The PERENNIAL RAMBLER

From the Big Brother file...

2006-05-18T09:05:00.000-04:00

"I approve."

Congress may make ISPs snoop on you

Comment: This is precisely the shrill "think about the children" type crap that makes my skin crawl. Fear seems to be the magical (and time tested) ingredient all governments (and wannabe Caesars) have used to increase their powers in open societies. If the fear of another well timed "terrorist attack" is just a little too abstract for some, protecting "little Billy and Sally" certainly seems to be a little more concrete. Of course the question people need to be asking is "just how much is freedom worth?" - for if the "big brother" argument for state intrusion into our personal lives is taken to it's logical conclusion, we'd all be alot "safer" if we had cameras everywhere (including in our homes), and tracking devices implanted in everyone from birth. Indeed, why take chances at all - why not simply give everyone a (mandatory!) state funded/supplied daily dose of tranquilizers to keep us all docile and pliable? Dammit, why even live at all; it's simply too "risky"!

People often piously repeat the mantra "freedom comes with a price"...but how seriously do most of us really take this? Typically when the well conditioned masses utter this phrase (or something like it), they have the statist wet-dream of "total war" in mind. Few however, consider the most genuine interpretation of this saying - namely that to have the ability to live, is to in some wise be open to suffering. Just as there is no possibility for greatness in cowards, the joys of liberty come with the price of having to withstand those who will use their freedom in unsavory (and even vile) ways. Of course this doesn't mean we should become impotent and let ourselves be walked all over by sociopaths and leeches - but it does mean that if we are going to be free, we'd better be prepared to deal with the often unpleasant task of withstanding such people. To expect to be handed "good" in this life without offering the necessary "sacrifices" is childish. Only the bully and the coward (who really are only two sides of the same coin) want to be spared this, having the conceit that they can really "have their cake and eat it too."

This is beside the fact that the current regime in Washington has already proven that it does not operate within the rule of law, and is quite keen on "taking a mile" where an inch has been offered. Keep in mind these are the beasts who lump "trade unionists" and "peace activists" with terrorists.

Please God, no!

2006-05-18T09:02:00.000-04:00

Britney Spears to rap on next album

Uh oh...

2006-05-18T08:55:00.000-04:00

...apparently The Da Vinci Code (film) sucks.

And one of it's stars (Sir Ian McKellen) doesn't seem to think much of the material it's based upon either...

"I doubt if people have read 'The Da Vinci Code' more than once. It's like a crossword. Once you've done the crossword you don't rub it out and do it all over again and go onto another one, do you? I don't."

From the "Religion of Peace" file...

2006-03-23T07:54:00.000-05:00

PM calls Karzai to express concern over Christian

Prime Minister Stephen Harper phoned Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai Wednesday to express his concerns about an Afghan man facing a death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity. ...

Forty-year-old Abdul Rahman has been charged with rejecting Islam under Afghanistan's laws. ...

Rahman was arrested last month after police discovered him in possession of a Bible during questioning over a custody dispute.

Footage of Rahman at last week's hearing shows him leafing through a Bible before saying, "They want to sentence me to death and I accept it, but I am not a deserter and not an infidel. I am a Christian, which means I believe in the Trinity."

Comment: So let me get this straight... billions of dollars were spent overthrowing the Taliban regime in the name of defending "human rights", and in it's place we now have a semi-Islamic regime who actually would even consider prosecuting (and executing!) someone for converting to Christianity? Wow, what an improvement!

At the same time though, these guys (Muslims) are beginning to really test my patience. My fundamental problem with the U.S.'s adventures in the Middle East has always been their stated basis; I frankly believe this ("getting Osama bin Ladin" or "defending human rights" or "confiscating weapons of mass destruction", etc. etc.) has always been a pack of crap. I also have issues with the real reasons the Bush White House has been persuing these campaigns - specifically, the attempt to fulfill long standing neo-conservative goals (most of whom are formr 60's marxists/leftists; all that's changed is their means to achieving government induced utopia, not their utopianism), which they were salivating over well before that fateful day back in 2001.

However this is not to say I've ever been impressed with how the Muslim world "does business." While there are certain aspects of Islam (like it's basic insistance upon modesty, public expression of religious belief, etc.) which are of themselves laudable, the truth is that these and the "brighter points" one will find in Islamic history are all things the Islamic world absorbed from elsewhere. The high Islamic philosophy/mysticism of the early middle ages owes infinitely more to the influence of Eastern Christian monasticism and pagan Hellenic philosophy than it ever could to Mohammed. More to the point, this "brighter side" of Islam has not survived, but only exists in a much maligned (by Muslims) periphery; Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Rumi, etc. are either utterly ignored now or regarded by Muslims as heterodox (whether after their lifetimes, or in the case of Averroes, while still living). You don't need to look hard to find popular screeds amongst Sunni Muslims against "Sufism", which now is practiced only by a few who call themselves Muslims, and only outside of the big Islamist states.

Ultimately I believe Islam to be a demonic caricture of Christianity; it takes pretty much all of the claims of the Church (exclusive path to salvation, the final revelation of God, catholicity/universality, etc.) and applies them to a perverted theology and soteriology, and further, spreads them with an iron fist wherever it feels it can get away with it.

Were the American campaigns in the Middle East truly "neo-Crusades", I'd actually be much more sympathetic, since it's quite clear that the Mohammedans are not capable of living in "pluralistic" world, and have a nasty habit of brutalizing those who don't believe as they do whenever they get the chance. True, Christians of all stripes have themselves been guilty of this too - but the key difference being, such violent intolerance does not characterize essentially Christian behaviour (and this becomes clear if one actually studies the history of Christendom), and only becomes possible if one goes out of their way to ignore our Lord Jesus Christ. So basically, Christians behaving in this manner is contrary to even the simplest reading of the Gospels. OTOH., Islamist violence (both now and in the past) is an essential element of their creed; it was practiced and encouraged by the founder of their religion, and is enshrined in their "bible" (the Qur'an.)

Canadian, British peace hostages freed in Iraq

Two Canadian aid workers and a British colleague held hostage in Iraq for nearly four months were freed Thursday during a military operation led by multinational forces. ...

"I'm delighted that now we have a happy ending to this terrible ordeal for Norman Kember, for his family, for the Canadian hostages, and for their families as well,'' said Straw.

One of the four men taken hostage in November was killed. The body of American Tom Fox was found in Baghdad earlier this month.

"There's one last, very sad point, which is that there were four hostages captured originally, including one, an American, Mr. Fox, and it's a matter of great sorrow to everybody that he was killed a little while ago," said Straw. ...

The three freed aid workers are all members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams. ...

The four aid workers were kidnapped at gunpoint on Nov. 26 by a group calling itself the Swords of Righteousness Brigades. ...

Comment: The thing I find most obnoxious about the above situation, is that the four men who were abducted (of whom one was murdered by the abducters) were in Iraq precisely because they oppose the war and wanted to help the Iraqi people in various charitable capacities. Also, these folks were not "700 Club" style evangelicals; my understanding is that they're all from fairly mainline (and liberal) Protestant denominations, and while I don't doubt their seriousness, obviously don't believe in the necessity of prosyletism to "save the souls" of Muslims. Yet, this is the "thanks" they get from these Islamist jerks, for simply trying to "help the locals out."

It's long been my observation, that most old world Muslims are losers. I don't mean this in the glib way a snotty teenager would, or even as some kind of put down of Islam itself. Rather, I mean it in a very simple and practical way; these people not only do not know how to advance their cause, they go out of their way to sabotage themselves. They seem to do their best to piss all over those who are sympathetic to their grievances, breed ill will where it was not present previously, and force people who would like to help them on the basis of normal human compassion (and even give them some justice in areas where they really have been wronged, like in Palestine) to instead assume a distant, even militantly defensive posture toward them.

Isaac "Chef" Hayes quits 'South Park'

2006-03-14T08:20:00.000-05:00

Soul singer Isaac Hayes, who voices the suave, ladies man Chef on the hit animated satire South Park, has quit the show over its continual ridiculing of religion.

Comment: While I'd like to give Mr.Hayes the benefit of the doubt, I think the creators of the show have a point when they observe that his "sudden case of religious sensitivity" only arose after the show lampooned Isaac's own religion, Scientology.

P.S. If you're interested in seeing the "offending episode" on Scientology, you can view it online in at these links (Real Player Format or .AVI), hosted by the Operation Clambake website.

Questions/puzzlings about Angels

2006-03-10T07:55:00.000-05:00

Different Status/Tests of Different Ranks?

I was reading this morning that apparently at one time, St.Augustine entertained the idea that there were two basic classes amongst the Angels - those who were "created in glory" and who never fell, and those of lesser orders for whom it was possible to fall. Of them, some did, and some did not. He eventually dropped this position. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who knows more than I do about this topic, because depending upon what is within legitimate Orthodox opinion, the following may or may not be easier to explain...

"The Sons of God" of Genesis Chapter 6

I'm curious about what is "kosher" within the realm of Orthodoxy on this subject, since there are Fathers who put different spins on this. For example, a number of the early Fathers held the opinion that at least some of the fallen angels fell during the period just before the Great Deluge, being guilty of fornication with women (this is based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 6.) Personally, I find it difficult to not see the story told in Genesis 6 as being anything but a case of heavenly beings coming down to earth and doing unclean things with mortal women, and begetting monstrous children as a result. This was also fairly common belief in pre-Rabbinic Judaism (as the inter-testament writings make fairly apparent).

It would also seem to imply (if true) the possibility that there are angels who could still fall. This seems strange, but it may possibly explain St.Paul's words in 1st Corinthians chapter 11. While he is discussing the issue of women covering their heads while praying, he says...

"That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels." (1st Corinthians 11:10)

If this isn't the sense of this verse, then I'm at a loss how to explain it. Again, I'm soliciting the opinions of others on this one.

(Yawn)...

2006-03-04T07:19:00.000-05:00

Paul McCartney and his wife make a stink about Canadian seal hunt

Scrappy Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams faced off against rock legend-turned-animal rights crusader Paul McCartney during a heated debate on Canada's annual seal hunt Friday night, accusing the former Beatle and his wife of being gravely misinformed.

"First of all, the information that hasn't been given is that 90 per cent of these seals are killed by bullets, they are not all clubbed," Williams said in a debate that aired on CNN's Larry King Live, as Heather Mills McCartney shook her head in apparent disbelief.

...

"If you take the McCartneys' arguments to the extreme that they are willing to go, there will be no beef slaughter, there will be no pork slaughter, there will be no chicken slaughter, there will be no fish in restaurants, there will be no eggs, there will be no milk for children," Williams said.

...

Meanwhile, Newfoundland musician Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea added his voice to the hunt debate saying the McCartneys' photo op on the ice is misleading and unfair.

"There has not been a cute and cuddly baby seal hunt in a long, long time," Doyle said in a journal entry from the group's current tour, pointing out that Canada has banned the killing of newborn, whitecoat pups.

"Older harp seals are what the sealers are after, but I'll bet these much uglier dudes won't make the final photo."

The McCartneys have garnered two days of intense media attention for their protest of the hunt.

The couple frolicked with harp seal pups on a Gulf of St. Lawrence ice floe Thursday as a throng of photographers recorded the event.

Comment: Besides the obvious dishonesty of posing with cute/cuddly critters who are not even legal prey in Canada, the Premier of Newfoundland was correct - to be consistant, you'd have to outlaw all animal slaughter to be consistant. If anything, I'd go so far as to say these wild seals have much better lives (well, at least when they're not being eaten alive by killer whales) than animals raised on modern factory farms.

In the end though, windbags like McCartney, Pamela Anderson and the rest of the "bored and privileged" PETA goons would be a lot more credible in my eyes if they started every one one of their "humane treatment" campaigns with a stop at the local "Planned Parenthood" clinic - raise a stink there, and perhaps throw a little red paint on the abortionists' cars.

Strange yet true

2006-03-03T08:06:00.000-05:00

(courtesy of the Octopodial Chrome weblog)

Black and White Twins!

...Which one of these kids is doing her own thing?
Can you tell, before my song is done? Can you guess which kid...

To be rich and famous

2006-03-03T08:02:00.000-05:00

Don't let anyone tell you that it's all fun and games being rich and famous...err.. uh, no, cancel that.

Free stuff Hollyweirdos get at the Oscars

I thought this was worth saving.

2006-03-02T10:19:00.000-05:00

(What follows is a posting I made over at the "Catholic Answers Forum" with regard to a link someone posted. The link led to a Roman Catholic apologetics website, with all sorts of "proof texts" which supposedly justified the innovative and divisive teachings of Catholicism regarding the Papacy. Some spelling errors on my part have been fixed.)

(this text caption was written by a Roman Catholic at the C.A. Msg. Forum)

Roman Catholic... All Christian Churches where loyal to the successor of Peter at least at one time.

Check the quotes out here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

It would be far too time consuming to go through each citation, so I will simply take one of the documents listed at that address and give some examples of what I mean.

Peter's Successors

This list is itself a very tangled web of things which either need to be given a historical context, or the citations are used in such a way as to misrepresent the intentions of their authors.

First, some history...

St.Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D., which legalized Christianity. Afterward, he showered the Church with all sorts of privileges. He also moved the Imperial capital from Rome to the previously minor city of Byzantium which was renamed "Constantinople" and "Nova Roma" or "New Rome." This created some uneasiness for the Bishop of Elder Rome.

This anxiety became much more pronounced however, after the Second Ecumenical Council, whose third canon clearly states that the See of Constantinople was to have the "second rank" on the basis of being the "New Rome", with the obvious implication in it's wording that Old Rome's pre-eminance was in some wise conditioned by it's being the Imperial City at one time. The Council of Constantinople was called in 381 while Damasus was Pope, hence the timing of this passage is quite understandable...

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

This decree is quite a departure from older statements both within Italy and abroad about Rome's honour and privileges, as will be shown later.

Pope Damasus' words here, sadly, are a case of "Church politics". Rome obviously was not unique in involving itself in such affairs - this has always been a temptation within the Orthodox Church, as jurisdictional shoving matches still exist to this day...so this is nothing unique. It's fallen human nature at work.

Rome for a very long time refused to acknowledge or approve of the third canon. Yet, this didn't seem to phase anyone else in the Church, as it was received everywhere else. However, Rome did eventually recognize this canon - centuries later, during the Crusades, when it was able to install a Latin Bishop in the See of Constantinople in the year 1215 A.D. (said canon was also recognized yet again by Rome during the re-union attempt at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in A.D. 1439) IOW., when it suited Rome's purposes, the canon was recognized (however long after the rest of Christendom acknowledged it's force.)

What is most curious about Damasus' decree is not simply what it asserts, but what it fails to mention - this is the first time the Roman Church's honour is asserted solely on the basis of a "Petrine" connection - no connection is made to St.Paul who was at least as important to the founding of the Church in Rome. You even see this change within the relatively limited selection of "proof texts" chosen by the author of the tract. Another change was from emphazing the importance of the Roman Church, and instead conferring this upon the person of the Bishop of Rome himself - as if he was in some kind of unique dynasty, specially empowered by providence.

With regard to St.Cyprian (who is cited in the tract), anyone remotely familiar with his life and thought (and with the Council in Carthage he presided over, which concilliarly rebuked Pope Stephen for his meddling in North African Church affairs) should realize that this cannot be interpreted as an apologia for exaggerated Papal claims. This, like many of the other passages on the page in question (and others like them) are a case of people reading things into what various Fathers have said without even realizing what they've done. For many Roman Catholics, any reference to St.Peter or his importance is taken to automatically apply to the Pope - even when there is nothing in the text they're citing to warrant this interpretation.

The reality is that for the Fathers in general, St.Peter is viewed as the "type" of the Priesthood (specifically the Episcopate, which is simply the fullness of the Priesthood). All Bishops are understood by them to be "in Peter", since they are all pastors of souls. St.Peter was the first to receive the promise of the Priesthood (though in truth, all of the Apostles in fact received this power together), and he was the first to lead the infant Church of Jerusalem. He was the first to preach publicly in Christ's Name, and the first to work miracles. He was very likely also the first to preside at the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, and the first to "do" what Christ had enjoined upon all of the Apostles. Ultimately, this was all because he was the first to confess the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if he was quite likely not (at the time) fully aware of the deep significance of the words which he had uttered (which our Lord said were given to St.Peter by God the Father, as a revelation, and were not a result of his own intuition.)

All Bishops do this, and indeed when diocese' began to grow large enough so as to be divided up into "parishes" led by Presbyters acting on behalf of their Bishop, so they did as well. And this is why so many Fathers will break into praise of St.Peter and consideration of his significance outside of any discussion of the Pope of Elder Rome.

That after the time of Pope Damasus you'll find Latin Christians who prop up the authority of their Patriarch with similar rhetoric (ex. St.Jerome) should not be surprising - in many ways it is reminiscent of the embarrassing "I'll out-Pope-you!" stuff you see time to time (esp. in the first millennia when this shoving match was going on) about the Ecumenical Patriarch being the "successor of St.Andrew 'the first called'", since it was a common belief that the Church in Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St.Andrew. While all of this nonsense was a source of contention and bickering, all was well so long as it stayed on that level. Unfortunately, toward the close of the first millennia this tolerable status quo was shattered, when the Popes began going well beyond bombastic attempts to shore up their canonical rights with floral references to St.Peter, and began to outright teach that they did in fact have immediate and universal jurisdiction throughout all of Christendom. This did not simply go well beyond any of the canons relating to Rome's rights which everyone agreed to, but even against what one could even imagine being entertained by Popes like Damasus or St.Gregory who were obviously very intent on not being "shoved to the side" by the Patriarch of the Imperial City.

Indeed such ideas are utterly contrary to the thought of St.Gregory the Great. When the Patriarch of Constantinople received the title "Ecumenical Patriarch", it was translated into Latin as "Patriarcha Universalis" or "Universal Patriarch". This incensed the saintly Pope not because he was thinking "hey, that's my schtick!" but rather because he rejected such an office as even being possible. While this was all a misunderstanding due to a misleading translation, St.Gregory's thoughts on the topic are 100% Orthodox. In his letter to then Ecumenical Patriarch St.John the Faster, he writes...

"Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that [the title of Ecumenical Patriarch] is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinist with thyself to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren...

"Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head... "...the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren..."(Book V, Epistle XVIII)

To the Patriarchs Eugolios and Anastasius (of Alexandria and Antioch respectively) he wrote...

"This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..." (Book V: Epistle XLIII)

And most strikingly, he wrote the following to the Emperor on this topic (it really bothered him that much!)...

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)

This says nothing of course, of the further powers later Popes would claim for themselves over the centuries (after the schism), which would have been utterly unimaginable to anyone - the "power of the two swords", that the Pope is superior to even Ecumenical Councils and can be "judged by no one", or that the Pope could be "personally infallible". Such notions would have simply made St.Gregory the Great weep.

Well, at least they're consistant!

2006-02-28T08:40:00.000-05:00

Sex Pistols snub "Rock and Roll Hall of Shame"

"(KP International) - One of the most influential punk bands of all time, the Sex Pistols, is being inducted into the US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on March 13. One slight snag however: they refuse to attend. ..."

"Mr.Furley" has passed away. :-(

2006-02-28T08:38:00.000-05:00

Don Knotts dies at age 81

A humbling thought

2006-02-27T12:05:00.000-05:00

Despite my misgivings about the "Western Rite within Orthodoxy", I have to admit something did occur to me last night at work which did give me pause - whatever my opinion on the matter, the fact is that the Western Rite parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese (and the Holy Synod which oversees them) are in communion with my Church (OCA). Thus while I may have certain problems with how this is being carried out, I am speaking about real Priests, real Sacraments, and real Orthodox Christians.

In consideration of this, and the fact Great Lent is soon going to be upon us, I'm going to simply ask the forgiveness of my Western-Rite brethren for needlessly offending them, and remove the "offending" posting from this weblog.

"Thought Police" = Bad News

2006-02-25T08:19:00.000-05:00

What's Next -- Jailing Flat Earth Fans? - By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

"Austria has just sentenced an eccentric, obsessed historian to jail for three years because he expressed his opinion that Auschwitz didn't have gas chambers. David Irving violated Austria's law which provides for up to ten years imprisonment for Holocaust deniers. It is ironic that many of the people cheering this suppression of free speech in Austria are the same people decrying Moslem attempts to do the same in Denmark."

Comment: I'm always a little annoyed when I hear about states who have no enforceable laws on blasphemy against Christ and His Saints enacting laws prosecuting matters which are undoubtedly within the realm of legitimate historical inquiry. If you're interested in forming your own opinion on David Irving's work, visit his publisher's official website here, where a number of his books (whole and uncensored) are available in .PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format.

I'm hoping this will go somewhere.

2006-02-25T07:59:00.000-05:00

South Dakota state Senate passes bill to ban nearly all abortions

"PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage."

Comment: If this truly re-opens the debate on abortion in the United States, I think that is a good thing. I think one of the problems has been precisely that there has been no real, open debate on this subject - just two groups spinning their wheels in opposite directions, with one group ("pro-choicers") having the issue ceded to them back in the early 70's.

Saw this coming...

2006-02-25T07:57:00.000-05:00

An appeal from the Catholic Church for New Zealanders to boycott an episode of South Park has resulted in a record audience there for the controversial cartoon.

Now, more than ever...

2006-02-23T10:56:00.000-05:00

Recently I've been involved in debates at the Catholic Answers Forum about the issue of contraception/family planning, a subject which I've blogged about here before. The exchanges there, the actual rationale for the support of the Humanae Vitae position as argued, and reading the pseudo-patristic arguments of people there, have left me convinced now, more than ever, that the position taken by the Orthodox Church on this topic is the correct and pastorally reponsible one.

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hasn't changed it's way of thinking on this topic is a conceit, as are attempts to confound it's current stand with those taken by the ancient Fathers of the Church (who both Orthodoxy and Catholicism lay claim to.)

For example, some Fathers teach that sexual relations with marriage are only for procreation. The use of these teachers as authoritative by the RCC is dishonest, when they teach quite plainly that this is not their belief - the fact that Pope does not impose strict continence upon the infertile (whether due to medical problems or age) is proof enough of this. That it considers so called "Natural Family Planning" (which is basically a high-tech version of the old "Rhythm Method") morally neutral in many circumstances (so long as it does not totally exclude childbearing for reasons of selfishness) is doubly proof of this.

I've concluded that there are many reasons why Fathers like St.Clement of Alexandria or Bl.Augustine taught along these lines. There is a logic to it - obviously sex is fundamentally for procreating, just as eating is fundamentally for nutrition. This in turn is wedded to an obvious evangelical ideal - total self mastery, or put more correctly, dispassion. Such a state has always been considered desirable, and is the goal of ascesis. Far from making us into cold, Vulcan-like robots, it is essential for true freedom, and the ability to love in a 100% pure, unmercenary way.

However the reality that the Church has to deal with, is that for most people, sexual desire does not disappear simply because the ability/desire to have children is not present. Also, there is another thread in ancient Christian thought, going right back to St.Paul, which also needs to be paid heed to - and this is that it is that it is better to be married (and have this as the sanctioned outlet for such things) than "to burn" with, and be overwhelmed by sexual desire (to the point of fornicating, which lacks the commitment necessary to foster selfless love or the bonds to ensure the upbringing of Godly offspring.) Thus, while it may not be ideal, marriage as a "vent" for sexual passion is totally legitimate and God has given His blessing to this.

This is beside the fact that not all of the Fathers held that married sex was "pointless"/barely-tolerable were it enjoyed save for the express purpose of "making babies." St.John Chrysostom is most often pointed to for his teaching in this area, and rightly so, for he was quite clear on this point.

It was this pastoral consideration which has probably motivated most confessors to not burden the conscience of elderly couples or the infertile with accusations of sin, though it would seem at times this has happened. It is also undoubtedly this consideration which led the RCC, beginning with Pope Pius XII, to unambiguously teach the permissability of things like the "rhythm method."

But what about what the RCC would term "artificial", but still non-abortifacient methods of family planning? This is where another strain of thinking comes into play. The major concern of the ancient Fathers is with abortion. Almost every "proof-text" you'll see on an RC-Apologetics website about this topic, will be speaking about trying to "foil nature" by killing the offspring while it is still being formed in the womb. It is this, and not "contraception" as we now understand it, which the Fathers considered worse than killing a newborn, as many RC's falsely attribute to Patristic thought. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they can say such a thing anyway - as if it were the case that the Vatican itself teaches such foolishness. To my knowledge, getting an abortion if you're a Roman Catholic will get you excommunicated; "using a condom" will most likely (if the priest even cares about what Humanae Vitae has to say) get you a Rosary for a penance, if that.

Where the Fathers do speak on a remotely related note, has to do with the "wasting of the seed". If pastoral/moral-theological positions are going to be formed (and formed they are on topics like this, since this is definately not a matter dealt with by Divine Revelation) on the basis of natural-law (which understands the natural order to be a form of revelation) then the correctness of your rulings can't help but be relative to your understanding of nature. And the fact of the matter is, the common understanding of procreation in the ancient world is at best, pseudo-scientific.

According to the great naturalist-philosopher Aristotle, the male seed (the semen - he would have had no clue about "sperm cells", that only one of them is needed for conception, despite the fact that tens of millions are ejaculated every time a healthy man climaxes) is the formal cause of a child, while the mother is the material cause. There was no concept in the ancient world that the woman had her own "seed" (ovum/egg), and that both this egg and a sperm cell only each contained half of the genetic information necessary for conceiving a child. Putting it bluntly, the semen was understood to be a homoculi of a child, and taking this thought paradigm seriously, was fundamentally not much different than a newly conceived fetus. It would be the difference between an acorn falling from a tree, and an acorn embedded in soil.

This perspective was, as far as I can tell, near universal. But it is incorrect.

So if one is going to form pastoral policy on the basis of natural law, this kind of incorrect information ought not be used. Why would any lover of souls use the power to "bind and loose", to tie people's consciences to something, to create an impediment to their salvation, unless it was absolutely necessary; unless there was absolutely an essential good that needed to be protected and an inherent evil to be avoided?

While Humanae Vitae rests upon this incorrect natural-law argument, it seems obvious to me that the RCC itself has moved beyond this. Very few now will bother trying to offer this as a thoughtful defence - such is left to RC Apologist-Hucksters and other such non-hierarchal/theologian activitists. Instead we've seen the emergence of Pope John Paul II's whole Theology of the Body, part of which becomes an argument against "artificial" forms of family planning.

While there is much in this aspect of the late Pope's teaching on marriage which is edifying and even quite Orthodox (ex. gender as a revelation of God, and marriage as a teaching about the economy of salvation), it's argument against "Artificial Birth Control" ("ABC") is very weak and judgemental. I say "judgemental" not because I'm some whiney liberal who can't stand anyone who so much as attempts to make moral distinctions - no, I mean to condemn this precisely in the way the Holy Scriptures condemn it. The basic argument of the late Pope, is that ABC is wrong because it requires that the couple using it be incapable of "giving themselves wholly and entirely" to one another.

I have two problems with this. First, as I said, it assumes way, way too much; both of those who use ABC, and of those who use NFP (Natural Family Planning). Second, if consistantly applied, this reasoning would require that any married sexual activity not rooted in some profound expression of love be called a mortal sin. As a married man, I don't think I'm being presumptuous in saying that such thinking is fantastical - the reality is, that there are going to be many times, for many (no, most) married couples where one or both partners simply want to have sex because (to put it euphemistically) "they've got the itch". So unless the Vatican is prepared to issue encyclicals against married couples having "a quickie" or a husband laying down with his wife to anything less than three scented candles and a nice bottle of wine, I find this manner of argument to be pretty lame. It also shoots to hell the teaching I've found in every single Roman Catholic moral theological source (old or new), that it is an objectively grave sin against justice for one spouse to refuse sex to another for anything but very serious reasons (ex. abandonment, infidelity, grave medical issues, etc.) IOW. the RCC teaches that it is quite possible (and even necessary) for a spouse to have sexual relations with their partner without being particularly "into it" - nay, they may even downright not want to.

This idea also seems to contradict the Apostolic/Scriptural teaching, that the venting of sexual passion is a legitimate use of marriage.

On the whole then, the RC teaching on ABC seems to be a pastoral stand in search of a justification. That is a terrible grounds for telling people they're enemies of grace, and not welcome to approach the Chalice.

Simple proclamation of the Gospel

2006-02-20T08:25:00.000-05:00

Something which has occured to me, is that a lot of Orthodox evangelism in the west is clearly geared toward those who are already (or were already at some point) "churched" in another Christian confession. Thus a lot of the missionary efforts in this area are works of correction and addition - but in some wise, these efforts are already building upon a pre-established foundation.

But what of those who have not been "churched" in any meaningful way? How does the Church effectively reach these people - people who very likely are not going to have the same kind of "doctrinal authenticity" issues (and less yet, disillusionment and gripes about their former confessions on those types of issues)?

I think in a real way, such secular persons and outreach toward them are a purer case for Orthodox evangelism, and even offer those in the Church a good opportunity to really assess just what is important; what their first love is, or maybe even, what their first love ought to be.

I've been involved in my share of debates on soteriology (doctrine of salvation) - there is even a recent thread on this topic at this blog. However even I am prepared to admit that sometimes such discussions can become decadent and quite doctrinairre. It is true that when the Orthodox Christian says certain things, there is an implied meaning to these terms which is likely at variance with the way the same language would be used by other Christian confessions. Yet, I think there is a danger as well (and here I grant something significant to those who are a little put off with those who heavily emphasize what is distinct about Orthodox soteriology) of losing sight of the basic affirmations of our faith, the very basic, simple statements which are the "well" from which we may draw the waters of deeper understanding.

Thus while it is true that the Orthodox Church has a very definate outlook on the nature of man, what sin "is", and what the essence of Christ's feat of redemption is, I also think it is foolhearty (and even quite pompous) to think everyone in the Church needs to be running around throwing around exotic/obscure language, or worse yet, that this is how you introduce the dogma of redemption to worldly people. IOW. going to "Joe Secular" and going on about theosis or talking about the darkened 'nous' will most likely get you blank stares, or worse, have you and your gospel deemed obsucrant and irrelevent.

This is why I don't think something simple (I'm sure most of you have seen this type of diagram before in Evangelical Protestant materials) like the following graphic is at all misleading and without value in explaining the basics of our faith.

It is things like this which are also why I have to agree with Fr.Seraphim (Rose) of Platina, that while the "manual theology" of the so called "Latin captivity" is indeed prone to being very superficial and even overly narrow (and thus the modern revival of Patristic studies ought to be a very welcome phenomenon), for the most part there was nothing heretical or contrary to Orthodoxy in it. Also, perhaps in our mania for the "depths of the ancient Fathers" we can easily forget the usefulness of a "bare bones" approach - for if you don't have the basics, you'll hardly be able to delve any deeper. I also believe integration into the life of of the Church (Her services, and the Orthodox life which one takes away from that into the home and into all of the other parts of one's daily life) will also, if persevered in faithfully, provide the context and "filling in" that such a skeletal framework requires to grow into real understanding (even if it is an understanding one cannot quite articulate like the lofty Ecumenical Teachers of the Church were able to).

This is why, as I contemplate the matter, I don't think there is (when it's all put into proper perspective) the sharp disconnect that some perceive between the more weighty insights of modern neo-Patristic teachers like Metropolitan Hierotheos or the late Fr.John Romanides and the simpler (but perhaps more useful in terms of catechesis amongst neophytes and the simple - the latter being the ones God seems to favour most of all) catechesis offered in something like the old Catechism of St.Philaret of Moscow.

After all, how can the truth which is needful for salvation, the correct guidance of God and His Church, be something that is out of the reach of the unlettered or children? While I can definately see teaching something like the catechism I just referenced to neophytes and little ones, "deeper" or simply more advanced theological treatise' and discussions of doctrinal subjects can just be confusing or even create the false impression that we "enlightened Orthodox" don't really believe people are sinful and that these sins are offences before God which without Christ Jesus would exclude us from the blessedness of Heaven and the life of the world to come. Thus, while I'm inclined (from what I've read) to think Fr.Seraphim did not properly understand/interpret what Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was getting at in his controversial The Dogma of Redemption (indeed, I've come to realize that I greatly misunderstood this work as well), I do understand and sympathize with his concern (and it's not one that I think is baseless) that it is possible to concoct a "Christianity without the Cross". I think getting the "basics" down first is a sure way of avoiding this temptation.

Agreed!

2006-02-08T10:14:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Carter thinks Dubya is a crook...literally

Comment: Well duh...

Fascinating!

2006-02-08T09:19:00.000-05:00

Scientists hail discovery of hundreds of new species in remote New Guinea

From site - An astonishing mist-shrouded "lost world" of previously unknown and rare animals and plants high in the mountain rainforests of New Guinea has been uncovered by an international team of scientists. ...

Dr Beehler said: "What was amazing was the lack of wariness of all the animals. In the wild, all species tend to be shy of humans, but that is learnt behaviour because they have encountered mankind. In Foja they did not appear to mind our presence at all.

"This is a place with no roads or trails and never, so far as we know, visited by man ... This proves there are still places to be discovered that man has not touched." ...

Comment: Finds like this cause me to not view cryptozoology as a "quack" field of research.

Obviously "tongue-in-cheek"...

2006-02-08T09:10:00.000-05:00

...but quite funny.

JesusPets.com - for the truly "rapture ready" I guess

From the site - If you're a Christian, you've got a big problem on your hands. After you're swept away to walk the streets of gold with Jesus, red hot lava is going to pour from Mt. St. Helens and right over your dog, leaving his burned body encased for millennia until discovered by godless alien archeologists. And what do you suppose they'll do to his charred yet supple and hermetically sealed haunches? They are godless after all. (What would you do? That long space voyage sure can be lonely.)

JesusPets has the solution. For a modest fee you can live for eternity relatively guilt-free knowing a JesusPets animal lover took care of your dog for the rest of his or her natural life.

File-sharing

2006-02-07T08:07:00.000-05:00

French law would make file-sharing cheaper, easier

Comments: I'm not really sure what the solution is to this issue, though I'm becoming less and less inclined to support "the artists" on this issue. The fact of the matter is that current technology makes most standing copyright laws hopelessly out of date, and most importantly, unenforcable. Also, I question whether it is in fact defensible that "artists" should have nearly unending ownership over their work even after it has been bought and resold and passed through so many hands.

I think the case of recording artists is a particularly interesting example of this. Back in the day, artists/bands would pay the bills by touring - the idea that one could make a lucrative living simply selling albums would have been unthinkable. In a way, it was old technological limitations (the cost involved in having the equipment necessary to manufacture audio recordings, especially ones of decent quality) which made this a market for musicians, not "divine right" or the objective moral order.

Well, times have changed. Anyone with a desktop computer can manufacture an audio CD, and with an Internet connection, have access to audio files. So perhaps what this really marks is sort of "full circle", where relying on studio recordings and the totally artificial "cult of celebrity" (where "stars" are just as manufactured as the compact discs their noise has been etched into) will no longer allow someone to essentially make an opulent living doing little real work.

Wading into controversy?

2006-01-26T12:09:00.000-05:00

Over at the Occidentalis blog, there is an interesting discussion going on about the issue of the atonement from an Orthodox Christian perspective, with a passage from St.Athanasios' On the Incarnation serving as a focal point for discussion.

While I'm inclined to agree that it probably happens that some ill informed neophyte Orthodox Christians may overstate the Church's problems with later (heterodox) western Christian ideas/theories about this subject, I think on the whole more serious discussions of this topic (such as you'll find amongst the likes of St.Justin of Serbia or the late Fr.John Romanides, or even more "controversially" the critique articulated by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky - a view which I have to admit I greatly misunderstood until relatively recently) are pretty spot on and necessary.

It's my observation that those coming from a heterodox-western background (like myself), or even who were not raised religiously but come out of a secular western background, have a very hard time reading the New Testament and a great many of the Fathers when they speak on this topic, without projecting mistaken ideas upon the text. This is probably why so many Orthodox are hyper-sensitive over this issue; they have reason to be.

While it is true that the more refined, academic definitions flowing from Anselm of Caterbury's soteriology are not quite this "whacked out", I believe it's fair to say that on a popular level western soteriology is implicitly Arian; with "God the Father" Who at best would like to forgive men, but cannot without having the offence done to His honour repaired, and a "God the Son" Who repairs His Father's honour by taking the good thrashing we all so richly deserve. This all seems to forget that the Son is "God too", and presumably would be just as "injured" by our sinfulness as His Father is (as would the Holy Spirit.) One only need to read popular (and "ecclessiastically approved") prayer/devotional collections like the Roman Catholic Raccolta or listen to the typical evangelical Protestant explanation of the basis of our salvation to see this in all of it's hideous glory.

As for the passage cited at Occidentalis from St.Athanasios, I have to say either that it's import is being somewhat misrepresented (though I would not say through any malice, but probably due to precisely the ailment so many of us convert-types suffer from that I mentioned before), or I am totally misunderstanding the point that the author of the entry was trying to make.

"But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case." (On the Incarnation 2:7, emphasis mine)

IOW, the extent of the "legal aspect" of St.Athanasios' soteriology is God's truthfulness - that He remain consistent (after all, it was He Who told the first man that sin would result in death - Genesis 2:16-17). However even this consistancy has an ontological basis for St.Athanasios - for when God said this to Adam, it was simply an accurate statement reflecting man's nature and what happens to that nature when it departs from God (it moves toward oblivion - On the Incarnation 1:4).

What is particularly interesting is that in On the Incarnation 2:7 (with the relevent passage quoted above) St.Athanasios says pretty clearly that had it only been an issue of trespass, repentence would have been sufficient However, the sad fact is that our repentence would not have been sufficient to undo the damage done to human nature when Adam fell from grace. And this is where we move into the central theme of St.Athanasios' treatise - that Christ came to heal human nature, restoring divinizing grace to it. The central part of fixing this damage of course, was to destroy the power of death; and Christ did this by submitting to the "law of death" and being the Light which overcomes darkness, transforming the grave into the womb of our ressurection.

Foreign to all of this is any notion of God needing His honour repaired. That would seem pretty clear given St.Athanasios' words on the would-be sufficiency of repentence (were it not for the corruption and death which flow from it). He could not have said such words had he entertained the later teachings of heterodoxy on this topic.

Beyond this particular document of St.Athanasios though, there are all sorts of terms which many westerners (myself included) seem to have difficulty seeing on the page without misunderstanding them. For example...

Atonement - Hebrew Kippur/Kapher which means to "cover over" with the implied understanding of this resulting in reconcilliation. This does not at all require a belief that one is somehow buying off an upset God. The Greek word used for atonement in the New Testament is katallage which simply means to reconcile via an exchange/transformation (you can check this yourself by following the etymological references provided in a New Testament Greek concordance like Strong's).

Sacrifice/Offering - Hebrew Qarav, which means "to draw near". The purpose of the sacrifices of old was to (insofar as they were able) bring a man close to God. In fact the same root word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament in the context of sexual relations (and hence may be part of the reason why the relationship between God and His people is portrayed as being that between a husband and his bride.) Again, none of this relates to the later (heterodox) teachings on Christ's feat of salvation.

Justified - Greek Dikaioo, which means to render one has he ought to be, and/or to declare/demonstrate that one is as he ought to be. The closest aspect of this to the later-day western conception of this subject, is the idea that God is making a statement about someone. Whatever way you slice it, it has nothing to do with pacifying a grievous offence given to God.

Ransom - Greek Lutron, which means the price paid to liberate someone, such as a captive or a slave, with the distinct sense that the "ransom" dissolves whatever it is that was binding that which is being liberated (from it's root luo). Now, unless one believes that it was "God the Father" who was our jailor and from whose oppression we needed liberation, then it is quite clear that the Anselmian theory (and it's bastard children) are not at all called for.

Come to think of it, it is probably a merciful condescension to those who struggle with misshapen notions of the economy of salvation that these terms are not employed without heavily qualification. I also think it's readily apparent that properly understood, the legal analogies one will find in the New Testament that describe the saving work of Christ, mean exactly the same thing as the language of "Christus Victor".

So, either I'm missing the point of some of the folks over at the Occidentalis weblog, or they are fretting over nothing, or they are charging Biblical/Patristic writings and terminology with an understanding foreign to the Orthodox Church.

Post Script - I also think one of the obsticals to the conversion of the Jews to Christ, is precisely the heterodox interpretation of the redemption, which they rightly understand to be erroneous and not part of the message the God their fathers met at Mt.Sinai conveyed to them in His Torah and via His Prophets.

"Nice Guy Eddie" is dead

2006-01-26T11:29:00.000-05:00

Actor Chris Penn found dead

Comment: As of right now no one knows the cause of death. Oddly enough, he is in a new film called The Darwin Awards, a comedy based upon annual awards which "honour" people who die as a result of sheer stupidity (and as a result do us all a favour by preventing themselves from perpetuating their genes). Of course, I don't think we're any better off without the man who made track suits cool...

This should be "interesting", at the very least...

2006-01-26T11:21:00.000-05:00

Hamas finishes with a majority government in Palestinian elections

Comment: While I'm no friend of the state of Israel, I cannot help but think this choice is downright suicidal for the Palestinians. Or perhaps I'm overly pessimistic. I dunno. At the very least, it signifies a negative turn for any future "peace talks."

Why I'm not convinced...

2006-01-24T08:36:00.000-05:00

Why I'm Not Convinced of the Roman Catholic Position on "Family Planning"

This is an issue I've gone around before, but alas I've decided to give it another go around.

Fundamentally, I'm not convinced of the Roman Catholic Church's ("RCC" from hereon) position on contraception because I find it to be inconsistent.

Were Rome to tow the line of say, the Hare Krishnas, and say that the only appropriate use of one's marriage rights (aka. sex within marriage) was for the express purpose of conceiving a child, I wouldn't find their position so objectionable. I would still disagree with them of course, but at least I couldn't fault them for inconsistency. This would also have to include a prohibition upon the use of marrital rights for those couples who have been informed that at least one party is sterile, or those couples where the wife is post-menopausal.

Of course, this rigid stance is not the RC position. In fact they do not even disagree in principle that a married couple can attempt to "have their cake and eat it too" - they simply stipulate that one cannot employ "unnatural" means in attaining this end.

And what is this natural means? Basically, it involves such "natural" practices as acquiring a fairly advanced knowledge of female biology so that a couple can accuratly read such signs of infertility within a woman's menstrual cycle as "vaginal mucus levels" and playing around with thermometers (apparently these are natural too.) And once a couple has got that down, they can use this "natural" knowledge to contrive how to best time copulation so as to avoid conceiving a child. Of course, I'm sure the motives of said NFPers are somehow purer than those who find condoms less prententious.

But of course, we hear very often from the apologists for the RC position that it is in fact the "perennial Christian position" and that before 1930 (when those rascally Anglicans opened up the way for "free luv") everyone held to the view of the RCC on this topic. We are also told that the Church Fathers were universally opposed to "artificial contraception". End of discussion.

Or is it? I'm inclined to say absolutely not.

While most parrot the RC apologetical slogan that the Church Fathers held their opinion, this is very misleading. It implies that said Fathers not only held specifically the views outlined by Humanae Vitae, but that the nature of their views on this subject were formed with the same assumptions. Neither is true, and this is apparent when one makes even a surface attempt to understand the Patristic evidences often marshalled to support the RC stand in context.

Those Fathers who do address this topic, speak of things we would recognize as "contraception" as being a form of murder. Murder - that's pretty steep. Why would they characterize the matter this way? There are a couple of reasons...

The first being, that in their day, many of these methods involved drugs (typically in the form of herbal concoctions) which acted as abortifacients. Indeed, it's probably not without cause that in the original Greek New Testament the word we often translate as "sorcery" (see for example, Galatians 5:2, Apocalypse 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15) was in fact pharmekeia which is the same root as our modern terms "pharmacology" and "pharmacy". In fact it is very likely that it is precisely the use of abortifacient drugs which the New Testament is speaking about in such passages, since there was quite a popular industry in such concoctions throughout the pagan Roman Empire. Another method which the Fathers refer to in the passages often cited as evidence of the RC position, is quite clearly not "contraception" as such but an outright abortion - "binding". By wrapping a tight cord about her lower abdomen, unchaste women would attempt to cause their bodies to expel the newly conceived foetus.

As should be obvious, none of what is being described here is contraception, but rather abortion which no one in the Orthodox Church (which for pastoral reasons, allows married couples to use artificial contraception under certain conditions) believes to be acceptable.

The second reason the Fathers will speak in this way, is because some held to the pre-scientific belief that the father was the sole contributer in the act of conception. They envisioned the woman's role to be a passive one, with her womb simply serving as the place needed for the nutrition/development of the unborn child until it was ready to be born. Of course we now know this is not the case - both parents have a "seed" as such, and it isn't until the two fuse that a genetically unique human life is conceived - the male seed is not a homunculus of a complete individual life, or even potential life if one wanted to argue such homoculi were not "ensouled" but still human. Beside this, it was also unknown to the ancient Fathers who addressed this subject that even without ejaculation, sperm cells (there are tens of millions in a single ejaculate) are manufactured and die inside the testes in a matter of weeks. Some of this also ties in with the belief that the male seed was somehow in limited supply, further adding to the concern that it should not be "wasted".

It is obvious then, how important context is when enlisting the Church Fathers in the support of one's cause. Where the Fathers appear to be speaking on this subject, they are either talking about covert forms of abortion, or are forming opinions based upon outdated science. The latter is nothing to be ashamed of, since we can only expect Christian "moralists" as such to use the evidence they have available to form their opinions - it is no different than the common belief in medieval western Europe, that the foetus in early gestation is in fact not human, but rather progresses through a sort of evolution of life, hence why said medievals thought that causing an abortion early in pregnancy, while immoral, should not be regarded as steep of a crime as unmistakable murder. This was based upon the popular science of the day, which resulted from the re-popularization of Aristotle's scientific writings. We now know of course that, biologically at least, a newly conceived life is a living human organism with a unique genetic code - a code which will in no wise change throughout it's entire lifetime.

Having said all of this, some may ask then what exactly separates the sexual relations of a married couple from say, masturbation or homosexuality, if not leaving the act "open" to the conception of children. While this may seem like an intelligent question, it is really quite absurd - not to mention shockingly utilitarian. I'd have to conclude that if one cannot perceive the qualitative difference between a committed, male-female relationship in which there is sexual intimacy and someone "pleasuring themselves" to pornography or buggering a man, they are either terribly sheltered or just outright retarded.

Men and women were made for each other. While God blessed the first married couple (who also happened to be the first two human beings!) with fruitfulness, and gave the command to multiply so as to populate the earth, this was not the reason why the male-female dynamic came into being. According to second chapter of Genesis, the first woman was created for Adam not for any utilitarian end, but rather to be his companion - an appropriate complement to the first created human being. The blessing of fruitfulness is on top of this, lest we put the cart in front of the horse. The view that the primary good in the male-female dynamic is "making babies" is little removed from the opinion of Thomas Aquinas that were it not for their ability to bear young, another male would have been a better companion for Adam than a woman. In this of course we cannot help but find echoes of pagan Hellenic misogyny (as in that taken for granted by Aristotle, who became the darling of western medieval theologians), which generally considered male homosexual relationships superior and more gratifying than what one could ever possibly have with a "silly" woman.

This is not to say that the use of contraceptives by a married couple for serious health (mental and physical) and economic reasons is the embodiment of "evangelical perfection". However, this is because in Orthodox Christianity, the ideal condition is one which is almost "angelic" - not despising nature, but being liberated of it's agitations and often harsh limitations (certainly in it's current fallen state). Thus "ideally" married couples advanced in their sanctification, would only have intercourse for the express purpose of procreation - hence why it has historically not been uncommon for pious spouses to decide to separate after they've finished having children, and retire to monastic life. However this is an "ideal" in the same way that a spiritually advanced, pious person would "ideally" only eat what is absolutely necessary, and only then to sustain the flesh - and avoid eating for the purpose of satisfying the palette. Etc., etc. Yet, the Church doesn't bar from the Chalice those who cannot meet this ideal. Rather, Orthodoxy is a religion which in large measure tolerates sinners (which our prayers have no problem in insisting we all are - there is no hang up to pretend we are fully justified and pure when this is not the case) in so far as this is possible with the hope they will grow into spiritual maturity. If it were otherwise, we would not Baptize anyone save moral savants - which of course in any authentic sense is impossible without the grace of Baptism to begin with!

There is of course much more to say, and many other "RC type" arguments to be refutted on this delicate subject. But for the moment, I think this is saying enough.

Ok, gimme a break...

2006-01-10T08:09:00.000-05:00

This is why my criticism of Bush and his military escapades does not automatically render me a friend of "lefties"

Basically, it appears (and for some time now) the United States Marine Corps sponsors a program for youth called the Young Marines, and some lefties have caught wind of this and are making a stink - comparing it to things as unsavoury as Hitler Youth, and concocting any number of conspiracy theories about it's intent.

Sorry folks, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Many countries with armed forces, including one as small and relatively peacable as the Canadian Armed Forces, have cadet corps for youth. They are basically like "Scouts", just not as dorky. When I was twelve, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets (which I'm inclined to believe is actually more martially oriented than this American "Young Marines" thing), and have nothing but good things to say about the experience. My only regret is that I didn't stick with it, as I would have been able to get a free pilots licence out of the experience.

Among the criticisms you'll find listed about these "Young Marines" is that they (gasp) teach children to obey their elders and (double gasp) attend Church! The horrors! To think that anyone associates morality and civic virtue with basic piety - because goodness knows how obviously superior state enshrined atheism has shown itself to be.

A thought about the Lord's Passion

2005-11-12T06:55:00.000-05:00

Note: This builds, interestingly enough (or perhaps according to some "scandalously enough") upon certain ideas I've read in the writings of the late Lutheran theologian Gerhard Forde.

I guess you could say Friday morning/early afternoon are, for me, what Friday evening is for most others - it is the end of the work week, and the beginning of my weekend. As I relaxed, I decided to pop in my copy of Mel Gibson's fantastic The Passion of the Christ (my appreciation has grown for this film with time), and do some thoughtful/meditative film viewing.

While watching, a sentiment reoccurred to me which I had seen highlighted in an essay I had read some time back on just why it is Christ suffered as He did. Viewing the film intensified this realization - that the way Christ was made to suffer at the hands of men, was the only way a sinful world such as ours could or would receive the likes of Him.

What a contrast the Man riding on the back of a donkey (surrounded only by a rag tag group of society's nobodies) was from the luminous "Ancient of Days" beheld by a relatively priveleged few in ancient times; theophanies of blinding Light, covered in fiery smoke, announced by bone grinding thunder and world ripping peals of lightning. That was the Lord the Israelites had encountered at Mt.Sinai - a God Whose holiness and purity (so alien to the filthiness and compromise of this present world) was "defended" by the most extreme measures of celestial force.

This was also, unsurprisingly, what characterized the Mosaic cult from Sinai onward. For example, the terrestrial space set aside for the adoration of God looked like a sacred fortress, with fences and partitions. The Temple had an armed guard, and anyone who ventured where they did not belong would be swiftly put to death. And if someone did get past the guards, we are told that had they made it into the sanctuary, something supernatural would have done the deed and struck such a violater dead.

Thinking about this, I concluded that the reason why God so often "came in a tank" (so to speak) with guns blaring, is precisely because if we were ever given a chance to deal with God "as He is" without such displays of power, we would kill Him. And we did not prove His foresight incorrect, for that is precisely what we did just shy of two thousand years ago. God approached us at our level, as vulnerable as you or I - and when we got a good look at Him, and once again decided we really didn't care for what He was saying (which was nothing new), we took our chance and tortured and murdered Him. This is how fallen men deal with "unprotected" purity - indeed, it would seem all they understand is force; a good part of the Old Covenant being a series of threats of temporal woe should the Israelites violate it's terms.

But there was no redemption in keeping things on that level - this was no return to Paradise, and even less so, growth into what Adam and Eve had been intended for (which was something beyond what they briefly experienced in Eden). Thus when the "time was right" (when, providentially, it would have it's greatest effect), God showed His mercy to the world and appeared without regal pretense. While it is true that there was a great condescension involved in God becoming a Man (since the difference between the Creator and the created is unfathomable), in terms of His posture and gentleness, it was in fact the most direct and unvarnished manifestation of just Who God is, what He is really like, etc. that had been ever given to man - a revelation written not in letters or mere words, but in flesh, blood and the life of a poor carpenter from the troubled backwater of the Roman Empire.

And we being bullies at heart, could only "respect" an even bigger bully; being violent, we would only follow one who matched and exceeded our violence. This was the whole Jewish pretension about the Messiah when our Lord appeared; that he would be an oppulent king, a man of war, who would put his boot to the neck of all of Israel's enemies and repay their offences against God's Chosen tenfold and establish a "New World Order" with the magnificent Temple of Jerusalem as it's centre. Suffice it to say, "love thy enemies" (just as God in truth loves us; for without grace this is all we show ourselves to be - the enemies of God) was not a part of that vision, and the Rabbi Who showed mercy even to a pagan Roman centurian just had to go!

Fortunately, there was enduring mercy in God's death, even when it was at our hands. God did not become merciful when Christ died for sinners; it was because He was already merciful and wanting us to be reconciled to Him, that He died as He did. The Cross is filled with mercy, it is the sign of Divine Grace - and this is precisely what St.Paul teaches...

For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22b-26)

In other words, God had already resolved to redeem the world - He was merciful. The shedding of Christ's Precious Blood, was the demonstration and effecting of this plan, which we are also told by the Scriptures had existed from the foundation of the world (Apocalypse 13:8).

There are of course other dimensions to the feat of Christ for our salvation; in particular that it was a restoration of justice to what God had created (understood not as placating vengence, but in the authentic and classical sense of restoring wholeness) and that by enduring death and rising again, Christ was a man Who was stronger than the hold of both death and satan (and thus He constitutes an entrance/means for you and I into a type of humanity which is unperishable and victorious). I do not mean to discount these, or put them aside as unimportant - hardly! I guess what I'm speaking of has more to do with the "motives" of God as revealed in His revelation to mankind, and our own (and unfortunate) motives when we are not assisted by grace.

Good for the cats, good for the inmates

2005-11-12T06:33:00.000-05:00

Inmates take in cats displaced by Katrina

CHESTERFIELD, Va. — Prison is a refuge for about two dozen cats displaced by Hurricane Katrina, a place filled with women happy to be able to soothe away their trauma and fear. ...

A feeling of serenity permeates the prison's shelter, a squat, maroon building just outside the barbed-wire fence. Pictures of cats plaster the cinderblock walls and cat-print curtains and pillows brighten the otherwise drab room.

"It's probably the nicest shelter that they could ever land in, so far as the amount of love and attention," Lynch said. "I walked in and it was just amazing -- just this total sense of calm. ... They seem to blossom out here." ...

"Had I been at home, I probably would have gone down and helped," inmate Tuesday Kilgore, 35, said as she reclined in a chair next to her favorite cat, Skye. "This gives me responsibility and gives me motivation to go out and live a so-called normal life."

"It makes us feel like we can be a part of something -- to be a part of the storm -- to help out," Brickey said. "We are so secluded from the world and there's somebody waiting on their pets. And while I might never meet them, I took care of them while they're getting their life together." ....

Comment: Having "inherited" a small yorkie-spitz cross (it came with the wife when we got married), I've learned how incredibly therapeutic and humanizing the presence of such pets can be. They're intelligent and "human" enough, but still pure (lacking in all of those nasty tendencies which only fallen rational souls can possess), and make excellent companions for broken people - and are not we all to some extent?

Far from just being an attempt to put inmates to some useful work, I would think the presence of dogs/cats (particularly the latter since they're lower maintenance and pose less of a danger if poorly socialized) in prisons should be a normal practice - perhaps as part of an attempt to subtly rehabilitate criminals. A dog/cat gives the caretaker a sense of responsibility, and helps foster those feelings of empathy which are obviously lacking in a heart when they violate the rights of others.

Pets are also non-judgemental, their love being unconditonal - they care not about your social standing, what others think of you, what you may have done in the past, your colour, etc. This is going to sound horribly "lefty" of me, but I must say it because it is true - simply put, criminals are not formed in a vacuum. Very often, something (often many things) have gone wrong in their lives, and they did not possess the character/virtues to overcome these extraordinary difficulties. This does not absolve the offender, of course; but it does explain a lot. Perhaps having these criminals tending to animals would be a good step toward undoing at least some of this damage.

A basic choice

2005-11-03T08:42:00.000-05:00

With much suffering I have been contemplating the whole subject of "meaning", and scrutinizing the rational basis (in so far as there can be one) for why I believe what I do - and when "push comes to shove", just what it is I really believe.

One thing that I have tentatively concluded, is that we are posed with a fundamental choice in this life;

a) to believe that this world/existance is an absurdity devoid of purpose of meaning. At best, we can create our own meaning for ourselves and things. Whatever we choose, it is ultimatly indifferent.

- OR -

b) the complete opposite. Our existance (and that of the world) is purposeful; there is an agenda, there is an inherent utility in people and things. And while we have the liberty to interpret/formulate "meaning" as we choose, this does not necessarily accord with "nature" as such. IOW, it is possible to be deluded.

On the surface, I could say that the choice between the two is an arbitrary one - it's simply a decision that we have to make. However, I do not accept this (that "all things are equal") - also, accepting it in some wise would be granting too much to the "absurdist" perspective, since such a posture would grant that the "fundamental choice" is an arbitrary one (and hence, a case of us simply inventing meaning.)

Everything is clearly in favour of accepting our existance as a providential, purposeful, intentional one. To accept the "absurdist/existentialist/Nietzschian" type position, is to totally distrust anything and everything the senses can observe, and what the mind can infer and sympathetically recognize in the world surrounding it. The "absurdist posture" is, above all, dishonest dealing on the part of those who unflinchingly accept it. I have concluded this because, to arrive at their position, they (absurdists) have had to indulge in the very sort of logical excercises and rely on the sort of processes of inference that they otherwise condemn! They reduce everything to "linguistic traps", but render themselves victim to an incredibly gross form of sophistry - they have traded rhetoric for common sense.

I think this is precisely why such atheistic postures are the temptation primarily of the naturally gifted and/or well lettered. This is not because they're "too bright" to be "fooled by that God business". Rather it is because their intellectual wealth is much like the material wealth of the rich - while it can be used for great good, it also affords opportunities for perverse leisure which are simply outside of the means of those of average income (and more so, the dirt poor.)

Though I disagree with his religious affiliation, I enjoy reading/hearing (I've done both in person) the sermons/lectures of the often controversial Bishop of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Richard Williamson. One excellent point he made during a lecture he offered centered precisely upon this unfair dealing on the part of absurdists. He pointed out that it is without fail, never the case that they live in accordance with the "conclusions" (there we go again!) that their convictions unfailingly point to (and again!). He doubted that they have an existential crisis every time they roll out of bed in the morning, or ceasessly distrust their senses/memory when they reach for their cup of coffee and newspaper.

Of course, I'm sure a snide existentialist reading this could say that the significance they "attribute" to all of these things is arbitrary and/or ultimatly a matter of personal decision. To this I say, "fine" - excercise some of that "will to power", declare sticky fudge a great fly repellent, and see how far this gets you.

No, there is order - and more to the point, there is consequence and utility. And all of that heavily indicates purpose. To accept the contrary requires a tremendous amount of exertion, not to mention inconsistancy.

From the "bleeding a stone" file...

2005-10-17T08:51:00.000-04:00

'Not my department' rated most annoying salesclerk adage

RIDGEWOOD, N.J. (AP) - "Uh, that's not my department."

Ever hear that in a store? Did visions of fiendish violence against the clerk flash through your mind?

"Not my department" topped the list of Most Annoying Words from Salesperson's Mouth, cited by 29 per cent of shopping-mall customers polled by a retail consulting firm.

No. 2? The classic, "If it's not on the rack, we don't have it." That golden oldie was cited by 25 per cent.

Rounding out the list were: "That's the policy," "I'm on a break," "Ask the person over there," "I'm new here," "You'll have to wait your turn" and "The computer is down."

The survey of 230 people at U.S. malls was conducted by MOHR Access, which says times are changing.

Many retailers are aiming to get their floor clerks "to take personal responsibility for the customers' experience," says Michael Patrick, president of New Jersey-based MOHR Access.

"What's really needed is to get employees committed ... to do their best, even when nobody's looking or listening."

Comment: No, what's needed is to make salesclerk positions actual jobs again paying a living wage. If you want people to treat a job as having consequence, make the job one of consequence, and not simply a last resort for lack of anything better. Pay Mc-wages, expect Mc-attitude.

It is situations like this which make me deny the maxim that the market should be allowed to dictate next to everything - since put simply, if employers thought they could get away with it, they'd use chattle slaves to make and hawk their products. Though in a sense they already close to doing this, via exporting manufacturing jobs (and an increasing number of customer service jobs, ex. "call centers") to the third world.

This is a trend I see even in my workplace (I work in manufacturing/wood working) - a tendency to ask more and more of the worker, but without offering increased compensation. IOW, a round-a-bout paycut.

On a related note, I've also noted an obnoxious attempt (particularly in the manufacturing sector) by employers to import Japanese work/organizational ethics into their own, western working environments. Beside the obvious fact that western man (for better and for worse) is not Japanese, what bothers me most about these attempts is their one sidedness. For while employers are more than happy to import (anal) Japanese organizational techniques and cries for employee loyalty and increased professionalism, these same western employers have little or no interest in reciprocating in kind. OTOH Japanese employers are famous for being very loyal to their workforces, Japan still being a place where life-long employment with a single organization is not uncommon (read - job security) and where there are appreciable, significant bonuses/incentives that employees are offered in exchange for exemplary service.

Yes, it's puerile...

2005-10-08T10:49:00.000-04:00

...but it's so, so funny!

Video file download: Bush/Blair "at the gay bar"? (format: QuickTime .mov size: 8.3 mb)

Let them duke it out?

2005-10-08T10:35:00.000-04:00

Possible Solution to "IraqNam" Mess: "Coalition" forces withdraw and let the locals duke it out?

Comment: Honestly I don't know what good resolution one could realistically expect from the "coalition of the willing"'s (translation: America and a relative handful of it's lil' buddies) current engagement in Iraq. At this point I think the only thing we can speak of is damage control - as in what not to do to make the situation any worse.

Beside the inevitable human cost that would result of the American troops abruptly withdrew from Iraq, I have to wonder if the projected outcome (which the article itself foresees) of a Shiite victory would be something the American government could (or would want) to live with - I cannot help but see such a victory as essentially handing a large fief to Iran. Indeed, the only conclusion one could draw from such an outcome would be this - that thousands of Americans died, and disturbing amounts of American money were spent, to knock off a long term enemy of Iran, and gift them with a sizable, oil rich province. While the sarcastic prick in me would find the irony in a situation like that delicious, I don't see that as an outcome that the American political establishment would want to live with (seeing as they already include Iran in the "axis of evil").

"You're damned if you do..."

From the Crappy Ideas file...

2005-09-24T23:25:00.000-04:00

'Human-brained' monkeys

Didn't they already make a movie
about doing this?

Yes, this is for real!

2005-09-24T22:34:00.000-04:00

I Still Worship Zeus - a documentary

Comment: This is apparently a documentary about modern day hellenes who have taken to worshipping the old Olympian gods. I did a little research, and apparently there are groups on both sides of the pond who are technically known as "pagan reconstructionists". Rather than being new-agers or occidental occultists bearing the trappings of dead western religions (ex. Wicca, which is fundamentally the ceremonial magical theories of Aleister Crowley dressed up in Celtic/Druidic drag), these are attempts to revive pagan religions in what I guess could be called an "integral" form.

The first response one could have at seeing such revived western paganism is to laugh, I suppose. Y'know, copulating, petty gods, etc. However, it seems pretty clear that by the time Christianity arrived on the scene, much of the popular religion associated with the Greco-Roman pantheon (they are almost entirely interchangeable - Zeus=Jupiter, Athena=Minverva, Dionysius=Bacchus, etc.) gained a much more sophisticated rationale via the classical philosophers, in particular the Stoics who were basically pantheistic/panentheistic monotheists, but who allegorized the Olympian/Roman pantheon as being manifestations of the "one God", who they typically portrayed as being supremely manifested as Zeus-Jupiter. From what I've read of Stoic works, it also appears that they believed human beings to be in some wise a manifestation of the singular deity, the "seminal logos" - hence why they called for me to also worship the "deity within" and do serve to him by right living. Since human beings can be pretty petty, I guess it wouldn't be surprising if higher beings in the natural order (which for some Romans, is how the gods were viewed - they seem to have often fit into the same strata that angels do in the Judeo-Christian tradition) could also be petty.

My intention is not to offer an apologia in favour of such classical paganism - only perhaps to show that being overly dismissive is not helpful either, since such a posture would assume (I think very wrongly) that people who adhere to such outlooks in our day are necessarily stupid or ill-informed.

Still, I have to wonder what would motivate modern Greeks in search of spiritual roots to look to something like the worship of the old Olympian gods, and not to their own native Orthodox Christian tradition. Whatever skepticism one can conjecture about Christianity, I would have to submit that it's "truth claims" stand on far better footing than those of the "old religion", and fulfill the conclusions/intuitions of the old philosophers, who in many respects had to spend alot of their time explaining away the obvious deficiencies of the popular religion of their day (the folly of polytheism, immorality/amorality of the "gods", etc.)

Another apology...

2005-09-24T22:28:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, due to spamming douche bags, I've had to enable blogspot's anti-spamming feature for the comments function. I know it's a pain in the butt, but wading through cyber-graphitti is even more obnoxious.

Some headlines from sympatico.ca

2005-09-24T19:02:00.000-04:00

Some headlines from the homepage for my webprovider...because I'm a lazy bastard.

Martha Stewart gives up fur, makes five-minute video for PETA

Comment: While I'll be the first to admit that the way they kill minks is not the most pleasant one can imagine, I think it's something of a red herring to single the fur trade out; the fact of the matter is, all of modern farming is pretty ugly, and pretty inhumane. In theory I acknowledge that, though when all is said and done I'm rather apathetic about the whole thing - besides there being more weighty matters for me to devote interest in (such as the suffering of human beings), I'm simply to lazy to care (and too avid a consumer of meat to want to see farms shut down.) I tried my hand at vegetarianism for awhile, but found it just made me more miserable than I already am...and I couldn't have that! :-)

Toronto cop sentenced to jail for 2003 assault

Comment: In a nutshell, this cop beat the snot out of some black guy for no sound reason back in 2003 - and ended up getting a thirty day sentence. Unlike in America, this isn't really a racially charged issue - nor would the sentence (a mere 30 days!) be seen as the result of a callous, racist, white jury; rather it's more symptomatic of our country's typically limp wristed approach to meeting out retribution toward criminal offenders. What makes this doubly offensive, is the defence still feels somehow wronged in all of this and is appealing (though it's pretty clear that the cop involved was in the wrong - he got caught on tape, Rodney King style.)

I believe quick, fitting justice is essential to the maintenance of any society. This is not only for the surface reason of putting fear in potential criminals or stopping them from offending any further (in fact these are secondary and tertiary motives for a justice system, IMHO), but also to restore (as much as is possible) wholeness to those who have been directly victimized and society in general. When the justice system of a given nation fails to proportionately (and as quickly as is possible) punish criminals, this causes the populace to become cynical about civil establishments - they lose faith in public institutions, and further I believe it subtly helps corrupt the morals of the people.

These principles are why I fundamentally disagreed with the prudential judgement of the late Roman Pontiff, John Paul II regarding capital punishment. While he did not teach that in principle capital punishment equalled murder by the state, he appeared not to believe that modern western states needed to execute certain classes of offenders (ex. murderers). I believe this opinion is mistaken, since it seems to consider the immediate, utilitarian reasons for getting dangerous criminals out of the population (prevention of further offences.) Even as far as the salvation of the criminal's soul was concerned, I think the late Pope's view was miscalculated - I'd sooner imagine a criminal feeling moved to get right with God if he had it in his head he was about to meet Him very soon, than after being thrown into a cesspool with other social rejects who will either victimize him, or teach him/force him to become even more of a beast.

Handbook offers tips for cyberdissidents

Comment: Interestingly, the article seems to indicate that the biggest oppressor of free-speach on the Internet is one of America's favourite trading partners China. I'm waiting to find out when they'll be declared "enemies of freedom".

Sorry, for those who bother reading this thing at all...

2005-09-24T19:00:00.000-04:00

I haven't updated this thing for a while...my bad. I've been rather busy as of late, though I'm not sure if I can honestly say all that I've been busy with has been all that important. I discovered early on that these blogs can be quite time consuming, and even addicting. Perhaps it is a good thing I backed away for awhile, given my "personality type".

Just say no...

2005-08-26T09:24:00.000-04:00

...to dropping acid, at least just before you're about to make an appearance on national television.

Click me, because I'm weird!
Don't ask how I came upon this clip - suffice it to say, it's truly bizarre (and humourous, if you get off on other people acting like damned fools); Cripsin "Marty McFly's Dad" Glover in an appearance on David Letterman's old NBC show, under the spell of LSD.

I dunno, I guess I'm just the kind of guy who likes watching trainwrecks as they happen. I'm sort of a jerk that way I suppose...

Happy thought for the day, fellas (NOT!)

2005-08-15T11:18:00.000-04:00

1 in 25 men in dark as they raise others' children - One father in 25 could unknowingly be bringing up a child who is not his own, says new research that suggests a rise in genetic testing has opened a Pandora's box of sexual secrets and lies.

Genetic testing for diseases in families is growing and can reveal a child's real paternity, leaving doctors to decide how much to disclose to the family. ...

Comment: Yikes! While women have more excuses for it, it's been my experience that they are on the whole almost as unreliable as men in terms of their "fidelity". Unfortunately what cannot be said in their favour, is that (again, in my limited experience) where as men can easily be polyamorous and usually maintain affection for for their wife while getting thrills from a trist on the side, when women "cheat" it is very often a judgement upon the man they're two-timing.

This type of infidelity is particularly harsh though... while there is definately a side of me which would "want to know" for principle's sake were I to be the victim of such a swindle, OTOH I'm not sure if I could handle such knowledge. Or better put, I don't know if the woman who so betrayed me could survive me having such knowledge (yes, I know that's ugly, but it's the truth... and one which the article gets into as a real dillema for physicians who stumble upon this while doing genetic testing for some other reason.)

Uh-huh

2005-08-15T09:37:00.000-04:00

One for the 'We Still Don't Care file...

Jennifer Aniston is still a vainglorious bore - (BANG) - Jennifer Aniston is reportedly planning to go public with an intimate diary she kept during her split with husband Brad Pitt. ...

Comment: I'm not sure what is more pathetic, that this tacky broad is still going on and on about this and intentionally making an open book of her love life (or lack thereof) or that my internet provider felt this was headline worthy and stuck it on my homepage.

The Luer Quality "Meat Rocket"

This just seems wrong...

...because Arianism was never quite "Arianism"...

2005-07-09T15:32:00.000-04:00

One of the better gifts I've received was a set of volumes containing the writings of many of the early Church Fathers...roughly up to St.Gregory the Great or so.

What I've found interesting about reading these, and other documentation detailing the early Christological controversies, is just how relatively minor these controversies would seem to well informed modern westerners.

While obviously there were some errors which were more grotesque than others (like those of the Gnostics, perhaps the Sabellians, etc.), it's interesting that these never really caught on or caused the kind of mischief that the "big ones" did, in particular Arianism. And what we find upon scrutinizing those errors, is that they really were not the enormities in and of themselves that we probably think they are.

For example, when many moderns think "Arian" they think "Unitarian" or something along those lines, and this is not correct. The Arians would have looked and liturgized in an almost identical manner to their "Orthodox" (or as they might malign, "Athanasian") neighbours. They believed Christ had an existance prior to His Incarnation, and that the whole of creation was in fact formed through Him. They would even hymn Christ as "God", and could read the same Scriptures and ancient Church Fathers that we do without whincing.

The difference, between they and us, was a fundamentally philosophical one, which for many common folk, whose strength is more piety than doctrinaire argumentation, would have been invisible. That difference being, whether or not "the Son" and "the Father" were not simply "equal" (since as far as the Arians would have been concerend, since the Ascension and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ, He was "effectually equal to His Father, in the way a son receives an inheritance from his royal father), but that they were of the same essence. In short whatever "God is", so to is His Son. That of course would have the consequence of then admitting that, if they were not "the same essence", then that would mean the Son was "created" at some point, and alas the famous Arian slogan "there was a time when the Son was not".

On one hand, I (being a child of this age) find it staggering that this became the sort of controversy that it did. Rightly or wrongly, wherever you stand, it would seem to me that the Fathers of that time/controversy were no less "fanatical" than the anti-ecumenist "zealots" you see on Mt.Athos, etc. I'm just putting this forward, since it can play either way.

A troubling question which arises, if one is honest, is whether or not the Arian controversy was really warranted. By this I mean, is this or is this not an argument which only arose because both sides, to some extent, were insisting on subjecting the revelation of God to hellenic terminology which was foreign to the Hebrew-Semitic thought paradigm of the Apostles and Prophets? The only thing that I can offer at this point to justify this mess, is to say that whether we like it or not, this question was raised, and some answer had to be offered - and if we must choose, the Orthodox one is (when all is said and done) the correct one.

The input of others is of course welcomed, as always.

Because I'm bored...

2005-07-05T08:27:00.000-04:00

"Zombie" Dogs - SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans. ... (read full article)

Make that a "Green Alert", Mr.Bush - Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. ... (read full article)

ROBO-WIFE? - Repliee Q1 (at left in both pictures) appeared yesterday at the 2005 World Expo in Japan, where she gestured, blinked, spoke, and even appeared to breathe. Shown with co-creator Hiroshi Ishiguru of Osaka University, the android is partially covered in skinlike silicone. Q1 is powered by a nearby air compressor, and has 31 points of articulation in its upper body.

Internal sensors allow the android to react "naturally." It can block an attempted slap, for example. But it's the little, "unconscious" movements that give the robot its eerie verisimilitude: the slight flutter of the eyelids, the subtle rising and falling of the chest, the constant, nearly imperceptible shifting so familiar to humans. ... (read full article)

Some thoughts on a posting made elsewhere...

2005-07-02T21:42:00.000-04:00

First, for any who still bother checking out this blog (a stubborn bunch you must be!), I apologize for being so tardy about updating it as of late. In part this was due to my having so precious little to say, and in part due to the ebb and flow of life (with it's stresses and demands.) Again, my apologies.

Serge's A Conservative Blog For Peace brought to my attention an article by Alvin Kimmel on the subject of "Rome" which can be read by clicking the following link...

"The undeniable, offensive, glorious fact of Rome"

Perhaps some would simply accuse me of Protestant-style "no Popery"* - but I've yet to see the compelling argument for "Papism" in any variety, whether it be the Italian, Greek, or Russian forms. At least a compelling arugment for "Papism" proper - meaning, exagerated juristictional claims, which reduce any given ecclessiology to obedience-to/communion-with this-particular-bishop.

Given human nature, it's hard to not have at any one time someone "coming out on top, someone having more influence, or the simple practical need for someone to excercise some form of leadership when "the many" are collectively assembled. That is a practical reality, and one which I do not think Orthodox Christianity has fundamental problems with. Acceptance of this is implied by the existance of arch-episcopal titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, etc. etc.), and the canonical rights that have often been attatched to those titles by custom and the consent of other Churches.

However it would seem to me there is a world of difference between this, and and anything resembling what I would call "unconditional leadership" and "unconiditonal authority" - which is what is implied in teaching any hierarch is above the judgement of his brothers (as the Pope of elder-Rome does), the unfailing litmus test of just who "is in the Church" (as elder-Rome does), and by default is of unfailing faith (which is implied, in spite of historical facts which show the falsity of this, in teaching his automatic authority, universal juristiction, supremecy, personal infallibility no matter how qualified, etc. etc.)

Btw. while Rome is the worst offender in this regard, this kind of "Papism" is really much broader temptation, which most arch-episcopal See's of great importance have been tempted by at one point or another (ex. Constantinople, arguably to this day, has been on-again/off-again tempted by the idea that Orthodox ecclessiology can be reduced to it's consent.)

Really, putting one's faith in the sons of men is a waste of time - they are reliable, in so far as they are faithful. If they have Light, they they can and ought to be followed. If they do not, they should be regarded in kind.

Thus, one can harp endlessly about the "fact of Rome", and confuse the glories of this world with those of the Kingdom of God - but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession (which is far more that the mere laying on of hands - this is only the most exoteric, and superficial aspect of said succession), then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity - after all, the Ayatollah is viewed with such reverence as well by quite a healthy slice of the human family.

In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.

* - Though this really is not an accusation that means much to me, as I usually find it being used as an attempt to end legitimate discussion - I guess many Roman Catholics believe to be accused of being "a Protestant" is the ultimate put-down, and something that any respectable person would want to avoid being associated with in the least. Comparing some aspects of Orthodoxy to Protestantism is no more offensive than making certain comparisons between it and Catholicism.

News...the good, the bad & the ugly...

2005-06-10T11:09:00.000-04:00

LAND of the DEAD - One of my guilty pleasures is zombie films, in particular the "old-school" horror trilogy of George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead). Unlike most horror films, these movies are surprisingly "thoughtful" and have some significant social commentary infused into them. Well, this new one (Land of the Dead) is intended to be the fourth (and long awaited, at least by George's fans) installment in that series. Opens June 24th...sweet!

Calls to ban weird S.African anti-rape device - I'm inclined to agree that this device was a pretty sick idea, and doesn't at all deal with the actual problem of rape. It's sad that things have become this despearate in S.Africa.

It's raining frogs in Serbia! - ...at least it's only raining froggies, and not NATO's depleted uranium munitions!

Take a walk on the surreal side...

2005-06-09T11:37:00.000-04:00

Having Fun with Protestant-Paranoia

The Jack Chick Tracts Archive - If you don't know who Jack Chick is, you've obviously never been on a subway, a public bus, in a restaurant, or had obnoxious "get saved!" (tm) neighbours who liked to leave "stuff" in your mailbox. He's the author/sometimes-cartoonist behind the famous/infamous "Chick tracts" - little comic booklets of a decidedly fundamentalist-Protestant character with such sensational (and often blasphemous) titles as The Death Cookie and and Where's Rabbi Waxman?. As offensive as some of the books may be (for me what is most offensive about them is that so many of them are taken so seriously by so many), they do have a certain cheekiness about them, and have their "fans" out there I suppose; a kind of fascination with the grotesque I suppose, in the same way some folks get their kicks from horror films or collecting ugly nick-knacks.

Meet Jack Chick - Roman Catholic apologist James Akin gives an account of his unexpected meeting with the famously reclusive Jack Chick.

European Institute of Protestant Studies - Meet Protestant-fundamentalism, euro-style! Considerably more doctrinal and militant than it's state-side incarnation, most particularly the latter. Where as their American-brethren have more or less bought into the idea of religious pluralism, you get the distinct feeling that these Orangemen supporters are not so convinced, and are still trapped in some Reformation era, blood & guts time-warp. Honestly, I find the contents on this site far more obnoxious, hard to read, and humourless than Chick's awful cartoons. The stuff on this site is more "interesting" in the way a blood-splattered car wreck is "interesting".

Attacks on Conventional "History"

Heinrich Himmler: Not a Suicide? - Offers some cause for re-evaluation, to say the least.

Apocalypse...Soon?

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
- (excerpt) "Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'"

While I'm generally pretty skeptical about claims about "environmental meltdown" or a "looming population crisis", this struck me as different because it allegedly comes from inside the Pentagon, and is not the raving of some alarmist "ecologist" who wants his name in the papers, or some man-hating neo-pagan ideologue who won't be happy until we're all living in huts and dying from common illnesses again. Not that I think the U.S. military machine is to be implicitly trusted, but I don't suspect screwy motives behind this either (if anything, it would probably be something they'd be loathe to admit.) But who knows, perhaps (I sincerely hope!) this is a hoax, and not genuine.

I Couldn't Make This Headline Up

"I'll give ya anything ya want,
just please keep the pants on!"

"Oiled-up Cambodian bandits in underwear strike again" - (excerpt) PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) - Robbers who strike while wearing only underwear, their bodies slathered with oil to make them slippery and harder to catch, have resurfaced in Cambodia, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

What can I say?

An excellent analysis!

2005-06-09T11:26:00.000-04:00

Something to Think About - from the P E N S A T E / O M N I A blog.

(thanks to Bryan Peter of the Stumble on Water blog for pointing me to this interesting article.)

Incredible!

2005-06-08T13:29:00.000-04:00

Bloodied-Chainsaw Wielding Nut NOT detained at the U.S.-Canadian border

(excerpt)

BOSTON — On April 25, Gregory Despres arrived at the U.S.-Canadian border crossing at Calais, Maine, carrying a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood. U.S. customs agents confiscated the weapons and fingerprinted Despres.

Then they let him into the United States. ...

Comment: When you read the rest of the article you realize there was something of a loophole in all of this - the fellow while residing in Canada, was a naturalized American citizen. Still, I have a very hard time understanding how "law enforcment" agents (even if they're only the jerks at the border) should still have more sense about this, and as far as I'm aware can keep someone at the border idenfinatly, naturalized citizen or no.

I find this case particularly obnoxious, since I (a Canadian citizen) found myself detained at the U.S.-Canada crossing in Niagara Falls some 2-1/2 years ago, for simply driving in a rental car and perhaps being a little too swarthy in appearance (though oddly enough, most people think I'm half Asian...not "Semitic" in any sense). This idiot has blood splattered all over his body, and is carying an arsenal of blood covered melee weapons, and he's let through! I guess no one thought they were going to be "the one" to stop the "next terror attack" (and end up in the pantheon of b-grade "heroes" in the "war on terror") by stopping some blood covered loser who looked like a rejected member of The Misfits from entering the "homeland"...


Gregory Deprese Not a Security Threat	The Misfits "Hey, that hair is our schtick!"

From the New World Order file...

2005-06-06T11:04:00.000-04:00

The Truth About Wall Mart - Straight From Their Lips - Part 1 - Part 2

Scientists say hormone makes people more trusting

(excerpt)

Trust in a bottle? It sounds like a marketer's fantasy, like the fabled fountain of youth or the wild claims of fad diets.

Yet that's what Swiss and American scientists demonstrate in new experiments with a nasal spray containing the hormone oxytocin. After a few squirts, human subjects were significantly more trusting and willing to invest money with no ironclad promise of a profit.

The researchers acknowledged their findings could be abused by con artists or even sleazy politicians who might sway an election, provided they could squirt enough voters on their way to the polls.

"Of course, this finding could be misused," said Ernst Fehr of the University of Zurich, the senior researcher in the study, which appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. "I don't think we currently have such abuses. However, in the future it could happen."

Comment: Well, let's consider the following...

a) As far as I'm aware, both the British and American military experimented with mind-altering drugs (including LSD) in the hope that they might be able to "enhance performance" on the battlefield.

b) In Las Vegas & Atlantic City, it's quite common for casinos to pump extra oxygen into the air as a stimulent, in the hopes of keeping gamblers just that much more pumped and willing to part with their money.

Save effective legislation, I have a hard time believing that something like this wouldn't be exploited. Fallen human nature being what it is, we ought to expect as much (without a lot of work to the contrary.)

Is Israel an American Value?

Comment: The website the article is hosted on is a little weird, but the article itself is very interesting - draws a lot of comparisons between the state of things in Nazi Germany and contemporary Israel (racial/ethnic chauvenism, dehumanization of "the other", "ethnic cleansing", etc.) Also details the strange (and frankly, incredibly arrogant) tactics of the Israeli lobby in Washington D.C., and how it boldly insinuates Zionist causes (which are of no concern to American interests) into the American political process.

Kansas "Evolution" Battle

2005-06-06T10:21:00.000-04:00

Snarky article from liberal Intervention Magazine

Comment: One big criticism I have of so called "education" these days, is that it is narrow, and has a tendency of artificially compartmentalizing knowledge - kind of like how we are expected to compartmentalize our lives (the "religion in public square" issues are typical of this - "that's o.k. for Sunday..." thinking.)

The fact is that all of the players involved in these disputes are walking around with some big assumptions. One of the biggest being the assumed atheism of much of modern "scientific" theory. Thus, in a holistic worldview, a Christian is obviously going to have issues with the cosmology concocted by "scientists" which are founded not simply upon evidences, but a decidedly materialistic reading of those evidences.

For example, here is a ditty from the author of the article I linked too...

By “tripping over evolution” I mean that our recent scientific experiments had once again shown that man is closely related to monkeys genetically (but not to rodents and herbivores). [See, Homology of primate DNA fragments for estrous-associated oviductal glycoprotein] Based on our findings, man and monkeys must have had a common ancestor at some point in their evolutionary development. Creationists don’t want to know this. However, in today’s science, our experimental results are no more startling than gravitational force in physics or planetary motion in astronomy. Like gravity and planetary motion, modern science takes evolution for granted. That’s why evolution must be taught as science in public schools and not be replaced by or compared with religious creationism -- or creationism dressed in intelligent design clothing.

Ideological demagogues mislead the public when they proclaim, “evolution is merely a theory and not a fact.” What is a theory? No doubt they know that based on the germ theory penicillin is given for pneumonia. This theory describes bacteria called pneumococci that produce lung infections (another theoretical word). The bacteria are killed by penicillin. Each day, physicians save the lives of people infected with bacterial pneumonia by applying the germ theory. In this sense, the theory of evolution is every bit as real and factual as is the germ theory. Evolution is about biological reality. By contrast, creationism is a religious belief that has nothing at all to do with science -- as recognized and accurately defined in the American Heritage Dictionary.

Analyzing the above, and similar reasoning... I'm not sure what can be said beside that this fellow's conclusion does not flow from observation in some infallible, unavoidable way. Rather, they are an interpretation conditioned by other assumptions. So yes, monkeys, apes and men have similar DNA...which means, they're "similar". Beyond that, one is speculating.

I'm also at a loss to see how an apparently educated man (though I guess this should be a lesson to all - that having a phd in medicine or applied sciences does not equal a phd in philosophy, specifically the study of logic) can equate the successfully applied and observable theory underlying penicillin treatments, with evolutionary theory which by it's obfuscation via vast epochs of time, is not observable or demonstrable.

Particularly rich was the following...

The antievolution zealotry of religious conservatives on the Kansas public school board neither serves God nor science. By savaging public education, these ideologues serve a very narrow political agenda driven by a fanaticism that rivals that of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Just like their violent Muslim brethren, the antievolution fanatics in Kansas don’t care who their radical actions hurt.

Perhaps now is a particularly good time to point out that worldviews exist outside of the formal confines of "religions". While we're informed here about the alleged harm caused by exposing youth to more than the practical mythology of atheism, let us think about the practical harm done by the evolution-mythos. Has it not served as the practical justification of intellectualized godlessness, amorality, and utilitarianism? Can the egotism of this present age stand at all without it? Can there be a quasi-credible nihilism, without the teaching of a universe reduced to pointless process.

Though, oddly enough, buried within the evolutionist-mythos, is a "point." It is the fiction of "progress" - that somehow, all things are moving upward, and working their way toward a summit. In some key respects, this actually seems to be a parody/perversion of Christian ideals; save in this case, there is buried the belief we will all one day essentially become "God", or the "Omega Point" as that great fraud Teilhard de Chardin put it.

If ideas can be dangerous (and I believe they can be, in so far as they are false), I'd go so far as to characterize what young people are being taught (and most importantly, not taught) to be incredibly dangerous, and bearing fruit in ways we can all observe, but which all too few of us are able/willing to trace backward. Of course I'm not saying that "teaching evolution" is the begining and end of all of these problems - but it is certainly a contributor, since it gives atheism a sort of (undeserved) credibility, and encourages all manner of neo-sophistry.

George Galloway goes to Washington

2005-05-24T16:07:00.000-04:00

This is one of the best things I've watched in a long time

George Galloway (British MP) rips some filthy neo-con U.S. Senators a new one. Once you see it, you'll understand.

Btw. you can e-mail him congrats here.

Gimme a friggin break...

2005-05-13T09:22:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI jump-starts beatification of John Paul

Comment: I guess the "saint machine" built by the late John Paul II is still roaring...roaring so much in fact, that it swallowed up John Paul himself!

It's not that I, in principle, have some opinion as to whether or not the late Pope should be canonized by the Roman Catholics. That is their affair, and ultimatly doesn't concern me. However, what ever happened to an even modest period of waiting and investigation? My understanding is that now, most of the old criteria for such investigations have been cast aside, so as to clear the way for increasingly political/popular "canonizations" to occur. No offence, but as swell of a guy as John Paul II struck me as (not that I knew the man apart from the image on the screen prepared for public consumption), as far as I'm aware he wasn't so extraordinary a spiritual luminary so as to warrant such a rushed official glorification of him by his church.

I guess my problem is that this is yet another conspicuous "pop"/"political" canonization by the Latins, and I at least don't find such things endearing.

One of the cool things...

2005-05-05T07:56:00.000-04:00

One of the cool things about working nights and it being Bright Week;

It's scarcely 8-ish AM, and I'm drinking a screwdriver and eating a slice of cheese-cake while you suckers are dragging yourselves to work.

What I'm reading right now AND some thoughts on it...

2005-05-02T13:45:00.000-04:00

THE MASS - A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Rev. Dr. Adrian Fortescue

(you can get it here from Angelus Press)

Adrian Fortescue from what I understand was one of the important liturgical scholars in the early 20th century, a part of what many now (with much lamentation) the "legitimate liturgical movement."

As well as providing his own conclusions regarding the history of the Roman Mass, the author also provides brief accounts of the history of other "liturgical families", and other (sometimes contradictory) scholarly opinions.

What I found most interesting, is that the work seems to unintentionally be an apologia for the antiquity of the "distinctives" found in the normative Orthodox Liturgy as it now comes to us, in particularly in so far as they are contrary to those that were to develop in the Roman liturgy.

Some examples...

- It would seem likely that at one point the Eucharistic Liturgy used throughout the Christian world was basically the same, and probably reflected what we find in Book Eight of the "Apostolic Constitutions". This form of liturgy is "closer" to what one finds amongst the Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians, than it is to the form of Roman liturgy which survives to this day (the "Tridentine" Missal). The Roman Mass in many cases, sticks specific prayers used by all of the various liturgical traditions in unique places shared by no one else (placement of the "Our Father", Creed, etc.)

- On the whole, the opinions reflected in this book support the idea (and I think quite persuasively) that the Roman Missal at one time did have an Epiklesis after the reading of the "words of institution" ("Take eat..." "Take drink..."). This certainly was the case of other western liturgies, like those of the Gallican tradition.

- The removal of the Epiklesis was the result of both the re-shuffling of the Roman Canon and the rise of a peculiarly Roman belief that if there was one part of the Anaphora which effected the "transformation" of the gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord, it was "the words of institution."

- It would seem to be the case that prior to this time, few were attempting to narrow things down like "specific point of consecration", with the assumption being that the entirity of the Anaphora/Canon was somehow "consecratory", or at least no one was quite splitting hairs like this. However, in kind, the other Orthodox Churches would say that if there was any "one point" where the gifts were transformed, it was during the "Epiklesis", if only because it was the summit of the consecration prayers, and would have made little sense otherwise if we were to believe "the consecration" had occured earlier.

- The use of azymes (unleavened bread) in the Eucharist is quite late in the west, the earliest isolated cases of this perhaps being in the 700's A.D., and it did not effectively become a universal western practice until the closing of the first millenia A.D.

- In the west, the practice of the Divine Liturgy changing significantly throughout the year, while certainly quite old (likely from the fourth century onward, at least in Rome), does not reflect the earlier practice of westerners, whether in Rome or without; that is to say, the practice one finds in the Christian East of a more or less "fixed" Eucharistic Liturgy used throughout the year.

- While it started as a result of changing linguistic demographics (being a tongue understood by many westerners in many places), the insistance upon Latin (first as an attempt to universalize and harmonize liturgical practice throughout the west amongst those under the Pope of Old Rome, then later as a sort of "sacred tongue" of Christians, like Hebrew is to the Jews, or Arabic to the Muslims) was late in coming, and probably until the mid third century Greek was being used in the liturgical cycle of Rome, and the principle in favour of vernacular tongues being used for Divine services was shared by the Christian west.

It would seem to me that a lot of these curious liturgical oddities (many of them begining in Rome and spreading from there throughout the western Churches, or as the case became increasingly western "Church", administratively singular), along with theological peculiarities (and in some cases, eventually, heresies) were the result of the increasing isolation of the western Christians from the rest of Christendom, whether it be in the East, Northern Africa, etc. While some of the "peculiar" practices are pretty old, and perhaps in principle not reall that controversial, they are nonetheless symptoms of a gradual growing a part by the Latins from the rest of Christendom.

This is why I'm persuaded to think that any real re-union of Rome (and those with her) with Holy Orthodoxy, is going to require some recognition that the estragement (theologically and liturgically) was much more "long in coming". It was not as if one day in 1054 A.D. everything suddenly fell apart. Indeed, such thinking actually betrays an ignorance of the fact that there had already been a serious break between Rome and Constantinople before, during the days of St.Photios the Great, which itself was a test case for Papal self aggrandizement spreading eastward (not to mention that the Pope's name had already been dropped from the Diptychs in Constantinople decades before 1054, during the time of Pope Benedict VIII, who became Pope in 1012 A.D.)

This is not to say that everything "different" is equally intolerable (or necessarily "bad" at all, for that matter). However, I think at the very least (and certainly post-schism anathemas of the Orthodox Church would require this) an explicit Epiklesis would need to find it's way back into the Divine Liturgy of a restored Latin (Orthodox) Church, the "filioque clause" would have to be dropped from the recitation of "the Creed", and the use of normal "artos" (leavened bread) would have to be restored to the Roman Mass.

Some may view this as "Byzantization" of the Roman Mass, but this is as unfair an appraisal as it is a useless one. It is "unfair" because not one of the things that would need to be corrected is in fact "Byzantine", but are elements common to all ancient eucharistic liturgies, including the Roman/Western ones. And it is a "useless" criticism, since it would only hold water for those who believe we are "all correct" - a conclusion which history and Orthodox dogmatics simply do not allow for. While one can be diplomatic and say there were many things done by "both sides" which aggrivated things and resulted in a permanent schism, the truth of the matter is that it was Latin innovation and arrogance which are ultimatly to blame for the schism we now all live with. We would not be talking about this, had the Popes not begun to sincerely believe they had "universal juristiction" and beyond, or had the Latins not begun adopting strange customs contrary to the usages of both their forefathers and other Christians throughout the world. Thus, it is those things which need to be "fixed."

However, I have my doubts that at this point there will ever be a corporate re-union of any sort. On one hand there has simply been too much water under the bridge. On the other hand, the contemporary RCC, at least as an administrative entity (and also in terms of much of it's flock, particularly in the first world) is simply too decadent to have any meaningful interest in becoming an integral part of the Orthodox Church. The "We are Church" types and rainbow sash wearing perverts have even less of a place in Holy Orthodoxy than they do contemporary Roman Catholicism - I also don't see the host of German hierarchs who are not even sure that Christ actually rose from the dead, being that enthused about entering a Church where so much "quaint superstition" is viewed with the reverence of being dogmatic fact.

And perhaps more importantly, it goes without saying that the "New Mass" as commonly used by westerners is unacceptable. While there were a few elements of the modern "liturgical reform" which in theory were good ideas and moved Latin practice closer to that of the Orthodox world (concelebration of Mass, encouragement of standing as a normal liturgical posture, communion under "both kinds", etc.), these have been lost in an ocean of stupidity and imprudence on the part of these same modern liturgists and their bishops/episcopal conferences. Things like...

- "altar girls"
- abolishing of minor orders
- purile/protestant-content liturgical hymns, "folk Masses", etc. (this one particularly irritates me, given the rich, beautiful, and entirely "big O" Orthodox musical heritage which is "Gregorian Chant")
- "communion in the hand" (which in principle is not impossible, but simply horribly imprudent given our social context; we're not a few catacombniks, living in a time when only those who were going to receive holy communion were allowed to stay for the Holy Sacrifice - the rest had to beat it at the dismissal of the catechumen, or if penitents or pagans, were not allowed into the Church at all.)
- Priests not facing the same direction as their congregants in prayer (saying "priest with his back to the people" is just so typically whiney and egocentric that it's a phrase I refuse to use - I'd rather say "priest with his back to God" to describe the modern practice, if we must indulge such phrases).
- tasteful liturgical vestments and church architecture.

In other words, keep the few good things (like the standing, so long as you scrap the pews as well), and get rid of the Vatican II/"Liturgical Commission" changes.

On a practical note, while I'm all in favour (as were modern Saints like Sts.Tikhon and John Maximovitch, as was the Russian Holy Synod prior to the god-fighting revolution) of having "western rite Churches" as a means to receive westerners into Holy Orthodoxy, I'm disinclined to believe they are really that necessary. This is particularly so, if one gets really rigorous and insists that a "western rite" Church be not simply a "corrected" liturgy in some of the key respects, but reflect the usages of the pre-schism West; in which case you'll be using a Liturgy which is probably as alien to what modern westerners are used to, as would be the normative Orthodox Liturgy (Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom.) I've also noticed a tendency (though I may be only taking note of isolated cases that I've either encountered, or were encountered by others I've known of; one of them being a former western-rite Priest my own parish Priest knows, who for reasons like this decided to eventually become a standard "Byzantine Rite" Orthodox Priest), for the "western rites" to sometimes become a ghetto for latent heterodoxy - meaning that people who go over to it from a heterodox western confession, may be doing so only because they're ticked off at the liberalization of their former church, and not because they subscribe to the spiritual patrimony and dogmas of the Orthodox Church.

Rather, I think a "Byzantine-Rite" Orthodox Church, with a real heart for preaching to and converting westerners, that uses vernacular in it's services, and makes a point of venerating all of the Church's Saints (in particular those familiar to westerners, like Sts.Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Patrick, Leo, Gregory, etc.), will do quite well for those coming from western backgrounds; without the "need" for a special liturgical rite.

If some form of "western rite" is being allowed though, I think it requires some special and very well informed supervision by those hierarchs who have such in their diocese, to guard against the danger that I've mentioned (and have observed in action.)

Christ is Risen!

2005-05-02T13:14:00.000-04:00

CHRIST IS RISEN!
Christ is Risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And on those in the tombs granting eternal Life!

I hope everyone has had a happy and holy Pascha, and may you have a blessed Bright Week.

In your kindness...

2005-04-27T10:30:00.000-04:00

In your kindness, please say a prayer for a departed friend of mine.

Yesterday afternoon-evening as I rested for work (I work at night), my eldery neighbour (his name is Angelo - non-Orthodox) passed away in his home. His health had been declining for some time now, so it was not a surprise, but sad nonetheless as I'd known him and lived in the same neighbourhood as him since I was in my mid teens. In your generosity, please say a prayer for his repose.

I'm like, so slow...

2005-04-22T08:53:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI

Comment: Yeah yeah, so it took me a couple of days to update my blog so as to reflect this news item. :-) It's kind of funny, I actually slept through the media spectacle which was his election, and only found out that Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope upon arriving at our Priest's house last Tuesday for one of the little catechical "coffee talk" sessions he was holding during Lent.

Seriously though... I guess this is as good as it was going to get for the Latins, given the serious contenders that were available. Actually, I was stunned when I was told that he had been elected; I really didn't think he would ever have got the majority needed to be elected.

I have to admit, I took a great deal of delight observing the abject horror of all of the modernistas and "cafeteria Catholics" on the various radio chat shows. They were pratically having kittens. It was wonderful. They thought John Paul II was a hardliner (which he wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination) - well, I think it's fair to say that Joseph Ratzinger is just a couple of "steps to the right" of the late John Paul II. Hence, their distress. Though, objectively speaking I don't see why they're in such fits - Pope Benedict XVI is hardly a "rigid" person...he's just yesterday's liberal, as John Paul II was. But I guess unless you're on the cutting end of godlessness, you'll never keep these creeps happy. But, anything that rains on their parade cannot help but bring a smile to my face. I find their brand of practical atheism far more offensive than the overt, honest (moreso) brand you'll find in publications like Skeptical Inquirer, etc.

However, I have to admit I'm a little nervous about his avowed interest in "re-uniting Christians." Yes, I know ecumenism has long been the big thing for recent Popes, but I get the distinct impression that this is going to be an even "bigger thing" for this Pope. Given some of the things he's said regarding the terms of re-union between Roman Catholics and other "Christian confessions" (basically, it would seem that this could involve skirting dogmatic differences) in times past, I have grave concerns as to where this could all be going.

I know it's not considered tasteful to speak ill of the dead (particularly when the body is still warm), but given the preview to the Church of the Anti-Christ we got under John Paul II at his "Assisi affairs", I'm concerned that Benedict XVI is going to try and do "one better".

Here's to hoping I'm dead wrong!

What I'm reading right now

2005-04-22T08:34:00.000-04:00

The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition - By Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos

Comment: Select passages of this book (in fact, the majority of it) are available online at the publisher's website - however, I really recommend you try to obtain a full copy of this work, as it is (in it's entirity) very worthwhile. Perhaps without intending to do such (or at the very least, without this being the work's fundamental goal), I think this work gives definition to that fundamental (but often elusive) "something" which many come to realize fundamentally separates Orthodox Christianity from the various heterodox confessions we westerners grow up alongside (or even within). It's a very powerful little book (only 184 pages), and though I'm not finished it (I'm on page 136), I couldn't wait to share my incredibly positive thoughts about it. Definately one of the better books on the spiritual life that I've read in my (admittedly short, thus far) lifetime.

Mystery solved!

2005-04-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

Scientists discover why some popcorn kernels don't pop: moisture pressure

(excerpt)

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Eat your way to the bottom of almost any bag of popcorn and there they are: the rock-hard, jaw-rattling unpopped kernels known as old maids.

The nuisance kernels have kept many a dentist busy, but their days could be numbered: Scientists say they now know why some popcorn kernels resist popping into puffy white globes. It's long been known that popcorn kernels must have a precise moisture level in their starchy centre - about 15 per cent - to explode. But Purdue University researchers found the key to a kernel's explosive success lies in the composition of its hull.

It turns out there is an optimal hull structure that allows kernels to explode, and leaky hulls prevent the moisture pressure buildup needed for kernels to pop.

"They're sort of like little pressure vessels that explode when the pressure reaches a certain point," said Bruce Hamaker, a Purdue professor of food chemistry. "But if too much moisture escapes, it loses its ability to pop and just sits there."

...

Comment: Now I'll finally be able to get some sleep!

Confusing agendas

2005-04-14T08:37:00.000-04:00

I think most people clued in understand there are some real problems in the Orthodox world right now - whether it be the "anti-canonical" situation you'll find in the west (overlapping heirarchies), the excesses of the ecumenical movement, the calendar controversy, temptations to theological modernism, the "womens movement" slowly making it's way into the sanctuary, etc.

However, in spite of all of these real problems (and it does no one a service to pretend they are not very serious, and very real...least of all, ourselves!), I've managed to come to some peace with how things are (for better or for worse.) How? Simple - by desiring to simply become a good Christian, a genuinely Orthodox Christian, and not becoming what I've come to term an "Agenda Orthodox."

What's an "agenda Orthodox"? Well, it's someone whose outlook is plagued by this or that "issue" to the extent that it (rather than the faith of the ages) becomes the criteria for how we view others or will be willing to accept them as brethren.

It's very easy to see some of the more spectacularly controversial things going on right now, and make more of them than is warranted. It's to the point now, you have to be careful what you say around some people, lest you be totally misunderstood and pegged for some kind of "crypto heretic" or what have you. I do think there is a cure for this though.

What's the cure? Simple...put your mind in a mental time machine, and go back to a time still not that remote in the past (so as to still be, relatively speaking, "modern"), yet still prior to the messes we now have before us. Say, before the "New Calendar" was introduced in parts of the Orthodox world. A time before there was no Orthodox participation in any sort of "ecumenical movement", or perhaps even no such thing as "ecumenism" at all. A time when there was still a Tsar ruling the Russians, and there was no ground to argue about "the MP" (Moscow Patriarchate) vs. "the Catacombniks" or "the Russian Church in exile". Read sources from this period, whether academic/catechical, or authored by Saints.

I think what one finds when they do this, is quite instructive. They'll find at times, on the lips of uncontroversial figures (nay, even canonized Saints) words and ways of speaking which if uttered by someone now, would likely result in a rain of angst. For example, back in the day no one felt the need to speak obnoxiously or use "quotes" to speak about heterodox sacraments. Indeed, you'll find Orthodox using the proper ecclessiastical titles (and in many cases, even honourifics) associated with certain heterodox-schismatic figures, like say in the Roman Catholic Church. I even distinctly remember reading a quote from a passage penned by St.Nektarios Aegina in which he refers to the Latin Church in a way which would probably have some modern anti-ecumenists up in arms.

This is not to say any of these people were confused - they knew what the Church "is", they knew what Papism was, etc. Yet not only were they not overly defensive, they were also willing to live (I think) with a lot more ambiguity. Nowdays, it would seem all people are engaged in doing is being the antithesis of one another - one person affirms with too much certitude, so someone else denies with equally excessive certainty. If Orthodox authors in times past have been correct in characterizing Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin, I think something similar could be said of the extremes of both the "modernistic" and "traditionalist" minded camps in the Orthodox world. One speaks too much, equivocating between the Holy Mysteries of the Church and the rites of schisms. So the other feels the need to jump in, and be equally promiscuous with their words, and deny, deny deny till he turns blue in the face. Lost in all of this of course, is the primacy of the Church, and above all, the sovereignty of God.

I also think looking at the (relatively) recent past is good, as it makes you realize (as I think any age of the Church will) that it wasn't all sunshine back then either. You had a strange situation in Russia, where the Patriarchate was simply "abolished" by secular authority. If you go back further, you'll see that the autonomy of the Russian Church was practically forced out of Constantinople (thus it could be wondered - are decisions made under duress genuine?). Looking at Constantinople under the Turks, you'll see a subservience to godless authorities which many times makes the connivance by some Russian heirarchs with the Soviets look downright "innocent" by comparison. The 'New Calendar' stinks? I'm inclined to agree, but then again what happened to the "Old Believers" in Russia was hardly fair (or even necessary!) either.

Considering things like this, I think it's much easier to see contemporary problems in perspective and not let them take away our peace. The Church traditionally has tolerated quite a bit, before She has cast people from Her midst, or broken communion. A good case in point being the Latins, who were doing very strange things for quite some time before there was a final, enduring condemnation of the Papacy and those who remained under it (ex. had dropped the epiklesis from many of the western eucharistic liturgies, were using azymes in their Eucharist, had radically begun altering clerical attire, altered fasting rules, and were increasingly adopting a heterodox theology of the filioque, etc.)

"...those crazy converts..."?

2005-04-13T08:43:00.000-04:00


Bl. Seraphim of Platina	Bl. Justin of Serbia

All too often Fr.Seraphim (Rose) of blessed memory is dismissed by "ecumenically minded" Orthodox - typically with comments to the effect that he was somehow an "extremist" who represents everything wrong with "those crazy converts."

Yet, I am left wondering just how he was "extreme", particularly when one looks at his sayings and deeds while he was at the height of his powers, so to speak (which was undoubtedly toward the end of his earthly life)? In fact there is precious little which could be called "controversial" in Fr.Seraphim's writings, which is not stated elsewhere by less disputed "modern fathers" of the Church. Whether it was his description of the "aerial tollhouses" (which you'll find in the writings of plenty of Russian Saints, and those well outside of the Russian Tradition), or his opinions on heterodoxy and orthopraxis, you'll find these ideas in all of the "modern fathers" who speak on these topics.

Case in point, Fr.Seraphim's displeasure with the ecumenical movement (and his views on heterodoxy) was not only shared, but far more strongly worded by Bl. Justin (Popovich) of Serbia, who went so far as to call "Papism" the "oldest humanism" of the west. As for appraisals of "Papism", you'll be hard pressed to find a Saint or "saint in waiting" (not officially canonized by any local Church) who will say anything substantially different in this regard.

And of course, none of these people (as far as I'm aware) were anything but "cradle Orthodox." Without doubt, the vast majority of the major players in opposing the ecumenical movement, have been so called "ethnic Orthodox", not "converts." Yet, for whatever reason, Fr.Seraphim seems to get singled out in this regard, as do the zealous adult converts to Orthodox Christianity who've formed shall we say, less than "politically correct" views on these topics.

I've picked my brain as to why this situation is - why the "newbies" tend to get blamed for a lot of these things, or others (on one hand they'll be blamed for fanaticism on one hand, yet on the other be blamed for comprimising Orthodoxy with modernity... figure that one out.) I think I have an answer, or at least part of the answer.

The "answer" (or part of it, imho) is that generally integral, pious, faithful Orthodox Christianity is more attractive to searching souls than more "comprimised" variants. Someone who makes a person decision to enter a particular religion, as an adult, is also naturally inclined towards taking an active interest in it. Obviously this happens with many who are from Orthodox families, and that too is a matter of personal decision and good, pious upbringing - but sadly, it often does not always happen with such persons, since what keeps them associated with the Church can just as well be a degree of familial/ethnic familiarity. Of course, that is better than nothing - better they be associated to the Church in this way than not at all, since this at least keeps the Lord's "foot in the door" of their lives so to speak. But let's be honest, it's not a guarantee that such people will exactly be "enthusiastic" (in the positive sense) either.

For example, when I was in my teens I often spoke to a young Greek fellow (university student at the time, if memory serves) who was very zealous about his Orthodox faith. He strove to cultivate his soul, faithfully attended services, and even had served as God-father to a couple of adult converts to the Church. I distinctly remember him explaining his views to me, and in hindsight (though he was by no means an "Old Calendarist" of any sort - simply a layman in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto) they were in the exact same vein as the "fanatic" Fr.Seraphim. Why? Simple, because this young man was faithful, did not have any "religio-political" agenda (ecumenism), and was obviously well read and catechized. Given my subsequent experiences with other faithful Orthodox (of various "jurisdictions"), I know very well this young man was not unique by any means amongst so called "ethnic" or "born" Orthodox.

And, fundamentally I fail to see what really separates such enthusiasm from "ethnic Orthodox", from the enthusiasm of adult converts - save perhaps the benefit that such zealous sons & daughters of Orthodox families have less in the way of "bad thought patterns" to overcome due to some previous religious confession or way of life.

In short, I think this is not a battle between "converts" and "ethnics" really, but between "traditional" and "modernistic" - and save for conversions done solely for the purposes of marriage, the tendency for most who bother to convert, is to be "traditional" so to speak. Perhaps it's only because such persons are highly visible (ex. the blonde anglo who doesn't speak Greek and who is always at Church on Sundays), that they are easy to "pin" such things on.

Granted, there are problems in so called "convert Churches" (mission Churches composed mostly of adult neophytes) - and we all know of "obnoxious converts." However, are such abnormalities a uniquely convert problem? Sure, there are mission Churches which do weird things which well grounded, life long Orthodox would typically not approve of (and often rightly so) - but then again, the biggest comprimises with Orthopraxis and the expounding of Orthodox doctrine can be laid at the feet of those "ethnic folks", can they not? Was it "converts" who insisted Orthodox clergy look as much like Latin and Anglican clercis as possible? Or that Church's have pews and organs in them? Etc., etc. So yes, there are some "converts" who do weird, wonkie things...but they're hardly unique in this.

Fr.Seraphim, interestingly enough, had some of the best things to say about this unnecessary/strange "divide" between cradle-Orthodox and adult-converts. For those lukewarm who only find themselves in Church because of childhood habit or cultural loyalties, the enthusiasm of someone who decided to become Orthodox can be a good lesson. Likewise, the faithfulness of someone who has been Orthodox all of their life (even if they are far from being "saints" as far as we may be concerned - though that we dwell on such judgements shows that neither are we!), the natural way they approach holy things, is a good lesson for adult neophytes. We all need each other, and have something to learn even from the least of our brethren, if we're open to this - this is basically what Fr.Seraphim tried to convey in the pastoral words he handed to his spiritual children (who came from all manner of backgrounds.)

I can't believe it...

2005-04-08T14:12:00.000-04:00

I actually found myself annoyed at a criticism of (the late) John Paul II.

Whiney butt-puppet informs us as to why Pope John Paul II was a meanie

Summary: Yesterday's liberal is never going to be "liberal enough" for today's unprincipled twits. Oh yeah...isn't tolerance great?!

Pope John Paul II, RIP

2005-04-02T16:07:00.000-05:00

Pope John Paul II
1920-2005

Vatican announces death of Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II died in his Vatican apartment Saturday, ending his 26-year reign as leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The announcement came shortly before 10 p.m. local time, ending hours of speculation in which the pope's death appeared inevitable.

"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. ET) in his private apartment," Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement.

He appears to be near his earthly end...

2005-04-02T09:55:00.000-05:00

Vatican says Pope starting to lose consciousness

While I'm hardly the biggest fan of either his church or his pontificate, as a fellow human being and one of the precious few truly international figures in our age to speak frequently on behalf of the rights of the unborn, I think John Paul II deserves our prayers, whatever our spiritual loyalties may lay.

I did find an interesting comment in one article pertaining to the Pope's impending death, relating specifically to John Paul II's legacy. It was a comment by a spokesman from a Mosque in Geneva, which I think deserves some comment...

Hafid Ouardiri, spokesman for the Geneva mosque, said Muslims would remember the Pope's efforts "for peace and dialogue among communities."

But he also added: "It seems to us that there was a personality cult surrounding Jean Paul II that was close to idolatry, which for a Muslim is a sin. The Pope has taken too big a place compared to the church, and that's damaged him." (full article here)

The funny thing is, I think there is some truth to this Muslim's comments, though my agreement obviously comes from a very different place (and not from the antiseptic unitarianism of Islam). While the "cult" (so to speak) of the Pope has long been quite big in the Latin west (given the centrality of the Pope in Roman Catholic ecclessiology), in the pontificate of John Paul II it has grown immensly. I think in many ways, this is reflective of general trends throughout the Roman Catholic Church. Even at the lay level, the "cult of personality" in relation to the presiding priest has grown significantly since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Where as there was a time where the priest was quite internchangeable (it was the Mass which itself was central - whether Fr.Jones or Fr.Williams said it really made little difference), this now seems to be less so. Less depends upon praxis and dogma in the RCC, and more on charisma and other "personal qualities" on the part of the particular priest. This has a lot to do with the loosening of the strictures surrounding the priest's ministry, including his celebration of the Mass. "The Church" as it were, as some imposing metaphysical reality, fades more into the background, and individuals are being called to fill in the void. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising then if "the Vicar of Christ" gave way more to "John Paul II - Superstar".

I also believe this Muslim's comment is important, given the ingratitude which it is imbued with: it demonstrates what a limp noodle the entire "ecumenistic" and "interfaith" enterprise has in fact been for the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. John Paul II has probably done more than any western spiritual leader in calling for "tolerance" (and even "acceptance" in some degree) of non-Catholic (and even non-Christian) religions, basically helping to create a more welcoming environment in western Europe for people like the Muslim commentator I've quoted. Frankly, I think this has been an incredibly big mistake, but in this wise John Paul II was thoroughly a child of the "spirit of Vatican II", which in it's promulgated texts spoke well of Islam as being an "Abrahamic religion" and more problematically, as worshipping the "one God" adored by Christians. Of course, St.John the Theologian might have a problem with that notion (1st John 2:23).

Apart from the doctrinal consideration however (though it is certainly the basis for, and facilitates the problem I'm about to get into), there is the practical one. The fact of the matter is, foreign religions if accepted integrally (which they are by all but their most nominal devotees), pose serious contraditions one to another. Often these contradictions involve very basic matters, whether it be the Godhead, or just as troubling, what the "will of God" in fact is for mankind. On that count, Islam (just as one of many possible examples) is radically opposed to Roman Catholicism. This makes the Pope's overtures and accomodation of the Islamists not just bad theology, but bad social policy. In fact now was the worst time for such gestures, for while Latin Christendom (and it's Protestant daughters) is quite unsure of itself and just what shape the future of the west should take, this cannot be said for the "black flag of Islam", which has always been quite sure on a dogmatic level of what it wants for the human family.

In short, most of the interfaith dialogue the Pope has engaged in (and which has become a matter of official policy in the Latin church), has been not only a wasted effort, but one which has harmed his own spiritual children. I'd also go so far as to say the same of his efforts with other Christian confessions (including the Orthodox Church), in so far as these discussions have not dwelled upon what separates us all (which is where the problem really is) but have typically devolved into indifferentistic "luv-fests" which pretend that time and entrophy will cover all of those problems so long as we begin concelebrating and otherwise living together in the "same house."

It'll be interesting to see what the future holds for the Roman Catholic Church, and the world at large. I find myself holding my breath with a mixture of dread and curiosity, to see who John Paul's successor will be.

Sweet! Big Orthodox Books Online! Sweet!

2005-03-25T18:35:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of the Holy Trinity Orthodox School website. LOTS of lengthy Orthodox works can be found here in either HTML or (zipped) document formats. Lots of good reading material here - just look for the "textbooks" icon in the menu, and that will take you to their online reading list.

All sorts of goodies, from Bp. Kallistos Ware's The Orthdoox Church, to Fr.Michael Pomazansky's (now regrettably, out of print) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, to The Pedalion (canons of the Orthodox Church.) Having something like this online makes a Church-geek like me happier than a pig in...well, y'know, happy.

Some links with info on the Terri Schiavo case

2005-03-25T10:23:00.000-05:00

Terri Laughing - (.wmv Windows Media Player format) Video of Terri Schiavo laughing with her father; hardly a "vegetable."

Terri with her mother - (Real Player format) Video of Terri interacting with her mother.

Video Clips - Some more video clips of a responsive Terri Schiavo.

Evidence - A scanned image of a medical report indicating that Terri had been beaten at some point prior to her going into a coma. "Happy marriage" my foot.

Terri Schiavo Bone Scan - Evidence that Terri Schiavo was put into a coma as a result of strangulation? Gee...that could explain why someone doesn't want this woman to ever recover...

Florida DCF Investigating Michael Schiavo - Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) has reason to believe that Michael Schiavo (Terri's abhorent husband) has done things to make any rehabilitation of Terri impossible, including outright harming the poor woman via neglect (they presented a 30 count allegation against Schiavo to the court last week). That Judge Greer can just overlook things like this, is evidence he is intentionally steam-rolling this case through; for people like this, a precedent perhaps for future euthanasia cases.

Dr. William Cheshire's Stunning Affidavit About Terri (.pdf needs Adobe Acrobat Reader; appears to be scan of original document) - Dr. William Cheshire's sworn affidavit to the effect that Terri Schiavo is not in a "PVS" (Persistent Vegitative State).

Nurse's Sworn Affidavit (.pdf format) - Another sworn affidavit, from a nurse who attended to Terri Schiavo, who was convinced Michael Schiavo (adulterous spouse of Terri) was actively trying to kill her (Terri.)

'When Is That Bitch Going To Die' - Affidavit Of Nurse - Further evidence that "loving husband" Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest in this situation, and should not be trusted to accuratly express the will of his crippled wife.

Some more unflattering facts - Further info on Mike Schiavo; including his interesting choice of physician for Terri, after her former doctor (Dr.Gambone) resigned after refusing to have a part in any attempt to euthanize this woman. The replacement? A Dr.Stanton Tripodis, who has five malpractice suits against him. Only the best for your wife, right Mike?

Judge Greer an Ideologue - An "activist judge" to be sure.

My thoughts on capital punishment and proper distinctions

2005-03-25T08:23:00.000-05:00

aka Why I Disagree with Elements of the Contemporary "Pro-Life" Movement

6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Genesis 9:6)

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

The principle that the state has the right to execute criminals for severe moral offences is a Scriptural one, and one upheld by the nearly 2000 year old lived history of Christendom throughout the world. It cannot be held up as an obsolete "Old Testament ordinance" from the Law given via Moses at Sinai, since it is attested to before the advent of said "Law" (or Torah) as well as afterward in the New Testament period where the "old Law" has been fulfilled/eclipsed by the covenant written in our Lord Jesus Christ's most Precious Blood.

While the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament Scriptures have been effectively made void by way of being fulfilled and replaced by something better, the entirity of the Old Testament (including said "old Law") does fulfill a didatic function for the Church. As such, there are many (many!) moral lessons to be drawn from them, even from praxis/legal enactments which strictly speaking are no longer in force. Recognizing this, it is quite clear that in principle, the Law of the Old Testament (Torah) upholds the permissability of states choosing to execute certain classes of criminals (in particular, murderers).

Another important lesson we gain from the Old Testament, is that our Lord Himself makes a very, very clear distinction between "innocent" and "guilty" blood. That is to say, that while it is permissable (even commendable in some circumstances) for the state to execute certain criminal offenders, for anyone (including princes) to kill (nay, murder) persons guilty of no judicially punitive offence, is reprehensible and is itself a crime worthy of chastisement. A quick search on any online Bible search engine will give a very quick result in this regard - searching words "innocent blood" gave several results, and doing some variant search would certainly give you many, many more. I highlight this distinction (between the "innocent" and the "guilty") as it is an important point I will return to momentarily.

Fortunately, many in the pro-life movement who oppose capital punishment, do not theoretically violate any of the above principles. Having (I believe) firmly established the wrong-mindedness of those who do violate these principles (on a Biblical basis), I wish to now address those who while holding to the above principles, believe that in practice the sentence of capital punishment should be set aside in favour of some other option (typically, life imprisonment.)

First, I'd like to state what a mistake I believe it is for the pro-life movement to confuse this matter with the issue of abortion, or it's opposition to euthanasia. Even if there are some astute persons in the pro-life movement willing to make the distinctions I've outlined in the above (and thus in principle accept the possibility of capital punishment as a moral option for a state under the "correct" circumstances), by throwing this matter in with the "pro-life" cause, they're implicitly sending out a very misleading message. I'm also convinced there are now many folks in the pro-life movement who are not making these distinctions, and along with those sending out a "misleading message" via association, are making a tragic confusion between innocent and guilty blood. It is also a confusion, which essentially plays right into the hands of libertine-humanistic critics of traditional morality (which in many basic respects, encompasses most civilizations and world religions), and in particular, "conventional" Christian morality.

I'm sure many of us have heard the criticisms of cynical humanists, faulting conservative Christians of some inconsistancy, in believing it is permissable to put certain criminals to death, while being vehemently anti-abortion. Of course such criticisms are moronic, since they fail to make a distinction which even most five year olds are capable of making - the difference between someone who has "done bad" and the other person who has not. There is a world of difference between the man who rapes and murders, and the man-child whose only "offence" is being unwanted by his irresponsible parents. Anyone who believes that both are entitled to make the same claims on civilization, is frankly unfit to be left in any sort of position of authority.

Of course (and perhaps to a degree, thankfully) such humanistic cynics are not really serious, and are in fact horribly inconsistant - since most would not advocate letting a murderer roam free, and would hardly be prepared to throw a naughty six year old (who, say, thieves a piece of candy from a convienience store) in a gulag. In other words, such criticisms are valueless, coming from enemies of God and not rational/consistant human beings.

But alas, the "pro-life baptism" of the anti-death-penalty ideology, has the practical effect (and if you listen to the more illogical members of this set of the pro-life movement, the doctrinal/ideological effect) of giving creedence to secularist/humanistic silliness. Given the interconnectedness of all ideas, and the holistic view of life which the Gospel calls men to, I think this is a confusion the opponents of abortion and euthanasia should not be playing a part in encouraging.

Then there are the "practical" arguments typically used against capital punishment. These are shared in large part by the "practical" opponents of capital punishment (once again, those who recognize the principles of the Scriptures, but for various reasons do not believe they should be enacted here and now), and by the anti-capital punishment ideologues (who are represented in various groups, ranging from pacifistic movements of no Christian bearings, through to otherwise "conservative" members of various Christian denominations.)

I believe these "practical arguments" are, for the most part, faulty and do not recognize the realities we are in fact living with. I will outline some of them here, and give my brief rebuttal...

Wrongful Convictions: This can be a very real problem, and is perhaps the one I am most sympathetic toward. However, this is a call for legal reform, and not for abolition of the death penalty itself. It is also perhaps a call for a higher standard of evidence to be required in potentially capital cases. I would also submit (as will be made clearer later) that as tragic as the (relatively few) situations are where a wrongful conviction is made, there is a greater evil which results when states stop properly punishing crime (which is a problem broader than capital punishment - this is only one narrow aspect of a very big problem in western civilization.) For example, it is a statistical certainty (born out year after year) that every year you have people getting behind the wheel of automobiles, a whole bunch of them are never going to make it to their destination point - they will die as a result of any number of things, including mechanical errors in the vehicle, or more often, human fault of some kind (either on their own part, or on the part of another driver on the road.) However, I think most would agree that the solution to this endemic problem is not to ban the use of automobiles; rather, the solution would be an ongoing one, in which attempts were made to make more effective enforcements of traffic laws, train better young drivers, make safer vehicles, etc.

Capital Punishment is Cruel and Unusual: I find nothing more cruel and unusual than letting a man (no matter how rotten) stew in a vat of other fiends for the rest of his natural life, learning that he either better become more callous and predatory, or risk becoming someone's "bitch" (or end up dead on the end of another inmate's shank.) Here is actually an interesting thing, which others have highlighted - the sad fact that in much of western civilization (particularly in America), sodomy-rape has become in the minds of many, a "just" and de facto punishment for criminals! Who is really more blood thirsty and cruel then? The person who believes the serious criminal offender should be allowed to get right with God (ex. be given a chance to confess to a Priest) and be given a swift death, or the one who thinks it's "funny" that a child molestor is going to have his rear end ripped raw after he get's stuck in the pen?

Life Imprisonment Gives the Opportunity for Reform: For a few perhaps, but for the majority their stay in prison is either a sentence to perpetual victimhood, or a godless lesson in purely "darwinistic" civilization. Speaking of my own personal experience (and based on my observation of those of many other people), I think nothing draws people closer to moral reflection than the nearness of death. Prisons are places filled with criminals - and federal penitentiaries are places filled with the worst criminals; in other words, the worst that society has to offer. These people are so bad, we can't have them living next door to us - for the rest of their lives. Yet, we are to believe that when we stick them together in a more or less confined space, this is going to encourage them to get better?! Assanine! Rather, what usually happens is they learn to get tough, or get used to being preyed upon in all sorts of cruel and unusual ways. How Christian is this? Particularly if we take our spiritual convictions seriously, and believe that this present life is only a brief (and unavoidably finite) preparation for a life in eternity? If I really can find it in me to love the criminal, I want him to be cleansed of his sins and be able to find a place in the world to come. I firmly believe that is far more likely to happen if he is faced with the certitude of death, and given every means to get right with his Lord before he leaves this world via a quick, clean death (which frankly, most of us are not likely to be privileged with - ever have a family member die of cancer? Alzheimers? Or like my great uncle with Huntingtons disease, who ended up choking to death after spending decades confined to a hospital bed.)

Capital Punishment is Not an Effective Deterent: While I find it hard to discern just how credible many of the so called "studies" on capital punishment's deterrent value in fact are, my question is "so what?!" As if life imprisonment is demonstrating itself to be an incredible deterent as well! I think this is one of the big mistakes made by the "pro-capital punishment" set - they focus too much on the argument of "deterence" which is really too difficult to demonstrate, particularly in nations where there are not (basically) uniform policies on these matters. The fundamental value of capital punishment, is to execute justice (as the state is ordained by God to do) first, and to protect the public from the offender involved (secondly). The other considerations follow after this, and ought not to be the primary focus.

From the fourth rebuttal, I think flows the primary reason why it is important for states to try certain crimes as capital offences (and why there needs to be legal reform in general in all of the modern western democracies.) Citizens need to have confidence in their leaders; and that confidence flows from believing that these officials are executing their responsibilities properly. One of the most basic responsibilities of government, is to protect citizens from the predations of those who are not willing to live by the most basic moral principles, or observe the most meager aspects of the unspoken "social contract".

When a person is murdered, or raped, or what have you, it's not only the specific victim(s) who suffers; nor is it even only their immediate family. Rather it is the whole broad community who is in some wise victimized - and they to some degree have a right to justice. Can their be a fallen, bloodthirstiness involved here? Of course...but then again, people get a certain unbecoming glee from seeing a thieving white collar criminal get reduced to poverty for stealing from his clients. Does that mean we don't prosecute any crimes then - because it just may happen that those who have been in some wise wronged (directly or indirectly) might get a little too much pleasure out of the sentencing? Of course not.

"Justice" is not a dirty word. Christians in particular must quit this tendency, which flows from all sorts of godless/libertine ideologies of the late 20th century, that there is something "wrong" with any form of retribution. Indeed, there is even a latent doctrinal time bomb in such views - since one of the most basic aspects of Christian soteriology/eschatology is that the entirity of mankind is in some wise "unjustified", that what we've collectively become is incredibly offensive to God, and that He has in His kindness done something to fix that situation (the merciful arrival of His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ). In Orthodox Christian soteriology, a very holistic view of redemption is put forward; one which includes the legal/forensic elements familiar to westerners, but goes well beyond this. Christ in Himself has fixed everything that was wrong with the human race - and we are invited most graciously to participate in this renewed humanity, by partaking of Him (whether it be the acquisition of His virtues, of His very Body and Blood, and of course bathing all of these, the uncreated grace which is the life of the Holy Trinity.)

Thus God is quite merciful - yet He is also quite just. "Justice" then, is not an obsolete notion, or some unbecoming idea. Nothing in the work of our Lord indicates this. If anything, quite the contrary is illustrated - the grace of God may be generous and offered for free, but nothing about it is cheap.

The Passion of our Lord, God, and
Saviour, Jesus Christ

Today for Roman Catholics and certain Protestants is Good Friday. In that spirit then, I hope that people will begin to make proper distinctions (at the very least), and also will support the obligation of governments to properly prosecute and punish criminal offences. Far from being a condemnation of capital punishment, the Holy Cross is a "happy fault" which illustrates rather the evil of shedding innocent blood. Such innocent blood would include Terri Schiavo who in America is being starved to death in contradiction to all Christian principles by her adulterous husband and euthanasia activist lawyers & judiciary.

Another "Passion"

The ongoing scandal in the Orthodox Church in Greece

2005-03-24T07:52:00.000-05:00

Firstly, I'd ask forgiveness for neglecting to update this blog in the last few days... I know there are a handful of you who check up on this blog semi-regularly, so I'd ask your indulgence here. A combination of work, and Church business are keeping me quite occupied right now, so it's a treat to be able to get back in front of the computer to hammer out a few thoughts from my big, thick head.

As for the Church of Greece fiasco, this is all doubly saddening for me. It is not just said because of the apparent offences themselves (thus my sadness for those involved), but the incredible mileage that the secular forces in Greece (and the "European community" at large) are going to get out of this scandal, and the obvious hurt this does to the "little ones" (the simple faithful who might not be able to make the proper distinctions in situations like this.)

There are a lot of forces right now (human ones I mean; those of unseen spiritual darkness are a given) that are at war against Orthodox Christianity. Some of them are just generally "anti-religion" and as is usually the case, specifically anti-Christian. However, I also have come to believe that there is a vein of enemy here that is specifically anti-Orthodox. Why? Because Orthodox Christianity, of all of the world's self described "Christian confessions" has remained remarkably integral. Yes, there are sectarian "Orthodox" (or as I have come to describe them "chicken little Orthodox") who magnify the real problems to be found in the Orthodox world, but the fact of the matter is that for all of Her internal troubles, the Orthodox Church is incredibly "out of step" with the prevailing relativism, humanism, and egalitarianism of the so called "civilized west". This I think, has made the Orthodox Church a juicy target for certain political ideologues, in a way the Roman Catholic Church ("RCC" for short) perhaps once was before it sold out to spirit of the times.

As news articles like this one are indicating, this scandal in the Greek Church is being exploited by secularist forces who have already had designs upon the role of Orthodox Christianity in the lives of much of Europe. I'm sure many reading this are well aware of recent attempts by agitators in the European Union to violate the traditions of ancient monastic island of Mt.Athos, by forcing this (basically) giant male monastery to admit female visitors. We also should not remain sheepishly naive, in not noticing the recent agitations directed by various western powers at historically Orthodox lands (whether it be NATO's superficially unfathomable attacks on Serbia, or America's inreasingly hostile posturing towards Russia). I wouldn't go so far as to claim that there is any one organized conspiracy against Orthodox Christianity, but this does seem to be a broad trend coming from several different directions, that does have a singular, cumulative result. And of course, I think it would be very mistaken to believe that on the invisible level of fallen spiritual intelligences (aka demons) all of thse "loose ends" do not have a very explicit, united purpose.

I really hope the Church in Greece learns some lessons from the recent scandals of the RCC, and does not attempt to handle the matter in the same way (i.e. only wait until the situation becomes dire before taking any practical steps.) While I agree that in better circumstances these matter should be dealt with discreetly (but still get dealt with!), the incredibly public nature of these sins, and the media saturation that they are getting, require a very public response from the Church. This is not what I'd like (as I believe in the Biblical notion of "covering your father's nakedness"), but I think the situation merits it: and a greater evil will result from a failure to deal with the current situation severely, and quite publically. Otherwise, the damage that is already done will only be exploited by interested parties and made all the worse.

Kewwwwwl...

2005-03-14T16:24:00.000-05:00

A western rite Orthodox (ROCOR) monastery!

St.Petroc Monastery

Btw., if anyone reading this has any other "Western-rite Orthodox" links, please post them in the comments section, I'd really appreciate it.

Two perspectives on the reception of converts into Orthodoxy (from other Christian confessions)

2005-03-14T15:53:00.000-05:00

For your inspection...

On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches - by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)

The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church - By Patrick Barnes (.pdf file format; Adobe Reader required to download/view - get it here)

Comment: Read both, as each offer some important perspective on this often controversial topic.

A Roman Catholic who gets it!

2005-03-11T20:23:00.000-05:00

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning- by H. W. Crocker III

Comment: I will not even bother posting a key excerpt here - just read the whole thing (it isn't too long). Very well done, and very gutsy for a conservative* Roman Catholic, since NFP has become something of an eighth sacrament in EWTN/Catholic Neo-Con circles.

* By "conservative" I mean those who more or less fall into the "more or less faithful" vein of mainstream Roman Catholicism. This does not include Roman Catholic traditionalists, who generally have a dim view of NFP to begin with, and who at best are kept in little Insult/Indult ghettos, or at worst decried by Rome as being "schismatic" or "excommunicated" for basically being everything the Latins were prior to Vatican Council II.

Like I'm fond of saying...

2005-03-08T11:53:00.000-05:00

...'Big Brother' cannot help but find new and ingenius ways to ruin things for everyone.

Say no to Big Brother plan for Internet - by Michael Geist

(excerpt)

The Internet has become so essential to the every day lives of millions of people — a pillar of communication, information, entertainment, education, and commerce — that at times it seems as if the Internet really is anything we want it to be.

Notwithstanding the Internet's remarkable potential, there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are some who see a very different Internet. Theirs is an Internet with ubiquitous surveillance featuring real-time capabilities to monitor online activities. It is an Internet that views third party applications such as Vonage's Voice-over-IP service as parasitic. It is an Internet in which virtually all content should come at a price, even when that content has been made freely available. It is an Internet that would seek to cut off subscriber access based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, without due process or oversight from a judge or jury.

This disturbing vision of the Internet is not fantasy. It is based on real policy proposals being considered by the Canadian government today. ...

Another one for the "bound to be controversial but...oh well" file

2005-03-08T11:46:00.000-05:00

Posted "FYI", without comment...

The 9/11 Reichstag Fire

Franken-mice

2005-03-07T12:46:00.000-05:00

Scientists to make 'Stuart Little' mouse with the brain of a human

It will look like any ordinary mouse, but for America's scientists a tiny animal threatens to ignite a profound ethical dilemma.

In one of the most controversial scientific projects ever conceived, a group of university researchers in California's Silicon Valley is preparing to create a mouse whose brain will be composed entirely of human cells.

Researchers at Stanford University have already succeeded in breeding mice with brains that are one per cent human cells.

In the next stage they plan to use stem cells from aborted foetuses to create an animal whose brain cells are 100 per cent human. ...

Last week, however, the university's ethics committee approved the research, under certain conditions. Prof Henry Greely, the head of the committee, said: "If the mouse shows human-like behaviours, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop." ...

At hearings in Washington last October, Prof Weissman argued strongly against a ban on "chimera mice". He believes that the mice would behave like any others, but said that he would monitor the experiment closely and destroy them at the slightest suggestion of human-like brain patterns. ...

Comment: That makes me feel so warm and assured - if they discover one of their little lab monstrosities is sentient, they'll kill it. Gosh, thanks for helping us over that ethical hurdle ya quack.

Why I generally prefer the Septuagint Old Testament

2005-03-06T16:44:00.000-05:00

The following two articles (written it appears by "Messianic Jewish" or "Jews for Jesus" types) illustrate acknowledged examples of where Jewish scribes altered portions of the Old Testament/Tanakh to suit their theological proclivities.

The Emendations of the Sopherim

More Emendations

The Sopherim (or "Scribes") were the Jewish authorities charged with the copying and preservation of the Old Testament in the time after Ezra. In the process of their work, they actually acknowledged (in the former of "liner notes") that they had made some alterations to the stream of Hebrew texts they had received. While we cannot know whether this was the extent of their alterations, it does give a good indication of how many common readings of the Old Testament (in particular those found in translations based upon the "Masoretic" Hebrew Tanakh) are in fact misleading.

A particularly explosive example is Psalm 110, which the Massorah notation freely acknowledges has undergone some alteration. Verse five ("The Lord is at your right hand..."), which currently reads (in Hebrew) 'Adonai', had once read YHWH.

This change is significant, in that "Adonai", while often used to refer to God, can also simply refer to a human being and means "Lord" or "Master". OTOH, "YHWH" (which is translated as "LORD", all caps, in most English Bibles based on the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament) clearly and unambiguously refers to God. The significance of all of this, is that this makes it quite clear that the "Lord" of Psalm 110 (where the notation gives no indication of a change) who is seated at the right hand of "YHWH" (also left as is in the current, normative Masoretic text) is also Himself "YHWH".

While it's understandable how some pre-Christian Judeo scribes may have been confused by this, this is no typo in need of correction; rather it is indicative of a mystery which would only become crystal clear in the revelation of the New Testament...

This would all seem to give new meaning to an old passage which has not been tampered with...

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8)

A summary of my thoughts on Islam

2005-03-06T15:08:00.000-05:00

(NOTE: I received an e-mail from an old school friend recently, which inspires the following posting: it would seem that some earlier positive statements I had made on this blog about some Muslims and perhaps some aspects of Islam itself, may have given the wrong impression. Hopefully this will give a better picture of how I view the Islamic religion.)

Back in more confused days, I actually had considered Islam to be an option for me. Obviously this is no longer the case. Briefly I'd like to explain what I perceive to be both the pros and cons of this religion; I do not pretend to be an expert of any sort, only a layman who takes an inordinate interest in such things.

In summary...

In theory, Islam is a very simple religion

One of the strong selling points for Islam is that it is, in theory at least, a very "simple" religion. It's brand of monotheism is an extremely simple one, without the apparent complexities/controversies you'll find in that of normative Christianity. In fact some have theorized this is one of the reasons (aside from military conquest, in which Islam was imposed upon the conquered) why Islam spread so quickly early in it's history; aside from Arab pagans, many of the Arabian converts to Islam were Arab Christians embroiled in one Christological controversy or another with their competing Christian neighbours - the arguments spanning at one extreme in the form of Nestorianism, and at the other with some variant of Monophysitism. These quarrels were still quite fresh (at least relatively speaking) at the time that Islam emmerged, so for many who could not (or would not) grasp the substance of those controversies, Islam with it's stark variant of theological 'unitarianism' kind of cut through it all with a knife by removing the "second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity" from the equation entirely.

Though sold on it's simplicitly, the reality is that there is nothing simple about Islam as a legal or practical system of religion. Islamic jurisprudence (which in it's 'Sunni' form exists in four distinct schools which basically recognize one another's right to exist; beyond this is Shia Islam, which is the form practiced in places like Iran) is a complicated affair, and it's been my observation that most "practical Muslims" are actually probably faulty in their practice of their religion, at least by the strictest definitions of their scholars. Islam is very much a "religion of works", with salvation being envisioned as having a higher balance of "good deeds" as opposed to "bad deeds" on the 'day of judgement' - damnation being of course, the contrary.

Islam is often an angry young man's religion

I suspect Islam appeals to a lot of people for the same reason Marxist ideologies have an appeal. There is a certain (albeit purely theoretical) egalitarianism inherent to both, and both propose radical solutions to the various injustices of mateiralistic/capitalistic greed. Basically, both appeal to anyone who perceives themselves (rightly or wrongly) as having been harmed or "kept down" by the status quo (or perhaps by those persons with a heart/affection for those who they perceive as being harmed by "the system"). Both are "revolutionary ideologies" in the political sphere, and if taken to their logical conclusions require the complete upheaval of the "old order". This is why I think at the extreme end, you even have a certain "romanticism" associated with the activities of the mujahideen, the professional "jihadists" fighting in various conflicts throughout the world...just as you found in other places in times, regarding the various Marxist revolutionaries (ex. all of the white upper-middle-class college kids with Che Guevara posters in their dorm rooms.)

Islam is better as religious theory than it is historical reality

While the popular account of Islam's foundations and principles is quite appealing, as a historical reality it is (imho) to be found wanting. I'm not speaking here of the difference between this religion's "dogmatic reality" as opposed to most nominal Muslims not "really" following it. Rather, I'm speaking in historical/critical terms regarding the source materials for Islam.

The Qur'an itself is far from a straight forward document - rather it allegedly represents a series of revelations given to Muhammed 'the final Prophet', which taken as a whole often contradict one another. While there are passages in which Jews and Christians are spoken quite well of, these are later trumped (via the doctrine of "abrogation", which most westerners are unfamiliar with, and which most Islamic apologists are not exactly straight forward in informing western inquirers to Islam about) by other passages which clearly call for warfare to be waged against them, with the consequence of them either (a) converting, or (b) living as second class citizens in their own lands, subject to institutional humiliation and a "head tax" (jizya) as a punishment for them not converting to Islam. While history does not always have this mandate being followed (such as in India), according to the Qur'an the "toleration" of infidels only applies to Jews and Christians (so called "people of the book" - meaning they're wayward followers of previous "prophets of Islam", which is how Islam views the personages of Moses and Jesus); "pagans" strictly speaking, are not to be tolerated at all, but put to the sword. As I've indicated though, the practical reality is that this has not always happened where Islam has spread (thank God).

Another problem is that much of the normative Islamic religion is not based on the Qur'an at all (a common misunderstanding westerners have of Islam), but upon collections of supposed sayings of Muhammed and his followers called "hadith"; these are either sayings attributed to Muhammed himself, or sayings of his followers regarding his conduct (which is held up as a basis for Islamic practice.) This literature ranges from the enlightened, through to the mundane, right to the absurd and obscene. Unfortunately for many, they will not become truly acquianted with the more troubling aspects of these traditions until well after they've formally converted at their local Mosque.

There is also an appeal in the idea that Islam harmonizes/summarizes both Judaism and Christianity - particularly when on the surface, Islam seems to uncomplicate both, and even overcome certain perceived (and unfortunately at times, real) deficiencies with the popular practice of both of those religions. The problem however, is that upon close examination it's very clear that Islam is not in continuity with either. The "God of Islam" is hardly the "God of the Covenant", the intimate, and Personal "being" you'll find in both the Old and New Testaments. Instead, Al'lah is quite remote; the miraculous is the exception, God's direct intervention being seen as quite seldom, and in many respects the sense/feel you get from Islamic cosmology can seem downright deistic.

Islam is a carnal religion

At it's best and worst, Islam strikes me as a religion which ultimatly makes the same error which every religion of man will make; namely the accepting of the "status quo" in this universe to in fact be it's natural and God ordained condition. That is to say, they have an extremely inadequate sense of what the fall of our first parents from grace really meant, and it's consequences unto the present day.

This means they (like secular scientists/philosophers) take the fallen, corrupted condition of this realm to be it's natural state, when the truth of the matter is that it's condition is actually contra natural. This leads to all sorts of problems, because they then go ahead and draw moral inferences from this corrupt, fallen universe. Thus, the best goods which Islam will typically envision, are those of a screwed up cosmos; even heaven itself is envisioned as a particularly robust version of Club Med, complete with a bevy of scantily clad servant girls (houris) given to the "saints" for their viewing (and other) pleasure. The concept of "chastity" in Islam reflects this - when it comes down to it, it's really just a matter of not messing with another man's property (his wives, his daughters, his female slaves, etc.) with no real sense that there is something disordered/wanton in the fallen man's libido. What asceticism does exist in Islam also takes on this orientation; fasting (like that which occurs during Ramadan) is envisioned as a means of empathizing with the poor, and not as a means of conquering a fundamentally fallen, mortal nature (one which God had originally designed for immortality.)

The only exceptions to the above critiques, are to be found in Sufi Islam; however this is not a normative movement in Islam, and at various times was viewed as being heretical, with many important "Sufi sages" being persecuted and executed by their fellow Muslims. Sufism also bears distinct marks of outside influence, whether it be from old middle eastern gnostic sects, through to (most significantly) Christianity, in particular Christian monastic/ascetic practices.

I could say more, but those are basically my thoughts on Islam, and why I ultimatly could not accept it. There are other reasons, but they are relatively minor when compared to these (though still not unimportant.)

Some goodies from a fellow blogger...

2005-03-04T08:06:00.000-05:00

(both courtesy of The Gaelic Starover)

Canadians ARE NOT one of America's Enemies

Comment: Finally someone else who realizes that just because most Canadians are not keen on drinking Washington's flavour of poisoned 'Kool-Aid', does not mean they hate the American people themselves. That's an important distinction which I sincerely wish many more Americans were willing to make - the distinction between the cabal in charge of the U.S. federal government, and the "average American".

Ann Coulter: Bigot at best, genuine anti-semite at worst

(this is an excerpt: to read the offensive article in total on Coulter's official website, click here)

Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.

Comment: I've long believed that a lot of this "war on terror" business is being fueled by a great deal of racism, in particular that most kosher brand of anti-semitism (namely, the irrational and undiscriminating disdain for all Arabs.) It's actually quite an awesome spectacle, to watch just how differently the two families of cultural semites are treated: one as if it were an endangered species, the other like cockroaches (or on "charitable days", rats perhaps.) Hypothetically speaking, I wonder what would happen to Coulter's career (or anyone else's for that matter), had they written an article which read something along the lines of...

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Jew [name here] to sit within yards of the president.

I think we all know the answer to that one.

"Homos" - some thoughts

2005-03-02T13:42:00.000-05:00

(WARNING - If the title didn't getcha, you may find some parts of this posting otherwise offensive - though if you've bothered reading this blog for even a little while, you should probably be used to that by now)

In my conversation with others, I've often railed against the political definition of "homosexual", and attempts to dogmatize any one theory as to why some people "turn out gay". Basically this is because I believe that such notions, beside not corresponding to reality (read: not true), are invitations to self defeat for those who have some (or many) difficulties in this area (read: so-called "gays").

But there is another side to all of this - I sincerely believe that rigid, artificial categories like "gay" and "straight" pose all sorts of problems for so called "normal folks", the "straight" people who even if you believe the inflated/ridiculous statistics of homosexualist-activists, still make up 90% of the population.

For starters, I believe it creates an air of self righteousness, which not only causes one to be rather naive and uncompassionate toward this particular type of sinner ("gays"), but also blinds one to the real problems which are endemic to much of what the modern west regards as "normal". Even if the typical committed Christian is not as vulgar as some Busch-beer-swilling-moron still groaning over the inherent evils of "race mixin'" in his view of "homos", I'm convinced that if he takes the political categories of "gay" and "straight" too seriously, he may in fact end up being complacent with certain evils, so long as they're the "familiar kind."

Examples? Well, it's funny that those who tend to have the most to say in open criticism of "fags", are very often the ones who have the least to say about the practice of contraception in their own ranks, or the tacit acceptance of "sexual practices" which are really just a variant of sodomy. If buggering your fellow man is disordered, how is essentially indulging in the same sorts of indecencies with your wife any different? The last time I checked, there was only one female oriface which could possibly fruitfully receive the male half of the fertility equation. Yet there are a lot of Christian types (like from this website) who seem to think "so long as it's straight n' married, it's pretty much ok".

The truth of course (as Orthodox or Roman Catholic dogmatics would make sufficiently clear), is that there is a unity between sexual activity and procreation - and that it is abusive to expect to enjoy the former without being open to the latter. While to a certain degree both of the previously mentioned ecclessiastical bodies allow a certain econimia ("slack" - something less than the perfection/exactitude of the law) in some hard cases (though to be honest, in popular Roman Catholicism this isn't quite true anymore), this principle stands and is the rule by which things are measured - whether they are things done or desired by a so called "straight" or "gay" person.

Given the deluge of temptation which our society is swimming in, I also think that if we did away with artificial distinctions, many struggling "straight" Christians might have a little more sympathy (and even, gasp "tolerance") for their "gay neighbour". By this I mean, it is very tough for anyone (I think particularly for male "anyones") to be chaste in a manner appropriate to their state in life. No longer do you need to go to some seedy store in the bad part of town to get a filthy mag/movie wrapped in a brown paper bag; you, it's all just a "click away" online, or on your pay-per-view TV. Though this is perhaps more a Canadian thing (which is where I live and write from), prostitution is so common as to be a non-event - in fact it exists in all sorts of sanitized, almost respectable ways here, a price and a fix for any level of income it would seem. This is beside the more banal temptations posed by co-workers, hanging around "pagan women", etc. And even if you act on none of this, it often cannot but scar one's imagination...

The point is, this brokeness/sickness in it's basic respects is no more "gay" or "straight" than it is "blonde" or "brunette", or whatever type of fetishistic bouqet of qualities your fallen mortal psyche has latched onto. It is common to all of us, and for those who are honest (as I try to be), it can be hell. But, it is in large part a "common hell", and for that reason, perhaps grounds for some compassion. Compassion - love for the sinner, but not approval or winking at the sin...whether it be the iniquities of someone attracted to those of the same gender, or the sins of someone "into the ladies"*.

* - the female readers will have to forgive the exceedingly "male oriented" and androcentric nature of this article...but like most humans, I can only speak best about what I know or what is closest to me

Christ in the Old Testament Part I

2005-03-01T12:47:00.000-05:00

Christ In the Old Testament PART I

The Angel of the LORD

In the Old Testament, we are confronted with the enigmatic personage of the Angel of the LORD or Angel of God. Different from other instances of angelical beings, these titles are translations of Malak YHWH or Malak Elohim (which literally translate as "Messenger of YHWH" or "Messenger of God" respectivly; "angel" simply means "messenger" and can refer to any number of beings who act in that capacity.)

What is so unusual about this "Angel of the LORD" is that He not only speaks (and is spoken of) as someone "other" than "God" or "the LORD", but also speaks (and is spoken of) as God Himself. He is plainly called God by others, speaks as God, and even receives sacrifice as God. Instaces of this which I encourage you to examine at your own leisure can be found in...

Genesis 16:7-13
Exodus 3:1-6
Exodus 23:20-23
Judges 2:1-5
Judges 6:1-23

Exodus 23:20-23 is particularly interesting, since it describes this Malak Elohim as being a bearer of God's "Name". This is an important conscept, since the dwelling of "God's Name" in any given place was the Hebrew idiom for describing the presence of the Divinity. For example, Deuteronomy 12:11 describes the (then) future place of sacrifice as the place where God's 'Name' was to dwell; this denoting His presence in that place. This "Name" is held as being very sacred, as the object to which thanksgiving is directed (Psalm 140:13), and to this present day the Christian prays "hallowed be Thy Name" (Lord's Prayer; St.Matthew 6:9, St.Luke 11:2). Tellingly enough, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself describes His work as manifesting this "Name" to those elect souls whom God has chosen (St.John 17:6). In the "concrete" imagery of the Hebrews (which was quite different than the philosophical tradition of Athens which tended more toward abstraction), "the Name" simply denoted the Divine Presence, which the literal "shem" of the Hebrew Bible ("YHWH" - "He Who Is") was only a symbol of (and hence treated with a high, but still relative reverence.)

The Christian Scriptures clearly relate the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ to the "Malak YHWH" of the Old Testament. One very clear example of this is found in 1st Corinthians 10:1-9, where St.Paul states plainly that it was Christ Who accompanied the Israelites through the wilderness. This understanding was also the consensus of the Church Fathers, and is plainly represented in Orthodox Christian Iconography.

Bound to be controversial but, oh well...

2005-03-01T12:04:00.000-05:00

Thinking About Neoconservatism - By Kevin MacDonald

(excerpt)

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure. ...

Water on Mars...lots of it, actually!

2005-02-26T21:27:00.000-05:00

"I vant to go to maaahrs"

Images reveal 'sea of ice' near Mars' equator

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Images relayed by a European space probe reveal the existence of a sea of ice close to the equator of Mars, scientists said Tuesday at a conference in the Netherlands.

The existence of water or ice would significantly increase the chance microscopic life may also be found on Mars. The evidence comes from photographs - not yet published - taken last year by the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe currently orbiting the red planet.

Scientists have long theorized there was once water on Mars and data from NASA's Mars Rovers has recently appeared to confirm it. But most scientists believed the water had evaporated into the atmosphere early in the planet's history.

"The point is that the ice is very recent: it appears to still be there, covered beneath a layer of dust and ash," John Murray of Britain's Open University said in a telephone interview.

Comment: Freaky! From a Christian/theological angle, this poses some interesting possibilities. It also makes the idea of settling Mars seem like even less of a stress (since abundant supplies of water would be needed for any enclosed settlement to be able to thrive).

Raging bimbo

2005-02-26T21:08:00.000-05:00

PETA goon-ette Pam Anderson throws hissy fit over fur clad woman

(excerpt)

Pamela Anderson refused to get into a lift with a woman last week because she was wearing a fur coat.

The former 'Baywatch' babe, who is a prominent member of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was at the launch of her new fur and leather free clothing range at the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas when the incident occurred.

According to PETA spokesman Dan Mathews, who was at the lavish event, the beautiful blonde had seen ten elevators come and go. When a free car eventually arrived she refused to take it because there was a fur-lover inside.

He is quoted by America's New York Post as saying "Pam waited patiently with Dennis Rodman and Stephen Dorff as elevator after elevator went by, filled to capacity.

"When one finally stopped with two people inside, one of the women was wearing a fur coat. 'Going down?' the woman asked, to which Pam replied, 'Yes, but not with you, lady. Get rid of the fur.'" ...

Comment: To be perfectly honest, I have some misgivings about the way meat is produced for public consumption - not because I am confused about the obvious (falsely believing there to be some kind of equity between human life and animal life), but more for classically 'catholic' reasons. My "issues" over this are for the same reason classic moralists would tell you it's sinful to torture an animal - it requires a certain inhumanity and insensitivity to treat a living, feeling life form this way. I'm inclined to believe that much of modern agriculture fits under "tortuous", and all in the name of making a rich product even cheeper for an already morbidly obese society which could do with eating a few less pork roasts.

However, my concerns do not come close to the moral confusion plagueing the so called "animal rights movement", in particular the privileged white kids who swell the ranks of groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA"), whose methods are more often than not counterproductive to their stated goals (ex. I'm sure that woman in the elevator with the lovely fur coat walked away saying to herself "gee, maybe she's right...")

I also have to wonder if Pammy or the rest of these silly-bored-white-folks are equally passionate about the Pro-Life cause.

This is why (while I do not agree with it), I can at least respect the consistancy of the vegetarianism of groups like the Hare Krishnas, who are also keenly against abortion (and will tell you that it reaps the worst kind of "karma").

The real issue...

2005-02-25T16:36:00.000-05:00

"One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself." (St.Symeon of Thessaloniki, Dialogus Contra Haereses, 23, PG CLV, 120 AC - excerpted from THE PRIMACY OF PETER: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, St.Vladimir's Seminary Press 1992, page 86)

Comment: In the simplest terms, I think this is what it boils down to for all of those who have issues with the Papacy, but are not possessed by xenophobic delusions or a faith that's been inadvertantly perverted by some variety of "no Popery" Protestantism.

If the Pope of Rome were a beacon of apostolic faith, no one bearing the name "Christian" would have good reason to not be in league with him. Since any grouping of people requires someone to preside for the sake of good order (local Orthodox Churches manifest this quite clearly - as does the principle behind the episcopate itself), there is no harm in their being a "first Bishop" with rights and privileges stretching beyond those of other heirarchs.

The problem of course, is that whole "faith" thing.

I've come to a point where I have little patience for poor arguments, even if they bolster "my side". Thus, I've developed little patience for some of the poorer quality polemics (both historical and contemporary) used by some Orthodox to weigh in against contemporary Papal claims. Orthodoxy doesn't need them - the truth is not only more satisfying, but it is much simpler.

And it is precisely because of this "simple truth", so tersely explained by St.Symeon, that folks like me (at this present time) cannot view the occupants of the Papal throne as "vicars of Christ", and certainly not in a way excelling that in which all genuine, Orthodox Bishops are truly Christ's vicars.

A scathing critique of NFP as anything but economia

2005-02-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

Neo-Catholicism at Work: The Mysticism of Charting! - by Christopher A. Ferrara

(* note - NFP = Natural Family Planning; the use of means other than pills or barrier contraptions to prevent conception, all the while allowing the use of the sexual faculties within marriage)

(excerpt)

Fr. Torraco fails to explain how the use of charts and thermometers to schedule marital relations “deepens the marital bond” and “cooperat(es) with the gift of fertility.” This is one of the claims for NFP that I find ridiculous on its face. How is the marital bond deepened, how is there cooperation with the “gift of fertility,” when the whole idea of NFP is to achieve scientific precision in scheduling marital relations for those times when one’s wife is not fertile? I would like to know how a marriage is improved when a husband and wife must maintain and constantly consult a chart of cross-checked fertility indicators before entering into the marital embrace. The NFP industry has even developed a computerized fertility detector that accepts input on basal temperature and mucosal viscosity, signaling green for “marital relations may proceed” and red for “unacceptable risk of pregnancy.” What, besides revulsion, should any Catholic couple feel at the prospect of arranging their entire married life around such techniques? Natural family planning? Let us not be ridiculous. This sort of thing is about as natural as a farmer planning meticulously to sow his corn in the dead of winter, lest he end up with the burden of a harvest.

That periodic abstinence is licit in the proper case of necessity is hardly the point. The point is that this repellently technological variant of the practice is being promoted by neo-Catholic organs of opinion as a great boon to married life, and even as the norm to be desired. As noted already, the Couple to Couple League says that Catholic parents are called—called by God—to practice NFP when “Christian prudence” leads them to “conclude” that their family must remain a certain size. Parishes in the Novus Ordo now require training in NFP as a precondition for the sacrament of marriage! Another EWTN “expert,” Fr. Richard Hogan, who answers questions specifically pertaining to NFP, even dares to advise trusting souls that “it is better to have 2 or 3 children you can educate all the way than 7 or 8 you can only take so far.” [1] This monstrous teaching places the mere temporal good of an education above the infinite good of the eternal beatitude of an immortal soul, not to mention the incomparable temporal goods of loving one’s children, and being loved by them in return, whether or not they manage to obtain professional degrees. As we can see here, the neo-Catholic establishment is venturing so far into novelty that it is beginning to make the documents of Vatican II sound conservative by comparison. It is the neo-Catholic establishment, not traditionalists, that has erected a shadow Magisterium that drifts further from the faith of our fathers with each passing year. ...

Thus, with the help of graph paper and a thermometer, Catholics can not only have SPICE, but also a “truly personal relationship” with “the Triunely personal Creator” through a kind of reverse mysticism that begins with the body rather than moving beyond it. This is the “new incarnational Mysticism” of John Paul II, according to Fr. Torraco. There seems to be no end to what is new in the neo-Catholic system: a new Mass, a new ecumenism, a new “dialogue with the world,” a “new evanglization,” a “new springtime of the Holy Spirit,” a new virtue of “responsible parenthood,” and now a “new mysticism”—the mysticism of charting! And perhaps we are also in the presence of a new “sacrament”—fertility charting—to go along with the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” first revealed to neo-Catholic charismatics in 1966 at Duquesne University. [3] That would bring the number of channels of grace in the neo-Catholic system to nine, as opposed to the paltry seven sacraments of the preconciliar Church. (Incidentally, I have no idea how charting fertility cycles could be a “means of evangelization.” It seems to me that any prospective convert who is “evangelized” with charts of basal temperature and secretions would think that Catholics belong to some kind of icky, body-obsessed cult.)

Comment: The article presents a view which in it's basics is similar to my own - only that I am inclined to believe that in so far as NFP is "tolerable" in "hard cases" as a lesser evil, so too would be certain forms of "artificial" contraception. It's not something which sits very well with me, but there is a lot that we as human beings do (myself included) which I'm not comfortable with. And that is how it should be - something that is tolerated is not supposed to be comfortable.

Whoah...

2005-02-25T11:45:00.000-05:00

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terri-ble castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of de-voted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly call-ing of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is vis-iting His most dreadful wrath upon them." - St.John Eudes

These people are nucking futs...

2005-02-24T13:50:00.000-05:00

the 'Rapture Ready' website

Comment: Here's a sampling of the thought/religion of the whackjob sheople being used by the Bushies/neo-cons as a power base in the U.S.A. Of course theyr'e all on board - they want all hell to break loose. Why? Because that means that 'Jeebus' (as opposed to the Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ) will come, rapture them to safety, and leave everyone else to suffer the agonies of the anti-Christ. And how do they know this? Because the 'Babble' told 'em so (as opposed to the Holy Scriptures.)

Frankly, deep down I think these people may just get what they want - save the rapture part (since according to the Scriptures when the anti-Christ does arrive, he will persecute and martyr any who profess the Holy Name - a little hard if all such souls were 'raptured' away, donchathank?). Boy, that'll be one big let down...

Minion of the anti-Christ
just got done with a fundagelical!
(I always thought there was something
sinister about the Smurfs!)

Also, I found it funny that their site goes on a screed against Catholicism, all the while featuring a gigantic advert for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ on their homepage - a film which is essentially a journey into traditionalist Roman Catholic piety, and perhaps the most elaborate 'Passion Play' to be ever put on film. Silly fundies...

Whoring history for Uncle Same...err...Sam.

2005-02-24T13:28:00.000-05:00

Hollywood's dirty little secret

(excerpt)

It's the scripts that pay a high price when Hollywood goes into battle. Brian Courtis looks at one of the movie world’s murkier truths.

Well, we've known the rules. We've known them since Errol Flynn liberated Burma without any help from British, Australian or New Zealand forces. Churchill and a few Diggers may have been upset, but the fact is when it comes to Hollywood only the good guys win and, since we're playing with their toys, those good guys must inevitably be Americans. Never let the absurdities of history get in the way of a box-office blockbuster.

They really do not want to discuss this, of course, in Tinseltown. They still see only their heroes and our villains. And they continue to win everything alone. Remember Steven Spielberg's D-Day spectacular Saving Private Ryan? Someone simply forgot that 72,000 British and Canadian troops were also involved. And if Hollywood is to be believed, it was the Americans who captured the Enigma coding machine from a German submarine; never mind that the Brits were there and accomplished that six months before the Yanks entered the war.

Not everything has been quite so eagerly promoted. We hear less, for instance, about the effects of the powerful relationship that has grown over the years between the Pentagon and the Hollywood studios, a partnership that not only can save millions of dollars for filmmakers and produce fine recruiting propaganda for Washington, but can twist history and reality to produce the ultimate in international spin.

In Operation Hollywood, which SBS screens on Tuesday, filmmaker Emilio Pacull follows up an investigative study by film industry journalist Dave Robb on the help producers have sought from the military over the years. Robb, who worked for Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, says he found himself obsessed with the minutiae of these negotiations with the boys with ships, tanks, materiel, information, bases, access to land, troops and some very real-looking fireworks. ...

In the 1995 James Bond movie Goldeneye, for example, the original script had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets. This was changed to make the traitor a member of the French navy. After that the military's co-operation was forthcoming. Pacull and Robb takes us from the pedantry to the powerful in examining the changes to scripts. They list the producers and the movies that have fallen into line and show how the military's script editors work. Interestingly, it's not the censors who come under fire here quite so much as those co-operative, self-censoring filmmakers. ...

Just what we needed...

2005-02-24T13:15:00.000-05:00

Russian scientists invent pill that will keep you drunk-ass-drunk

(excerpt)

The makers of RU-21, the "miracle" hangover cure reputedly developed for Soviet spies, have developed a product to keep you drunk.

Spirit Sciences, which is based in California but has research facilities in Russia employing scientists who once worked on secret programmes for the Kremlin, have christened the new product RU-21 Red.

If you take a tablet you need less alcohol to stay drunk, they claim. Emil Chiabery, a co-founder of the company, told The Telegraph from his offices in Los Angeles: "I never drink and there's no personal story. But RU-21 Red prolongs drunkenness and enhances intoxication.''

Comment: This might have appealed to me when I was 17, but now just the thought of accute inebriation makes me feel ill. I'll take a "mild buzz" in a comfortable chair with a good American cigarette (or a clove) and stimulating reading material over being sloshed in some noisy bar/club filled with obnoxious noisy people and their obnoxious noisy personalities any day. Being thrilled by "the scene" and it's excesses is a fascination for the juvenile, IMHO...thankfully one I outgrew quickly and fairly early.

There was no need for World War II

2005-02-24T12:53:00.000-05:00

There Was No Need For World War II - by Alex S. Perry, Jr

(excerpt)

There was no need for World War II. Adolf Hitler was doing everything he could to come to peace terms with Britain, but Winston Churchill would not have it. Churchill knew of the many peace offers coming from the German government. He knew that neither Hitler nor any other Nazi leaders wanted to fight Britain. ...

The peace offer Hitler had in mind, if Britain would assume a neutral position, was such an astounding offer that Herbert Hoover, when he was told of Hitler's terms from Ambassador Kennedy, gasped: "Why didn't the British accept?" "Nothing but Churchill's bullheadedness," replied Kennedy.7 Kennedy's statement was enough to condemn Churchill as a war criminal.

At the height of Hitler's power, the German chancellor offered to withdraw from France, Denmark and Norway.8 He proposed to roll back his army without a shot being fired. He would make peace with England even if England would not agree to return the German colonies, which Britain had taken from Germany at the end of World War I.9

Hitler did not want war. He was so against war that he said it would not do Germany any good, even if Germany won the war, as war would put an end to all his plans. "Hitler was not thinking of war," Albert Forster, 36-year-old district leader of Danzig, told Churchill, as "the Führer's immense social and cultural plans would take years to fulfill."10

Comment: This article could have just as easily have been called "How History is Written by the Victors". The article more or less summarizes my basic views on the second world war, and to an extent, the reality of the Nazi regime (as opposed to the mania of modern times, in which Hitler has been made to fill the place of satan in the secular pantheon/mythos - a position which would have been far better filled by our 'Ally' Josef Stalin for what it's worth.) Since I'm am generally opposed to "state-ism", fascism is obviously not my cup of tea, nor is the neo-pagan/idol-of-nationalism spirit which imbued German fascism in particular.

Another attempt to explain the mystery of consciousness

2005-02-24T12:24:00.000-05:00

Wider Than the Sky: the Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness - Reviewed by Scott D. O’Reilly

Comment: While I'm not surprised at the glowing appraisal of this new book (given that the author of the review is written by a secular humanist, and featured in a sometimes nauseatingly liberal publication), I won't deny that the author (Gerald M. Edelman) doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say. I would deny though that what he does say, sheds any light on the nature of consciousness itself.

I've noticed that when authors/researchers possessed by fundamentally materialistic assumptions (and don't you forget that this is all that they are - they may be a part of the zeitgeist of the modern west, or at least western academia - but that doesn't not make them any less assumed/prejudicial) tackle this issue, they ultimatly end up doing everything but "explain consciousness", or even put a dent into the side of the great behemoth of a mystery. What they actually end up doing, more or less, is discuss the relationship of the body to said mystery. I'm disappointed that so few (in particular the ones doing the postulating) ever give an indication of realizing this.

Consciousness is a fundamentally "non-material" reality. It defies the normal categories we assign to material things. Yes, it interacts with matter - it is even affected by it (profoundly so)...but the very "act" of being human should make it quite clear, on an experiential level, that the reality "as it is", is not material.

For my money, the most satisfactory discussion of the soul (which is ultimatly what we're talking about here) is to be found in the well drawn arguments of St.Thomas Aquinas, who identifies the soul as being the form of the body. This avoids the unsatisfactory "ghost in the machine" type thinking which so obviously becomes problematic when we contemplate the radical effect that our physical health can have on our mental/spiritual health, yet does not cede what is fundamentally non-material to the realm of gross matter either. Unlike modern materialistic theories, where St.Thomas' excells, is that it does not treat the question of "why" as if it were irrelevent to understanding. If anything, to teach that things have "substance" and "form", is fundamentally to assert that they are not haphazard, and have purpose - a purpose both within them, but also that preceedes their coming into existance.

Aquinas' outlook on this topic is as elegant as it is logical, and as mentioned before, squares perfectly with scientific observation (ex. sleep and brain trauma, for example, can affect how the potential of the soul can be realized - this is similar to the reason why infants can be considered truly human, while not manifesting all of the qualities of culture and consciousness we associate with being human). The only "stumbling block" it poses, are for those who for one reason or another, find themselves in the condition of foolishness.

I kind of figured this was going to happen...

2005-02-24T11:09:00.000-05:00

Pope back to hospital after relapse: Vatican

Comment: Politcal handlers everywhere have a tendency to understate the gravity of their boss's health problems, and the Pope is no exception. I kind of figured we'd see him back in the hospital (unfortunately.)

This Canucklehead says NO THANKS!

2005-02-23T11:04:00.000-05:00

Group Looks At North America To Become One Country

(excerpt)

OTTAWA—An influential tri-national panel has considered a raft of bold proposals for an integrated North America, including a continental customs union, single passport and contiguous security perimeter.

According to a confidential internal summary from the first of three meetings of the Task Force on the Future of North America, discussions also broached the possibility of lifting trade exemptions on cultural goods and Canadian water exports. ...

Members said the task force's final report this spring will focus on "achievable" rather than simply academic questions like that of a single North American currency.

Nevertheless, the initial debates prompted a sharp reaction from trade skeptics and nationalist groups like the Council of Canadians, who fear business leaders and the politically connected are concocting plans to cede important areas of sovereignty at the behest of American business interests. ...

"What they envisage is a new North American reality with one passport, one immigration and refugee policy, one security regime, one foreign policy, one common set of environmental, health and safety standards ... a brand name that will be sold to school kids, all based on the interests and the needs of the U.S.," she said. ...

Comment: Unfortunately, all of this is probably inevitable. Oh yeah, and here is the official website of the Council of Canadians.

...and yet more on Thompson...

2005-02-22T12:29:00.000-05:00

Hunter S. Thompson bio piece

(excerpt)

While to the general public Thompson is often portrayed as a subversive, drug-addled novelist, the truth is that he is and always was a sports writer (as well as a self-proclaimed political addict). And his road to literary success, like most authors/journalists, was a crevice-filled journey to say the least.

Thompson abilities as a writer and, more importantly, as a ruthless con man were evident early in his life. He was born July 18, 1937 in Louisville, Kentucky. As a youth, he had several run-ins with the law but was regarded as brilliant by his high school English teacher. Even then he wrote in a sardonic style and constantly attacked the status quo.

After graduating (which he did while in a jail cell, serving a six-week sentence for robbery while the rest of his fellow graduates were receiving their diplomas), Thompson enlisted in the Air Force and graduated from Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois. In 1956, he was assigned to Eglin Air Proving Ground in Pensacola, Florida. Eglin was where he first began in the field of journalism.

When he arrived, he discovered that the base's newspaper, the Command Courier, was looking for a sports editor. Since he didn't really fit in with armed forces "lifestyle", Thompson conned his way into the position by claiming to have a journalistic background. As Thompson wrote at the time, "The people who hired me didn't bother to check too closely on my journalistic background ... I've managed to keep them in safe ignorance for about a month now." ...

2003 political piece from Salon.com - Thompson on the "New America"

(excerpt)

Feb. 3, 2003 | He calls himself "an elderly dope fiend living out in the wilderness," but Hunter S. Thompson will also be found this week on the New York Times bestseller list with a new memoir, "Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century."

Listening to his ragged voice, there is some sense that Thompson, now 65, has reined in his outlaw ways, gotten a little softer, perhaps a little more gracious now that he's reached retirement age. "I've found you can deal with the system a lot easier if you use their rules," he says. "I talk to a lot of lawyers."

But do not be deceived. In "Kingdom of Fear" and in a telephone interview with Salon from his compound in Aspen, Colo., Thompson did what he's always done: speak the truth about American society as he sees it, without worrying much about decorum. "Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?" he writes, referring to the people currently occupying the White House. "They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis."

That's his enduring attitude in this new age of darkness: a lot more loathing than fear.

The godfather of gonzo believes America has suffered a "nationwide nervous breakdown" since 9/11, and as a result is compromising civil liberties for what he calls "the illusion of security." The compromise, he says, is "a disaster of unthinkable proportions" and "part of the downward spiral of dumbness" he believes is plaguing the country. ...

Perhaps Thompson's most disturbing charge is aimed at the American people -- only half of whom exercise their right to vote. "The oligarchy doesn't need an educated public. And maybe the nation does prefer tyranny," he says. "I think that's what worries me."

In the end, however, Thompson is not and has never been that easy to pigeonhole. He's friends with Pat Buchanan and has a lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association. In his own mind, if not in others', he is "one of the most patriotic people I've ever encountered in America."

Interesting "eulogy" article from liberal anti-war publication, Intervention Magazine

(Comment: While I believe the article makes some interesting points, I find the article's (probably satirical) portrayal of "God's wrath for the 'red state-ers' to be a little selective in it's observations. Not that I totally deny such a possibility out of hand - rather, I think AIDS/rampant-STDS, broken homes, nihilistic youth, and a couple of airplanes smacking into a mecca of American commerce are equally good candidates for manifestations of "God's wrath" - and can hardly be portrayed as being measures taking aim primarily at (granted, misguided/ignorant/foolish) American "conservatives" of the "fundigelical" variety.)

More on the late Hunter S. Thompson...

2005-02-22T11:02:00.000-05:00

Hunter S. Thompson, Outlaw Journalist, Is Dead at 67

Serge of 'A Conservative Blog for Peace' made an interesting comment yesterday about the affinity between the "gonzo journalism" of Thompson and the whole weblog phenomenon. I found it interesting that the same idea was mirrored in the above article...

Yet his early work presaged some of the fundamental changes that have rocked journalism today. Mr. Thompson's approach in many ways mirrors the style of modern-day bloggers, those self-styled social commentators who blend news, opinion and personal experience on Internet postings. Like bloggers, Mr. Thompson built his case for the state of America around the framework of his personal views and opinions.

Catholicism & Priorities

2005-02-21T13:58:00.000-05:00

I have to head off to bed soon (night-shift work 'n all), so I will try to keep this brief.

I have noticed that many Roman Catholic polemics against Orthodox Christianity make much of the following two topics...

- Orthodox allowances for ecclessiastical divorce/remarriage under certain circumstances
- The allowance under some circumstances for the use of artificial contraceptives by married couples, in consultation with their confessor

I will not bother getting into a defense of either of these practices, it's been done elsewhere. In fact on the second point in particular, I feel that certain Orthodox juristictions (or at least many of the clergy in them, at least here in the west) take a far too indulgent/lenient position on the matter.

What I would like to comment on, is an issue of priorities.

No matter how you slice it (and even those bishops/clergy in Orthodoxy of the most "permissive" persuasion would freely admit this), the allowance of divorce/contraception is far from the "Christian ideal" and is an obvious concession to human weakness. No arguments from me on this point.

Yet, if you listen to papal apologists, this is the "death blow" to Orthodox claims to 'catholicity' and genuine 'apostolicity' in matters of faith & morals. It is almost as if, once made aware of the typical Orthodox take on these subjects (which is actually not totally monolithic...but that's another posting unto itself), we should view it as a deal breaker - as if we are all to cry "that's it, forget Orthodoxy...time to pack our bags, move to Rome."

But...

Last time I checked, the commandments of the Decalogue which pertain to sexuality ranked 6th and 9th by Latin reckoning - where as the "top three" pertain to the glorification and honouring of God.

Also, last time I checked, no matter how "laid back" the parish, this is about as "slouchy" as things are ever going to get in an Orthodox parish...

Antiochian liberals!

OTOH, this is hardly uncommon in the "Roman Catholic scene"...

These are "nuns" if you can believe it...

This is not to say any of the commandments are dispensible...hardly. I just have a hard time buying unarguable "in communion with Rome sacrelige" over highly debatable "schismatic" Eastern Orthodox "sexual permissivness" (sic).

Hunter S. Thompson RIP

2005-02-21T07:52:00.000-05:00

Hunter S. Thompson
1937-2005

'Gonzo' writer Hunter S. Thompson found dead

(excerpt)

Hunter S. Thompson, the prominent countercultural writer who personified "gonzo journalism," has been found dead.

He apparently died of a gunshot wound. Police do not suspect foul play.

It happened Sunday evening at his home near Aspen, Colorado. Thompson was 67. His wife Anita was not home at the time.

"Hunter prized his privacy and we ask that his friends and admirers respect that privacy as well as that of his family," his only son Juan Thompson said in a statement released to the Aspen Daily News. Juan found the body. ...

Comment: I've long regarded Thompson (as a personality and author - though arguably the two are inseperable since most of what he wrote was at least semi-autobiographical) as one of my "guilty pleasures"; "guilty" precisely because of the excess which filled his entire adult life, and which in so many respects this excess became part of his work.

Frankly, I'm surprised he lived to reach the age of 67, given that his daily routine involved the use and abuse of an assortment of spirits and narcotics. Though it's too early to say exactly how he died, suicide seems to be a strong possibility - however, this may not be the case, given that Thompson was a lifelong gun enthusiast, and it's entirely possible he accidentally shot himself while "under the influence." In any case, this is sad news for me; I can only hope for the best for Mr.Thompson (spiritually speaking), but admittedly (a rhetoric of being "non-judgemental" aside) I cannot help but be pessimistic about his prospects. Lord have mercy...

Buggery abounds...

2005-02-19T21:29:00.000-05:00

Sex and fraud woe for Greek church - Embattled Orthodox archbishop calls emergency meeting and asks for forgiveness over lurid claims

(excerpt)

Greece's Orthodox church, buffeted by sex and corruption scandals, met in emergency session yesterday amid lurid claims that have included one newspaper publishing photographs of a 91-year-old bishop naked in bed with a nubile young woman. ...

The alleged debauchery has not been limited to monastic cells. Last week, claims emerged that Metropolitan Theoklitos of Thessaly, a leading churchman, had been arrested on suspicion of drug dealing in a police raid on a notorious nightclub in Athens.

The priest was reportedly rounded up with Seraphim Koulousousas, the archbishop's former private secretary, also implicated in another "unholy affair" involving gay sex with a bishop.

In a setback for Archbishop Christodoulos, Mr Koulousousas announced this week that he was leaving the church to embark on a career as a fashion designer in Paris. ...

It would seem the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on sex scandals these days. :-(

Interesting thread @ OrthodoxChristianity.net

2005-02-19T19:28:00.000-05:00

Racism/Xenophobia is not a uniquely "white" problem

Too often guilt ridden white folks (which I can't really consider myself to be totally, given my own mixed heritage) labour under the false impression that "racism" is a problem unique to them, or which they are inordinantly guilty of. This is hardly the case, as my own experience indicates, as does the posting I've provided the link to.

The reality is that people tend to fear that which is not familiar, and on the flip side, mistakenly believe their shit doesn't stink. This xenophobia wedded to egotism, is the real root of all sorts of nasty social phenomena, including the particular form we in the west call "racism." This is not a justification, not in the least - it's simply an observation of fallen human nature, and that this "falleness" knows no borders. We only tend to think it's a uniquely "white" problem because of the political climate here, and (on a slightly conspiratorial note) there is a concerted attempt by certain interests to not so much "destroy the white race", as to destroy the value system and cultural/religious identity born by those who we classify as "white."

My thoughts on Papal Infallibility/Authority in brief.

2005-02-17T15:11:00.000-05:00

Basically Papal Infallibility, "Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope", etc., IMHO are ideas that have not demonstrated themselve sufficiently, at least as they are commonly understood and/or defined.

If by either of these we are to understand...

- that being "with" and "under" the Pope, only jumping through his hoops, etc., is always essential or even a good thing...
- or that doing such for those heirarchs in his communion is always essential or even a good thing...

...then they are clearly erroneous. Frankly, in most circumstances (at least here in the west), you're more than likely to end up with a "catholic" mindset, if you avoid the "official Vatican franchises" in the form of your local parish, and opt for something else. I'm speaking simply here, not even bothering to get into the complexities of dogmatic disagreements which separate the various "high church" groups all claiming the mantle of "catholicity" (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.)


In communion with Rome	Not in communion with Rome*

Personally, I'm persuaded by the Orthodox view. While I'll always have fond sentiments of my days in the traditionalist Roman Catholic movement (namely in a local SSPX chapel, and having visited other chapels of theirs, including the American SSPX seminary in Winona), I'm convinced that for all of it's problems the Orthodox Church represents the "straight and narrow", and where the Latin Church has to go (or perhaps come back to?) in the future if it is to have a future. In perspective, I think many of the Roman Catholic Church's woes are a result of losing touch with what Orthodoxy still has. This is not to say Orthodoxy is free of problems of it's own - hardly. But "the faith" is, thankfully, not really** one of them.

* Before anyone starts screaching at me about being ignorant of the Insult/Idult Tridentine Mass, let me say, yes I know they exist. But frankly, it gives me no comfort when tradition and genuine catholicity is accorded "ghetto" status by the men at the top. Besides, just try finding one outside of a major metropolitan area, or an area that did not have an SSPX chapel first (this being one of the main reasons why Latin Bishops will even bite the bullet and let the likes of the "Fraternity of St.Peter" into their diocese - precisely because an SSPX chapel has taken residence in their stomping ground.)

** While I've encountered some suspect stuff coming from Orthodox mouthpieces, in general this is the anomaly - and it definately is once you leave western "academic Orthodoxy" behind, and look to the parishes. Of course, there is a form of what I've come to call "Chicken Little Orthodoxy" out there which see's damnable heresy everywhere - but that's another matter entirely (which unfortunately I have some personal familiarity with), and beyond the scope of this posting.

Homo Sapien Fossils older than previously thought

2005-02-17T08:57:00.000-05:00

Oldest Humans Just Got Older -- by 35,000 Years - By Jeremy Lovell

(excerpt)

Two Homo sapiens skulls, originally dated as 130,000 years old when they were unearthed in Kibish, Ethiopia in 1967, then later put back to 160,000, have now been declared 195,000 years old based on geological evidence. ...

The new dating firmly underpins the "out of Africa" theory of the origin of modern humans.

Brown said the redating was important culturally because it pushed back the known dawn of mankind, the record of which in most cases only starts 50,000 years ago.

"Which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music, needles, even tools," he said.[emphasis mine] ...

Comment: Without getting into any disputes over the dating of the fossils themselves, the comment of Dean Frank Brown regarding "150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff" makes me wonder - can we really be talking about true "homo sapiens" (as in human beings) here? Nowhere on earth, can you observe humans (no matter how primitive their conditions - and there are still tribal groups left who we would classify as being "stone age" in their level of technological sophistication) with "no culture" and it's related artifacts. While the beings whose fossils are being discussed here may be anatomically "modern humans", everything else about them sounds anything but human.

This would all seem to lend creedence to the idea (supported by archaeological evidence) that civilization originated not in Africa but in Mesopotamia, and the teaching of sacred scripture, that the first "true man" also originated there, emerging from the mystical Paradise of Eden.

That there may have been biologically "modern" humanoids prior to Adam would make sense of a long standing Biblical enigma - the question of where Cain (got his wife from? (Genesis 4:16-17) After being banished from the land of his parents (in which was manifested the "presence of the LORD"), he went into the "land of Nod" and is said to have begotten children with his wife - well, where did she come from, given that she is not mentioned previously, and since the narrative gives the impression that Cain was made to wander on his own. However, to be fair to other views, it is possible that Cain had a wife (a sister) already when he was banished, and simply took her along with him.

If the pre-Adamite "biologically modern" humanoid view is true though, it does create the problem of being potentially racist; it could support the idea that there are peoples who are not really human. The only rebuttal to such a view that I could think of, would be that no such "non-humans" remain any more, being assimilated by now by the "Adamites"; something demonstrated by the fact that no such "a-cultural" humanoids exist anymore. Though, this idea could still be misused by people, as I could see an argument being made about "purer" strains of "Adamites", where as others are "diluted" to some degree.

Just thinking out loud is all... I'm not committing myself to any of these ideas.