On Pacifism
I find it peculiar that atheists and liberals expect Bible-believers to be pacifists. Why do atheists care, unless they are going through an existential crisis? Liberals, on the other hand, justify pacifism by evoking a meek Jesus who taught us to turn the other cheek (and not much else). However, their effort is simply an invention to defend their apologetic.
Firstly, 'turning the other cheek' is a teaching in refraining from retaliation, which is distinct from self-defense. For elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Luke 22:36), we're given the precept to defend our home, country and ourselves if our freedom and peace were threatened by hostile invaders.
Second, as we've espoused time and again, Jesus is both the Prince of Peace and God of justice whose Second Coming will be as a Warrior King who will smite the rebellious nations of the world with the Sword of His Word (Rev.19:15).
On Epicureanism as my truism
Contrary to the norm, I live to eat. Or at least it's what I'd like to tell people. Unfortunately, you indulge in epicureanism with a huge ransom to your health and image.
Doctors, dietitians, nutritionists and personal trainers, all teach us to 'eat to live', but what a tragic truism to swear by. Because it is eating to stay alive. Because eating as an activity is divested of joy and legitimacy.
Which statement makes the more sense or gives a happier message? 'I eat therefore I live', which makes eating a means of survival and self-preservation? Or 'I live therefore I eat', which makes eating a metaphor for liberty: liberty from the tyranny of diets, the constrictions of size zero and the constraints of guilt?
And when did eating become a function of living rather than a celebration of being? Perhaps it was when the first parents ate the forbidden fruit, which went horribly wrong, and eating lost its original design.
On Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Speaking of forbidden fruit, a rash of bad publicity has been rolling off the press and Internet of late making 'fundamentalism' a dirty word. Bible-believers are running in spate to deny the label in favour of calling themselves evangelicals. It's a classic case of equivocation – they fear being associated with the militants of Islam who murder thousands of infidels in the name of religion.
Contrary to the norm, I live to eat. Or at least it's what I'd like to tell people. Unfortunately, you indulge in epicureanism with a huge ransom to your health and image.
Doctors, dietitians, nutritionists and personal trainers, all teach us to 'eat to live', but what a tragic truism to swear by. Because it is eating to stay alive. Because eating as an activity is divested of joy and legitimacy.
Which statement makes the more sense or gives a happier message? 'I eat therefore I live', which makes eating a means of survival and self-preservation? Or 'I live therefore I eat', which makes eating a metaphor for liberty: liberty from the tyranny of diets, the constrictions of size zero and the constraints of guilt?
And when did eating become a function of living rather than a celebration of being? Perhaps it was when the first parents ate the forbidden fruit, which went horribly wrong, and eating lost its original design.
On Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Speaking of forbidden fruit, a rash of bad publicity has been rolling off the press and Internet of late making 'fundamentalism' a dirty word. Bible-believers are running in spate to deny the label in favour of calling themselves evangelicals. It's a classic case of equivocation – they fear being associated with the militants of Islam who murder thousands of infidels in the name of religion.I believe the label 'evangelicalism' has today even more negative associations and connotations in Christian circles. Evangelicalism and those in the Evangelical Left are at risk of being on the wayward path to first embracing 'all religions lead to God', an axiom of the emerging church movement; then liberalism of the Jesus Seminar ilk; after that, ecumenism, the ushering in of world peace through the unity of all faiths (anathema to Christ because of their mutually exclusive core tenets); and finally apostasy, the denial of Christ altogether, of which Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
It would be prudent at this juncture to disabuse the ignorant of fundamentalism by delineating the origin of the term. The word 'fundamentalist' was first employed in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in reference to a Christian who held to the historic core doctrines of the Christian faith: (1) the inerrancy of Scriptures, (2) the miracles of Christ (including His virgin birth), (3) the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ, (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and (5) the deity of Christ.
From author David Robertson to TV news anchor, Bill O'Reilly, fundamentalists today are copping a motherlode of negative press. Fundamentalists are blamed for everything that's negative about religion, from hate crimes, anti-intellectualism and persecution of homosexuals, to the mass carnage of devotees of extremist cults and sects such as the Branch Davidian.
Many a time, this equivocation is unjustifiably set up as a strawman by amnesty and civil rights groups in order to discredit and silence the Body of Christ and browbeat the courts into according more rights and privileges to the fringe groups they represent. Reason? It's Christians, in particular of the fundamentalist right wing persuasion, who are standing in the way of gay rights and climate change protocol and New Ageism and pro-choice.As for me, I'm proud to admit that I subscribe to fundamentalism as my apologetic for it's validation that my beliefs are balanced on the fulcrum of the 5 Biblical fundamentals. An aside, if you're going to call yourself a Right Wing evangelical, you might as well retain the label 'fundamentalist', because they aren't totally at variance. However, if your actions or beliefs contravene these, then, by definition, you don't pass the fundamentalist's muster, so let's dispense with the strawman arguments already.
On Solipsism
Concluding my lengthy meditation on the 'isms', among the myriad of untenable world views in existence, pantheism, atheism, New Ageism, dualism, and naturalism, I find solipsism and its adherents the most riddled with inconsistencies. Obviously the solipsist, believing his own existence is all that he can be certain of, does not believe in God, miracles and angels; in fact, he believes that except for the self everything else may be a dream or figment of someone's imagination. This includes the existence of his parents, his house, his offspring, his job, his pet Chihuahua, the cafeteria he likes to frequent to eat his favourite chicken croissant. With deference to the solipsist, if his existence is all he can be sure of, why not dive in front of a moving car to test if it exists? Ironically, one will note that the solipsist looks both ways before crossing the road.
