Thursday, September 16, 2010

Our moral code is out of date

Mr. Yaron Brook says,

If morality is about the pursuit of your own success and happiness, then giving money away to strangers is, in comparison, not a morally significant act. (And it's outright wrong if done on the premise that renunciation is moral.)

Personally, I would take no offense to Yaron Brook's moralist label for myself. I would state, for his enlightenment, I neither ignore nor condemn the earning of money. Yaron Brook's above statement with parenthetical is like the loaded mouse trap which failed to spring.

First, he packages an updated morality under the Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit label.

Then, he peddles his Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit morality dogma for our learning on Gates and Buffett's coattails, two men well-known of good reputation.

Brook won't thread the morality question on those who amass their fortunes in drug trade and other evils. Even less would he dare thread on them were they to give away their money as benefactors to charitable non-profit organizations. Furthermore, do you think he would pounce were a drug lord to renounce his riches and became an eager benefactor as the result of moral pangs in his conscience? Hence, Yaron Brook's moral argument could no more spring to catch a mouse than a evil doer among men.

This is not an updated moral code. However, it is quickly becoming known as the blind-folded atheists' anemic morality.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The ground zero of the heart

The national fervor on the construction in New York City of a mosque near ground zero is an ongoing revelation to America. What the fervor continues to reveal with every word spoken is an awkwardness? a fear? a hypocrisy? in the heart of Americans as well as Christians. While President Obama clarified he was talking about the right, not the wisdom, to build a mosque former Governor Palin and others have wondered about the wisdom to build the mosque at ground zero. Jesus reminded his disciples wisdom is vindicated by her children.
We Americans love to proudly tout the democratic foundation of our nation. Christians, too, have extolled the blessings of religious expression in worship. Suddenly, however Americans as much as Christians and vice verse are confronted in the ground zero convictions of their hearts. I daresay as political citizens, as Americans, we know without a doubt the ruling from our constitution on the matter of the mosque. It doesn't take a lawyer or the Supreme Court to help us understand. That's not to say we like or heartily embrace it. Similarly, as aliens in America, on Earth, Christians know without a doubt the guidance of scripture, the believer's constitution, on the same matter. That's no to say we like it or heartily embrace it.

It is for this reason that in America, a land of law and order, we invoke the rule of law when otherwise awkwardness, fear and hypocrisy would rule the day. What many Americans and Christians have come to realize in this matter is they either do no know, forgot or have rejected what they professed as their conviction their entire lives. This realization is especially unsightly when Americans and Christians see the woeful shallowness of conviction of their professed national religious and political leaders and news media celebrities.

It is significant that neither Americans nor Christians who have weighed in on this subject have appealed to our constitution or the scriptures for their view on the construction of the mosque. It truly does result in awkwardness, fear and hypocrisy when people put aside, even if temporarily, their source of authority. They soon find they are unable to navigate their course without certainty or safety for themselves and others.

Jesus has a way of exposing the ground zero of the hearts of men. Jesus rebuked his disciples for their guised disdain for the Samaritans hoping to rain the consuming fire of heaven on them. (Luke 9:54,55) The scripture, which is the word of the Holy Spirit, speaks on what might have been taken by some as Judas' concern for the poor as being greed in the heart of Judas (John 12:6).

What every disciple of Jesus has understood (even if at times some may forget) is that we by our own volition allowed that instrument of infamy and death on which our Savior was executed to be setup in the ground zero of our hearts. This is wisdom's vindication of her children.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Jesus was crucified

Did Samuelsson not intend the sensationalist effect of his research? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that was not what he intended mainly because he states Jesus was crucified. Still, there's some value to his contribution because he, a Christian, makes Christians mindful of how we speak matters of faith in terms other than those present in the scriptures. We engage in this when we speak, for example, of trinitarian and unitarian doctrines defining terms not present in the scriptures.

Much as I appreciate scholarly work I am leery any time the focus of a doctrine relies on drilling down on a single word. In simple terms Samuelsson's point is akeen to a defense attorney arguing for his client's acquittal because all the testimony states he took the victim's life, took him down but no one ever said his client shot and killed the victim. Is this not the case if the scripture testifys Jesus was suspended on a cross that he was indeed put to death by crucifixion?

Here's an example for my leeriness concerning scholarly findings such as Samuelsson's. He may be as loaded with those pictures of crucifixion when he says Jesus "was required to carry the 'stauros' to Calvary and they 'stauroun' him." The scripture says it was Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:26) who carried the cross for Jesus.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Love triumphs

"Science will win". It's juvenile and although he never says just what it is science wins Stephen Hawking knows the value of, and is not above using, a good cheer. This after stating the fundamental difference between religion and science: Religion is authority based, science observation and reason based.

Hawking (one could say scientists, but lets not) reveals some thinking on aliens much like that for which theists are mocked. Theists are mocked for making a human-like being they call God. Yet, he imagines (yes, that's the right word) human-like aliens and attributes to them the more violent and aggressive human-like qualities. How is this speculation in keeping with the ever higher ever-improving intelligence model of evolution? This is Hawking, an atheist, projecting on aliens the human behavior of aggression supposedly the by-product of religion and theists. Hawking sees alien life forms as the embodiment of not all that is human, just the negative, evil or worse, _ whatever bring harm for humans. Lets consider this possibility: The idea does not set well with Hawking to be upstaged by an alien life form which suddenly reveals the pitiful level of his intelligence. His daughter Lucy shows a more reasonable view.

Secondly, Hawking is familiar with the ridicule cast on theists as refusing to face the facts of reality. It does not sound true to form to hear Hawking advise man ought not be looking to make contact with alien life. An intelligent life form (humans) avoiding contact with intelligent alien life forms? How is that any different were a northernmost people on earth to avoid looking to contact any probable peoples in the southernmost part of the earth?

Hawking is undeniably quite knowledgeable in his field. Yes, science does work. However, he reveals a science which imagines freely and qualifies those imaginations as reasonable or logical. Furthermore, Hawking would just as soon science work at not working to search for or contact alien life forms. He reveals his lack of unbelief and faith, words shunned by scientists, so lets say he trifles the work of man (to say nothing of God) such that he has given up the fight before the battle even begins.

According to evolution an alien visit to earth would be like Columbus' visit to the Americas a catastrophe where the weak perish and the strong survive. Science, says Hawking, will win.

It is therefore no wonder that in the Hawking mindset an alien life not of this world which visited earth in human-form with human-like qualities should be rejected as was Jesus. He looked human. He acted human. He did not fulfill the human expectation of alien life forms of aggression and conquest. Jesus is the embodiment of the love God. Hawking advises his children: if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away. He may not have been lucky enough to find it yet, but it's there to accept or to throw away.
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Love triumphs not in those who remember to reason and observe it at a distance, but in those who embrace it.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Human Jesus: a response

This article does not attempt or profess to be a full response to every point in The Human Jesus video. Undoubtedly, there will be misunderstandings and although great efforts were made to avoid direct quotations to eliminate misquoting and to prevent any semblance of personal attacks this will not prevent those intimately familiar with the video from recognizing indirect allusions. Despite the shortcomings every effort has been made to treat the documentary truthfully and accurately in hopeful, prayerful expectations. Readers are encouraged to view the documentary.

The Human Jesus video challenges believers to examine and reject beliefs concerning Jesus which are without Bible basis. That is a commendable biblical admonition. Certainly, both the challenge and the doctrinal belief behind the documentary have been around since the first century. The two-hour documentary references the familiar second century historic decision at the Nicea council of 325 when (as it is said) Trinitarianism won out over Unitarianism. Although this article reflects a definite conviction concerning Jesus there is no preference for either of these labels which are as unbiblical as they are inaccurate. Believers flash these, as well as monotheist and polytheist, in lieu of teaching and understanding. Often believers are given to making sweeping assumptions about another’s teaching on the basis of a flash card approach instead of engaging in dialog.

The Ishango bone

It seems peculiar, if not telling, that the documentary should draw on the Ishango bone, an ancient mathematical system, to illustrate the introduction of the subject of discussion on the One-ness of God. It is amusing that the bone of a dead animal should serve to establish the antiquity of the concept of one, _ as in the One living God? Furthermore, it is ironic that among the Ishango bone markings with their respective numeral explanations of 3, 4, 6, 9, 21 etc. the numeral 1 is absent. There are several Old and New Testament scripture references with scholarly commentary. Foremost among these scripture passages are Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 110.

The unity of spirit and truth: scripture and perspective

The unity of spirit and truth of this article on The Human Jesus video is in the manner of Jesus. Truth and spirit is not limited to worship of the Father. It was modeled by Jesus in the way in which he engaged the Sadducees. Although he differed with them radically on the resurrection he did not feel threatened by them, not compelled to shun them or to call his disciples away from them. As often as they afforded him the opportunity, albeit with evil motives usually, he would engage them in his teaching. However, he was uncompromising to doubly impress on them in Mark 12:24-27 the error of their understanding and doctrine on the resurrection: "Isn’t this because you are mistaken . . . You are therefore badly mistaken.” The unity Jesus demonstrates in responding to the Sadducees is the spirit and truth (that is, the basis and authority of scripture [spirit] and the perspective [truth] of history) of which he spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4. More on the Sadducees later.

The Shema

Subsequently, Jesus moves on to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 as quoted in Mark 12:29-31.

Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one

The documentary takes the historical, popular view on the Deuteronomy passage; that is, it ascribes to it the literal quantitative value of one. This is the interpretation the Jews have given this passage historically; an interpretation which just disregards the plural noun ending. One should wonder about a telltale interpretation which just disregards grammar as being suitable and sufficient especially in something as the divine scriptures. Similarly, one should wonder as to how an interpretation of this telltale plural noun ending speaks to a plurality at all. It is noted Paul reminds Christians we are indebted to the Jews. However, the indebtedness is as concerns the Jewish heritage of the scriptures, not the Jewish interpretation and to view a different interpretation of scripture by Christians as anti-semitic is a stretch. The quotation of the Shema passage by Jesus, although his quotation reflects his embrace of it, does not equate to an interpretation.

The unity of God

The ascribing of a literal quantitative value of one or any other value is to miss the intended point, namely, the unity of God. The point God sought to impress on Israel was the total unity thread without variation between anything and everything God said, what Moses said to Israel as being what God said, what the prophets declared and wrote as being from God, what Jesus declared as being from God and for Christians what the apostles said and wrote as being from God. This unity thread (God [spoke] to the fathers, to the prophets, to his Son) is reflected in brief by the writer of Hebrews:

1:1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son

A scribe who answered wisely

What may bear some significance is the reiteration by the scribe (Mark 12:32, 33) to Jesus' quotation of the Shema. Mark comments Jesus regarded the scribe’s reiteration as “wise(ly)”. The scribe had, it seems, merely parroted the risk-free, standard, acceptable view of the Sadducees on the content of the Deuteronomy passage, but without much understanding. There was nothing wrong in what the scribe said. He, like Jesus, did not offer an interpretation. Jesus then moves on to Psalm 110.

The New Testament inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 110

It does not seem an unrelated coincidence that Jesus should follow-up the Shema; the quintessential passage on the one-ness of God with Psalm 110. If the Shema were an open-and-shut case for Sadducees and believers today as to the literal One-ness of God; Psalm 110 is handled at best as another open-and-shut case (after scrutinizing every jot and tittle in the original language) or at worse an opened Pandora's box overflowing with some upsetting, unsettling business about lords (after musing over absurdities about multiple gods and related scenarios). See Hebrews for the quotation and application of Psalm 110 to Jesus.

Believers articulate their convictions: an indictment

The fact believers may articulate poorly their understanding on Father, Son and Holy Spirit is itself not proof of a false doctrine. In this same vein, whatever Constantine's motives might have been at Nicea did not change scripture. If the believer’s profession coincides with what Constantine and others thought and that profession is in the content and context of scripture it is scripture, not Constantine, which is the source and authority for the believer. Similarly, positing questions with rhetorical absurdities may have a self-serving effect, but does nothing to teach or enlighten believers. Are those questions intended as proof of a greater understanding on the part of the questioner than the one answering the question? There seems to be no less substantial gaps, quirks and awkwardness in the articulations for the human Jesus and these believers too, like those previously mentioned believers, may be parroting regarding a human Jesus while just disregarding the broader context and content of scripture. Altogether, the inability of believers to articulate clearly their scripture-rooted convictions is more an indictment of those who teach the people of God his word than a false doctrine.

The Sadducees, the resurrection and death

Now, back to the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection, their serious misunderstanding of the scriptures and the entry of death in the garden of Eden. The Sadducees posed for Jesus a marriage scenario involving a woman who was widowed seven times. The similarity of expressions between the Sadducees’ “Moses wrote to us” and the Pharisees’ “Moses commanded us” (Matthew 19) and the related questions on marriage would seem to suggest both groups may have been questioning Jesus.

Also, it is reasonable to infer and to apply Jesus’ reference on the origin of marriage in the garden in Mark’s account to Matthew’s passage. It is between the Mark and Matthew accounts that the unity, the harmony, the one-ness of spirit (the scripture, “Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”) and truth (the perspective of history, “from the beginning it has not been so”) is demonstrated by Jesus. The exclusivness of scripture and the inclusivness of history bear testimony of God and his will. Truth in scripture is confirmed not by the many times it appears, to be doubted by the few times it is stated, whether Jesus or Paul said it, but simply by the fact it is written in scripture.

What is the connection between the Sadducees’ question on marriage and the resurrection as concerns The Human Jesus discussion?

The garden is where Satan sought to disrupt the unity between what God said and where Adam and Eve allowed the deceiver to distort what God had said. The unity of Adam and Eve was not limited to their fleshly union which made them one. It was another expression of their unity and one-ness in harmony with the will of God. It would be a serious misunderstanding were anyone to conclude the extent of the union God purposed between the man and the woman was strictly in the flesh. The garden is where death entered into the world. The effect of that lost unity has been felt between God and man and the man and the woman since the garden.

God cannot die is the strong suit assertion of The Human Jesus documentary. However, that’s a phrase which could well have originated in the garden. We are familiar with Satan’s lies to Adam and Eve. He deceived them telling them they would not die. After their sin against God they realized Satan had lied. It was a bit later but Death’s knock several years later removed any doubts as to its reality.

After the fall of Adam and Eve Satan realized he had work to do. God, contrary to what Satan might have expected, did not disown the man and woman. God desired the restoration of their trust and belief in Him. This became and has been Satan’s work to instill in man not so much the reality of death, but that

God cannot save you. God is not a man. God does not understand. God cannot die. God will not die.

This lie that death is final is perpetrated as believed even by those who teach the scriptures to the people of God. The implication of this belief is that there is nothing and no one greater than death. Therefore it was necessary that God himself step into his world and take on death.

10:17 Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 10:18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” Gospel of John

It is a mistake by those, much like the Sadducees, who say God cannot die to equate that with God would not die. Furthermore, they are badly mistaken to believe God is willing and able to raise the dead such as Lazarus, but he certainly cannot and would not lay down his own life. As impressive and memorable as was the resurrection of Lazarus few, perhaps none, understood or could imagine Jesus would soon demonstrate the full significance of his words, I am the resurrection.

The overflow of the (un)belief in the phrase God is not a man is not to say God cannot, but that He would not become a man. The apostle Paul in Philippians:

2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.


The theology behind The Human Jesus documentary is as old as the first century church. It has been and will continue to be the constant struggle of believers to hold fast and then to take up that which they left, again. It is in the quest to know God. Jesus informed his disciples he is not particularly impressed by repetitious acclamations of Lord, Lord or unaware that his disciples did not know it was him we were serving faithfully. What pleases him is that we, his people, do what he has commanded that we love one another.

One who loves is free from fear and intimidation and trusts fully in the love of the God he or she knows. Examine all things. Feed one another. It is the human thing to do.


The New Testament inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 2

The second psalm points to a convergence between a father and a son to whom he is a father. When viewed in light of Jesus one common interpretation is for a physical creation.

You are my son.
Today I have become your father

Colossians 1 is viewed in the same way with respect to a physical creation of the Son. However, Hebrews 1 is considerably clearer and bolder with its assertions on an alleged creation of the Son. Furthermore, it is the apostle Paul who provides the inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 2 in Acts 13:33ff to the resurrection as being the manner in which Jesus was begotten.

13:33 that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm,

‘You are my Son.

Today I have become your father.’

13:34 “Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Reason of Creation

Hello All.

This topic I mentioned is a question being asked by humans since ages unknown. It has two views, philosophical and religious. Lets see both in brief.

Philosophical view doesn't need religion, it says we are created by another humans through process of procreation and our purpose is to "be good" to society and contribute towards ourselves and society, not to break laws, respect others etc. This view also says we have a right to choose what we want in life. This view does not take into account any religious views / prescriptions.

Religious view states we are not just Created by Allah(SWT) out of the blue, we are here with a purpose and that is to recognise our God and worship Him(SWT) / Her(SWT) yes as we are calling our Allah(SWT) as "He(SWT)" as that is how He(SWT) Address Himself(SWT) in Qura'an, but in essence our God Entity i.e.  Allah(SWT) is Free from Gender. This view gives us a set of basic rules to follow, gives us a promise of life after death and our destination depending upon our deeds.

Now both views are here, what I am interested to know that I chose the latter view, my main reason was Islam being very simple and also, I did not want to end up dead and know then, there is a God Who Will now Ask questions, so I choose to believe in Allah(SWT) and Islam being His(SWT) last and perfect religion.

That is my reason. Please share your choice and reasons.


Meditation proves we are ONE!

Have you ever meditated? Yes? Just continue to read. No? Ask somebody who does, better ask people with different faith and then read this.

I meditate and this is my experience. It generally starts with a good thought or an image. In my religion (Hinduism), it's recommended to think of some phrase (like Om or Bramha or Om Namah Shivay). I am sure similar for other religions too. So we start our meditation being religious. Have you noticed what happens after 5 minutes? Or 10 minutes or 15 minutes or an hour for some of you? You forget the phrase. You forget the image. The thought disappears and what you find in place? Blank! Silence! Space! That's the second level of meditation and this experience doesn't discriminate people. Everybody can have any experience independent of their faith. Doesn't this prove we are ONE?

Not sure? Try meditating if you haven't done for a while or learn if you don't know how to. No need to take a course or buy a book-just ask somebody who does. Experience the ONEness and share with others.

Function of this Blog

This blog has been created, and therefore should be put to some use.

I am not sure, how can we use the Blog.

Please suggest.