Those who call themselves Christians...

Something that has been on my mind for some time now seems to have appeared in blogdom. At Pyromaniac, Phil Johnson mentioned the fact that a man like T.D. Jakes made TIME magazine's list of the top most influential evangelicals in the USA. At FROM THE HEAD OF THE MOOR, Jonathan Moorhead blogged two very good and interesting blog messages on T.D. Jakes and also Tommy Tenney.This is a subject that is very dear to my heart. To read a bit more about what I have written about a Oneness pentecostal's views, please visit my article called GWEN SHAMBLIN’S BELIEF ABOUT THE TRINITY: A REBUTTAL.

 

It simply amazes me how many churches today, notably charismatic churches, have accepted the books, videos and CDs of both Jakes and Tenney. A very popular singing group--Philips, Craig and Dean (PCD)--is also very popular here in South Africa. A very good article about their doctrine was written by Eric Nielsen at Alpha and Omega Ministries.

 

What concerns me is that churches simply do not care about issues like this. Neither do Christian radio stations. Some time ago I brought the issue of PCD's theology up at a local Christian radio station with proper documentation, such as that from Eric Nielsen. At least the radio station was willing to study the issue. However, about a week or so later they decided that PCD had no doctrinal errors concerning the Godhead! This points to the fact that people at Christian radio stations--in this case a man with a degree in theology--are confused about the doctrine of the Trinity or perhaps they just don't care.

 

A large local church with 6000+ members is also a large purveyor of the materials of Jakes, Tenney and PCD. The problem however, is that this church (at least in doctrinal statement) is orthodox. How is it that a church (in this case with about 20 pastors) can have such an explosive theological issue slip past them? Is it perhaps that such things are not checked out? Or, perhaps such things just don't matter anymore? Maybe it is more important to be in with the hot moving crowd in the church growth movement and seeker sensitive churches!

 

The fact is that I do believe these churches no longer understand what the important doctrines of the church are! They no longer know how to distinguish between real Christians and Christians in name only.

 

I believe this calls for a reformation in the church today. It is time we stop calling for revival! Revival to what? What is the use if the church at large is devoid of the truth of God. It will simply be revival to erroneous doctrine! There can be no revival or worship of God without the truth of God. The fact is that a god that is only interested in relationship cannot be trusted, since trust can only be based on truth; without which true relationship cannot exist! How arrogant of the modern church to think that it can define who God is and how doctrines should be defined! It is because of this overweening attitude of the church that they can no longer recognize truth!

 

The church wants worship that can reach God, but worship bereft of truth is not just empty worship, it is useless worship. It is a worship rejected by God.

 

What is the deal anyway with these churches and their animadversion against theology and doctrine? The fact is, that if you have any theology at all, you might as well take the time and energy to have good solid Biblical theology. Yet, even those who attack theology and doctrine, indeed have their own theology and doctrine. To despise theology and doctrine, is to despise the very God of the Bible! Why do I say this? Any thought you have concerning God reveals your own theology and doctrine. Once you have read a verse of Scripture and made a pronouncement on what you believe concerning that verse, you have formulated theology and doctrine. You cannot detach theology and doctrine from your faith. The very fact that you have a thought (any thought) about God, reveals the fact that you have theology and doctrine. You cannot for a moment think that your thought processes about God can be autonomous from theology and doctrine. You are only fooling yourself!

 

It is time that the true church stands up once again (like the church in the days of Athanasius) against false doctrine and call a spade a spade!

 

Can someone who does not believe in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity indeed be called a Christian, never mind being called an evangelical?

 

Just thinking...

 

Culture of Death Arriving in South Africa?

After the Terri Shiavo debacle in the USA, it seems that many have learnt nothing from what happened there.

 

It seems like the idea of euthanasia is going to start becoming an issue here in South Africa. In an article at the South African online news service www.news24.co.za called Don't let elderly suffer, the common arguments for euthanasia are being promoted in a very euphemistic way.

 

By mentioning the recent debate in the USA--which specifically refers to the debate around Terri Shiavo--it is clear that this article does not refer to natural passive euthanasia, which means withholding unnatural life support to allow a person's death. However, this article may be about simply making the last days of the dying more comfortable. Yet, the common arguments of euthanasia are used. An article like this will probably kick off the debate about euthanasia.

 

The usual arguments are used, i.e. not prolonging suffering, ageing population, increase in chronic diseases, higher medical expenditure.

 

Without repeating myself and boring the readers to death, rather read my blog message called Killing people using euphemisms.

 

This is a matter of great concern to all Christians across the world. It is worth voicing our opinions concerning the matter!

 

Just thinking...

South Africa and racism

South Africa has been an example to the world since 1994 on how to deal with different races and so-called racism. This is of course from the rest of the world's point of view.

 

However, the latest issue coming up in South Africa is that a year service may be in the pipeline for new teachers. Teachers are already so well under-paid in South Africa; now with this service year, it will even be worse. I have a major issue with this idea, but that is not what this blog message is about.

 

Racism is alive and well in South Africa. Even in the department of education. Education director-general Duncan Hindle yesterday said one issue in South African education is the "whitening" of the education profession. "Whitening?" One would think that after the big hoo-haa of the "first" democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 that after 11 years of "democracy" statements like these would be on the decrease. Yet, it seems to me that their is no waning of the racist card! Hindle said an increasing number of mainly white female students had studied teaching in the past couple of years. For this he wants some type of balance. The fact is that he is simply making racist comments. If they wanted balance they should have thought of making teaching a viable profession. It is almost impossible for a teacher on his or her own to make a living in this country. Housing and cars are ridiculously expensive while household goods like food and appliances just keep on growing in price. Public transport still remains a dangerous option to consider.

 

With the government's push of people of "colour" above "whites" in many high powered positions, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that someone with no heart for the education of children would want to sit with 40 children--not one's own--with the little pay that teachers are getting. A woman of "colour" would rather go where there is better pay, since she is likely to get such a position instead of the "whiteys," than live on the edge of survival!

 

It takes someone with a heart for children and their education to put up with the hardships of teaching 40 undisciplined children and low pay. I do not know about the ideas of black women, but among white women, teaching has always been a profession of honour and most of these women had a heart for teaching children.

 

Instead of racist remarks like Hindle's, it would be better to give parents the tools of bringing up their children with a love for other people, and so create a culture of wanting to see our children grow up better educated. In this way, among all race groups, youngsters might once again reconsider the profession of teaching, since they would have a heart for others and see the benefits of teaching children.

 

It is time to stop preferring one race over another. As a nation South Africa should work together to create a people that can live together in harmony with high levels of tolerance. By looking for quotas in the workplace, hate will be engendered in the hearts of those who are losing out in the deal. It simply means that not all people are equal in the eyes of the law.

 

The question is: "Does the current ANC government see all its people as equal, or do they with some slight of hand make some people more equal than others?"

 

Just thinking...

ACLU and religion

In a recent case brought by the "infamous" ACLU (American [un]Civil [suppression] Liberties Union)--sorry for all the typos here--U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning Has ruled that the Pentagon may no longer sponsor a Boy Scout jamboree which is held every four years. This decision is just part of a long battle by the ACLU against not only the Boy Scouts, but any American institution with the tiniest inkling towards religion.

 

Isn't it amazing how such an organization as the ACLU with all that money and power behind it could be so scared of little boys and organizations that believe that God exists. They are not an organization concerned with truth, civility or liberty. Anything they perceive that looks like God simply has to be removed from the public square. Why? Do they really think that if they "remove" God from the public square that they would be less culpable for the lives they live and the terror they spread in the hearts of law abiding citizens through their sidekick-cronies, the liberal judges? If they believe that God does not exist, why are they so scared of Him?

 

The ACLU are like an ostrich that sticks his head in the ground and then thinks that nobody can see him and that nobody else exists. By checking God at the door of the public square they think that He no longer matters.

 

But..., think again!

 

Wishing God away doesn't make Him go away. An eternity after the ACLU and the people that run it have ceased to exist, God will still be there, running the universe He has created!

 

Just thinking...

Progeny

I just finished reading a novel by the name of Progeny, authored by Martha D. Ogburn, a few days ago. It deals with three areas of great concern to Christians: abortion, cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

 

A student, Rachel, is studying at university in the area of journalism. While there she meets Matt, a medical student who studies under the infamous Dr. Robert Chan.

 

Matt and Rachel marries during college and Rachel becomes pregnant. Matt feels that his future is at stake and discusses it with Dr. Chan. Chan gets Matt to send Rachel to him since he also doubles up as an obstetrician. Soon after her visit to Chan she experiences a miscarriage.

 

Later, Chan, with contacts in China, moves on to start his own research facility to find cures for rare diseases and illnesses. Matt becomes a very respected psychiatrist while Rachel just doesn't seem to cope with life. She has recurring nightmares which Matt thinks should be treated with medicine. Rachel keeps going backward in her psychological life and Matt is just about to pull his hair out!

 

Then..., the coincidence of a life time happens. Matt and Rachel just climbed off a plane at the airport when Rachel walks past a girl of around 16 that looks exactly like her. This starts the ball rolling and Rachel starts a hunt to find out about the truth of this girl that looks just like her.

 

Althought this is a book that really reads fast (I am a sloooowww reader), and which I find to be an excellent novel, it makes one think about the issues surrounding abortion, cloning and embryonic stem cell research. This book probes the areas of fetal tissue research and reproductive medicine in a very clever way.

 

The book is fast paced in its story line and there was no time during the book that I felt that I was losing track of the story or that I felt that I was bored.

 

Progeny shows how evil the world of "baby traffic" has become. This book is a definite to read!

 

Just thinking...

Reading blogs

As most of you know by now, I do not blog at a blinding pace like some do! I suppose the juices of my brain work a tad slower than most, and that is why it takes me so long to get to the next blog entry.

However, there are some in the blogosphere who just cannot help themselves. The juices in their brains must be working overtime, and like volcanoes their brains must erupt on a daily basis. I have to admit, I admire people like that. Sometimes I wish I was like that, but then I am reminded of God's sovereignty and His providence in making me the way I am and others the way they are.

I have been following a couple of blogs recently. Some more recently than others.

One of the blogs I have been visiting the longest is that of James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries. I am sure that James does not sleep. He obviously has a brain that erupts on almost a continous basis. James, how do you keep up with the rest of your ministry? Anyway, keep it up! We are learning a lot from you!

A more recent blog is by Phil Johnson, called the PyroManiac. Phil's blog officially launched on June 1, 2005, but just could not help himself from writing his first entry on May 27. In this entry Phil wrote: "I'll be trying to post at least 2-3 times a week, most weeks. Don't expect me to be one of those every-day bloggers. I have a real job on the side." Now, if I am not mistaken, it seems that Phil has either lost his "job on the side" or he is not doing his job on the side! :-) Just like Bret Capracina noticed, Phil hasn't stuck to his 2-3 times blogging per week. Oh, well, PyroManiac is a daily must read!

The last blog I want to comment on today is called Between Two Worlds by Justin Taylor. Justin's blog is the type of blog where almost anyone can come to and have something to read that interests them. Justin is also one of those daily bloggers (even more than once a day sometimes) with a whole lot of insight on a multitude of subjects. Justin, I am still reading (as you can see from the first paragraph above) the book you co-edited with John Piper (Sex and the Supremacy of Christ) and I promise to have a review for you as soon as possible. What I have read so far is absolutely amazing!

All I can say is: "Guys, keep blogging!"

Just thinking...

Hotel Rwanda

Genocide! Murder! Mayhem! more than 500 000 dead!

 

This is what happened in 1994 in the African country of Rwanda when the Hutu tribe, according to typical genocidal fashion, systematically attempted to bring the Tutsi tribe to extinction.

 

Our story kicks off when one of the neighbours of Paul Rusesabagina (our main character) is brutally beaten and interrogated. That night in bed his wife wants to know why he did nothing to help their neighbour. Paul's answer was that he was not family. Family is more important than anything!

 

However, soon (in fact on 6 April 1994) after this, the Rwandan president's jet is shot down (by his own army) and so the Hutu onslaught is started under the false notion that the Tutsis shot the president's jet down. The secret pass phrase for the start of this massacre was "cut the tall trees down!"

 

In this situation Paul soon sees the injustice and evil of the genocide and starts opening the hotel (the posh Hotel des Mille Collines), where he is assistant manager, for the housing of refugees.

 

In the past, Paul used to keep his top visitors and other important political figures happy by giving them extra special treatment at their visits to the hotel. In this way he had built an important list of contacts.

 

During this period of genocidal massacre, he makes use of his contacts and the resources of the hotel at his disposal to keep the Tutsi refugees at his hotel safe from this atrocity. Paul constantly has to keep the Rwandan army happy through bribes to ensure the safety of the people at his hotel. In this way he ensures the safety of more than 1200 people, mostly Tutsis.

 

Paul keeps on putting his trust in the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, believing that the UN would send more reinforcements to stop the genocide. However, Paul soon has to realize that the UN and the western world does not think intervention into a black country warranted their time, money or troops. They are now on their own with no help from the outside world.

 

Even though Hotel Rwanda is a movie about one of the most gruesome genocides of modern history, violence is never sensationalized. The movie is crafted well enough for the viewer to feel and understand the reality of the violence and murder.

 

Apart from the ineffectiveness of the UN in this situation, Hotel Rwanda also shows how the world in the West, especially the USA, rather spent time using words of no effect to express what they saw happening in Rwanda. No one could come to express the truth of what was happening in Rwanda: GENOCIDE! With the evidence at their disposal, the West could not (or would not) see the truth and rather used words such as "internal struggle" and "civil war." While the West was quibbling over the correct words to use, people were being slaughtered by their thousands.

 

Hotel Rwanda is a movie about a real-life person who made a difference in the world. It is a movie that once again dispels the notion that humans are basically good. It shows us how horrifying human nature can be. It also shows us how one imperfect man can make such a huge difference in the midst of the cruelty and evil of human nature. What it also clearly portrays is that the West does not care much for what happens in Africa!

 

Paul is asked by one of his employees, Dube, "Why are people so cruel?" Unfortunately, I have to use that dreaded 3-letter word: SIN! Sin has been with man since the beginning. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?" (Jer 17:9 ASV) "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa 51:5 ASV) The sooner we realize that sin is part of man's innermost, the sooner people will realize there is only one solution to this problem of sin! The atoning sacrifice of Christ!

 

This is a must-see-movie! Don Cheadle (Ocean's Twelve, Traffic and Picket Fences), who plays Paul in the movie, was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Paul Rusesabagina.

 

For a good review of this movie read HOTEL RWANDA. For more on what really happened in Rwanda, read THE HOLOCAUST IN RWANDA - 10 YEARS ON. I have recently read the book Holocaust in Rwanda - The roles of Gun Control, Media Manipulation, Liberal Church Leaders and the United Nations. What an eye opener! You have to read this book to see what really happened and how the world stood by and watched the genocide. You will see how useless the UN is, and how Kofi Annan, the current Secretary-General of the UN did nothing to stop the genocide! This book can be ordered through Christian Liberty Books.

 

Just thinking...

 

Catastrophe

We know there is something wrong in this world when students at university level do something so heinous that it takes extreme effort not to cry out in rage against their evil actions.

It has been reported on a local South African online news service that a bunch of students at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (UKZN) literally cooked a cat alive in a microwave oven. If you do not believe me, you can check out the news article at NEWS24 called Students microwave family cat. The amazing thing is that these students are studying to become this nations teachers! What kind of teachers are we creating to teach our children in this country? Education is already in a shambles in South Africa, and that is without injecting the education system with outright morally deficient evil teachers. At a subsequent meeting with students from the university to find out who committed this dastardly evil crime, some students even laughed!

What goes on in the mind of someone who is being educated at university level to commit such an act is hard to say? If this was supposed to be a prank--as some have suggested--then the prank was committed by a blubbering idiot and should not be allowed in university never mind being sponsored by the state to become a teacher and eventually coming into contact with our children! This person must be removed from society, because he is so stupid, who knows what idiotic prank he will try next! (Please note, I am using "he" as a collective to denote either a single person or multiple persons of either sex.) He needs to be kept out of society until he has been educated properly from a lasting moral base before being unleashed on humanity! On the other hand, if he did not simply play a prank--as the suggestion goes--then he should be locked up for psychiatric observation. We definitely do not want this person near our children!

Unfortunately, we should not be surprised at such behaviour. The days of thinking that humans are basically good are long gone, and I do believe that most of us know the truth about man's condition. For too long the base of man's moral existence has been gnawed at by materialistic scientists and post-modern pluralism. How can we expect people to act morally when we do not provide them with a proper objective moral base to move from? To claim that such a base exists and to further claim that this base does not need to be religious is to install a base on quicksand. It is only possible to go down, since the base is not built on solid ground. If the base was built by man and his clever ideas, who is to say that the base will still exist tomorrow? We all know how man is capable of moving along with the shifting sands of time! If man creates a base today (or a law for that matter), he is capable enough of moving to another base tomorrow.

These students obviously have no base to refer their actions to. If we are all just animals (as Darwinism supposes), and animals eat one another live, why not let the stronger animal microwave another animal alive? Where is the base? There is NONE!!!

What is your moral base built on?

Just thinking...

Kingdom of Heaven Correction

In my last blog about the movie Kingdom of Heaven I commented that Balian did not exist. Well, that was a bit of poor scholarship on my part. I simply did not do my homework! Unfortunately, the church history sources I have at home do not mention Balian at all. Wikipedia mentions Balian as Balian of Ibelin (also as Balian the Younger) who died in 1193. His father Balian the Elder died in 1150.

 

Balian is also mentioned in the article In Search of the Real Balian. Here is a quote from that article:

"Balian did in fact play a crucial role as a Crusader noble in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 to the Muslim sultan Saladin. But Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land—as he does in the movie—because he was already part of the nobility there. His father Balian the Old (not Godfrey) fathered three sons, Hugh, Baldwin, and Balian, all of whom were legitimate and recognized as such. Long before Saladin made his masterful invasion of the Holy Land, Balian and his elder brother Baldwin had established their reputations as competent members of Palestine's feudal nobility. Indeed, Balian was married to royalty even before the events Scott portrays—and he wasn't at all romantically involved with the princess Sybilla, sister to the king of Jerusalem. (Actually Balian's brother Baldwin was the one who had a love interest in Sybilla.)"

So, you can read about who Balian really was at the links given above. My comments in the original article still stand that "the creators of Kingdom of Heaven played fast and loose with the facts of the crusades," that if "you are interested in an accurate historical movie, this is also not for you, especially if you are a history buff" and finally "like most other historic epics produced by Hollywood... Hollywood gets it wrong once again!"

 

Just thinking...

Kingdom of Heaven

In the world of Hollywood, fact and fiction are no different, as long as you tell a story; even if that story is supposedly based on history, which is supposed to be factual. This is true of movies such as Hard Ball and Pocahontas.

In the recently released movie Kingdom of Heaven, the movie makers take the facts of history, throw them into a hat and then pull them out in random order to make up this historical movie, and then sell it off as fact!

You see, I have always believed that the facts do not necessarily correlate to truth! Fact do not equal truth! Without context and perspective fact is merely raw data. Apply the context and perspective to fact and truth appears. In Kingdom of Heaven we can see this so clearly.

Background

Kingdom of Heaven mixes different facts of a century apart to make its story. In the movie Godfrey, protector of the king of Jerusalem and baron of Ibelin, returns to France to look for his illegitimate son, Balian, to lure him to Jerusalem to join Godfrey in the new world. On the way back to Jerusalem Godfrey dies and leaves Balian to be the new protector of the king of Jerusalem and to be the new baron of Ibelin. Back in Jerusalem Balian discovers that the king is a leper who has been king since his teenage years and who just may not see his 30th year alive. Balian falls in love with Sybilla, the king's sister, but later denies his love for her when he realises that this love could cause great evil in the empire. After the king dies Sybilla becomes queen and her husband Guy of Lusignan becomes her king. Guy, who is a bloodthirsty man decides that it is time for war against the Saracens (Muslims). He leads his army, without the warrior knights of Balian and Tiberias who felt that Guy's actions were uncalled for, against the army of Saladin who ruled an army of 200,000. Saladin obliterates the army of the new king of Jerusalem and decides that Jerusalem must be taken. When Balian hears of this he decides that it is worth defending Jerusalem against Saladin. However, Saladin takes Jerusalem and gives the people of Jerusalem safe passage out of Jerusalem.

Much of the story is based on fact. Godfrey existed and so did Saladin, Sybilla, the leper king of Jerusalem and Guy the bloodthirsty new king. However, Balian did not exist, and there were at least 87 years and two crusades that separated the lives of these people.

True context for the fall of Jerusalem

Godfrey (a descendant of Charlemagne in the female line), accompanied by his two brothers, Baldwin and Eustace, was the moral hero of the First Crusade. He is described as having prodigious physical strength. He was as pious as he was brave, and his single purpose was rescuing Jerusalem from the hands of the Saracens. Contemporary historians call him a holy monk in military armor and ornaments of a duke. Even his rivals acknowledged his purity. In a word, a very different person than pictured in Kingdom of Heaven. Being one of the stalwarts of the first crusade, he helped in securing Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. However, just eight days after the capture of Jerusalem Godfrey was elected king of Jerusalem but declined the title of king, since he was unwilling to wear a crown of gold in the same city where the Saviour had worn a crown of thorns. He rather adopted the title of Baron and Defender of the Holy Sepulchre. Having extended his own realm, and survived the capture of Jerusalem, Godfrey died a year later on July 18, 1100. He was recognised as the most devout among the chieftains of the first crusade and as a result his body was laid to rest in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Godfrey, after his death, was succeeded by his brother Baldwin as king of Jerusalem (1100-1118). Next came Baldwin II, the nephew of Baldwin I (1118-1131). The next ruler was Fulke of Anjou (1131-1143), the husband of Millicent, Baldwin II's daughter. After this followed Baldwin III (1143-1162). He saw the progress of the second crusade. Baldwin III was succeeded by Amalric of Amaury (1162-1173). The next king was Baldwin IV (1173-1184), a thirteen old boy who was a leper. Sybilla was his sister, who married Montferrat, one of the regents during the reign of Baldwin IV. It was during the reign of Baldwin IV that Saladin became the caliph over the whole realm of Damascus to the Nile. Baldwin V (1184-1186), the five year old nephew of Baldwin IV, was succeeded by Sybilla's second husband, Guy of Lusignan. Kingdom of Heaven depicts the battle between Guy and Saladin.

So, the creators of Kingdom of Heaven played fast and loose with the facts of the crusades by inserting Godfrey into a historic future in which he is simply the friend of the leprous king Baldwin IV, who reigned 73 years after Godfrey's own reign. Godfrey is also never depicted as the king of Jerusalem during this movie. The movie is also a depiction of the second crusade whereas Godfrey fought in the first crusade. Sybilla and her husband Guy also never succeeded Sybilla's brother directly, but rather followed Sybilla's five year old son, Baldwin V. This then also shows that there never could have been any antagonism between Guy and Godfrey, since they never could have known each other!

Hollywood's bias

Hollywood again shows its bias against Christianity in Kingdom of Heaven. The reasons for the crusades are not clearly shown and the Christians (under the leadership of Guy) are shown to simply want to go to war without any provocation. In fact, the Christians are shown to have provoked Saladin to come to war. On the other hand, the Muslims are shown to be the honourable ones and never to be the aggressors apart from when they are provoked. This clearly overlooks one of the main reasons for the start of the crusades.

Since the inception of Islam by the false prophet Mohammed, he and his followers have been involved in wars of great destruction against anyone who did not believe in Mohammed's message. This included Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and pagans. In the first century of Islamic jihad from Mohammed on, 3200 churches have been destroyed or converted into mosques. Thousands of Christians were massacred in this period alone. And it has not stopped. Men were forced to hand over their women and children to be sold as slaves. City upon city was invaded by hordes of Muslims who continued to slaughter the inhabitants of these cities. As recently as in "1860 over 12,000 Christians were slaughtered in Lebanon."[1] Later, in "1876 14,700 Bulgarians were murdered by the Turks."[2] Continuing in this trend, "200,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turks in Bayazid in 1877. And in 1915 the Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As recently as September 1922 the Turkish army destroyed the ancient city of Smyrna with its 300,000 Christian population."[3]

This had been "Mohammed's" rule since Islam's inception for close on 500 years when the crusades started. It simply came to a point where the Muslims could no longer be ignored. The fact that "Mohammed" tried to convert the world by the sword never even made it to this piece of celluloid.

Do not get me wrong, many atrocities were committed by many of the so-called "Christians" on these crusades. This we do not deny. Yet, many of these same atrocities were committed by the armies of Islam for almost 500 years but we are never informed of them in this movie.

Because this is a historic epic, many unsuspecting viewers will leave the theatre believing that what they saw to be truth. Yet, this movie simply produces the "truth" of the warped worldview of its makers. It passes the many mixed up facts as truth. However, it never brings us truth, but rather stores in the minds of the viewers a rewritten historic concoction of half truths and innuendo.

To learn more about the crusades and what led to them, read The Real History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden.

Not all is bad

Even though Kingdom of Heaven is historically inaccurate there is some good we can take from this movie. It is a movie of honour, bravery and consequences. Balian's brave stand against the Saracens is shown to be a stand of honour, since he and his men promised the king to protect those that cannot be protected. Even Saladin is shown to be honourable in his dealings with the king. A deal was struck between the king and Saladin as to who rules where. Saladin never seems to have gone against this deal. The consequences of wrong actions are also shown when we see the end of Guy, who succeeded the leper king. He was not an honourable man. He was also a man of bloodlust. He ended losing his kingdom and had nowhere to go.

Conclusion

This movie is not for someone who is sensitive. Whenever a battle is on the go, blood is splattered across the screen and onto those in battle. However, the violence and blood cannot be compared to that of garbage like Kill Bill. If you are interested in an accurate historical movie, this is also not for you, especially if you are a history buff.

All in all the movie is good in terms of the story and the special effects. But, like most other historic epics produced by Hollywood such as Troy, King Arthur and Alexander, Hollywood gets it wrong once again!

---

1. Peter Hammond, The End of Islam, http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Bibliography

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 5, The Middle Ages, From Gregory VII to Boniface VIII, 1049-1294, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, First Printing, July 1996.

Update:
30 November 2009 - After I received a correction from Anonymous, on Sat, 28 November 2009, concerning Balian, I thought it best to put a link to my correction concerning Balian that I wrote back on 18 May 2005 called Kingdom of Heaven Correction.

Significance...

Chely Wright, the country singer sings in her song Unknown:

 

I don't want to be unknown
The little things that make me who I am
I need to share
I need to know that someone cares
That I drink coffee black
That I sing when I drive
That I sleep with the TV on
More then anything
I don't want to be unknown

 

...

 

Unknown
I don't want to be unknown
The little things that make me who I am
I need to share
I need to know that someone cares

 

That I write down my dreams
That I love when it rains
I burn candles when I'm alone
More then anything
I don't want to be unknown
More then anything
No one wants to be unknown

 

I was listening to this song in the car the other day, and it dawned on me that no one wants to be unknown. Being unknown signals that we are insignificant to others and as a result we are worthless; we have no value.

 

Now, I live in South Africa and here there are beggars on almost every street corner. There are also many (sometimes as many as 30 people standing on these street corners) trying to sell something to us from newspapers, to pirate DVDs, to sunglasses, clothes hangers and a host more. What struck me was that when these informal sales people (ISP) approach vehicles, most of these occupants would simply ignore these ISPs. I don't know if you have ever tried to get someone's attention but were simply ignored. It is like a slap in the face. You feel like you are insignificant in their eyes. I am sure that this is exactly what these ISPs feel when they are ignored. When our significance is denied it is our own sense of dignity that gets eroded.

 

Sure, there are many problems caused by these ISPs. They sell stolen goods and many of them have grabbed handbags and cell phones from vehicles waiting for the light to change to green. The very existence of these ISPs in South Africa is a blot against the South African government's ability to deal with two major issues in this country: crime and unemployment.

 

It is not now the time to start blaming the government for these issues, even though I believe that the blame rests squarely on their very soft shoulders. The point that I want to make is that we should as citizens of our various countries try to make changes on the micro level--person to person. What will it cost me to smile at an ISP and to say "no thank you?" Politeness and friendliness cost absolutely nothing.

 

The golden rule has not changed: Treat others as you would want them to treat you! It is no wonder that our world is where it is. We show no respect to others. We all want to be number ONE! Of course the philosophy of number ONE is that only number ONE counts and all must be done to elevate number ONE above all others. If we can all start to help one another instead of just ourselves this world will definitely be a better place.

 

Just thinking...

Microsoft did not support gay-rights bill

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Schism in the Catholic Institution?

It always amazes me that people will join a group or company or marry someone knowing the predefined contracts and rules necessary to join, but once they are in they want everything changed!

 

With Cardinal Ratzinger's election to pope, many--like the Women's Ordination Conference--are already dismissing him as someone who will further divide the church. They claim that the Catholic hierarchy is out of touch with the people in the pew. Allegedly, over two-thirds of US Catholics support women's ordination in the 1500 year old institution. Have they ever thought of the possibility, nay... probability, that over two-thirds of US Catholics are out of touch with God? Just because some feminists, and others who have abdicated in their adherence to the Bible, have decided that women's ordination is correct does not make it so!

 

Gay groups have come out to say that they are dismayed at the election of Ratzinger. According to them Jesus is the loving Good Shepherd who reaches out to the ones separated from the flock while Ratzinger is decidedly anti-gay. Sure, Jesus does reach out to sinners, but he requires that they repent. Without true repentance there is no salvation or forgiveness! Gays feel alienated from the church because of the new pope. Have they ever thought that perhaps they have alienated themselves from the church through their despicable behaviour? Na-ah! They have rewritten the laws of the Bible to suit their own abominable ways.

 

The Human Rights Campaign hopes that the pope will express love and compassion to all. Love and compassion does not equate to acceptance of sin! It will be the duty of the pope, in fact a Biblical mandate, to call sin what it is... SIN! If the pope capitulates to the demands of these depraved groups, then he will prove himself not to be a man of love and compassion. It is his duty to warn people of the approaching cliff and to hedge them away from it! This is how love works! It warns others of impending danger, and when it has the authority, it lso ensures their safety by stipulating proper boundaries!

 

The Human Rights Campaign would welcome positive conversation with the pope. All I can say is that the most positive conversation will follow the following lines:

 

"REPENT!"

"Yes, Lord!"

It is amazing that the Rev. Troy D. Perry, a homosexual activist and moderator of the Metropolitan Community Churches calls the new pope one of the most homophobic religious leaders in the world. I would rather say that gays are especially hagiophobic. They have an intense fear of living holy lives. They have no fear of God.

 

The Bible is clear that wisdom and knowledge are preceded by the fear of God.

 

Just thinking...

Killing people using euphemisms

Terri Schiavo came she saw and was conquered. Conquered by a society and a system that no longer upholds the sanctity of life. Western society is obsessed with "choices" instead of life.

"Choice" has become a value to this society. This value of "choice"--which is merely a euphemism for selfishness--has murdered over 40 million babies in the USA since 1973 alone.

As Charles Colson writes:

"'Choice' over what to do with one's own body became the defining value of the 1970s and 1980s--all the while ignoring the fact that choice itself cannot possibly be a value and that value depends on what is chosen."[1] [emphasis by original author]

This culture of choice has gone so far that it has chosen the death of a woman who did not deserve to die. Sure, we will all die one day and we all deserve to die one day and stand before the judgement seat of God. However, none of us deserves to be condemned by the very system that was created to protect and serve the innocent. But, in the new America with a country ruled by despots called judges none is safe anymore. Then on the other hand, as the old saying goes, we deserve the government set over us.

So, why does the US have the government it has? I don't mean a Republican or a Democratic led government. Why does it have a government run by judges bent on the destruction of the true American way? America has slowly but surely turned its back on its past. A past filled with the Bible and personal moral accountability. The founding fathers of the US built their country on this foundation. However, there are many "reinterpreters" today wanting to sever all ties with the proper meaning of the US Constitution and its resultant laws. Udo Middelmann, in his introduction to Schaeffer's Death in the City, explains:

"Turning from the clear teaching of the Bible will not give us a vacuum to be freely filled with personal religious views or preferences. Instead there will be both the experience of the wrath of God and the experience of painful human and even stupid intellectual consequences. The removal of the biblical roots to our life and thought will necessarily dry up the many fruits we have treasured in the past in the form of a responsible, ethical, and creative society."[2]

One of these "stupid intellectual consequences" is how Terri Schiavo was treated by her husband, the courts and even the media. Seeing Michael Schiavo as the devoted husband wanting to rid his wife of a life of misery and pain is like calling Hitler a humanitarian! The courts on the other hand were absolutely despicable! Why would the courts not put any value on hearsay in murder trials, but when it came to Terri Schiavo's will to live or die, that is about the only thing that the courts used to sentence her to death? According to Terri's adulterous husband, more than fifteen years ago, in a casual conversation, Terri allegedly said that in such a situation she would rather die. Right up to the US Supreme Court, the majority of judges--may God have mercy on their souls!--agreed to send Terri Schiavo to her certain death! The only moral fibre that these judges have is that which exists in a golf ball! And the media... What can be said about them? If ever there was an inkling of a conspiracy against life and morality we can find it here. In all their flash polls they did with the American people, the Americans apparently overwhelmingly said that Terri should have been left to die and that the American government should not have tried to intervene. What they do not tell us is that in their polls they have already fed the American people so much misinformation and that their polling questions were set up to get the desired answers. In the week after Terri Schiavo's death, Zogby, a professional polling organisation, did a poll with proper information about the real situation surrounding Terri Schiavo's needs and death. The result was overwhelming. Americans did not want Terri's feeding tubes to be removed and they wanted the government to intervene. Even after Terri Schiavo's death, the highly regarded Time magazine still harpooned the American mind with the drivel of the polls performed by the media. Joe Klein, in his article A New Idea for Democrats: Democracy, wrote that the [Republican] government in signing "the Schiavo legislation all found their just rewards in the polls that revealed an overwhelming public disgust with the political shenanigans."[3] The Zogby poll has proven this notion to be completely false.

We can define a pro-life statement as follows: Protecting the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. This includes opposing abortion and euthanasia; however, it is not necessary to prolong human life artificially.

The constitution gives no right to anyone to kill innocent human beings. Apparently the judges felt otherwise. Neither is there any explicitly stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. It seems that many in the US believe that a person's right to privacy precludes a person's right to life! So, whatever Michael Schiavo wanted to do in the privacy of his relationship with Terri had nothing to do with anyone else. However, these people conveniently forget that Michael Schiavo had to involve other people (doctors) in his murderous mission! Yet, on the other hand, since when could I murder someone in the privacy of my home without the government wanting to hold me responsible for that act? The categorically stated right to life in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution clearly takes precedence over any privacy issues. According to the Declaration of Independence we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.

There is no mercy in killing a sufferer. Killing deformed infants and adults who are suffering does not avoid suffering, but it rather inflicts the suffering of death. Avoiding suffering through euthanasia cannot be justified since the end does not justify the means. Killing the innocent is evil and not good.

Many claim that a person should be able to decide when he wants to die by which method. Physical illness affects the mind and the body. As a result, these stressful situations always lead to difficulty in coming to a well-adjusted decision. Patients may one day want to die and another day want to live. Which day will be reckoned as his final decision?

It is far too easy for voluntary euthanasia to slip into involuntary euthanasia. It is necessary to continue making the elderly and the sick feel "valued" in order to make them value themselves. Failing to do this may make them feel valueless leading them to feel obligated to ask for euthanasia so as not to be a burden.

The last time I checked no one in my family carries a price tag. Perhaps if I owned the mafia a lot of money! Should euthanasia be legalised because it will relieve the family and society from extreme financial strain? According to this rationale we should protect and preserve life only if we can afford it! This is certainly not moral thinking but materialistic. How can we put material value on a spiritual life made in God's image? Thinking that euthanasia will alleviate society of a great burden overlooks the fundamental value of a human life.

There are two types of passive euthanasia: unnatural passive euthanasia--withholding natural means of life support in order to allow a person's death; natural passive euthanasia--withholding unnatural life support to allow a person's death.

Unnatural passive euthanasia is the deliberate withholding of natural means in order to maintain human life. This would include withholding water, food and air. Unnatural means include respirators and artificial organs. As a result, starving someone is called passive euthanasia, but allowing that person's death due to starvation makes one responsible for taking that person's life, which is morally evil. Such an act leads directly to that person's death, which then amounts to negligent homicide. On the other hand, withholding unnatural means, leads only indirectly to the person's death. Natural passive euthanasia is a morally justified category of passive euthanasia.

Unnatural passive euthanasia and active euthanasia directly cause death. Therefore, from a Christian viewpoint, it is morally unacceptable since it rejects God's sovereignty over human life. These means of euthanasia attempt to preempt God of His sovereign right over human life. Since human life is made in the image and the likeness of God it is sacred. Because of the sacredness of human life we ultimately attack God when we kill another person.

Suicide is also a rejection of God's sovereignty over life and an attack on the sanctity of life. God is sovereign over human life whether this life belongs to us or someone else, since it is still created in God's image. Whether euthanasia (not natural passive euthanasia) is self-inflicted or imposed by someone else, it remains a form of homicide. Even the few cases of suicide mentioned in the Bible are condemned by God.

Euthanasia is an intrinsic humanistic ethic. This can be clearly seen from Humanist Manifesto II. Euthanasia denies the divine ownership to life. A secular humanistic ethic rejects God's ownership to life and therefore destroys the barriers that protect human life.

Geisler points out:

"When we do not respect life before birth, it affects our attitude toward life after birth. When we do not respect the dying, it affects our attitude toward the living."[4]

The very same case can be made for killing mentally and physically handicapped infants after birth as can be made for killing them before birth. Abortion and euthanasia go hand in hand. How do these two go hand in hand? Abortion leads to a disproportionately ageing problem, and as result euthanasia becomes the solution to the economic problems caused by abortion.

Terri Schiavo had an unalienable right to life, and the very "reinterpreters" of the law that were supposed to protect her against selfish adulterers like Michael Schiavo, sentenced her to an agonising death by starvation.

My wish and prayer is that the US government will not allow this to happen again. It is now the time, while this case is still fresh in everybody's mind to set about to enact watertight laws that cannot simply be overthrown by judges who themselves act illegally by scrapping legal laws.

Since killing someone by starvation is obviously a homicide, I wish someone will have the guts to sue the relevant judges--from judge Greer up to those in the Supreme Court--together with the relevant senators who voted not to save Terri Schiavo; including the medical staff who disconnected the feeding tube and most of all Michael Schiavo, for the murder of Terri Schiavo. In this case, the notion that government officials cannot be sued while performing official duties must be challenged.

How could people have been so spineless to have followed a command that was so obviously immoral and therefore had no legal grounds?

------------------------------------
[1] Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How now shall we live?, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999, p120.
[2] Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2002, p12.
[3] Time, April 11, 2005, Vol. 165, No. 15, p51.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989, p166.

Change Your Vote and Save Terri

I have sent the following email to some of the Florida senators that voted "No" for the bill that was to save Terri Schiavo's life.

 

These senators' names can be found at http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/florida_senator.php#more.

 

If more could write, but especially call them by phone, they might just change their votes.

 

The subject of the emails to these senators is the same as today's blog.

 

---

 

Dear Senator <name>,

 

My email probably does not mean anything to you, since I am a South African living in South Africa.

 

However, I would like to bring to your attention that decisions made in the USA still make people sit up in other countries, even South Africa.

 

In my opinion, a decision against life and for death, especially in the Terri Schiavo case can have terrible repercussions across the globe and not just in the USA. Make such a decision and not long from now the downward slide will start in other countries. If the greatest nation in the world does not respect living human beings, why should lesser nations? This is exactly what happened with Roe vs Wade and the abortion apocalypse.

 

I do not believe that Terri deserves death, especially not in this excruciating way of starvation. Terri is not in a comatose vegetative state. She still has cognative abilities which have already been proven. Is it right that murderous criminals have more legal representation than does Terri Schiavo? Is it right that an unelected judge who in reality does not represent the people make a death-decision of such great proportions?

 

You represent the people, and I am sure--if I understand the greatness of the American people--that the people themselves would vote for life in this case. Please, represent the people who voted for you and make the right decision. Vote for Terri's life, not her death!

 

Please uphold the true constitution of the USA and not that one so reinterpreted by unelected judges!

 

Thank you for your time and may God bless you!

 

---

William Dicks

"Moral crusaders with zeal but no ethical understanding are likely to give us solutions that are worse than the problems."
	-- Charles Colson How Now Shall We Live?

Just thinking... (My blog)

---

 

---

 

Just thinking...