My 2014 Rosh Hashanah/Feast of Trumpets reflections: Part 1

This season of the feast of 2014 Rosh Hashanah or Feast of Trumpets, I sought the message from God. On this occasion, the message came from several experiences and events that helped to reveal to me the spiritual lessons. In this post, I summarise the events and experiences and the lessons I drew from them regarding God's will/purpose for me.

Event/Experience 1: An email message from Sid Roth 

So I subscribe to Sid Roth, because occasionally I might hear an interesting program now and then. But to get to the point, my wife and I watched and listened to his Rosh Hashanah message, which is also an appeal for us to donate money to his program/ministry. What was particularly interesting to me about the message was the story related by Roth (2014) about a woman being taken to heaven by large two angels. These two angels, on their way with the woman to heaven, began to experience difficulties in lifting her. They then pointed out that it was not their fault, but it was because of her sins. Roth (2014) then goes on to mention that for this new year, we need to make some changes, including dropping habits and sins that we might have been comfortable with in the previous year,

Event/Experience 2:

The next morning, my wife tells me her dream. She indicates that she felt God convicting her to stop playing a certain Facebook game.

Event/Experience 3:

In the same day, I participated in the review of some programs at Western University with external reviewers with the purpose of seeking ways for the programs to improve and confirm that the programs were indeed faultless.

The lessons revealed:

So I ask God in my mind, what is it that I am to learn from all these as well as "what is your sermon or message to me for this Rosh Hashanah season?" The message I received:

1. God wants me to grow. Things or sins that I was comfortable with prior to Rosh Hashanah, I must now let go off. Especially if I want to live with God.
2. Just as how universities review programs to determine how to improve them, the same principle applies with God, God desires continuous improvement in his followers or believers. We are to grow and keep on growing in the faith and producing more abundant spiritual fruit.

Conclusion:

To grow, I must let go off sins I once cherished. I can't say "but I am a much better person today than I was 10 years ago!" That will not cut it. I cannot excuse my current sins by arguing that such sins are not as bad as how I was years ago. God doesn't want me to stop growing. He doesn't want me stuck in the past. He wants annual growth and improvement and annual shedding of sins. He wants perfection, and he wants us to annually shed sins and grow towards such perfection.



References:

Roth, S. (2014). Rosh Hashanah 2014 — Jewish new year. Sid Roth's It's Supernatural! Retrieved from http://sidroth.org/rosh-hashanah-2014?src=eappeal092414

"Jewish" prophecies and the Middle East in the Christian's Gospel?

One of the key concepts that Jesus preached about during his time was the kingdom of God. Several theologians and scholars have discussed this idea (Aslan, 2013; Chilton, 2000). Yet, this concept has been missing in today's version of most of Christianity's gospel (see previous related blog post discussing a bible study on the concept). Interestingly, I discovered this recent reading that summarizes this:

Within a very short period after the Church was founded on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 31, a violent controversy arose concerning whether the gospel to be proclaimed was the gospel of Christ—Jesus’ own gospel that he proclaimed and taught, or a gospel about Christ. Jesus had come as a messenger bearing a message from God about the kingdom of God. That message was his gospel. But soon many were ignoring Jesus’ gospel—the kingdom of God—and preaching merely that Jesus was the Christ, preaching about the messenger, ignoring his message or gospel. That is still continuing today. (Pack, 2012, p. 10)

Jesus's teachings about the kingdom of God was informed by the Jewish prophets. According to Chilton (2000), Jesus based his identity and mission on the prophets. In his biography of Jesus, where Chilton tries to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, Chilton (2000) suggests that Jesus applied prophetic visions from Daniel to understanding self.

In the wilderness he began to use a vision from the book of Daniel, an angel beside the Throne of God called in Aramaic "one like a person", who brought him close to his Abba in the divine court of heaven. This "one like a person" was shortly to emerge as the anchor of Jesus' visions and of the visionary discipline he taught his followers. (p.132)

As such, Chilton's words seem to be supported by Pack (2012) who states that the "New Testament Church" or the movement that Jesus founded is built directly upon the Jewish prophets and prophecies. According to Pack:

Did you realize that the New Testament Church is built directly on top of the prophets? I never heard this in Sunday school or in the church of my youth. Ephesians 2:19-20 says, “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” There it is—the Church stands directly on a foundation that includes the prophets! What is written in the
prophets is instruction to God’s New Testament Church! (p. 23)

Considering these things, it is very essential that Bible believing Christians not just focus on New Testament scriptures. For frankly, in the time of Jesus, the New Testament wasn't even written. The foundation of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were the Jewish prophets. But not to take my word for it, check out the following testimonies from New Testament passages:

Luke 24:27 (New International Version)And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Or 2 Peter 1: 19-21 (New Living Translation)

19Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts. 20Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

And the majority of these "Jewish" prophets made forecasts of the future of no other region than the region of the Middle East (not America or anywhere else in the West). As such, as Pack (2012) mentions, the "[e]vents in the Middle East carry far greater significance than most even begin to understand" (p. 24). Yes, the Middle East is the centre of many Jewish prophecies, including the ones about the kingdom of God that Jesus preached.

This said, Western Bible believing Christians and Jews (who believe in the same prophetic sources), should be intently watching what's happening in Egypt, Libya, Syria and all the places of the so-called Arab spring. For one thing is certain is that all these places are mentioned in the prophecies of the so-called "Old Testament". The very gospel of the kingdom that Jesus told his disciples to teach is based on Middle-East events and territories.


References:

Aslan, R. (2013). Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House.

Chilton, B. (2000). Rabbi Jesus: An intimate biography. New York: Doubleday.

Pack, D. C. (2012). Bible authority: Can it be proven. The Restored Church of God: St. Catharines, ON. Retrieved from http://rcg.org/books/bacibp.html

On Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Alsan, R. (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House.

So I recently read Reza Aslan's (2013) Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan, a one time Muslim convert to Christianity (see his "Author's Note") and now theologian, writes a book that is compelling to read about what he claims to be a historical Jesus. In this blog entry, my task is to review this work, but more importantly to give my take, perspective or interpretation of the work. So this review is not objective or anything my librarian colleagues would see as a fair assessment. It is my personal and spiritual interpretation to let you see what I saw as valuable from the work and discuss my reaction to Aslan's arguments. Now you can disagree with what I saw or how I experienced the work, but it still does change the reader's experience and reaction that the book evoked in me as I read it.

To begin, I must say that I appreciated Aslan's "Author's Note". This was where Aslan provided a personal story of how he became interested in Jesus. It is in this section that I find that I have things in common with the author. Being a born again Christian at age 15, then a returning interest in the religion in which I was raised after disillusionment. Then an interest in the scholarship and authentic research on the gospels. However, unlike Aslan, I am okay with managing doubts and working with faith until future information is revealed. For me, faith and hope narratives are the stories told about the future and the past that help to manage the uncertainty of the present and future. And this is what all religious faiths are about, in my opinion: managing the uncertainty about future and present events.

Yet, Aslan's book is not written from that perspective of faith, but uses a method that seeks to be skeptical of the gospel accounts, and attempts to use other sources and traditions apart from that of the Christian church to reconstruct and tell the story of Jesus. Aslan's book focuses on the historical or human Jesus rather than Jesus the Christ. Aslan as such attempts to reconstruct a portrait or biography of the historical character of Jesus based on sources regarding the times of Jesus, in an approach that Pope Benedict XVI (2006) dubs the "historical-critical" method.

Pope Benedict XVI (2006) sums up the limitations of this method, arguing that while one can look for the historical person of Jesus underneath the faith viewpoint of the writers fo the New Testament and beyond Christian tradition, such a method typically leads one to construct Jesus either as an "anti-Roman revolutionary working-though finally failing- to overthrow the ruling powers" or as a "meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief"(p. 13). Pope Benedict XVI (2006) adds that "far from uncovering an icon that has been obscured over time" such reconstructions reflect more the author's ideals or beliefs about Jesus (p. 13). When I read about Aslan's Jesus, I see images of what resembles an anti-Roman revolutionary that reflects extremist ideology and violent fundamentalism (I will get into details later).

Nonetheless, like Pope Benedict XVI (2006), I agree that this historical reconstruction of Jesus and his times is useful as the story of Jesus is based on real historical events and not made up stories or fables. As the second book of Peter states, real events were witnessed by the followers of Jesus, from which the faith began and developed (2 Peter 1:16-18). As such, as with folklore, it is very much possible that these real events were given meaning by the apostles and believers until they have been obscured by myth-making and theological interpretation. Aslan is of this view and as such seeks to retell the gospels highlighting what might be truth and what is "pure fiction" or myth and what rings true based on other more credible historical sources (p. 47). 

The first limitation that Aslan points out is that the gospels were written long after the events had transpired. He further argued that the gospels were also not likely to be written by the whom they were named after. He further points out that none of the original 12 apostles could have written the gospels as they were all illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasants, who had no formal training in writing Greek. These are all fair points, but I wished the author would address the issue that even though they may not have penned the works directly, it is very much possible that they could have appointed others to tell their stories on their behalf. 

First, there is Matthew Levi, who was a wealthy tax collector ("Saint Matthew", 2014). Surely he did have the resources to pay for a scribe. Then there is Luke who is said to accompany Paul (Ellis, 2014). Aslan even surmises that Luke was a student of Paul. Sure Luke was educated enough and Greek enough to write his own gospel. Then there is Mark, which could be the same John Mark related to Peter and also hanged out with Paul and Barnabas ("Saint Mark", 2014). Surely he too could have written his own gospel. Then there is John, who lived the longest among the apostles (Hauer, 2002). Even if he did write his story, it is possible that he could have had a scribe to write his biographical portrait of Jesus. As such, it does not seem unreasonable that these men would still be the authors or at least the sources for these gospels. As the second letter of Peter suggests, the apostle felt he had a duty to ensure that what he witnessed was established in the memory of the believers (2 Peter 1:12-15). As such, the motivation to write about and tell of the gospel as experienced by these believers was certainly present, despite the events being recorded decades after they transpired.

The second limitation that Aslan points out is that Mark seems to be the first gospel and source that informs the other later gospels. No issue at all. Modern folkloric studies have discovered that once a folklore or tradition is written, it influences and affects future tellings. No news there!

A third point that Aslan makes is that there seem to be historical inaccuracies in the gospels. Yet, I find that point to be true of any writing or written source that is recorded after the events have transpired when people rely on memory or oral tradition. There is bound to be omissions and additions to the material. Further, the practice of adding to Christian writings seems to be so prevalent, that the final testimony of John revealing Jesus the Christ in the book of Revelations seek to deter this practice by pronouncing a curse on those who altered the original source. But even if the gospel writers mixed up some dates or names of people and places, such mistakes are easily negligible. These things do not change the fact that they are still based on real events that transpired told by fallible human beings based on oral traditions passed down from the early church as well as reliant on the memory of those who witnessed these events. 

Yes Aslan paints the picture that Jesus was a failed Messiah, who carried out healings and miracles, with the aim of gathering a band of followers armed with swords to overthrow the priestly caste and establish God's new world order in Jerusalem. (Aslan is clear however that there is no historical contention that Jesus was a miracle worker. Some of his miracles such as healings and curing people of demons were in fact practiced by others in his time.) Aslan further suggests that it is the followers of Jesus who decided to repaint his failed campaign in order to explain his death and the new order had not yet arrived as was expected.

Yet, the problem that Aslan can not or does not go around is the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. While disciples could have use proof texting to find verses in the Scriptures to justify how Jesus fit into Messianic prophecies, it is unlikely that they could fabricate stories about Jesus rising from the dead, so much to the extent that they would risk their lives and die for such a fabrication. In addition, belief in the resurrection was so real and genuine that even James, the brother of Jesus, who saw Jesus after the resurrection, repented and believed in Jesus and later headed or led the Christian movement.

Further, Aslan, acknowledges and names the many false Messiahs in that time. Yet he acknowledges that with the exception of John the Baptist, Jesus is the only one that had followers that still saw him as the Messiah after his death and established one of the world's largest religious following.

Finally, what was most valuable for me from Aslan's book was the historical look at Jewish extremism and terrorism in the times of the Roman occupation. For me, this has many parallels to today's Muslim extremism and terrorism in the time of what many today call "Israeli occupation" of Jerusalem or "Palestine". From this reconstruction of history, I learned that terrorism for an ideological cause did not begin with 9/11, but was prevalent at the birth of Jesus, where Jewish peasants with much zeal sought to bring about an end to Roman rule or occupation and to commence God's rule through the use of violence and terror. I saw in Aslan's historical accounts or reconstruction our world today where Islamist extremist and terrorist groups like Boko Haram, the Islamic State (ISIS) and Hamas, seek to usher in Allah's prophecies through the use of violence. And as a result, I am offered a view as to why such groups operate as they do and how they use historical events in the scriptures to justify their present actions. The main idea that they take from the stories of scriptures is that God or Allah will only act when the believers act with zeal to accomplish his will. I thoroughly disagree with this "zealot" interpretation of scripture that requires being the subject of a future blog posting.

Reference:

Ellis, E. (2014). Saint Luke. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/351086/Saint-Luke 

Chadwick, H. (2014). Saint John the Apostle. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305163/Saint-John-the-Apostle

Hauer, C. (2002). John the evangelist, Saint. (pp. 216-217) In Traver, A. G. (Ed.). From polis to empire, the ancient world, c. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500: A biographical dictionary. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Pope Benedict XVI. (2006). Jesus of Nazareth: From the baptism in the Jordan to the transfiguration. Doubleday: Toronto. [Read as an e-book)

Saint Mark. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/365621/Saint-Mark

Saint Matthew. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369730/Saint-Matthew

Bible study on the kingdom of God

I recently attended a Bible study at Worldwide Church of God/Grace Communion International (WCG/GCI) in Christian Pen, Gregory Park, St. Catherine (in Jamaica), where I was privileged to be a part of a Bible study on the kingdom of God. Such a topic is of great importance to Christian believers as the message of Jesus is basically centred around this concept. In fact, in Matthew 6:33, God's kingdom is something that Jesus commands us to seek and make a priority above everything else. Further, after John's arrest, Jesus began his ministry preaching that the time has come for the fulfillment of prophecy regarding God's kingdom and that the God's kingdom would soon be present (Mark 1:14-15). Further, many of the parables of Jesus are also about this kingdom. As such, it is important for the followers of Christ Jesus to fully understand the concept of the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, which is so essential to the gospel message or the good news. In this blog post, I share some of the thoughts shared as to what is the kingdom of God.

What is the kingdom of God?

When the question was raised at the Bible study, the facilitator of the Bible study, Mr. L. Joiles stated that the kingdom of God, synonymous with the kingdom of heaven, is a system of governance, where the word of God as king is law and governs all affairs on earth. Joiles took us back to Daniel 2:44, where there is a prophetic word uttered by an angel to Daniel as an interpretation to a dream. This revealed interpretation of the events in the dream established that there would be several kingdoms or global super powers to control world affairs and colonise the earth. However, in the book of Daniel, it is foretold that a global super power established by God himself would outlast all these global super powers or kingdoms. This eternal super power would be headed by God as king, but will also be governed by the consent of those God governs, as all his enemies will be put to death and all opposition to his rule silenced.

As Joiles presented this, I realised that the kingdom of God did not begin with Moses. While God established a theocracy with the Israelites with Moses by giving the law at Mount Sinai, this type of system of governance was confined to a particular group or nation of people, and not a global system. Yet, even this system was rejected  by the Israelite people, who later asked Samuel to give them a king like the other nations around them (1 Samuel 8:5).

Yet, even though God established a limited system of governance for the entire affairs of a nation, he foretold of the global king in Genesis 3:15. This king mentioned of in Genesis would be the offspring of human beings that will crush or bruise the serpent's (or the Devil's) head or authority over the earth and men. At the same time, the serpent would bruise the king's heel which could perhaps be interpreted as the messengers or followers or the carriers of the message (see Isaiah 52:7; Ephesians 6:15; Romans 10:15).

As I contemplate these things, I remember words from the founder of WCG, Herbert W. Amstrong, charging that the majority of Christianity today does not preach the gospel, because they omit the from their version of the gospel any reference to the kingdom of God. Yet to be fair, I've heard Christians discuss that the Holy Spirit living in us and empowering us to do the works and miracles of Christ is the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth. However, this raises the conundrum as to whether or not Jesus taught of a physical coming of the kingdom of God or just as spiritual manifestation of the kingdom. This to me is the next area that needs to be discussed. Unfortunately, I will be absent from the next WCG/GCI's Bible study to raise the question, but hopefully the Holy Spirit will provide further clarification for me on this matter. 

The dilemma facing Protestant and Evangelical Christians in the West

The greatest dilemma today for Protestant and Evangelical Christians in the West is how to treat the Scriptures. Do we see them as the inspired words of God to live by and the standard to judge the morality of our own lives and that of society? Or do we see some of it as being inspired and other parts as not being useful or applicable today? Which portions of the Scriptures do we live by and which ones do we leave out or omit from our practice? Do we order our lives "sola scriptura", or by church traditions or by reason? Do we embrace modern scientific thinking or post-modern philosophy in helping us guide our decision-making about which Scriptures we can apply to our lives? Do we accept science to help us decide which Scriptures make sense and which ones are just parables, mythical or fables (if any?)? Or do we adopt the zeitgeist of postmodernism in determining that our faith is not the one true faith, but just one of several possible truths?

While I've been Evangelical for part of my life, I have realised from my own walk with God that I only have his Scriptures to guide me into discerning truth and error, especially in an era when Jesus himself prophesied that there will be great deceptions. And when I analyse the situation even more, I find that the disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself did not have a New Testament Bible. For them, the only Scriptures they owned were the Old Testament. With that fact in mind, Jesus and all his apostles based their doctrine and teachings around the Old Testament Scriptures (or the Torah) and through interpretations and re-interpretations of those Scriptures.

For me then, the question is not about which Scriptures are valid for instructing me and for application in today's world. All the scriptures are a standard  to show what God likes or approves of or to reveal humanity's past, present or future. As the apostle Paul declares in 2nd Timothy 3:15-17 according to the New Living Translation (NLT):

15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

However, the Bible is also complex, as it is compiled from various authors, contains diverse genres of content including laws, regulations, proverbial sayings, songs, folk wisdom, stories, genealogies, lists, histories, and reports. Yet despite its complexity, God uses it to help us identify what is good and what is wrong and to prepare us to do good.

Yet, the dilemma for Christians today is that our environment is changing. Historically, we moved from a persecuted minority religion to a popular majority in the Wes during the age of Constantine's reign in Rome. We in the West have enjoyed that status and the many privileges since then, perhaps taking our privileges and status as State sanctioned religion for granted, while Eastern Christians faced persecution for holding to their beliefs. Now as the West becomes diversified, our privileges and status are being taken away. Out of fear we attempt to preserve such through politics and legislation.

Yet, we forget our history, that when the disciples and apostles were preaching their doctrines, things that were practiced then in the 1st century are only now becoming legal and respectable int he 21st century (child sacrifice or abortion, witchcraft, paedophilia, homosexuality etc.). Somehow, when Christianity became legal, legitimate and the popular majority, such things were outlawed and driven underground.

So we must now see ourselves in the proper perspective. Do we believe the Scriptures only when the law and scholarship (or university intellectuals) are on our side? This is the test of our time. Just as how Job was tested, Satan accuses God about  our service to God. As illustrated in Job 1:8-10 in the New International Version (NIV):

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.

This charge is now being brought against us. Do we serve Christ because our faith is privileged or protected by our state?

The case against abortion as a "right": Emerging views

I have been reluctant to give my views on this debate, fully aware of the controversies and the passion on both sides. However, I find the views that I am about to share are missing from what I have heard or read. Had someone spoken or written these views, then I could keep silent. But the fact that they are absent means that perhaps I am the person that needs to provide this perspective.

In summary, the flow of my argument is this:

• rights are things that we are born with, and not give due to our privileged access to technology and applied science
• If a man or a woman wants to prevent conception, there are alternatives outside of abortion, including sterilization or making oneself an eunuch for career or other purposes
• If a man or woman wants to delay conception, then there are also alternatives made possible by technology and applied science.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that organizations and individuals are calling for women to have a "right" to "safe" abortions. To me personally, while I fully agree with the argument that women should have a right to control their own bodies, to insist on abortion being a right is a stretch. For me, rights are things that we are born with and do not exist just because we have access to certain technology or applied scientific procedures. Rights are independent of our manipulation of natural laws and processes.

Secondly, to speak of abortion as a "right" is to imply that abortion is the only option or means for women to control their bodies and health. This to me is misleading, as there are other options made possible by technology and applied science that are open and available to women. If a man or woman is serious about preventing conception, there is the option of sterilization or according to the Biblical tradition "making oneself an eunuch". This procedure is totally endorsed by Biblical tradition and is respected by at least one Old Testament and one New Testament writer. Consider Jesus in Matthew 19:12:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Then consider Isaiah (Isaiah 56:4-5):

For thus says the LORD, "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, 5To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

And finally, consider Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1):

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

As such, being a eunuch is the Biblically endorsed option to those who want to prevent conception. In fact, it is totally and morally okay to make yourself a eunuch for your career or some other purpose. 

Finally, if a man or woman wants to delay conception rather than make themselves a eunuch permanently, there is another option that makes possible delayed reproduction. This option involves freezing eggs or sperms until the desired time, and then having a surrogate mother or invitro fertilization. This process seems both expensive and unnatural to me as well. But it is definitely an option that should be made available for those who want the freedom of delayed pregnancies.

However, some might argue that not everyone can afford this option and that the poor will use traditional medicines and procedures that put women's lives at risk to circumvent these expenses. This is perhaps the biggest case for providing medical procedures. To prevent women from making bad choices in delaying conception that put their life at risk. However, even in this case, it seems to me that such women are making a choice. So even if we make available medically approved abortion, it does not change the fact that a choice is being made among various alternatives. The alternatives include: 

• sterilization, 
• saving eggs for later, 
• having nature/God decide or 
• just having the child. 

Considering this, it is clear to me that abortion is not a right, but a choice pursued among varied alternatives. [Unless abortion was the only alternative, then I would give it status as a "right"]. Even "safe" abortion procedures are selected among the varied options hat I have mentioned here (above). And until I get new information on the matter that changes my mind, I shall be critical of the discourse that promotes abortion procedures as a woman's "right".

We have no choice but to live together

I write this blog post out of concern for the dangerous trends that I see in my world. Despite all our advances in pluralism and multiculturalism, I see the world moving backwards. And I take to this blog to passionately rant about it.

Let me begin by saying that people, we must live together! There is no choice! Just like how you are born in a family and you have no choice about whom you are related to, it is the same with living in the world or a specific nation. People of different faiths, beliefs and creeds need to live together! We co-exist and inhabit the same world or planet. Whether you believe that God has put us together or not, the reality is that you cannot just wish to live among people of your own kind or your own belief! That is not your reality!


We are all neighbours. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddist, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Atheist, and the Agnostic and whatever faith or label that you identify yourself with! Yet, we all have to live together, despite our differences in opinion. And despite us having differences in opinion and belief, we must not only live together, but let other human beings also live and participate in society, politics  and economic activities.  No one should be prevented from participating in society, political or economic activity because off their creed, religious beliefs or any other criteria including sexuality, sexual orientation, gender etc.

Yet the great evils that I have seen all across the world including the West, is that there is great intolerance. In some nations, the intolerance is violent. Where mere mortals decide that only those of their same persuasion or belief must live and exist in their local space. Mere mortals, take the position or role of God to exterminate or eradicate other human beings who are not like them in belief , using force and coercion to establish their "like-minded" community or locality.

IT IS EVIL to force any person, against their consent to do what goes against their conscience! It is like slavery. It is just evil to force people to do what YOU want them to do. It is evil to force people to live as how YOU want them to live. As long as a person's beliefs is not to injure another person, then we have no right to use force or any persuasion of any form, including the law to compel others to do anything against their will.

I don't want to get into specifics, but the daily news is unbearable:

• Boko Haram in Nigeria
• Sri Lanka ultranationalist Buddhists violently attacking Muslims
• Communist governments destroying places of worship 
• Secularists telling people of faith that they must keep their religion at home and leave religion out of their decisions at work or in the public sphere or that people who don't believe in abortion must fund those who do
• ISIS in Syria and Iraq and their attacks on Christians

We all have differences in opinion. But one thing that we all have in common: No one wishes to be coerced to do that which they disagree with! That is why slavery was and still is evil. It is inhumane to force another human being to conform to YOUR ideas about how they should live, work, be or exist. No human has the right to elevate themselves and their consciousness over another human being! As we are all human beings who are going to die, we must not seek to elevate ourselves and beliefs over others, because we will all meet the same fate. We are all going to be dust or dirt one day! It does not matter if we are rich, poor, religious, non-religious, straight, gay, vegetarian or omnivore, etc, we will die. We will all die like the animals that we eat or don't eat.

Let everyman come to his own conviction, not through force and coercion, but through experience, dialogue and through the process of questioning his own beliefs and testing the validity of those beliefs. I personally want my freedom to do this and would also want other who do not arrive at the same beliefs or conclusions to also go through this process.

After all, who wants to be locked into a world where he or she has to live as someone else dictates, who is mere mortal but yet claims to have more wisdom about what is right and whose authority cannot  be questioned or challenged. Yet, even in so-called democratic societies, I see this depressing situation.