All Praise God

Is it wrong to agree with the anti-christ?

2005-10-09T14:21:00.000+10:00

Reading George W. Bush's latest speech, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with him:

"Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

Yes. We must.

Tags: Bush, Terrorism

A little imput is a dangerous thing

2005-10-07T20:02:00.000+10:00

In this post, rev-ed says:
"I think I can understand... just how scary it is to try to make godly decisions when you don't know what the Bible says. With little or no input, it seems an insurmountable problem to distinguish God's will from any common thought in your head."

There is a maxim that goes along the lines of "One's confidence in One's opinion is inversely proportional to One's knowledge of the subject." Is it true here?

Consider a man who has never heard of God. He cannot therefore concieve of God's will; x/0 makes no sense.

Consider an illiterate man who has heard a single sermon. He believes what he has heard, and obeys it to the letter; x/1.

Consider a man who has read and understood the Torah & Talmud. He knows some of what has been written of God. There are times when he is unsure, but these are in the minority. He knows the rules; x/10.

Consider a man who has read and understood everything from the Bible to the works of Baha'u'llah. He knows that the prophets do not agree, and is reduced to making his own decisions, trusting that his understanding of God's will is pleasing to the Lord; x/100.

The point I am trying to make is that it is scary making decisions no matter how well you know what the bible says, but I do agree with the rev in that it is not an insurmountable problem.

In fact, the problem is easy solved. If our second man had heard the right sermon, his opinion would be worth as much as the other three's put together.

God's will is love. Simple. All the traditions and teachings and laws are like a grain of sand next to the sun of Jesus' commandment. John 3:11 is all the religous education a person needs.

Tags: God, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, religion, commandments

NOTE: Please ignore the headline. Damn imps.

Catholicism had me worried

2005-10-07T15:56:00.000+10:00

Creationism and evolution can co-exist, says cardinal | The Register

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn recently made headlines when he seemed to come out in favour of Intelligent Design. He has cleared up the misconception:
"[He said]"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition - that the limits of a scientific theory are respected."

"He explained that in his view, those limits would be overstepped if scientists claimed that evolution proves that there could be no creator. Since science has never made any such claim on evolution's behalf, it looks like it's still OK by the Vatican."

Note that this claim is made by fundamentalists; as they cannot seperate God from the bible, they believe that by correcting mistakes in the bible we are disproving God. This is of course ludicrous; its many contradictions do not disprove God, they only demonstrate that it is not a perfect book. This all or nothing approach I intend to write about at some other time.

The Cardinal still believes in a teleological evolution, however. I am not convinced. While God must have known the results when He started the process, it does not follow that we were his intent, any more than black holes were his intent. Do they believe God is so insecure that He needed to create humans to worship Him? It was clearly not to be custodians of the Earth, as demonstrated by our apalling performance. Nor do I buy the arguement that He created all things for His entertainment.

Guessing the motives of God is for demagogues and idealogues, not serious clergy.

Tags: God, Christianity, Catholicism, creationism

Discordianism Infects Blogistan

2005-10-06T13:25:00.000+10:00

Not That Theres Anything Wrong With That

I am not going to post links*, nor am I going to participate*, but an very Erisian meme has spread throughout the blogosphere, and hit most of the Abrahamic blogs I read. Here it is:

The instructions:

Go into your archive.
Find your 23rd post.
Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Tag five other people to do the same (optional).

While I certainly believe that Eris is a useful interpretation of God, I am not sure how many of the participants realise at which temple they are making this prayer.

Eris Akbar.

* Because that would require effort.

Tags: blogs, blogging, memes, eris, discordia, discordianism, religion

The Ninth Commandment

2005-10-03T16:32:00.000+10:00

20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
King James Bible, Exodus

Bear not false witness -- that is low --
But "hear 'tis rumored so and so."
Ambrose Bierce

As with the previous edict, I am not sure how this is any different from blasphemy. One must assume that statements in Hebrew courts were not sworn by God.

Tags: God, Judaism, Christianity, The Ten Commandments

Some things I would like to say...

2005-10-03T02:24:00.000+10:00

before it becomes a crime to say them...

I believe any individual or organisation that takes up arms to free their nation from dictatorship or occupation is a freedom fighter.

I believe any individual or organisation that kills civilians for military or economic gains is a terrorist.

I believe any individual or organisation that breaks the Geneva Conventions is a war criminal.

I believe any individual who votes for a government with such a record has blood on their hands.

I believe that terrorists who target the west do so because of our support of middle-eastern dictatorships. I believe politicians claim that 'they target us because of our values' do so because telling the truth would lead to the public suggesting we stop our support of middle-eastern dictatorships.

Remember: A democratic Saudi Arabia would mean the terrorists have won!

Tags: war, iraq, afghanistan, terrorism, bali

Malcolm X

2005-09-30T01:08:00.000+10:00

Just watched Malcolm X. It got me thinking about quite a few things, but it left me with a problem. A quote:

"Islam... is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem."

I am not going to spend too many pixels arguing with the statement; it should be obvious that the Muslim world has it's own issues with racism, and none of the big five religions actively promote a race based ideology.

Heres my issue: he didn't understand! He swapped racial bigotry for religous bigotry, never appreciating that all people are equel in God's eyes, not even a recognition of the shared Abrahamic Covenant.

But...

Maybe he did. Maybe he thought that the idea would be too much for any-one. I have often felt this about prophets. What if they thought that if they had tried to shape the world in God's image the whole project would be too radical to gather any support. What if they just tried to advance the few people they could as far as they could?

There's always been a few solutions to the puzzle of why God needed more than one prohpet swimming around in my head.

* God's message is interpreted differently by different people.
^ I don't buy it; God isn't ambiguous (see below)

* God doesn't want us to have faith, he wants us to find His truth ourselves.
^ Plausible.

* The prophets lied (or at least spun things) for whatever reason.
^ Plausible, but why would God choose liars for prophets? He would have known the message they would in turn transmit, no? So it stands to reason that we still hear what He wants us to hear, thus begging the question.

* God has a master plan, different for all times and peoples.
^ Plausible. Also explains secularism.

Ultimately, though, heres what I believe:

God's message is Love. Pure, unworded, and unquestionable. What the prophet decides to do with this message of Love is up to them, and God chooses his prophets for this.

Tags: God, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Malcolm X

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

2005-09-28T16:16:00.000+10:00

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."

Is this a reflection of the strength of secular values, or of the dangers of fundamentalism? One problem I have that the study is that it
"compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries... with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution."

The US, the only significantly devout post-industrial democracy, is also the only one without universal health care, that executes prisoners, etc. I recognise that this may be putting the cart before the horse: US christianity is significantly different to traditional christianity, as shown by the recent survey finding that 3/4 americans believe the bible says that 'God helps those who helps themselves,' but maybe not.

Maybe it is due to hypocrisy, though. Parents who don't want their children to have sex are less likely to let them become informed on the subject. And their children are less likely to tell them when they start. This carries over to all 'moral' issues; banning abortion, like drugs, doesn't stop it, just makes it more dangerous (half of all performed abortions are illegal).

Tags: religion, God, politics

What should we do with a Budget Surplus?

2005-09-26T02:16:00.000+10:00

According to The Australian;
"Under the Howard Government, the aid budget fell from 0.32 per cent of GDP to a low of 0.25 per cent in 2003-04, by which time it was little more than half the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 0.4 per cent."
Aid agencies generally claim that the contribution from developed nations should be at least 0.7%. This leaves us with a gap of 0.45%.
According to the OECD, our 2004 GDP was A$834.717 billion dollars.
0.45% of this is $3.756 billion.

Treasury has announced a surplus of $13.6 billion. Surely we could make the target this year at least?

Tags: God, politics, Australia, poverty

The Eighth Commandment

2005-09-25T18:17:00.000+10:00

20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
King James Bible, Exodus

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete
Successfully in business. Cheat.
Ambrose Bierce

This one is probably the most difficult to follow. When does acquisition become theft?

"For to steal is nothing else than to get possession of another's property wrongfully, which briefly comprehends all kinds of advantage in all sorts of trade to the disadvantage of our neighbor."
Martin Luther, Large Catechism

There it is. Theft is unfair trade. This is still somewhat unsatisfactory, leaving us with the question of what is fair, but at least we are getting somewhere.

Let us consider coffee. What is a fair price for coffee? What is it's real worth compared to water or silver? What does it cost to produce? Who's pricing should we follow?

Are you paying a fair price? Buying from the desperate is worse a sin than robbing the comfortable.

In a globalised world, fair trade is more important than ever; a lack of it can easily be considreded murder.

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

Righteousness

2005-09-23T12:02:00.000+10:00

62. Those who believe (in the Qur'án) and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in Allah and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2

The key phrases here are "and who believe in Allah... and work righteousness."
The first clause is important; not to God, but to aid in the second. It would be foolish to suggest that agnostics, atheists and polytheists cannot 'work righteousness.'

"Christian ethics are seldom found save in the philosophy of some unbeliever."
(Not sure of the source.)

Nontheless, there is great insight in the phrase 'God fearing." The threat of eternal damnation may not produce righteous people, but it can produce righteous behaviour. This is ultimately foolish, as God knows motives as well as actions (who do they think they are fooling?), but bad acts can have good results, and who is to say that their good behaivor will not rub off on them, and make them principled after seeing the results of their actions?

What, then, is righteousness? To act as Jesus did. This is why his disciples dubbed him the 'son of God.' And what example did Jesus set? He practiced what he preached:

Love one another.

Tags: God, Christianity, Islam

2005-09-22T16:01:00.000+10:00

The Best Party of Allah has withdrawn it's application to register as a political party.

According to the ABC:
"Spokesman Kurt Kennedy says some party members have withdrawn in fear of being harassed under the Federal Government's proposed anti-terrorism laws."

Right.

How hard is it to get 500 members, really? 20 million people times .015 = 300,000 muslims. He couldn't get 1 in 600 muslims to sign up?

I have no doubt that there is a place for muslim political parties in our system; I am happy to see that Australian muslims do not think those calling for sharia law should be amoung them.

Tags: God, politics, Australia

2005-09-22T15:50:00.000+10:00

The Seventh Commandment

20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
King James Bible, Exodus

Kiss not thy neighbor's wife, unless
Thine own thy neighbor doth caress
Ambrose Bierce

I am not sure of the point of including this rule. If fidelity is sworn before God at marriage, then adultery is automatically blasphemy, no?

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-22T11:47:00.000+10:00

Christians Vs. The Kingdom of God

In this article, Evolving Thoughts makes some interesting comments regarding the ID 'debate'.

"The [Australian] Academy [of Science] sees no objection to the teaching of creationism in schools as part of a course in dogmatic or comparative religion,"

"So, ID is not science at all. Fine. Teach it, as the AAS says, in religious classes. But what does this imply? Surely that ID is not-science, that it is, where it conflicts with science, not-true. So why should we teach it in religious classes? Are we saying to our students that religion is either false or just something that can get along with science?

"The [Education] Minister might like to ponder that question, and the implications it has for the role of religion in modern society."

Hopefully, we are explaining to students the difference between logos and mythos, and how they can (and should) live side by side.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish." - Pope John Paul II

Arguing over whether science is better than religion is like debating the superiority of ovens over fridges. Intentionally confusing students will leave them with a false 'science or religion' dichotomy, and if they choose either they lose. This is to the fundamentalist's advantage; such a confused person may take solace in the suriety of Young Earth Creationism, no doubt the overall goal of ID.

Of course, it also to the general disadvantage of those intent on spreading the Word of God. Whichever sect a priest is from, to the ears of unbelievers they speak for all Christendom. When one is heard proclaiming war on science, it reinforces the opinions of atheists, and makes the agnostic a little less so.

Less destructive, though more malicious, are those who preach 'God's hate'. In this post, on the subject of a church claiming that hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans running abortion clinics, Ragamuffin Ramblings claims that

"If there were half as many people preaching God's love, forgiveness, and acceptance as there were people loudly proclaiming that they know who God is going to smite, there would be a whole lot more Christians around. "

I wish I agreed. Sadly, I am sure there are a dozen people preaching God's love for every fanatic, but claims of 'seeing an aborted fetus in the flood' will get media attention that calls for charity and compassion would scarce be able to pay for.

Solutions to this sort of problem could only come from the WCC or similar bodies; collective action on the part of the major churches could marginalise extremists to the point that non-christians wouldn't shake their heads but rather laugh. I am sure that they laugh at this sort of thing already, but at least this time they would be laughing with christians intead of at them.

In either case, fundamentalists or fanatics, they are actively working against the creation of the Kingdom of God.

11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - 2 Corinthians

Tags: god, creationism

2005-09-19T22:28:00.000+10:00

Is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism Anti-Christian?

Rob Thompson, in a letter on the site (here, scroll down), makes several complaints.

Firstly, that he "was offended as an American and a human being by the sneering, self-important, and condescending tone, tenor, and implications of your web site. Grownups don't find humor this way." An opinion, and fair enough. But he goes on to say "I guess I must have missed all the other college-sophomore sarcasm infested websites you created mocking creation mythos of American Indians, African tribes, etc.,"

I think that this is missing the point completely. FSM is pro-science, and applies equelly well against all mythical (as opposed to religous) fundamentalisms. If American Indian or African children are being taught creation myths as biology, they deserve better. Just like children from Kansas.

I am not saying that children shouldn't be taught religion. I am saying that they should be taught science as well, and also the difference between the two.

He continues, "and bemoaning the way that secular humanism has become the de facto established religion throughout much of the public education industry in the U.S..."
Secular humanism is not a religion. It has no mythology, no founder, no worship, no clerics and no sacred writings, stories or traditions. It is a philosophy, and is only related to religion in that it seems to require atheism.

And speaking of FSM, happy talk like a pirate day.

2005-09-19T13:23:00.000+10:00

Biblical Families
"We always thought it was kind of weird that a quasi-religious political party would call themselves Family First, as Jesus was pretty rough on families."

It didn't surprise me in the least: Assemblies Of God seem to diverge with Christ on quite a few issues. What surprises me is that they haven't just dropped the NT and returned to Judaism.

Seriously though,
"Much has been written concerning the structure and roles of Christian families. Unfortunately much of this literature has been the province of fundamentalist groups and recent references to a return to family values by the popular press spring from these sources."

Why do they talk about 'family values'? Because it means nothing and sounds important. My family valued freedom. My family valued education. My family valued each other. My home life was better than many children's, and there wasn't a cross to be found in the house.

"There is no mention in the Bible of the tightly inward looking nuclear family centred on its own interests, needs and members that appears to be the model for so many fundamentalists and politicians. Rather Jesus called his followers to leave family (Matthew 4:18ff) and renounces his mother and brothers and claims his disciples as family (Mark 3:31ff)."

The nuclear family and the Kingdom of God are mutually exclusive. The issue is where love ends; for a Christian it ends with his church and family, for a follower of Christ it should be endless.

Tags: God, Christianity

2005-09-18T10:34:00.000+10:00

No Voices in my Head
The Voice of God

Many people claim God speaks to them. Most do mean it in a religous (not literal) sense; they are thanking God for their own luck and wisdom, especially when that luck and wisdom comes from ther religion.
Most of the others are lying, misled or psychologically wounded. They lie because they want attention or power or forgiveness, or to deny responsibilty. They mislead themselves because they fell that God should be speaking to them, or think that their luck and wisdom is sent directly from God, or are misled by others through trickery or good intentions. The psychologically wounded need no explanation.

"Surely if God says something to someone, that person is going to know it. I can't really imagine God saying, 'Damn, they didn't get it. I'll have to speak louder.'"

Christop's arguement is spot on; as Bill MacKinnon points out, when God speaks to people in the Bible there is no ambiguity. Mohammed was not inspired to write by 'signs' but by an Archangel.

When God touches a man, woman or child, they cannot mistake it for something else. The words of God transcend language and are pure communication. As Jonah learnt, they can be denied but not ignored.

Tags: God

2005-09-18T09:56:00.000+10:00

The Sixth Commandment

20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
King James Bible, Exodus

Kill not, abet not those who kill;
Thou shalt not pay thy butcher's bill.
Ambrose Bierce

Not much wriggle room there, is there? While it does not apply to plants (which lack consciousness), there are no exceptions. Blood washes off the skin easily, but not the soul. How many deaths have you caused in the last week? How many for your vanity? How many for your belly? How many times did you vote for a politician after they invaded another nation?

To kill for survival is not even sanctioned; but as with all things, God understands.

In the thirty seconds you took to read this, six children starved to death. Be neither a priest nor Levite, but a Samaritan. Love thy neighbor.

God, The Ten Commandments,

2005-09-17T12:52:00.001+10:00

Let's talk about God
"I was watching TV last night and this woman was talking about something random and mentioned that God was looking over her. Now this got me thinking. How the hell can anyone still believe in God in light of all the factual scientific evidence we have discovered over the last few hundred years. I'm mean even the phrase "Watching over people" is bollocks. I mean we've been to the moon, we've sent probes to pretty much the reaches of our solar system and there is no guy floating around on a cloud up there wearing really dodgy birkenstocks."

The problem I had with this is that it isn't that great a misrepresentation of what many people believe. For some-one to say that God is looking over them implies:
- That they think the alternative is possible
- That God will give them preferential treatment

And I am sure that many people believe that God has a physical body located in Heaven, and that when they die they get to shake His hand. Oh well.

"I've head the whole arguement about scientific design. Science has proven that God didn't create the world in 7 days, and it was actually a really big explosion. So believers in God then come along and say a few years later, "well yeah, ok we'll give you that the world might have been caused by the big bang. But you know it was probablly God who created the big bang." Are they going to rationalise away all discoveries by saying "well haha but God did that, and he just wanted us to think he didn't." Makes me think that God might be being a little sneaky there."

Criticising belief in God by pointing out the idiocy in creationism is just what the creationists do to science - make straw man arguements. Genesis is a creation myth, and is treated as such by many major christian and jewish denominations. Creationism is only just raising it's hollow head in the Isamic world.

"People are desperate to try and find a higher power. Something that makes them think that no matter what happens, everything will be ok. I think it's comforting to know that destiny is pre planned. That everytime you fall there is going to be a daddy figure there to pick you up and brush the dirt of your knee's. It means that you don't have to be ultimately responsible for your own life."

Again, I have no doubt that this accurately describes many religous people. God gives no favours for picking religion X, but it is nice to know that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today. The sun will continue to burn. And your knee will heal.
I believe in God not because I choose to, it just seems obvious. Do not trust any-one who implores you to 'have faith'; if they believed in God, then faith would be unnecessary.

Tags: God

2005-09-17T12:44:00.000+10:00

QuizFarm.com :: What's your theological worldview?

A great little test: here are my results, so you can classify my faith like a butterfly pinned to a cork-board.

Classical Liberal

86%

Emergent/Postmodern

86%

Modern Liberal

86%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

61%

Neo orthodox

46%

Roman Catholic

36%

Reformed Evangelical

14%

Fundamentalist

Charismatic/Pentecostal

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

religion, god, christianity,

2005-09-17T11:21:00.000+10:00

igod | virtual god machine
Like talking to the real God, but with responses.

Tags: God

2005-09-17T10:54:00.000+10:00

The Fifth Commandment

20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
King James Bible, Exodus

Honor thy parents. That creates
For life insurance lower rates.
Amrose Bierce

Honour your father and mother; honour the elderly; honour God and Gaea; honour Athens and Jerusalem; honour Adam and Eve, and honour the Rift Valley where they stood, fur-clad and determined.

Know that they were imperfect, and forgive their failures. But do not mistake this for a command to respect. Respect those who earn it; many parents do not deserve respect, but through honouring them regardless you will.

Just as the fourth Commandment is a worker's holiday, this is a pension. Look after the elderly, lest no one looks after you.

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-16T11:23:00.000+10:00

The Fourth Commandment

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
King James Bible, Exodus

Work not on Sabbath days at all,
But go to see the teams play ball.
Ambrose Bierce

This simple labour law, a right to a weekly holiday, is also often ignored. The focus of which day is irrelevent, and Constantine's alteration from saturday to sunday is perfectly acceptable (Sunday, in reverence to Jesus as Deus Sol Invictus).

There is little here that needs explaining. Working, or worse getting others to work for you, seven days a week is not allowed.

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-15T18:34:00.000+10:00

The Third Commandment

20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
King James Bible, Exodus

Take not God's name in vain; select
A time when it will have effect.
Ambrose Bierce

Blasphemy - to abuse the names of God.

To claim an evil you have commited is the will of God, a evil in you is an evil of God's, to break an oath sworn in God's name, to belittle God in any of It's forms. To use God's name with mailcous intent. Even unrightous prayers are blasphemous. As with the second, this commandment is fairly simple, requiring little more than honesty - and when dealing with God, honesty is the only sensible approach.

For example:

"Freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman."
George W. Bush
A simple (though not true^1) statement, the blasphemy lies not in it's falshood but the intent of the words to incite to violence, an unholy act.

"God made me do it."
Deanna Laney
To reassign your own guilt to God is pure blasphemy. God did not make her kill her children, nor devils nor angels nor voices. She chose the action.

"Allah Akbar"
Amrosi
Even when true, words can be blasphemous. Invoking God's name after an act of evil in anything but penitence is a false claim to God's sanction.

1 If this were true, all people would be free, not just the wealthy.

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-12T12:56:00.000+10:00

Spirit of America
A picture of a necklace that almost brought a tear to my eye. The article and comments are well worth the two minutes you'll spend reading them.

2005-09-12T11:23:00.000+10:00

The Second Commandment

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
King James Bible, Exodus

No images nor idols make
For Robert Ingersoll to break.
Ambrose Bierce

While this should theoretically be the easiest to follow of the commandments, as it prohibits something we have no reason to do, it seems to be broken by almost all Abrahamic sects except the Amish and Jehova's Witnesses (who break the first commandment - see below). And if the churches cannot follow the Commandments, what hope have mere humans?
The reason for the injuction is clear - symbols seek to divide. A person who prays before a Cross will not pray before a Crescent or Star of David or icon of Mary. The house of God is thus divided.

As to the additional section, it is clearly not the word of God. To suggest that God is influenced by human emotions such as jealosy is, put simply, absurd. As to the threat of punishment being passed down thhrough the next three generations (not an deterrant to Christians who believe in Original Sin anyway), it seems rather harsh compared to the punishment for blasphemy ('not being held guiltless'), and would be more likely to entrench the children of idolters (denial of a sin is denial of the punishment).

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-09T14:54:00.000+10:00

The First Commandment

20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
King James Bible, Exodus

Thou shalt no God but me adore:
'Twere too expensive to have more.
Ambrose Bierce

Most people who profess themselves of the Abrahamic religions seem to dismiss this one entirely. Despairing of God as being too ephemeral, they instead pray to angels, saints and prophets, and treat their holy books as if they were above God.

No text is God, let alone above It. Are they the words of God? Only in as much as they do not contradict each other - and given enough texts, all things will be contradicted. And while it can be argued that holy books are part of God, they are no more or less part of God than trees and smoke.

Worse still, by mistaking the word's of men for those of God, those who try to live by those words to impress It are merely consigning themselves to a new House of Bondage.

But what of Prayer? Is it allowed by the first commandment to pray to Jesus or Mohammed? In a literalist interpretation, no, as they are not God, only of God. But in a real world context, it matters not who you pray to - God alone hears.

Tags: God, The Ten Commandments

2005-09-07T16:35:00.000+10:00

The Best Party of Allah has debuted in magnificently bad form. It's leader (founder?) Kurt Kennedy said the party's intent was to "implement the laws as stated in the Koran."

Apart from the almost hubristic name, Australia's first Islamic political party cannot hope to communicate with mainstream Australians with such an intimidating message. Such an immaturely honest attitude;
"We don't want to hide behind things. We want to go out and say we are believers of Allah, we believe in his religion, we obey his laws as stated in the Koran - there's nothing to worry about."
is almost shocking, as Mr Kennedy says he was in part inspired by Family First. Family First have the common sense to claim that they are not a religious party, thus securing votes from people unaware of their actual policies. Not only will a stated intention to impose Shariah law remove any possibilty of sympathy votes, it may very well deter Muslims who follow the The Prophet's laws but do not wish to impose them upon other Australians.
No doubt some Muslims started banging their heads against their walls, not wanting to be seen as bent on bending our Nation to their religion. While I couldn't find any responses from Australian Imam's in the electronic press, this is not surprising given their low media profile. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has yet to comment afaik.

"If they read through the Koran, there's nothing there that will threaten them or threaten their personal life or property."

Statements such as this are at best foolish - what voting Aussie will read that without wondering why 'rights' aren't mentioned? We have so few as it is...

Tags: God, politics, Australia

2005-09-07T15:11:00.000+10:00

Tony Abbot asks "What is wrong with going to church and also being...a member of parliament?"

Julia Gillard responded "There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sunday, but there is something wrong with hypocrisy."

I can't criticize her for being so evasive, as any comment percieved as anti-christian is electoral suicide, but there are several things wrong with the situation.

Firstly and foremostly, Luke 16:13:
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."

The primary duty of any poltician is to serve the Australian people. If a politician serves the Pope or his priest/rabbi/imam, then he cannot possibly perform his duty to Australia.

This is especially the case for an avowed monarchist: Mr Abbot's allegience is to the (German) Pope or (English) Queen - it should be to his nation.

Secondly, politicians who go to church have a nasty habit of coming home and deciding that the advice their priest gave them is so good that every-one should follow it. The law in this nation is restrictive enough, without the Damocles Sword of Leviticus hanging over Parliament.

Finally, as shown by his attacks on workers, his stripping away of the "cast-iron guaranteed" medicare safety net, and his failure to take a stand against the war in Iraq, he has clearly turned his back on God. Perhaps he should try another church.

Or just less hypocrisy.

Tags: God, politics, Australia