives or exterminating life through abortion).

Mary allowed her life to be reshaped by this gift of birth whereas the modern trend is to not allow life-making (the natural outcome of sexual intercourse) to interfere with one's lifestyle. People want the orgasms without having to take on the responsibility of child raising that naturally accompanies such activity.

This has led me to a more general train of thought. It is quite curious the extent to which our culture appears to set itself up to be the precise opposite of Catholic Christianity, but then paganism always was in direct opposition to Judaism and Christianity.

The simple choice is between:
a) voluntarily doing what is morally right, and
b) simply being compelled to obey physical urges, the natural outcome of which is to become enslaved by them.

Do you wish to live in a world of:
a) people willingly sharing and giving, or
b) people taking what they want by force.

Free will can only exist in a world where we consciously temper our temporal desires and are prepared to actively conquer our weaknesses. We should aim to go from strength to strength in the knowledge that whenever we stop fighting we will inevitably slip into decline. It is a battle of mind over matter - of hope over fatalism - of virtue over vice. Lasting joy comes from prudently conquering one's short-sighted physical self for the sake of the greatest good. Without such self-mastery there can be no heroes or heroines.

Good, Bad or Indifferent?

2008-12-12T09:53:00.000-08:00

A person can decide that good is really bad and that bad is really good - all that is then required is to swap the terms around so that henceforth good becomes the word that describes what they now call bad, and vice versa.

But if a relativist protests that both things are in reality neutral, they rob themselves of the faculty of discernment that allows us to think, to create and even to live. Without discernment, how could we distinguish nutritious berries from poisonous ones?

I'm sure some relativists might argue that physical facts and moral issues are not the same, but that being the case, without discernment, how do they distinguish the two?

Furthermore, if they argue that the moral dimension does not really exist and that morality is merely a subjective conjuration of the mind and that the mind is purely physical (biological, bioelectrical and biochemical) then isn't that an inadvertent recognition of the tangible and effective reality of morality?

Today Is Human Rights Day!

2008-12-10T00:42:00.000-08:00

Apparently it is "Human Rights Day" today. I hope they remember the unborn. See my previous post.

Abortion Is Murder

2008-12-09T02:21:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to write something about this subject for a while, but find it too emotive to quite find the words. I don't necessarily blame mothers who have abortions when they have been raised in a culture that says abortion is an acceptable procedure or even actively encourages it. The society that permits and promotes abortion is the murderer.

I think I'll let pictures say the rest of what I wish to say. First is a "foetus" or preborn baby at 16 weeks:

Here's a preborn baby at 20 weeks:

Next is a remarkable picture of a 21 week old preborn who was operated on for spina bifida. He is called Samuel Alexander Armas and is seen here being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.

The baby would not survive if removed from his mother's womb but Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta and she knew of Dr. Bruner's surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr.Bruner completed the surgery, baby Samuel reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant he was just frozen, totally immobile.

Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person.'

Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation being 100 percent successful.

Here is a picture of a 21 week old foetus / child living outside the womb:

Now here is a preborn baby at just 9 weeks. This might be a time when some would claim that a preborn child is not really a child at all, but "just a bunch of cells". If this little child is just a bunch of cells, then so am I:

I considered posting a picture of an aborted foetus but couldn't bring myself to do it. I'm sure anyone who needs to be convinced that abortion is murder can find their own pictures on a Google image search. If you don't want to do that, there is a link you can click on from this page, but please be warned - it is a very disturbing sight and if you're anything like me it might just break your heart:

LINK

God bless.

Balance and Discernment

2008-12-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

I sometimes find myself at odds with prospective students. The typical student of the martial arts I teach likes to see himself as broadminded and capable of accepting alien paradigms. But what he really means is that he will accept everything Eastern and esoteric and nothing remotely Western, mundane or orthodox. I also find myself at odds with the brave new cynics who scoff at anything that is not purely material and repeatable under laboratory conditions. In truth they reject any notion of morality, soul or responsibility beyond their own physical desires and fashionable political whims.

I have been both a gullible willing believer of everything AND a hard-nosed materialist cynic. I think it is only now that I'm starting to achieve a balance of discerning that some things are true while others are false and it is not always obvious out in the world, where the truth lives. So I do not believe in magic, mystical powers and superhuman feats, but I know quite surely that there is such a thing as moral right and wrong. Such a position could not be more unfashionable as it lies somewhere outside of the two main populist factions of our time, the pagan and the atheist, the tastes of which being remarkably similar.

There are people who will remain in one worldview for their whole lives whilst others will undergo a dramatic and profound change of heart. Some may undertake a second radical change of direction, though it isn't so easy to accept that you've been wholly wrong twice. Of course, the existence of absolute truths means that some people are fortunate enough to recognise the truth from the outset. Such people are freer than the rest of us to enjoy fruitful lives.

The tools of discernment are none other than faith and reason. These are the two great winds that will steer a ship towards the truth, rather than our being tossed around at the mercy of the waves, or determinedly setting out to disprove the ocean.

40 Days For Life

2008-09-24T16:48:00.000-07:00

View this page

http://www.40daysforlife.com/about.cfm

Heros and Anti-Heroes

2008-09-21T00:53:00.000-07:00

I've gradually stopped watching mainstream TV as more and more programmes have become subject to the continuous decline in standards - more and more gritty, visceral, dark, twisted plot-lines and so-called "adult themes" (it seems that adults aren't allowed to enjoy innocent or benevolent ideas in their entertainment these days). The excuses given are that the new brand of TV programme better reflects "what people want" or "more accurately reflects real life". The truth is it only reflects what is bad in everyday life - the marriage break ups, the promiscuity, the murders. Even the cop shows usually have dark anti-hero (read sinful) "heroes".

Last night a young friend was chatting to me about various films he'd watched in recent years. I inquired about the heroes in those films with a touch of dread in my heart. I know from chats with other people too that film is walking the same path as mainstream TV.

It seems people no longer want heroes. Tales of good overcoming evil are considered corny or derided as childish these days. The so-called hero in so many films will actually be the bad guy. Why is this?

I'd have to put it down to a simple lowering of standards. People don't want good heroes any more because they don't want their role models to be better people than themselves. They want flawed heroes because they make it acceptable to be flawed. The darker we make our heroes, the less good we have to be. Pretty soon we're rooting for the bad guy.

So instead of aspiring to be saints we aspire to be sinners. And people wonder why the world is going to pieces and why darker, more gritty, visceral "adult themes" "better reflect real life". Be careful what you wish for.

More of the same...

2008-09-07T04:46:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted for a while - I've been so busy I haven't found much time to write down my thoughts on these subjects. Probably more of the same, but I see the fallout from moral relativism everywhere. Once your eyes have been opened to what is going on, it is scary some times seeing the direction human culture is headed towards. Anyway here goes with a rant I wrote on waking...

There will always be people trying to justify why it's OK to be selfish - why it's OK not to be altruistic - why it is OK to enjoy your life at the expense of other people, animals or the planet. I think the new craze for moral (or perhaps more accurately immoral) relativism in the West is the last thing we need right now. We need more Mother Teresa's, not more books called "The Selfish Gene". We're decadent enough in the industrialised West without attempted justifications for why greed and apathy are acceptable. "Moral relativism" is just another commodity we have assimilated into our rampantly consumer-capitalist culture and are using for our own selfish ends.

Bring back Good and Evil - oh - they never really went away - we just started calling them different things like "opinion" and "just another opinion"...

One of the biggest lies anyone ever told is the statement that we're all equally selfish. Tell that to St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Heaven & Hell

2008-06-17T03:45:00.000-07:00

Eastern religions give us this idea of the perfect afterlife as being a loss of self - a re-immersion into a greater whole. But is that really your idea of heaven? To cease to exist - to be absorbed - to completely lose yourself? How does that differ from a drugged or drunken stupour?

Wouldn't you prefer to be re-united with those you have loved and who have gone before, not in the sense of meeting the same terrible fate of simply being re-absorbed into some unfeeling power source, but to actually meet them - you as you and they as they. Wouldn't it be better to continue being you, but in an infinite sense - and a purer sense. Not to be less than you are now, but more? That is much closer to my idea of heaven. It isn't an ego thing - to be fair, the Eastern idea of re-immersion into godhead is hardly less so. I wouldn't want any special powers or to be the boss or anything. I'd be quite happy to be a subject of the Benevolent Creator.

I consider a complete loss of self to be quite a chilling prospect - the opposite of heaven in fact. And we know what the opposite of heaven is.

The Truth Revisited

2008-05-16T03:59:00.000-07:00

In several dialogues with people who pride themselves on having a hard, scientific outlook, I have encountered an interesting phenomenon. There seems to be no comprehension of the fact that one person can be right while other people are wrong.

Well, obviously this is only selectively applied, because they'd certainly tell me that THEY are right and I'M wrong, so I'll re-phrase that: there seems to be no comprehension of the fact that there is such a thing as fixed, immutable truth. They cannot grasp that one person's religion could quite easily be correct while others were incorrect - in an absolute sense, just as the Atlantic Ocean is made of water rather than soya milk.* (Really this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to me, after all, the same people have difficulty accepting that things such as rape, slavery or murder are wrong in any kind of real sense - that is, a sense that transcends cultural norms. I cannot even get those people to agree with me that kindness is better than cruelty!)

Anyway, yesterday morning it dawned on me why they might have such a big problem with the very concept of truth. Despite all their claims to hold "the truth" about the material world (and every other kind of world, if they have their way), the secularists know that tomorrow or next week they are going to have to change their rendition of it, because science does so continually. Each time, the latest theory is declared as a "scientific fact". Other views are seen as untrue because the latest set of experiments has "proved" it to be so. That is until the next "proof" comes along. How the universe "really" started or why the dinosaurs "really" died out is a constantly changing "truth." So the words "truth" and "proof" take on whole new meanings.

With "the scientific method" elevated to the status of a god, theory becomes "the truest thing there is". The actual Truth becomes devalued somewhat. It is evidently hard for people with such a mindset to have any strong faith or conviction - they don't want to adhere too firmly to an idea, only to look silly when it is yesterday's news.

Except of course, as I've already stated (in fact it is largely what this whole blog is about), they ARE certain that religion - ALL religion - is false and must be false. It CANNOT be true, even when it is proved to be - they will not allow it to be, even when it is. They have designed parameters that will not let religion in and will move them if it comes close. By declaring religion to be outside of the parameters of materialistic possibility, they aim to expel it from the whole universe. Though of course, a purely materialistic universe is not the REAL universe, but a construct of their own imaginations. The idea that the material universe is all there is, is just another uncontestable "truth" in their eyes.

I wonder if irony fits into their world view.

* Though of course, this might be quite hard to prove in a laboratory setting.

What's Your Agenda?

2008-04-28T01:45:00.000-07:00

We are living in very paranoid times. Prevalent messages are to "trust no one" because "everyone has an agenda". But every meaningful statement has an agenda - having an agenda is not in and of itself a bad thing. What you have to ascertain is what that agenda is.

We are also living in very individualistic times. Someone might hear a ruling from the Church about something and say "that's just about controlling people", but controlling people is not in and of itself a bad thing either. Every society has laws to try to control peoples' actions so that we do not run around freely murdering and abusing one another. So the question is what is the deeper agenda?

Some people might object to statements that we should be more charitable, because they don't like having to be charitable. That can just be put down to simple selfishness. But some people might hear statements about chastity and object because they object in principle to the idea that they should have to control their desires. They might turn such situations into a point of principle in their heads that they object to "being told what to do".

But the deep agenda of those chastity statements is to try to prevent people from having or aborting unwanted babies and to try to prevent unhappy, broken relationship histories.

Some people might hear messages about forgiveness and 'object' simply because they do not want to forgive. But the purpose - the deeper agenda of forgiveness is not to let people get away with doing bad things - we can still condemn unjust actions, but to prevent those wrong actions from doing us any more damage than necessary. Forgiveness is about not being consumed by bitterness and resentment - it does not eradicate righteous anger.

Sometimes people today are fond of pointing out that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?", because they don't like to hear any opinions that suggest they (or others) might benefit from them changing their behaviour. People object to such advice as a point of principle. But Jesus also said "now go and sin no more". He also chased the money-changers and sellers of sacrificial animals from the temple, so his message was not simply that we should do whatever we feel like, nor that we should object as a perverse point of principle should someone dare to express any view that advises self control or restraint. James 5:20 states "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

I'm amazed by how often someone has genuinely asked me for my perspective on something and because my viewpoint has involved a degree of self denial or abstinence, they have objected to my "forcing my opinion" on them.* It sometimes seems like the only advice people really want to hear is "do whatever you like" or "do whatever you think is right", but then they're not actually asking you for your advice - they're just asking for the go ahead to please themselves. They don't actually need your input to do that.

"No one has the right to do evil." - Fr. John Corapi

* These days I normally warn people first that my views are not typical for contemporary society. I double-check whether or not they really want to hear my opinion and warn them that they might well not like it. It isn't uncommon for another person to hear my perspective and say "Hmm.... well that's your opinion." which is a bit of a conversation stopper. If I'm really lucky they might add on the end "... which, of course, you are entitled to. And I'm entitled to mine."

Ego and Asceticism

2008-04-28T01:15:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on of ego - I think it is important not to focus on it too much - not to make a potentially obsessive ego investment in humility - it doesn't matter what 'sort of person' you are so much as long as you behave correctly. Obedience to benevolent principles is more important than how it feels. Sometimes people get caught up in 'self cultivation' and it renders them useless.

Regarding asceticism - I would call myself ascetic (for ease) in relation to our consumer culture, but again, it isn't about investing ego in the identity of being ascetic.

The way I see it, it isn't really about self denial - it is about not indulging sensory pleasures that can potentially grow and become more insistent and from there habitual. I see it more as not cultivating desire in the first place, rather than eliminating desire. if you never smoke, you don't become hooked. There's no self-denial - it is not asceticism not to smoke, it is just common sense. You can extend that to coffee, chocolate, alcohol, meat... it isn't like we arrive in the world with a belly full of Mars Bars, Big Macs and booze...

"There's so much more to life than likes and dislikes." - Fr. Pablo Straub

A Circular Argument

2008-03-12T06:02:00.000-07:00

I've had many debates with atheists about the existence of God, and I just wanted to post here an argument I made recently. The general consensus between them seemed to be that:

1) There was no evidence for the non-existence of God
2) They did not know how the universe came into being, nor how life started but that was not relevant
3) They were confident that scientists would one day know these answers.

To this I posed the following hypothesis:

Imagine if I were to declare that the earth was not really round without giving any evidence; saying that I didn't know what shape it was but that I knew it wasn't round; and that while I didn't know what shape it was, I felt sure that scientists would know one day.

Would my theory be given any credence?

Apparently it wasn't a valid argument :D

Laughter is the best medicine?

2008-03-05T02:10:00.000-08:00

I was having a little debate recently with some guys on a forum and one of them posted a clip of a "comedian" who was trying to rip apart the Ten Commandments. He was also saying obscene things and pushing all the right buttons about how the commandments were just created to control people. Perish the thought.

The audience was laughing away - enjoying themselves - all united in their love of hating faith and the faithful and seeing them get pulled to pieces. I don't think the comedian laughed once - he seemed kind of angry. He was pacing up and down the stage looking rather tense, intense and intent on doing his gladiatorial job of slaying the Christians. Well, I suppose that always was a crowd pleaser.

Going back to the forum, point by point I critiqued the "comedian's" theology, pointed out that his material was rather obscene and told them that I didn't find it funny. Apparently that means I lack a sense of humour.

Don't they say "laughter is the best medicine" and "you've got to be able to laugh at yourself". Who says those things? Where did those little bits of "wisdom" come from? Pretty soon everyone is laughing at everyone else - another little bit of human ingenuity turned sour. Well, we rarely bear fruit when we branch out on our own - when we insist on going our own sweet way.

No - laughter isn't the best medicine - especially not when it's at someone else's expense - then it'll just darken your heart and weaken your mind. Now love, faith and hope - those are good medicines - they're also virtues. They can make you happier too - not cackling happy, a more contented kind - a kinder kind. But laughter looks a bit like happiness doesn't it? Kind of like a fake Rolex sort of looks like the real thing, but it's just a cheap copy.

Darkness can masquerade as light. The moon can shine if it borrows a little sunlight - if it copies the sun. But I hear it's actually pretty cold up there.

I am therefore I think that "I think therefore I am." Or not...

2008-03-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

Descartes has a lot to answer for. He turned the way people think on its head by declaring "I think, therefore I am." This deifies the concept of thought - it is a magician's argument, implying that we can simply will things into (or out of) existence and that things only exist if, or critically because, we think they do. It is actually nonsense - we do not think first and exist second - we are alive first, and that enables us to think.

So when Moses asked God who to say had sent him to speak to the Hebrew people, God replied with 4 words that translate literally from Hebrew as "I Am Who Am". In other words - "I Am What Is - I Am He Who And That Which Exists." God did not think first and therefore come into being - He first "Was" - as the only Unproduced Producer he always was and by virtue of His existence He was able to think and create.

As we are said to be made in His image, we follow the same basic principle - we have to have life in order to be able to think and be creative. The being comes first - we must "be" before we can think - the saying should really be "I am therefore I think."

A dangerous side-effect of the "I think therefore I am" culture, is the aforementioned deification of thought. "Thought" or "Argument" rather than Being is elevated to the status of God. That which is not viewed as thinking is devalued. So consequently a fetus is not really seen as alive and people consequently decide that it is morally acceptable to exterminate it if its existence is deemed as inconvenient. Many see nothing wrong in having recreational sex and then aborting any unwanted life that results from their pleasure making.

A senile elderly person is seen as having no quality of life and therefore the concept of euthanasia becomes considered acceptable. Sanctity of life is replaced with utilitarianism: "I think therefore I am" becomes "I think therefore I have a right to existence". Simply "being" is no longer valued in its own right - we are no longer valued if we are unable to be cognitive and creative and / or lack any further potential to become so, or simply if we are inconvenient within the lives of others - i.e. if we get in the way of their pursuit of pleasure: the pursuit of pleasure being another thing that has become elevated to the status of a right. Pleasure is another god of our time.

Another dangerous side-effect of the Descartes culture is that God is reduced to the status of a human concept. So even though we do not have any alternative explanation for how we or the universe came into being unless we were created, by elevating thought to be the god of our time, we declare that we do not need to know - we no longer need to exist so that we may be able to think. To think is enough, now that we can take our existence for granted. It is as if we are now declaring that we somehow managed to think ourselves into existence without first having to exist. And that makes no sense.

"To be or not to be - that is the question." If you want to think, you'd better be.

It is precisely because people love the product above the producer, the creature above the creator, that people love thought itself above the life that allows thought to happen - people love themselves more than their own parents and more than the God who made them.

God is...

2008-03-04T08:52:00.000-08:00

God is...

Some people say that God is love.

Some people say that God is mercy.

Some people say that God is truth.

All of these things are true, but it could also be said that each of these definitions is only a partial truth. Each of these things are also good, so if I were to try to describe God's attributes in a single word, I would say that God is good.

Now the reason that self-indulgence is NOT good, is that it is concerned solely with the interests of the self, rather than the interests of the greater good. The more we indulge our selfish desires, the more they grow and the more our being becomes shaped and defined by the pursuit of those desires. Indulgence of those desires becomes increasingly habitual to the point of becoming all-consuming. The result is that the more self-indulgent we become, the more self-centred we become and vice versa (pun intended).

In Sikhism, this kind of self-indulgence is called being "Manmukh" (literally self-centred) and this is contrasted with being "Gurmukh" (literally God-centred.) To be God-centred means being focussed towards the greatest good for the whole of creation - not just yourself. To be God centred is to be good-centred - the addition of a single letter "o" might make the concept that little bit more palatable for the atheistically inclined.

Pope John Paul II explains in his book "Memory & Identity - Personal Reflections" pp. 6-7 that the nature of the "original sin", as described by Saint Augustine is:
"amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei - self-love to the point of contempt for God. It was amor sui which drove our first parents towards that initial rebellion and then gave rise to the spread of sin throughout human history. The book of Genesis speaks of this: 'you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5), in other words, you yourselves will decide what is good and evil.
The only way to overcome this dimension of original sin is through a corresponding amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui - love for God to the point of contempt of self."

The Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, attempts to 'convince the world about sin'
"...and the purpose of this 'convincing' is not to condemn the world. If the Church, though the power of the Holy Spirit, can call evil by its name, it does so only in order to demonstrate that evil can be overcome if we open ourselves to amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui."

So the ultimate aim for us all is to become as fully good-centred as we can be, and to keep pushing the boundaries of what we can achieve - Mother Theresa talked of "giving until it hurts". Naturally, we all fall short of this ideal much of the time, but we should at the very least agree with the basic premise of seeking to become increasingly good-centred through right action and less self-centred through self-indulgent pleasure seeking. You may be surprised by how many people today will attack even that basic premise.

God bless.

Original Sin in Brief

2008-03-03T03:17:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to briefly explain the concept of original sin, as so far, I've only touched on it.

Original sin was the sin of succumbing to the temptation of "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" even when we'd been told not to by God. This is quite a powerful metaphor for us human beings trying to go our own way and decide for ourselves what right and wrong are, (based on our own desires and using our intellect to try to justify our selfish actions) rather than obeying the knowledge of right and wrong that is imprinted on our hearts.

Original sin is said to have darkened our minds and weakened our hearts. Because of our self-serving natures and our ability to use arguments and philosophical tricks to try to "prove" just about anything, we've actually made it much harder for ourselves to recognise the difference between right and wrong, and we've made it harder for ourselves to do the right thing. We lack faith and commitment, so even when we know the right thing to do, we often find that we are unable to do it.

Faith can move mountains, but if we convince ourselves that we're not sure what right and wrong are "really", we will inevitably lack that faith.

We've got original sin - what's your excuse?

2008-03-01T02:42:00.000-08:00

Atheist evolutionists are often keen to point out imperfections in the world as some kind of indication that God is not really all-powerful or all-loving.

Everything, they say, is solely a result of evolutionary changes - all creatures pre-programmed with a mechanism that seeks constantly to improve itself through genetic mutation and evolution. In such a world, all changes are put down to "evolutionary advantage".

So, what are the evolutionary advantages of the rampant obesity, wanton drunkenness, drug taking, cigarette smoking, serial adultery, prostitution, people trafficking, gangland killings, cash crops, terrorism, war and other destructive and self-destructive behaviours so prevalent in the world today?

Atheist evolutionists often point to theists and say - "well if God is perfect, why did He make people imperfect?" I'd like to pose that question back to the atheists for a moment - not because we don't have an answer - we do have one - but how is it that this intrinsically self-correcting evolutionary process has gone so wrong? If we are subject to a mechanism by which all living things strive for perfection, why are people now as they are?

Why are human beings so decadent and self-indulgent that in spite of having devised fantastic theories such as evolutionary science and even making scientific claims to the effect that "science has eradicated the need for a creator God," we are in grave danger of destroying the planet we live on?

Why are we in the "developed world" eating ourselves to death? Sure - evolutionists can point to evolution and say we have evolved to survive in famine conditions, but we have not always had massive obesity problems - are we now going backwards instead of forwards? I'm sure they'll try to put it down to having such efficient access to food now that we never need to go hungry, but why haven't we evolved a solution to our overeating? Is that mutation still to come? Can we be sure it will arrive in time?

We've been killing each other through war since history began - the last century produced the biggest wars and revolutions ever seen, with people being slaughtered on an astronomical scale. Why haven't we yet evolved a solution to war? Why have the numbers of casualties of war steadily increased?

And why haven't we yet evolved a fairer world? Is consumer capitalism really the best we can do? Is it really efficient to let half the world starve while the other half eats itself to death? It really doesn't take a genius to work out the solution to that little problem. (People usually put it down to greed - oh, so they do have sin then, after all?)

Atheist evolutionists might argue that evolution has not yet had time to evolve solutions to all our problems, but why hasn't evolution yet evolved a solution to this shortcoming within its own mechanism - namely that evolution takes vast amounts of time? Couldn't that problem have been ironed out by now? And, crucially, why can't we simply put into practice the knowledge we already have?

We know that if we eat too much, it kills us. We know that if we smoke cigarettes or take heroin it kills us, so why can't we put our amazingly evolved brains into action and just not do it? We have the knowledge, why are we so willful in our refusal to use it? Why do we abuse ourselves ever more? Are we complacent in the knowledge that medical science will probably be able to patch us up and even if it doesn't, we've got to die of something, so who cares? OK - I'll be blunt - why are we so stupid? I'll also point something interesting out - it isn't just uneducated or supposedly unintelligent people who indulge themselves to death.

So, are we actually quite a poor design - one that is destined for failure? Are we doomed to suicidal decadence? Is evolution actually a self-destructive mechanism when all is said and done, designed to destroy the very creatures it has allegedly been perfecting? And if we can do nothing to halt our own demise, can we really be so sure that our scientific theories are so perfect? As a species, we could hardly be described as a great success right now.

We need to be very careful about what we attempt to destroy. It is one thing to destroy the planet and everything on it, but once we declare (as the Neitzschians are so keen on doing) that "God is dead," we have no excuses - we are on our own.

Whatever Happened To The Ten Commandments?

2008-02-28T06:01:00.000-08:00

It occurred to me that society today could hardly do a better job of doing a complete turnaround on the Ten Commandments.

1) Have no god before / but Yahweh.

People seem today to be prepared to have any god BUT Yahweh. Whether their god is science, atheism, materialism, nihilistic philosophy, the earth-mother / paganism, new-age metaphysics, oriental energetics or whatever...

2) Make no idols.

People have all kinds of idols in our celebrity-obsessed culture and most of them are not even good role models. Aside from that, people are drawn to new age mix 'n' match oriental icons, idols and Buddhas (in spite of the fact that there were no gods in traditional Chinese Daoist philosophy and Buddha said no one should make idols of him.)

3) Do not misuse the Lord's name.

How often do we hear people shouting "Oh... My... God!" and "Jesus Christ!" often interspersed with a barrage of sexual profanities?

4) Honour the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.

In our 24/7 shopping culture, the Sabbath no longer means anything to most people, except that it is seen as a great day to go shopping. Working on a Sunday can even be seen as virtuous.

5) Honour your father and mother.

In our post-Freud culture, how often do you hear the phrase "I blame the parents" ? And how many people wrongly blame their parents for their own failings? How many adolescents tell their parents that they hate them?

(Please note - I'm not talking about people who may have good reason to feel some bitterness towards their parents here, perhaps because of genuine abuse, but about all the people who don't have good reason - people who just feel angry because they don't want to be bound by their parent's advice or ground-rules.

It should be remembered too that this rule is part of a blueprint that everyone should be obeying. In such a society, your parents should be behaving more honourably too and if for any reason they weren't - if their actions were in contradiction to the other 9 commandments - you would be able to over-rule them on the basis that obedience to God's Law gets priority.)

6) Do not murder.

I suppose no society has ever even come close to achieving this one. But now we do have a particularly ruthless form of murder taking place in the case of abortion, human embryo experimentation and the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos - all fully forms of life that are considered disposable if they are inconvenient (to recreational sex culture) or if they have outlived their usefulness.

Jesus told us that we should not even get angry or hold grudges - we shouldn't even think of killing or harming others. But a vast "entertainment" industry exists to peddle us an endless sea of ultra-violent (and sexual) computer games and a constant diet of ultra violent (and sexual) films and TV programmes.

7) Do not commit adultery.

It goes without saying that marriage, monogamy and fidelity are given little credence these days. Commitment has largely been replaced with pre-nuptial agreements, serial relationships and broken families.

8) Do not steal.

Aside from the fact that everything we own is stolen (under capitalism), people freely pirate films, music and software (on the grounds that everybody does it!). People also avoid paying taxes by buying smuggled and counterfeit goods.

Insurance companies also make huge profits from the material insecurity and paranoia that results from our high-crime culture.

9) Do not lie.

This is another idea that has largely been cast into the wind. Today people say "you've got to tell lies sometimes"; "everyone lies", and the moral relativist biggy "well who's to say what's true anyway?" As many people no longer recognise that there is even such a thing as truth, the concept of being truthful is quite endangered.

10) Do not covet.

This is probably the creme de la creme of reversed commandments. We live in a consumer-based culture that RUNS on coveting (though it is usually called "aspiration"). We are encouraged to covet everybody else's everything and strive to have them for ourselves. This could not be a more direct reversal of "you shall not set your heart on your neighbours house. You shall not set your heart on your neighbour's spouse, or servant, man or woman, or ox, or donkey, or any of your neighbour's possessions." The whole society revolves around our not being satisfied with our lot and encouraging us to yearn for the stuff other people have.

As society is competitive as well, we can even have stuff at each others' expense - again, consumer-capitalism depends on it. And because we live in a secular democracy, we are free to change whatever laws we like in order to better serve our temporal desires.

As Father Mitch Pacwa pointed out recently in an EWTN homily - by failing to observe the Ten Commandments, we give up our free will, perpetrators included. We are not free to walk down the street without fear of being robbed, killed or accosted.

If we all simply observed the Ten Commandments, we'd have no need to be afraid any more and we would then truly be free.

The Rise Of Gnosis

2008-02-27T03:17:00.000-08:00

Are we in danger of repeating the original sin?

There is a buzz word today circulating on internet forums, in books and magazines and on sensationalist TV channels. That word is "Gnosis" - the Greek word for knowledge - and its followers profess to be interested in "Gnostic" ideas or "Gnosticism." Films such as "The DaVinci Code" along with endless articles or programmes on satellite TV channels offer startling and exciting new views of Christianity that will expose the truth about "the real Jesus."

Though Gnosticism began as a heretical alternative to orthodox Christianity, the problem has begun to permeate much wider and many people are now falling again for its charms - the promise of forbidden knowledge. Sound familiar? In the Garden of Eden, God commanded that Adam and Eve may eat from every plant except one - the tree of knowledge. The tree that the serpent promised Eve would grant power that could elevate one's status to that of equality with God.

In reality, this problem is not isolated to religion, spirituality or mysticism. A concerted effort is taking place to discredit, dismantle, destroy, re-design or replace Christianity (or the other Abrahamic faiths) in modern culture, and / or to overthrow accepted scientific rationales. Those taking part include secular academics, teachers, scientists, humanists, atheists and martial artists. The promised "Gnosis" or secret knowledge takes a number of forms:

1) The hidden, occult, esoteric, secret or forbidden spells, incantations, rites, chants, meditation techniques, methods, charms, amulets, power crystals etc. that promise to bring you special health, healing, wealth, wisdom, romantic or sexual benefits, or divinatory powers. All of these things are a lie.

2) The fabled magical qi (chi / ch'i) or ki power of the martial artist - literally considered to be the power of life and death - the power to heal or kill with a single touch or possibly even without touching by projection of energy. This too is a lie.

3) The knowledge of how to master genetic manipulation in order to eradicate all genetic "imperfections" or "undesirable" human traits or characteristics. The knowledge of how to master genetic manipulation in order to make disposable human-animal chimeras for vivisection, experimentation or possibly to live and act as slaves or worker "drones". These things are an abomination that completely disregard the sanctity of life.

4) The secret so-called knowledge about what the scriptures allegedly "REALLY" meant and who Jesus "REALLY" was, what God is "REALLY" like, the so-called hidden "facts" that "the Church" censored or allegedly manipulated, about how we've all "REALLY" been worshipping the wrong God all along and even how the God we know and love is really evil. The propagators of this forbidden knowledge may also spread terrible anti-semitic, anti-Catholic or anti-Christian propaganda.

What do all of these things have in common? Secret knowledge that will give you the edge over your competitors. Hidden truths that will enable you to liberate yourself from the clutches of organised religions and enable you to realise yourself in your full glory - a fully enlightened individual with the ability to make up his or her own mind about right and wrong. Ammunition to destroy the arguments of those allegedly "evil" Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Jews or Muslims once and for all. Tell them straight about how all the world's evils are REALLY caused by adherence to religion. Again this is all lies. Adherence to religion does not make monsters, but straying from the path of righteousness might.

So there it is - the story of the Garden of Eden all over again - history threatening to repeat itself, with potentially deadly consequences. Rebellion is never in itself a good thing. Sometimes the temptation to consort with the forbidden does not make you "daring", "dangerous", "brave" or "pioneering", it can just lead you into foolishness. So watch out for snakes* in human clothing - don't fall for their lies again.

* please note that no attempt is being made to discredit real snakes here - it's just a metaphor.

On Being Fallen

2008-02-19T19:03:00.000-08:00

Why is it said that people are "fallen"?

Well my take on it is that as humans we got too clever for ourselves and now we think we can do anything we like - hence the "original sin" story of eating from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.

Being good is about not just doing whatever we like - sure, we can curb our excesses for pragmatic motives - so that we don't destroy the planet we live on - we can do it all for ourselves, or even for future generations - for our own offspring, but that isn't as good as doing it for the sake of the animals themselves or the plants themselves or the planet itself, irrespective of whether or not we, our families or humanity continues. Now that would be genuine altruism and that would be genuine goodness - being others-orientated instead of self-orientated. That's how we make the best of that extra knowledge we acquired. If we fail to do that, we are being sinful in a way that other creatures are not.

If we know and understand the negative impact of our actions and overindulge our desires anyway, just because we are powerful enough to do so, then that's sin. If we consciously choose not to learn what the consequences of our actions are, then that's sin, too.

Responsible use of your free will.

Weigh up the pros and cons of a situation. Measure the benefit against the cost. If the pros outweigh the cons, then it's OK, right? Sound easy?

Now you have to ask yourself - what are the pros and cons for whom? Not just for yourself, that's for sure.

The reason many religions have specific rules - the reason they don't make it that easy - the reason they don't just leave it all down to us as individuals - is because they recognise that we are incapable of judging any situation from all possible angles. That would take an omniscient mind, and only God has one of those.

We should always do our best, but we are really going to need some guidance too - some rules. Not killing, lying, coveting or stealing for example. Loving your neighbour as you love yourself. Doing for others the things you'd like them to do for you, and not doing to others what you'd rather they didn't do to you. Knowing what we do and don't like to happen to us can give us insights into what to do and what not to do to others - it can give us the gift of empathy. We do also need to bear in mind though that we were not all created identically, so just because you'd rather someone told you the cold, hard truth for your own good doesn't mean someone else is going to appreciate it. Bear in mind when your advice might fall on stubborn ears and thereby prove counter-productive. Sure you could argue that the choices that other person makes is down to them, and that's true, but if you sincerely want them to take your advice for their own sake, you might have to approach the subject with awareness of and sensitivity to the likely outcomes of your various possible approaches. We need to endeavour to develop a fairly reliable intelligent, adaptable, compassionate conscience for eventualities such as these, knowing that we'll still get it wrong sometimes.

Rewards?

We should aim to be as benevolent as possible, causing no unnecessary death, harm or suffering. We should ideally be benevolent without being motivated by the idea of any kind of reward in this world or any other, but simply because benevolence makes the world a better place. If we seek to make our actions benevolent for the sake of rewards, we will always stop short. We'll always decide that we've already done enough when the going gets tough.

Don't just compare the potential gains and losses of a situation with regard to your own life, consider the benefits or losses for your whole family. Better still, for your country. Better still, for your species. Better still for life in general. Better still, for your planet. Better still, for the entire universe. Only then are you asking, "what are the benefits and losses for God?"

Cause and effect.

Consider something that many would think of as fairly harmless - placing a small bet. Now if you win, that may seem fine, but how many people had to lose so that you could win? For you to come away with more than you started, that is at the expense of all the gamblers who lost (not to mention all the trees that had to die to make the tickets). As gambling is an industry that makes vast profits, it is easy to calculate that the number of people who gain is small when compared to the large number of people who lose, even in the case of semi-charitable institutions like the National Lottery.

And before you say "well the same criticism could be made of the stock exchange or almost any form of free enterprise", I am quite happy to say that the same rule should apply there too. (It could be argued though that gambling is even worse because here in the UK, since 2001, winnings are tax free.) People may wish to have double standards, but I think we should aim to be morally consistent and I certainly do consider a society based on consumer choice, big business and free enterprise to be immoral. Freedom to indulge desire should not be the arbiter of right and wrong in any society. If it is, then that is a sinful society.

The Addicted Mind

2008-02-16T09:57:00.000-08:00

This post is dedicated to a serious problem within wealthy industrialized nations today - the problem of addiction or dependency.

Most of us now live in consumer-led societies. A person is thought to have the freedom to do pretty much anything they like, providing it is both within the law and does not directly hurt others. This second proviso is actually rather tenuous. Firstly there is the fact that your legal habits may impact on someone else - if you smoke, there are secondary smokers - if you get drunk, your anti-social, inappropriate or immoral behaviour could affect someone else too - if you gamble, there will always be scores of losers for anyone who wins. Secondly, within capitalism, for you to have something, it is invariably at the expense of someone lower down the social scale within your own country; a displaced working class of slave labourers in a less wealthy nation; or the animals or environment that so often provide the resources for your indulgences.

But I'm not really here to talk politics - I'm here to talk about the illusion of free will within our consumer culture.

In my time I have been dependent, to varying degrees, on various substances and sensory pleasure-seeking behaviours. I have also watched others die from and / or cause great misery through their addictions. Right now I am watching two people die because they are unable to free themselves from their tobacco addictions. They are quite prepared to die rather than give up their "little pleasure." This is not the kind of decision that anyone who is thinking straight would make. Their addiction has robbed them of their free will.

There may be people reading this who are tempted to say "well who are you to lecture people on addictions when you've been dependent on various substances yourself? You must have an addictive personality. I don't - I could give up anything I like, whenever I like. I just don't want to."

But I'm not just talking about deep down chronic addiction here. I'm talking about being anywhere on what I call "The Dependency Scale". Most of us are on it somewhere.

The Dependency Scale

To "want" can quickly escalate to "need" which can quickly become "having a right to." That's the dependency scale. We convince ourselves that we have a right to expect our desires for pleasure to be satisfied.

Do we really have a right to expect anything? Isn't the truth that most of us actually take for granted what we have and constantly want more or possibly different things on top? And isn't it also true to say that whenever we put our own selfish desires, cravings, wants or perceived needs before the needs of others, we are, in truth, acting immorally? The grave problem in consumer culture is that DESIRE is enshrined as a RIGHT.

Maybe you could ask yourself a question right now. How often have you heard yourself say "oh - I couldn't do without my [insert as applicable]" ? You might be talking to a vegan and find yourself saying "ooh - I could never give up milk" (or cheese, or meat, or whatever). You might be talking to someone who has boycotted palm oil because of the effect that its production has on the habitat of the endangered orang outang, and you might say "I don't know how you manage without ever eating biscuits" (or cakes, or margarine or chocolate...) You might be talking with someone who has no tea or coffee because they are ethically opposed to cash crops, or to taking stimulants. You might be talking to a teetotaler and you might see your own drinking as very moderate, but really, if you wouldn't go out into a public place without drinking alcohol (or even if you only drink at Christmas, but don't think Christmas would be Christmas without a glass of wine,) then you are somewhere on the alcohol dependency scale.

Back to those people who have died as a direct result of their dependencies - three people I know immediately spring to mind who lost their lives to heroin and its substitutes. There have been others that died from alcohol related illnesses. I know three people who were murdered because they gave in to lust while under the influence of substances, slept with someone they shouldn't have, and were then killed by outraged or jealous parties - themselves acting under the desensitizing influence of drink and drugs. Substances they would "never have dreamt of having a night out" without indulging in.

Selling Yourself Short

The Hebrew word for addiction literally means "to sell yourself." and that is precisely what most people do at some time in their lives. In the process, the free will is surrendered, the conscience is silenced and the ability to act in a moral way is sacrificed.

Give something up today - not your conscience or free will, but something that threatens them. Examine your life for any little pleasure that you know "you couldn't do without." Heed that warning sign and give it up.

Eradicate your habits. Regain your free will.

The Truth

2008-02-16T05:49:00.000-08:00

The truth is that which exists outside of relativism.

There are, in truth, cold, hard facts, as well as some warm, fuzzy ones. You could call these facts "truths". Truths are not subject to (subjective) opinion, or desire, or will.

For example, the fact is that smoking cigarettes is very bad for you and may well kill you. It will almost certainly shorten your life. Smoking is a hazardous habit - the facts are indisputable - a phenomenal amount of evidence exists to prove this reality.

Now the problem comes when people allow things to get PERSONAL. A well-meaning aunty might advise you to stop smoking, but you may decide that she is wrong because you don't want her to be right. Instead, you want all your friends who smoke to be right when they tell you that there's nothing to worry about. Your aunty may also be a Catholic and this might make you want her to be wrong even more. There may be some people and institutions that you don't want to be right at any cost.

I think almost all of us exercise some kind of bias like this from time to time - judging words by who says them, rather than taking statements at face value. But by doing so - by choosing to ignore the facts, we make ourselves willfully ignorant.* The next step on from believing our own, self-deceived view of the world, in spite of the facts, is to become stubbornly adherent to outright lies.

You might enjoy riding your motorcycle at high speeds - speeds that break the legal speed limits. Concerned people might ask you not to, because they are concerned for your life and maybe the lives of others who could also be injured if you were to crash. You might decide, because you LIKE riding at high speeds, that they are worrying unnecessarily. In reality, they are quite right to worry, but you won't listen if you don't WANT them to be right.

Left to our own devices, we are willful, egotistical little creatures who like to have our own way, whether it is ill-advised or not.

But the truth is out there, and it is real, whether we want this to be the case or not. Even this issue is one that people have a biased, emotional perspective on - they do not WANT there to be such a thing as irrefutable truth. "Everything is relative" they will protest, because that notion allows them to make their own decisions, based not on what IS true, but on what they WANT to be true. Opinions that are formed from passions and desires, rather than from the truth, are a dangerous thing.

So the truth is not relative. The truth is everything that is non-relative. It's true.

* credit to Evangelical preacher Eli Brayley for that great insight.