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...
Friday, June 24, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
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...
Thursday, May 19, 2005
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...
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
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...
Monday, May 09, 2005
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.
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.
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!
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.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
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
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
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
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...
Friday, April 22, 2005
Microsoft did not support gay-rights bill
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
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...
Monday, April 11, 2005
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.
"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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
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!
| "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...
Friday, March 18, 2005
Tutu reveals who he really is...
Former archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu this week revealed who he really was when he stood up in support of the "gay" lifestyle.
At the opening of the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Rosebank, Johannesburg, Tutu told gays and lesbians "[y]ou should love who you are." In his speech Tutu, according to News24.com, said that "sexuality was about creativity and self expression, and alternative sexualities should be celebrated."
How is it that Tutu never tells adulterers that they should "love who they are?" Hasn't some quack of a psychologist or scientist shown that adulterers are genetically disposed to adultery? For every sin listed in the Bible, some "scientist" has shown that that particular sin was genetically wired into some people. Do you sin? Don't worry! Its in your DNA. Are you gay? Shame, you can't help it. Its in your DNA! Even Tutu has fallen for that garbage!
Homosexuality or lesbianism are not alternative sexualities! There are no sexualities apart from being male and female! Tutu is right in that sexuality is about creativity. However, explain to me how homosexuality and lesbianism can be about creativity! Nothing can be created out of this type of sex! Sex can only be creative between a man and a woman. This sex was preserved by God for a man and a woman within the marriage covenant.
Since when does a man who claims to be a Christian tell sinners to love who they are? It seems to only happen to those who have denied the very God they claim to serve. Those who deny the very Word that God has given us for our own benefit will do this kind of stuff. We as Christians, especially those who preach from the pulpit, should rather preach the full gospel and make a call to holiness!
Maybe former archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu should not just stand up against unrighteous governments, but also against unrighteous sinners who have defiled their bodies with despicable acts! Sure, show them love, but also show them undeniable truth.
Just thinking...
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Law and Terri Schiavo
Michael Schiavo, the former husband of death-sentenced Terri Schiavo seems to think that the US legal system is the be-all-and-end-all! How can a person be so dense as to find it "uncomprehensible (sic) to think that a private family matter that has gone through the judiciary system for the past seven years - I mean, we're talking all the way up to the United States Supreme Court - and for a governor to come into this without any education on the subject and push his personal views into this and have his Republican legislation pass laws so that this doesn't happen." How much eduaction does one need to know that starving someone to death is murder the same as someone being shot to death! I am sure even a first grader can understand this point! And, since when is the starvation of a former wife a private family matter? Effectively causing the death of another person is certainly not a private matter! Further, since when has the Supreme Court the power to decide life or death for anyone but a dangerous criminal? Simply because the Supreme Court agrees with Michael Schiavo does not mean they are right. Even if the majority of Americans decided Terri should die does not make it right! Morality and ethics are not decided upon through democratic elections. Way much less through unelected US Supreme Court judges who presume to play God!
Michael Schiavo claims that Jeb Bush is "basically jumping right over the state court's decision. We might as well not have any state courts." Funny he should say that. Since when do state courts and Supreme Courts make laws for the land? They are supposed to enact the law in the courts, not reinterpret and demolish the original meaning and intent of the constitution and laws. Many of the judges in the US these days run roughshod over the US constitution and its laws with their depraved little minds imagining themselves the original interpreters of American life and its values. When will the US government stand up against these runaway judges and tighten the reins around what they are allowed to do and what not? The three branches of the US government are supposed to keep a check on each other, but so far in the last 40 or so years, no one has kept a check on the judicial.
All of Michael Schiavo's protestations against anybody standing in the way of the murder (starvation) of his ex-wife make me think he has something to hide. Is he scared the real truth about her condition will come out if she regains her speech? We simply do not know. It makes one think, however!
It is time for Michael Schiavo to realize that there really is a higher law in the land. The law of God. Whether he acknowledges that law or not is besides the point. One day each of us must stand before our Maker. How will you fare Michael Schiavo?
Let Terri Schiavo live!
Just thinking...
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
What does it really matter?
My wife and I completed the Cape Argus Cycle Tour on 13 March 2005. It is the largest individually timed race in the world with a limit of 35,000 entrants. It is a hilly 109Km (67.73mi) race with some of the most spectacular scenery to be seen. It was also a day with strong winds that caused many speed wobbles on a route that was covered with cyclists from beginning to end.
My wife and I ride a tandem bicycle and we started with the social tandem category at 08:40 in the morning. The winner of the race finished 12 minutes after we started. I still believe there should be a category for people like my wife and I and some other tandem riders: the VERY social tandem category. Our VERY social status can be seen in the time it took for us to finish the race: 6 hours 4 minutes. During the race our tandem's back wheel had 3 punctures and the back chain also came off. To top it off, my left quad, that had been giving me lots of troubles for the last 3 months, started hurting real bad with about 64Km (39.77mi) left in the race. At the top of the highest point in the race with about 14Km (8.7mi) left in the race I decided to stop for some physio. Needless to say, we finished the race and I am glad we did it.
My wife has been asking if we could have done better in the race. I suppose we could have if we did more than the odd Saturday ride in the last 6 weeks before the race.
This made me think of the 1000s of riders who did not make their goal times on race day. Some missed it by a few minutes while others missed it by much more. Some are very upset that they missed their goal times by those few minutes. My question is this: What does it really matter? If we are not challengers for top honours and we end up missing our own goals by those few minutes, what do we gain by being upset by it? Some get so upset by this that it makes me think that it is such a great matter of importance to them that it literally defines their lives.
Now, some of these people are Christians and it makes me wonder how these people think if this is something that defines their lives. In these cases the sin of pride rears its ugly head. It ends up that all these people can talk about is cycling and the few minutes they did not make. Please, do not read between the lines here since I am not writing ANYTHING between the lines. I believe it is wonderful when people can push themselves to do better in every field of life, but when Christians' lives are defined by anything but the Lord Jesus then they have propped up an idol in their lives.
Way back in 1993 I ran my first Comrades Marathon. I went on to run 3 of them with my last one in 1995, the same year my first child was born (a beautiful little girl who turned 10 this year). I soon realized that my goals of running and training for the Comrades Marathon (90Kms) took too much time away from my daughter. That is when I decided that running was not as important as my daughter. The same goes for cycling. If it starts interfering with my family relationships (wife, daughter and son), it will have to go. I think it is this attitude, which my wife shares with me, that ensures that we will never be one of the fast tandems. Since our training day is a Saturday, and our kids have sporting events on many Saturdays, we end up not riding as much as we could. My rule is this, if my kids have events on Saturdays, we simply do not go ride.
My greatest fear for so many Christians that get involved in sport, is that it becomes their defining activity in life. Instead of always having Christ before them and encouraging one another in the faith, one only hears about the sport that they do. I do not want this to happen to me or my family. I still endeavour to live out the motto that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Christ." If we find our satisfaction in anything but Christ, how can God be glorified in us? How can we glorify God if our lives are defined by a sport, or a job, a car, a house, a neighboirhood or the money we make?
Eric Liddell from Chariots of Fire fame said: "I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run, I feel his pleasure." The difference between Eric Liddell and many of today's Christians in sport is that Eric Liddell never forgot God's purpose for him and he ended up dying in China proclaiming the gospel to a lost nation.
How many of us as Christians can truly say that God has a higher purpose for us than riding pieces of metal or carbon fibre and finding personal worth in that?
Just thinking...
My wife and I ride a tandem bicycle and we started with the social tandem category at 08:40 in the morning. The winner of the race finished 12 minutes after we started. I still believe there should be a category for people like my wife and I and some other tandem riders: the VERY social tandem category. Our VERY social status can be seen in the time it took for us to finish the race: 6 hours 4 minutes. During the race our tandem's back wheel had 3 punctures and the back chain also came off. To top it off, my left quad, that had been giving me lots of troubles for the last 3 months, started hurting real bad with about 64Km (39.77mi) left in the race. At the top of the highest point in the race with about 14Km (8.7mi) left in the race I decided to stop for some physio. Needless to say, we finished the race and I am glad we did it.
My wife has been asking if we could have done better in the race. I suppose we could have if we did more than the odd Saturday ride in the last 6 weeks before the race.
This made me think of the 1000s of riders who did not make their goal times on race day. Some missed it by a few minutes while others missed it by much more. Some are very upset that they missed their goal times by those few minutes. My question is this: What does it really matter? If we are not challengers for top honours and we end up missing our own goals by those few minutes, what do we gain by being upset by it? Some get so upset by this that it makes me think that it is such a great matter of importance to them that it literally defines their lives.
Now, some of these people are Christians and it makes me wonder how these people think if this is something that defines their lives. In these cases the sin of pride rears its ugly head. It ends up that all these people can talk about is cycling and the few minutes they did not make. Please, do not read between the lines here since I am not writing ANYTHING between the lines. I believe it is wonderful when people can push themselves to do better in every field of life, but when Christians' lives are defined by anything but the Lord Jesus then they have propped up an idol in their lives.
Way back in 1993 I ran my first Comrades Marathon. I went on to run 3 of them with my last one in 1995, the same year my first child was born (a beautiful little girl who turned 10 this year). I soon realized that my goals of running and training for the Comrades Marathon (90Kms) took too much time away from my daughter. That is when I decided that running was not as important as my daughter. The same goes for cycling. If it starts interfering with my family relationships (wife, daughter and son), it will have to go. I think it is this attitude, which my wife shares with me, that ensures that we will never be one of the fast tandems. Since our training day is a Saturday, and our kids have sporting events on many Saturdays, we end up not riding as much as we could. My rule is this, if my kids have events on Saturdays, we simply do not go ride.
My greatest fear for so many Christians that get involved in sport, is that it becomes their defining activity in life. Instead of always having Christ before them and encouraging one another in the faith, one only hears about the sport that they do. I do not want this to happen to me or my family. I still endeavour to live out the motto that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Christ." If we find our satisfaction in anything but Christ, how can God be glorified in us? How can we glorify God if our lives are defined by a sport, or a job, a car, a house, a neighboirhood or the money we make?
Eric Liddell from Chariots of Fire fame said: "I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run, I feel his pleasure." The difference between Eric Liddell and many of today's Christians in sport is that Eric Liddell never forgot God's purpose for him and he ended up dying in China proclaiming the gospel to a lost nation.
How many of us as Christians can truly say that God has a higher purpose for us than riding pieces of metal or carbon fibre and finding personal worth in that?
Just thinking...
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Born that way?
In the Sunday Times of March 6, 2005, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane from the Anglican Church in South Africa gave a few insights into the latest meetings they had as a church community. Obviously, the homosexual issue was in the forefront of the discussions.
He writes that "[i]t was felt that both Americans and Canadians had seriously offended against the spirit of our common life." Is that all they offended? How about offending a holy God who clearly spelled out His position on sexual depravity, including homosexuality and lesbianism!? He also writes "[w]e must give the Americans and Canadians the space to take counsel at every level, right down to the parishes, and support them with our prayers." Why is it that they must take counsel at every level, but they are not instructed to take counsel from the Bible. It is because they have taken counsel at every level from fallen humans and not from God Himself as He defined His thoughts for us in the Bible that they are in this mess right now! When will people stand up for what is right before God and His Word and not for what is right in the eyes of depraved men and women?
The Archbishop continues: "The Anglican Church in Southern Africa will consecrate a homosexual or lesbian person as long as they are celibate, and there are many homosexual and celibate clergy in the church. The Anglican Church requires all unmarried clergy to be celibate and understands marriage as being between a man and a woman. We have on numerous occasions repeated our unreserved commitment to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people." As long as a gay is celibate? What does that mean? It would be the same to say that the church will consecrate celibate adulterers! It doesn't mean anything. How about consecrating murderers that haven't killed anyone yet? What nonsense!
He still continues: "There also needs to be more listening by the church generally to the experiences of gay and lesbian Christians, as the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution required." Perhaps we should listen more to those murdering "Christians" too? How about listening to the pedophiliac "Christians?" Wouldn't that be nice? The church should listen to anyone, but ALWAYS respond with the truth and nothing BUT the truth so help us God!
The Archbishop also makes the statement: "I admit that I am dismayed whenever I hear language that seeks to make distinctions among people or discriminates on the basis of things over which we have no control — such as race, colour, gender or sexual orientation. These are aspects of the way we are born — and, as Christians, we believe each one of us is created reflecting the image of God. I personally experienced prejudice, exclusion and injustice for more than two-thirds of my life, simply because I was born black." The Bible is clear, God made us male and female. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! To cast homosexuals into the same group as blacks and so claim that that discrimination amounts to the same is an affront to blacks in this world. Blacks are born black, males are born male and females are born female. To discriminate on any of these issues is simply wrong. However, males are not born female or vice versa! There is not a shred of evidence that any homosexual was born that way. There is no homosexual DNA! There is black DNA. Male DNA or female DNA. But no homosexual DNA! Our dear Archbishop is cowering up to a tiny minority of depraved individuals to sound like he is tolerant. He is not tolerant! He simply is denying the Bible and the God of the Bible!
Denying consecration to homosexuals is discriminatory. So is denying consecration to a two year old. Are we making a fuss about that? If God demands holy lives from the pastors of the church, then so should we!
Just thinking...
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Life should be precious..
In a world that claims to be running on values, how is it that we find so little? Especially values connected to the value of life? The Green Peace crowd will go so far as blow up labs that experiment on rats, because these rats have the right to life and dignity. Yet, isn't it amazing that unborn human beings do not have that same right of life and dignity! Isn't it horrific to know that one day your life may be cut short by a judge who thinks he is 'god.' There is such a judge. Judge Greer in Florida, USA. He has sentenced Terri Schiavo to death by starvation starting at 1PM on 18 March 2005.
One would think that the days of starving unwanteds to death like in Roman days were over. But think again! The human condition hasn't changed. It is still as corrupt as ever. Mankind will continue to find ways to please itself. How do we get rid of those that burden our sorry souls? Simply get a liberal judge to sentence them to death! No crime is needed for such a death sentence. Simply be in the way of people in this narcissistic age. We have gone so far down the self-love and self-esteem highway of hell that we have forgotten that the golden rule is to love others as we love ourselves. Yet, we would rather murder someone like Terri Schiavo than care for her! It is always the easy way out, isn't it? What is it with modern man? From instant coffee to instant death! Modern man is no more civilised than old Rome was. We have gone full circle. From the Romans who would leave unwanted, helpless babies to legally starve to death under the sun, moon and stars; to legally starve to death unwanted spouses, parents or children.
I call this murder, because that is what it is! Simply because a judge orders Terri Schiavo's starvation to death doesn't make it right!
If the Bush family is so pro-life, how is it that they could allow rogue agents of the state such as these liberal judges to commit murder in the name of the state? It is high-time that presidents and governors put a stop to judges that make laws. These judges are there to explain the law to the people, not make them! Jeb Bush claims that he would do everything within the law to stop this starvation order. If this is the case, then he should have this "judge" arrested for attempted murder together with Terri Schiavo's ex-husband!
Come people: STAND UP FOR LIFE!
Just thinking...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
