Hellow again...

Hi guys. Sorry I haven't posted to this blog in a very long time... I have been rather busy lately and it has had to take the back seat for a while.

Anyway, lately I have been wondering whether or not to buy the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I recently found a very interesting review on Amazon.com which pretty much covers my belief on the subject of "The God Delusion". Have a read of the review here.

I am starting to think whether the book is not worth spending the money on... I'm not sure. I thought it could be an interesting read anyway, but I have a suspicious feeling I am going to be disappointed realising Dawkins has nothing new to say on the subject... it is a very old discussion after all.

Random Thought for Today

"University" is quite an interesting word... is what I thought today, as I was cleaning up after my lunch. University... it sounds like it should be related to the "universe" in some way - university, universal, universeness, universia, universism, universige etc. I'm glad they didn't pick any of these words though, University is definitely the best out of that lot. Apparently the word comes from the Latin word universitas meaning "the whole". The Whole is a rather "universal" phrase, in the sense that it is related to the word "universe".

Then I thought, could it be that I, by studying at "University", am becoming more in touch with the universe? 'Tis an intriguing thought... considering that most of the time I'm there I feel like I'm in my own world. Maybe university is meant to get you in touch with your own "universe", and by gaining all this extra knowledge you diversify this "universe" with the goal of making it totally self-sufficient so that it can survive in isolation from all the other "universes". So basically university, whether you like it or not, teaches you the art of antisocialism. It is a conspiracy…

On that note, I'm not going to BP tonight so if you're planning on going don't bother looking for me, worrying about me or shedding a tear for me. I will be studying at home, rolling in the dangerous web of antisocialism...

A Brilliant Cause

In February 2006 at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), Dr. Larry Brilliant raised the issue of pandemic diseases and how we can wipe them off the face of the planet. He calls for global cooperation to seeking early detection and early response to all pandemics. He stresses that the only way of dealing with the new diseases - Smallpox, blindness, poliomyelitis, and bird flu etc - is to find them early and kill them before they spread.

His wish is to find a global early-warning system to protect the world from these sicknesses, and his proposed solution to is INSTEDD (International System for Total Early Disease Detection). It is an Internet based web-crawling system that will detect the smallest signs of a potential epidemic spread or suspicious symptoms in every area of the world, in 70 different languages or more! "Instead of a system that is owned by a government, lets find an early detection system that is freely available to anyone in the world in their own language" says Brilliant. "Let's make it transparent, non-governmental, not owned by any single country or company, housed in a neutral country with redundant back up and a different time zone, and a different continent… We’ll grow it as a moral force in the world, finding out those horrible things before anybody knows about them, and sending our response to them.”

Dr. Larry Brilliant won the 2006 TED Prize for this amazing project that will potentially transform the ways in which each country will interact with one another, and will step by step begin to make the world a safer place to live.

Check out his TED presentation for your self here, it’s definitely worth watching. Also you can take part in supporting this project by contacting TED at tedprize@ted.com.

The Spiritual Aspect of Music

This topic is so huge that it would be impossible to do it justice without exceeding at least 1500 words so I decided that I’m going to just throw out numerous ideas and hopefully get a discussion happening.

“Is music spiritual?” was the question that was raised when talking with a close friend of mine a few days ago. Can music have a negative or positive effect on people in a spiritual way, and can it be helped? Back in the 1970s, when Christians were far more conservative and legalistic, rock music was a “no-no” for Christians. Among the Christian circles, Rock music was thought of as evil music that would turn people away from Christ. However, if someone were to believe that today, that person would either be considered old-fashioned, outrageous or backward. The fact is, when it comes to judging certain music as having a good or bad influence on someone spiritually, it is not as clear-cut as some people make it out to be.

In discussing this it is important to know that Lucifer (Satan) was skilled in music. Thus it is reasonable to consider that he can use it as a tool for deception. Here are a few Biblical references to Lucifer’s relation to music. Ezekiel 28:13 (KJV) says:

“the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”

In that passage we see that God created Lucifer as a rather musical being, talented at the “tambourines” and “flutes” as the NIV Bible puts it. Also in Isaiah 14:11 (KJV), whilst describing Lucifer’s fall, it states:

“Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.”

The Living Bible translation of this passage reads:

“Your might and power are gone; they are buried with you. All the pleasant music in your palace has ceased; now maggots are your sheet, worms your blanket.”

Theologians have come to assume that Lucifer, before the fall, lead the other angels in glorifying and worshipping God through music, since he had authority in heaven as a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14). Gregory B. Dill, a student of theology at Tyndale Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas, after thoroughly studying the previously mentioned passages, he states, “Music, I believe, has a twofold purpose. To glorify God or not, it’s as simple as that. As we have seen, music was initially created for that purpose up until Satan’s rebellion. What he has done with music from that point on becomes a whole other issue.” (source)

I would consider music to be a vessel for spiritual activity, however, the effect it can have on someone, in my opinion, whether it be negative or positive, depends on how the person relates to it, or how involved that person allows himself to become. We know that the divinity of music was not affected by Lucifer’s fall as it has been used to glorify God before, and ever since. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where music embodies the evil desires of people such as hate, murder, sexual immoralities and suicide, but how much this has an effect on someone is determined by how much they let it effect them, much like any other temptation the devil uses to corrupt us. Could it be though, that the devil may be extra cunning in the way he deceives people through music, since it is in his area of expertise? It maybe for this very reason that Christians became so cautious of such music that sounded like they may have been inspired by negative emotions. In this case religious legalism can be seen as wise discernment, but is it necessary to go so far as to avoid a certain style of music all together? Can music affect our character without us being aware of it? If so should we not be more careful when choosing which music to listen to? Is it not only wise to let our choices be guided by our understanding of the consequences?

Music has the power to emphasize certain situations dramatically, with its incredible ability to stir up emotion. Almost every Hollywood movie would not survive without the emotional enhancement the music brings to each scene (with the exception of Castaway). There is no doubt that music has an incredible power of affecting people emotionally. Judas Priest, a Heavy Metal band from the 1980s, was accused many times for the number of incidents where their fans committed suicide as a result of listening to their music. Another interesting question is, why does it take a certain type of person to proudly blast Eminem on their car stereo for everyone to hear?

How are we to judge certain types of music as being healthy or unhealthy? Can music be called evil or divine? If so, in what context can it be described as evil? Can the text (lyrics) make a song good or evil? Is there such a thing as evil instrumental music? Are there certain types of music we should be cautious of, or even avoid? Some Christians claim that they can see God’s beauty in the music of Tool (who’s drummer, Danny Carey, practices astral projection, and sets his drums up in the shape of a pentagram every time he plays – a band I would consider as being heavily involved in the occult). Is this healthy? Would God speak through music that was not written to glorify Him?

What are your views on the spiritual aspect of music?

Blasphemous Entertainment

I found this Street Fighter-style Bible game where you choose a Bible character and fight against another. While this game is entertaining at first, it is pretty borderline blasphemous (in my opinion)... I have to say playing Jesus was too much for me. My sense of guilt overcame me and I had to stop. I think I'll be doing some serious repenting tonight...

In spite of all my shame I can't help but share the game with you. As much as this would be making a brother stumble, it would be a waste to not mention it at all (besides it was quite a find!).

Bible Fight

Note: apparently there's a cheat code that enables you to play as God! ... don't do it.

A Very Sad Attempt

This debate was mentioned at the Think Christian website. It interested me enough that I decided to check it out for myself at YouTube. The result was a rather disappointing one. I was not impressed with either side of the argument. I found it to be a very sad and unimportant attempt at debating the "big question". My first disappointment was the embarrassingly obvious flaws that I found in the points raised by the Christians: Ray Comfort using the "a painting has a painter" analogy as "evidence" of creation, when he could've saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he had presented it as a humble theory, and the weak and irrational attempt by Kirk Cameron at trying to disprove evolution (the crocoduck??? what the... !?). This way of explaining the "flaws" of the evolution theory is probably better suited to primary school kids. It is interesting how Cameron mentions that he "used to be" an Atheist and an Evolutionist, which implies that since he became a Christian he was enlightened to the Creationist theory... perhaps not so wise. What bothers me the most, actually, is the fact that Ray Comfort says before the debate in all confidence, "it is easy to prove God's existence... it can be done without the need of faith", well done there Mr. Comfort. Where did he find the courage to say something so bold when no one in history has ever been able to "prove" God's existence? I would like to have commended him for his courage but I really can't see it as anything other than mere stupidity. Proof is not the answer here - it is faith. Even non-believers know that Christianity is based on faith, so why go changing the message (1 Timothy 6:20-21)?

My disappointment, though, does not end with the Christians’ argument. The Atheists, in my opinion, did just as poor a job as their opposition in their attempt to argue plausibly. Their first claim was that we were all born Atheists and that we had to be taught to believe in God. While this is partly true the Bible never claims that we were born with knowledge of God. We must be taught to believe in God just as much as we needed to be taught to understand science, which apparently makes the God idea seem irrational. This merely exposes their world view and does not disprove God's existence. Just because we had to be taught that the "black hole" exists doesn't mean it was all made up, only the scientists really know whether it is there or not. In this same way it is unreasonable for a non-believer to claim that God doesn't exist when the believers claim that they have had an encounter with God. The other mistake on their part was the fact that they let their anger and frustration drive the argument (which is often what happens in these debates). This turns the argument into a personal issue rather than a rational, factual and level-headed presentation of their rebuttal. While the Christians presented ridiculous “signs of proof”, the Atheists became emotionally charged, they certainly did project a considerable amount of hatred towards someone they claim to not exist: “I’d rather go to hell than go to heaven and worship a megalomaniacal tyrant.” Kelly states in her conclusion that it is totally illogical to believe that God exists, however, she never proved that God doesn't exist, therefore only underlines her choice of belief. It isn't obvious that the Bible isn't true (contrary to Brian's claim that it is), and vice versa, that is one of the silliest statements that can ever be made.

A very futile argument and a big waste of time… but that's the nature of "good TV" I guess. They just don't know, and they should both admit it, so that people can make their own decisions. Whether we like it or not, the issue comes down to faith.

The original YouTube clip that I saw has been deleted but you can still check it out at the official ABC News website. The video is on the top right hand corner of the screen. This version is quite long though (approx 45-50mins - with ads!). It is possible to skip chapters if you lose patience.

Here’s another laughable debate. This time I have great respect for Richard Dawkins to not get fired up, when he had a perfect right to. Why is it that Bill O’Reilly, when he’s the interviewer, does most of the talking? O’Reilly hardly gives enough time for Dawkins to present his argument. This is probably because O’Reilly knows that he will get absolutely wasted by Dawkins’ superior intellect. The arrogance of O’Reilly is appalling, well done to Dawkins for keeping the respect.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Am I Too Serious?

I was thinking about why I find it so difficult to write a humorous article. My first conclusion was that I am just not a funny person, which is, to an extent, probably true (I’ll let the people who know me to judge that one), however, I also thought about how I get really frustrated with people that do not know when to be serious… I have a friend that I have come to know quite closely over the past 5 years or so who was just that type of person: a person who did not know when to be serious – or should I say, he didn’t know when I wanted him to shut the (insert your choice of word here) up – his jokes/silliness quickly lost it’s humorous effect and became pure annoyance. Him and me are still good friends, though, I can only handle him in small doses.

Maybe the fact that I have a limited amount of tolerance for silliness ties in with my value for productiveness. I am by no means the most productive person I know, some people I know may class me as the opposite. I can be quite lazy sometimes, but I get frustrated if nothing seems to be getting done, when something obviously needs to be. I get frustrated when a substantial amount of time, effort and patience is put into something only to find that it comes to nothing.

My understanding is that only serious things have a lasting effect. Jokes get old until it eventually has no value, while serious subjects such as religion and philosophy (just as an example) will be discussed for centuries and get recorded in academic journals for others to examine in the future. Some may argue that good times with jokes and laughter, and fun with friends become memories of ultimate value, or the humorous character in a person finds its irreplaceable value in bringing entertainment and joy. While these are true, only when one can acknowledge it seriously as a necessity in human nature to have these things can it ever find its true value. In other words, the only way to find value in something is by taking it seriously.

Another friend of mine once mentioned to me that he gets disgusted with people who over value their own opinion, especially when a non-intellectual tries to come across as an intellectual. I hope he wasn’t referring to me when he made that statement, however, I cannot class myself as one or the other, that is not for me to judge, besides by what measure can one determine an intellectual? Does one have to be well educated with a certain strength in math or a similar academic subject? Does one have to speak well, with a wide vocabulary? Or does one only have to have good common sense and an ability to argue with substantial reason? Is there really a universal requirement to gain such a classification or is it measured against the judge’s own intellect? If so what does that say about the judge? Does he class himself as an intellectual?

Anyway, basically my point on writing this post was not to take a dig at my two friends but to seriously examine myself, and yes, I want you to take part in this examination and make your judgement, that is why I posted this on the internet (not really). As far as humour goes, in person I am one that enjoys a good joke, however, I find it hard to have respect for someone that only knows how to joke and cannot have a serious conversation. I get tired of these characters. I have a need for good dialogue from time to time.

I have heard someone say “we as human beings should not take ourselves so seriously”. There are two ways of looking at this statement. I would agree with it if it were directed against self-glorification, but I would also argue that some people need to take life more seriously, and therefore themselves, as everyone should know that life is not a party.

Anyway, there’s my meaningless rant about my intolerance towards silliness.

Have a great day.

- The Kyle

P.S. I’ve found that many girls don’t seem to like honest and deep conversations. They’d much rather flirt, and that, unfortunately, is not my strong point… so there goes my hope… (*sigh*).