elika s. kohen: philosophy

The Messianic Jewish "Christ in the Passover" Lie

2010-03-10T07:01:00.043+02:00

cmp.2010.03.09
ed.2010.03.10.50 (Public Draft I) (Brain is a bit fried, need a short break. Will edit more in an hour or so. Thanks!)

Organization
1. Introduction
2. Did Jesus Die Before or After the Passover Feast?
3. Did Jesus Celebrate A Rabbinically Jewish Passover?
4. Do Jews Celebrate A Biblical Passover?
5. Should Christians Imitate Rabbinic Jews?
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction
If some of the Jews for Jesus Missionaries, and some of the Messianic Jewish leaders are aware of what Christian Scripture actually says but continue to teach Christians about Rabbinical Jewish traditions and how they can be integrated into the Church, then it seems only reasonable to believe that they are deliberately deceiving others when they choose to misrepresent Christian Scripture. Hopefully, these false doctrines and deceptions can be exposed and corrected, specifically:

Although the parallel between Jesus' crucifixion and the Hebrew Passover is certainly a core component of the Christian faith, Christian Scripture is clear that:
Jesus died before the Passover feast, not after.

The Last Supper was not a Passover Feast. (It was not a "Passover Seder" but rather the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.)

Christian Scripture is adamant that Jesus was certainly not a Rabbinically observant Jew.

Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples not to follow after Rabbinic Judaism because God could not be found in it.

2. Did Jesus Die Before or After the Passover Feast?
To be honest, Christians have been struggling with this problem for a very long time, even apart from Messianic Judaism. When did Jesus die? How did he stay in the grave three days and nights, if he died on Friday, and came back to life on Sunday morning?

For the Christian account to be consistent, Thursday night and Friday morning would have had to be the 14th of Nisan. This means that there were two Sabbath days, right next to each other. Thursday night to Friday night would have been considered a Shabbat because it was Passover. And Friday night to Saturday night would have been considered a Shabbat because it was the seventh day of the week. The only reasonable conclusion from Christian Scripture is that Jesus was tried and crucified, even before the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, (this means that the Last Supper was not even on the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread).

The first part of figuring this out are understanding a few of the Biblical laws of Passover:

The fourteenth day of the month is considered a Shabbat where no work can be done. Even if that day happens to be a Thursday.
Ex. 12:16
On the first day you shall have a holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you.

The lamb was to be sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the month, in the afternoon:
Ex. 12:6
'You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight, (another translation for "twilight" is "between the evenings").

The sacrifice would be eaten after sunset, (in the night), after it was sacrificed:
Ex. 12:8
'They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Unleavened Bread was to be eaten for seven nights, including the night before the Passover feast:
Ex. 12:15
'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.'

The second part of the answer is that a Passover Seder is a time when you eat the sacrificial Passover lamb. In other words, if Jesus and his disciples were having a Seder meal, then the Passover lamb would have had already to have already been sacrificed.

Christian Scriptures point to the fact Jesus was tried and crucified on the "preparation" day, that is, a day before a "Shabbat". If he was crucified before a "Sabbath", and Passover is a Sabbath, then he was crucified before the sacrifices were made, and so could not have had a "Passover Feast".

Jesus Was Crucified Before The Passover Sacrifices

Luke 22:1: Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. (The Feast of Unleavened Bread was also called, “Passover”).

On occasion, in Jewish and Christian texts, it is unclear what is being referenced because the terms "Passover" and "Feast of Unleavened Bread" are used interchangeably. For Example, Mark 14:12: On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

Gen 1: Jewish culture considered a "day" as the time between sunset to sunset, (evening and morning). Admittedly, this is reasonably very confusing for anyone used to the idea that a day starts at midnight--but it is a necessity to know, in order to make sense of the Passover account in Christian Scripture.

The Passover lamb is sacrificed on the first day of unleavened bread, the fourteenth of the month, "between the evenings". But, the "Day" starts at night. So, the "fourteenth" day in Christian Scripture looks like this: The Feast of unleavened bread started in the evening, (when the Last Supper occured), then there was early morning when the sacrifices were prepared, (Jesus' trial), and then sacrifices were made, (Jesus' crucifixion). When the sun set, after the sacrifices, it was considered the fifteenth day, and the Passover Lamb was eaten as commanded, (Ex. 12:8).

Jesus told the disciples that he desired to eat the Passover with them before his suffering, but then said that he would by no means eat it until the Passover was fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, (Luke 22:15-16). But Jesus said this after they he had already eaten the "Last Supper" and was about to start the Communion tradition. (The "Communion" service took place after dinner, Luke 22:20.)

John 13:1-5: Before the feast of the Passover, while supper was taking place, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. (Again, the Last Supper occured before the Passover Feast.)

They did not enter the Praetorium, (while Jesus was being questioned, after the Last Supper), so that they could eat the passover, (John 18:28).

There was a custom that Pilate would release someone during the Passover, (John 18:39). The trial and execution of Jesus was during Passover, (as the sacrifices were being performed), in this case as the Passover feast was still to occur).

Jesus was crucified on the preparation day--before--the Sabbath: John 19:31
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus bury Jesus in a new tomb that is near where he was crucified because it was the preparation day for the Sabbath, (i.e., the day before the Passover since Passover is a Sabbath day). (John 19:41, Luke 23:54).

It was not yet Sabbath, (not yet Passover), when Jesus was buried and the women from Galilee returned to prepare spices and ointments, but when the Sabbath came, they rested, (Luke 23:56).

One of the responses I often hear about this is, "But there are two days for Passover, one that is observed on the 14th, and another on the 15th." First of all, this is a "tradition", not a Biblical precept. Second, this tradition is observed by Jews outside of Israel, and would not have applied to Jesus or his disciples.

If a self-proclaimed "Christian" is trying to convince anyone that the "Last Supper" that Jesus had with his disciples was a a Passover Seder, (let alone a Rabbinically Jewish one), they are either: 1. Completely ignorant of the accounts of Jesus' Crucifixion in Christian texts; 2, Unaware of the theological significance of "Jesus" in the first place in relation to Jewish prophecy; or 3, intentionally lying to you. Either way, it would seem wise to be more than cautiously skeptical when they preach to Christians how to be more "Rabbinically Jewish".

3. Did Jesus Celebrate A Rabbinically Jewish Passover?
The "traditional" Jewish Passover isn't exactly, "traditional". It is quite easy to find information on the history of "Passover Haggadah" on the Internet--look for articles on its history and writers. The Passover Haggadah is essentially an "order of service": who does what when, what is ate when, how many glasses of wine there are, that people should use a lamb bone, and many other details.

There are two points of interest that should catch your attention right away: 1, the Passover Seder wasn't put together until 200-500 CE--roughly 200 years after Jesus was crucified; and 2, the Jewish Passover Haggadah is "antichrist" according to the "Christian" definition of what antichrist is:

1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

How could a Rabbinical Passover service have instilled within it, by its authors and compilers, insights into the "Christian" Messiah to justify trying to convert Christians today to be more Rabbinically Jewish? How could Rabbinical Tradition give further revelation to Christians about who Jesus is if the Rabbinical Passover Haggadah was compiled after Jesus died--by self-proclaimed "antichrists"? How can a service be said to point to Jesus if it deliberately refutes the idea of John the Baptist as "Elijah to Come", and denies the Messiahship of Jesus?

We know, for a fact, that it is impossible, ridiculous even, to consider the idea that Jesus celebrated Passover in any way that resembles what Jews do today--the fact that the temple was destroyed after Jesus is enough to prove that Jews during the time of Jesus celebrated Passover differently, (there were actual lambs that were sacrificed).

It is completely irrational to point to rabbinic tradition and try to convince Christians that Jesus and his disciples celebrated Passover in any way that is similar to what Jewish tradition is today, (other than the unleavened bread and bitter herbs, that is).

4. Do Jews Celebrate A Biblical Passover?
Jesus, (for the lack of a better word), loathed, the self-proclaimed religious. He constantly criticized them for their hypocrisy, for appearing to look Godly, but in reality claiming that they were "whitened tombs filled with the bones of dead men."

From any point of view, (Jewish, Christian, Atheist), Jesus could be commended for exposing the "hypocrites" as being more concerned with looking like they were holy in order to be commended by other people, rather than actually seeking "justice, mercy, and faithfulness", (as commanded by God):

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:9
He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Would Jesus set aside the commandment of God in order to keep a tradition? Would he have rather had a "traditionally Jewish" Passover Seder in order to be compliant with Rabbinic Tradition? For example, would Jesus ignore the Passover command to eat in haste, but rather eat it slowly and ostentatiously like Jews do today?

Exodus 12:11
'Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste--it is the LORD'S Passover.

Deuteronomy 16:3
"You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), so that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.
The Passover Seder celebrated by Jews today is incredibly elaborate and full of tradition compared to any Biblical or historical precedent prior to Jesus.

Christianity goes to an extreme to point out the necessity to remember the component of "humility" and "readiness", (haste) in their doctrine of "final judgment". Over and over again, parallels are made between that final day of judgment, to the "pattern" illustrated by the Exodus and judgment on Egypt. Again and again, Jesus says to "watch", that the day would come like a "thief in the night", to "be ready".

There are simply no precedents in Jewish or Christian Scripture that could be used to go from, "slaves in a foreign land eating a humble meal in haste because they are going to have to run for their lives", to the modern: "Let's have an incredibly rich feast, spend a long time eating it, go through a massive liturgy, and pretend like we are going to hurry into a new life, (leaving behind the old), as we start following God as soon as possible."

5. Should Christians Imitate Rabbinic Jews?
If anyone could be said to "know" Jesus, what he said, or what he stood for, this statement would grate against their spine for one very large reason: Jesus wasn't "Jewish", he was Hebrew, and was observant to the Mosaic commandments. Christian Scripture is very critical of the Rabbinical Jewish faith and distinguishes that clearly from the Hebrew race.

Often times, we hear that learning to walk in Jewish tradition will, "it bring a person closer to the Lord and gives that person a better understanding of what Christ did on the cross for us." It is hard to believe that following in Jewish tradition can bring a person closer to Jesus when Jesus himself confirmed what Isaiah said, "their heart is far from me." So how exactly could imitating Judaism get you closer to Jesus? Who has the authority to claim this, since it directly contradicts Christian Scripture?

In fact, Christian Scripture goes to an extreme that Jesus was not "Rabbinically Jewish", and it certainly clear that his followers, (racially Jewish or not), shouldn't be either.

Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6-9
he is not to honor his father or his mother .' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

Matthew 23:27
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Mark 7:8
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

Mark 7:9
He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Revelation 2:9
'I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.

6. Conclusion
After confronting "Messianic" Christians for years about this topic, I always find myself asking, "Why?" Why do Christians want to imitate modern Judaism?

One of the answers that I get when I ask people why they try to imitate Jewish tradition, is that "Jewish tradition is beautiful." And, it certainly is--the silver, the gold, the white, the embroidery, the intellectual conversations, the sense of religiosity--all very extravagant.

How is it that neither Jews or Christians remember the point of Passover, the Exodus from Egypt to wander in the desert? Why would God command Israel, or why would Jesus command his disciples to remember, if it was not for the reason to remember the despair of oppression and the power of God? What was more important to remember than the freedom given to run after God, humbly and in obedience--to remember the whole duty of man is to fear God and obey his commandments?

Exodus 13:3
Moses said to the people, "Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place And nothing leavened shall be eaten.

Duet 8:2-3
You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Duet. 5:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

Is. 58:13-14
"If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the LORD honorable,
And honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure
And speaking your own word,
Then you will take delight in the LORD,
And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;
And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

The Problem With Apologetics

2010-03-04T20:44:00.010+02:00

cmp.2010.03.03 (Concept Draft)
ed.2010.03.05.02

Organization
1. Introduction
2. Arguments From Science Are Always Invalid
3. Arguments From History Are Always Invalid
4. Apologists Miss The Point
5. Conclusion

1. Introduction
Apologetics, the study of defending a particular religious persuasion has been a very big part of society since, well, for a long time. With any luck, it will stick around for some time. Though, sometimes from a scientific point of view, theology might seem a little ornerous. But, apologetics is probably one of the longest running fields of theology that have pushed the process of refinement in science.

But apologetics has a big problem, it can only go so far. Apologists, (the ones that aren't too hypocritical), must present evidence that is not merely scientific, or historical, but evidence that demonstrates not only the tangible power and presence of God with us, but more significantly, apologists must provide evidence of the spirit and heart of God, that God actually wants to be in a relationship with us.

The only Scriptural precedent that exists to persuade someone, of both God's authority and desire for us, is that God himself confirmed the testimony of his witnesses with his spirit and power--and this confirmation was always evident, because it was required in order to convince unbelievers.

2. Arguments From Science Are Always Invalid
A cosmological argument, (which states that this universe is not eternal, and requires a first cause), argues that whatever caused the universe must have transcended the natural laws of this universe in order to not be bound by the laws of physics.

For the most part, it is a highly scientific, reasonable, and widely accepted theory by scientists: it is certainly possible and, even probable, that some notion of a transcendent "universe" or "causal domain" exists--call it "heaven" if you want.

But if an atheist were to concede this, (as many do), it is still a massive leap of faith to go from the belief that some other realm of existence exists, to "friendship with God is found through trust", (i.e., "Without faith it is impossible to please God").

Does this argument prove the existence of "The God" illustrated in Jewish or Christian Scripture? Not even close. At best, a cosmological argument can prove that there is another realm of existence "above" our own natural order. A cosmological argument cannot prove the theory of deism, (the existence of a sentient being or beings that exist in this supernatural realm not bound by our laws of physics); and a cosmological argument certainly cannot prove theism, (the existence of a diety that is personally involved with us).

Frank Turek, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens, argues that if this supernatural realm existed before our own universe, then the only thing that could cause this nature we know into being would be a willful, sentient act. If this were true, then a logical step could be made from the theory of transcendence to deism, (but still not to theism).

But Turek's argument is probably invalid because it seems that he is presupposing what can and cannot happen regarding a "supernatural" universe based on the laws of this realm of existence. Since we don't even know about the universe we live in, it is another giant leap of faith to assert that only a willful act in this other universe could cause our universe into existence.

Turek would have to rule out the possibility that perhaps one of the laws of that "supernatural" and transcendent existence is that universes get created once in a while. In other words, it pure speculation to guess at what the laws of a transcendent realm of existence are; and it is a leap of logic to assert that sentience is required to cause anything in a supernatural universe.

Even if a cosmological argument could point to a transcendent nature, (which is a logically valid theory based in science), a cosmological theory can never prove deism, or theism. And certainly, a cosmological argument, (or any argument from science), cannot prove that Moses' or Jesus' testimonies were valid.

3. Arguments From History Are Always Invalid
What about the historical record of miracles? If atheists were to just go ahead and concede that historical record in Scripture is accurate, it wouldn't matter. No historical argument can prove that God wants to be in a close relationship with us now--on the contrary, historical arguments prove just that, that God was involved with mankind in past history, and had a "historical" interest--but these arguments cannot demonstrate that God wants to be with us now.

Any evidence that was used as evidence during the time of Moses, and even Jesus, has been passed to us through hear-say and from a primarily irrational and superstituos world, (though the Greeks were onto something with that "logic" thing).

So then what? Is it true that God wants nothing more than to be our friend but has decided that we must put our trust in hear-say and tradition from generations that lived thousands of years ago? If God is capable of this, no wonder people have a hard time with the idea.

Ironically enough, both Judaism, (*Mosaic Judaism), and Christianity, (*Apostolic Church Christianity), explicitly state that this is not the intention or desire of God, but that the presence of God is an evidentual thing, (how could anyone possibly think otherwise?). Scripture, over and over again, asserts that faith is never supposed to be blind, that we should not put our faith in tradition, hear-say, or in people--and God always gave confirmations when people asked.

4. Apologists Miss The Point
Christopher Hitchens, in the same debate with Frank Turek, got visibly agitated and frustrated when Frank Turek appealed to science as proof that God exists. Hitchens kept objecting by saying, in essence, "Quit pretending like your faith in Jesus is based on science, just call it what it is--faith." Turek would then respond by saying, in essence, "I have a bunch of evidence that Jesus was here and performed miracles." Turek completely missed the point, (in my opinion). Hitchens seemed to be arguing that the evidence that Turek had was not scientic, at all, but a form of historical evidence based on hear-say that could never be accepted as rational evidence for us today.

You simply cannot prove that God wants to have an intimate relationship with us through theoretical physics or history. An intimate relationship is not something in the domain of the laws of physics. It cannot be inferred from a set of formulas, or the laws of physics, (Well, maybe if we actually knew them. But would God require us to know physics before we could find friendship with him; is there a Bible for that too?).

5. Conclusion
Since this essay is largely a response to the debate that I saw between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, I am going to try and get a response from both of them. But honestly, what is more necessary is a response from theists.

For Jews, there is a prophecy that essentially states that Israel would become a "byword" because people will ask, "where is your God?" The point of this prophecy was that the evidentual presence of God missing would be a change because of their lack of faithfulness; this would be a change from what was previously evident to all of the nations that witnessed Israel of old. The other nations knew that God was evidently with them. This implication is clearly evident throughout Jewish Scripture. For example, Moses argued with God and said, "If you don't go with us, how will the nations know that you favor us?" Over and over again, God rebuked Israel for not trusting him, and not being able to trust them. And, as a result, God removed his evidentual favor.

On the otherhand, for Christians, I think the bar is set a little tougher. Jesus said, "These signs will follow those that trust." "Will" follow. Not "may" follow. Paul went even further, he claimed that even he did not try to persuade people into believing in Jesus with "wise and persuasive words". But rather, he demonstrated the spirit and power of God so the faith of people would rest on the power of God, and not the wisdom of man.

There is only one rational response from a theist, either Jewish or Christian: "Perhaps I truly do not trust and depend on God the way I am supposed to. Perhaps I really do not have the faith in God that I thought I did."

Another, more straightforward, way of putting this would be:

Any theist who claims to be able to persuade people to believe in God, yet doesn't believe in God themselves is a fraud. We can know if a theist doesn't truly believe and trust in God if they deny the manner in which a person's trust in God can be measured--a measure from their own Scriptures: they would have friendship with God if they trusted, and God with be with them evidently, in spirit and power. They would, in essence, be contradicting the core foundation of their Scriptures.

But how humiliating is this conclusion? If the friendship, together with the evidential presence of God, must be preceded by favor, and favor proceeded by an experience of trust between God and us, where does that leave us? We either assert that God is with us, regardless of what Scripture says, or what evidence actually points too, or we reasonably conclude that we really have lost our path and need to do a lot of changing.

If God Exists, Does He Care?

2010-03-04T02:01:00.002+02:00

cmp.2010.03.03 (First Draft)

Organization
1. Introduction
2. Falsifiability
3. The Dilemma
4. How To Prove That God Doesn't Care
5. How To Prove That God Does Care
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction
Theism and atheism have been at odds with each other for a while now, but ironically, they both push the other in a way that inspire and provoke people to dig for more understanding.

But from a realistic point of view, what does it matter if God exists or not, if God doesn't care about us?

The real question is not whether God exists or not; any scientist will acknowledge that theism is at least a theory that attempts to explain what has been, is, and can also predict will be. And regardless of whether or not it is a valid theory, non-theist scientists are challenged to continually pursue truth, whatever it is.

Even if Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, or whatever were all proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be false, this "knowledge" could never disprove the general existence of a "Most High God".

What is far more important is to find a way to prove or disprove that God desires an intimate relationship with each one of us. What is important is to know if "The God" has revealed himself to us, and what the true revelation of God to us is. Is Judaism right? Christianity? Islam? What is the "one" revelation of God or has God revealed himself in multiple ways? Has God just hidden himself?

2. Falsifiability
Falsifiability is the idea that an idea, (such as theism or atheism) can be proven to be false. Sir Karl Raimund Popper, a philosopher of science, argued that a theory can only be considered scientific if it is falsifiable; that is, a theory is only scientific if there exists some test that could be used at any time to prove that the theory is wrong.

The idea that God exists, and this explains the past, present, and future, at its core is a scientific theory--by definition, and in this context. Proving that God exists in a scientific way is a whole different topic.

But it doesn't really matter. All one has to do is prove that God is for us, with us, evidentially with us, (or disprove this), to settle the matter once and for all. It is the concern of God for us, and what our concern for God that is at the heart of the issue--not whether or not God exists.

3. The Dilemma
In the first debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, they were both asked at the end what would change their minds about their beliefs. Christopher Hitchens didn't really answer, and Frank Turek cited a scenerio which removes all potential for falsifiability, (that everything would change, including the laws of physics). If this would occur, then Frank Turek would change his mind. Hitchens didn't seem to even want to try to come up with an idea of something that would change his mind.

But, perhaps a better question really is: "If we concede that God exists, does he care for us?" If God exists, and is for or against us, seems to be a much more important matter. If God exists and doesn't care, then there wouldn't be that much drama over this topic.

How can we rationally, and objectively determine any such thing? Is it possible? Is there a test that every believer would accept? "If this was proven to be true or false, then I would change my mind that God is in a relationship with me, either for good, or bad." Is there a test that an atheist would accept that would change their mind in a similar fashion? "If this was proven to be true or false, then I would change my mind and believe that God cares about what is going on here, and about me."

But, this isn't exactly the dilemma. The true dilemma is: "Who in the world is willing to search this out?"

In any way you look at it, the end of this question isn't a convenient one, either: God wants to be our friend, and we are too vain to follow his lead and be a friend to him; or maybe, God is at odds with us, and the implication that follows is that it is not a good thing to be in the hands of an angry God; or, if God simply doesn't care and we don't have to care about God, then there are a lot of people that have to confront the relative flash of life, the futility of what we do, (in context of billions of years), and try to adopt some other meaning to life.

4. How To Prove That God Doesn't Care
If a way was presented to prove to me that "If God exists, but just doesn't care", would other theists accept it too? What if some easily testible evidence was presented? Would we be too narrow minded to accept it? More than likely, most theists would say, "Clever argument! But God is beyond intellectualism, or cleverness. Just wait, someone will refute it!" Or perhaps the answer would be, "Well, regardless of what 'evidence' you present, I know that God loves me, because I feel it in my heart."

So, even if other people won't touch this with a ten foot pole, I will try. It is unreasonable for me to expect that the evidence that God cares for me would be less than the evidence than say my best friends care for me. Now, this is quite spooky. What evidence is there that God cares for me? From a theistic point of view, the notion exists that this evidence is all around and exists "providentially", that is, God made sure that I was cared for before I was even born.

But this isn't what we are trying to establish. We are trying to establish that God wants to, and does, pursue a relationship with each of us. General providential care for "everyone" is impersonal and doesn't make any of us feel more "special" in the eyes of God. And, I suppose that at the heart of theism, this is what really matters: "God is on my side, and in his justice he will deliver me from those that oppress me." The theistic idea of God is definitely one that generally caters to those that are humble, compassionate, and truthful, and trustworthy.

And this view of God towards those he favors is the key for disproving the concern that God has for us. Every Scriptural standard, and even every secular standard, for friendship relies on trust. "Without trust, it is impossible to please God". And trust is bi-directional. God must trust us. And we must trust God. If I trusted God, and the evidence of my trust was obedience, (for example, if I mixed my moral actions with trust: if I fed the hungry trusting that I needn't worry because God cares for me and would take care of me), then there would be grounds for a valid way for a test that could convince theists, (or at least me), that God really doesn't care.

If I genuinely trusted God, and I could be trusted by God to be faithful, but I still had no evidential favor or intimacy with God, then I would know out of hand that the God of Scripture was not true. This after all is the core foundation of both Judaism and Christianity. God explicitly, over and over again, promises a real tangible evidential relationship with those he calls, "friends".

Most modern theists don't like this test. It is very telling. But for few, its a nice reality check: we are in reality very, very far away from what a truly caring God wants for us; what a truly caring God wants for us now, and the ball is in our court.

5. How To Prove That God Does Care
Christopher Hitchens, in the debate I mentioned makes an awesome point. None of the miracles in the Bible prove that God exists; and especially, they do not prove that Moses or Jesus conveyed the "true" revelation of the will of God for us.

Rather, those miracles were intended to persuade the people of that time.

Quite frankly, Hitchens is right. What Biblical miracle, if video taped and witnessed by hundreds of people today, could convince even the people witnessing those miracles, that God exists.

We could come up with hundreds of explanations, rival hypotheses--in moments. We have grown massively in our confidence in our own intelligence.

So, no. I cannot see how any miracle along those lines could prove to an atheist the existence of God. Even today, seemingly miraculous healings occur, and even the people they happen to don't believe that God was involved. "Some other explanation exists". If I were a reasonable atheist, (and I do mean "reasonable" in the sense of science, logic, and general rationality), I would expect something quantifiable to be presented as evidence.

In order for an atheist to justify their belief in the supernatural, it seems incredibly reasonable that they were shown supernatural evidence; this means, a reasonable atheist would want to be shown evidence that transcended nature itself-a direct intervention of God upon the natural order of things.

But this is tricky. If we can explain so many things away, then what would suffice? If it rained fire? Hardly. What if the Pacific ocean was parted? No, not even that. All of these could be explained. Ironically, Jesus told a story of a man who tried to convince God that if he was raised from the dead, then people would believe. Jesus in essence said, "Umm, no. Not really."

No, whatever would happen, that would be a sign to an unbeliever, would have to be apparent that the nature of the sign transcended the natural, and was evidently "supernatural"--something transcending both time and space.

Conveniently, there is such evidence. Ironically, believers were commanded to present this evidence; but none do, (that I know of). If the Word of God is "Truth", then that "Truth" transcends both space and time. No, I am not talking about the Bible. In Christian Scripture, Jesus affirms, "You are my friends, because all things I have heard from my father, I have made known to you, (John 15:15)." How convincing would it be to have eternal truth made known? The past, the present, the future? Or more importantly, Wisdom and Understanding of things beyond our knowledge, experience, and time. Things that could not be from our imagination or intellect?

In Jewish Scripture, it is pretty much the same. The test of a prophet was that everything that they said was true--and could be tested.

6. Conclusion
But are these tests unreasonable?

For Christians, Jesus, Paul, and pretty much every other writer affirms that trust in God should be established on an evidential experience. Even Jesus said people would not believe unless they saw a sign--because they were a people that had no trust in God, nor were they trustworthy. Paul very clearly explains that prophecy, (real quantifiable prophecy), would be a sign to the unbeliever. But Christians for the most part, either pretend what they have is prophecy, or try to explain away Scripture's incessant expectation of the evidential presence of God by saying that it isn't for today. It is no wonder atheism has so much momentum, when there aren't believers who believe that they were commanded to present the unbelievers with quantifiable evidence of who God is.

On the other hand, is it reasonable to dismiss the idea of a caring God who desires to have personal relationships with people on the basis of finding a a trustworthy and trusting person who doesn't have evidential favor with God? If this were the case, then the entirity of Scripture would be disproven--even if it were shown to be once. Ironically enough, there aren't many believers who actually try. After all, most believers are persuaded now that "no one can be perfect".

If a Jew or Christian claims this, then you know out of hand that they are not a believer. Certainly in Christian Scripture it is written, "all have sinned"; and in Jewish Scripture, "there is none faithful, (trustworthy), no not one."

But ironically, this is talking about what "was". It is ridiculous for either a Jew or Christian to affirm their belief in Scripture, their belief in a caring God, a God who commands people to repent, a God that promises that he will guide them, who promises to empower them to be holy and blameless--it is ridiculous for these believers to assert in the same breath that it is impossible to find friendship with God. Rather, "with God all things are possible".

So yes, from a Scriptural point of view, if the promise of God to show evidential favor and friendship with those that trust, and can be trusted is not true, then all of Scripture fails.

On the otherhand, from a scientific point of view, events and knowledge that clearly transcend space and time would be clear evidence that there is truth that transcends the universe, all that is natural.

The Voice of God

2010-03-03T07:06:00.015+02:00

cmp.2010.03.03
ed.2010.03.10.01 (Babbling Concept Draft Version, Don't Read. 2)

Organization
1. How Do You Recognize the Voice of God?
2. The Dilemma
3. How Is It Possible To Answer This?
4. Not Experiencing God
5. Experiencing God
6. Knowing The Voice of God
7. Favor Requires Trust
8. The Voice Of The Shepherd
9. The Voice Of The Friend
10. Conclusion

1. How Do You Recognize the Voice of God?
Putting all of the "Is there a God?" debate aside, what truly matters is the next question. Seriously, what does it matter if God exists but that existence has nothing to do with you?

What is truly a far more potent, meaningful, life changing, tangible and most important question is what Hedya asked me:

... I mean something that the soul experiences, as if the soul could see, hear, touch, or taste. When intimacy with God is all that one desires, how can you be sure that these senses have not been deceits by the evil one?

2. The Dilemma
The reason why this question kind of blind-sided me, was because of the standard way a philosopher tries to answer a question. First, you try to understand what they are actually asking. Second, you try to understand the complexity of the question. And then thirdly, you try to give an authoritative answer, that is non-subjective, and its validity isn't based on the personal credibility of the philosopher giving said answer, (i.e., just because I say its true, doesn't really mean it is).

So, in the event that someone is a believer, (either Jewish or Christian), I could easily point to Scripture and say, "Well, Scripture says you can know how to judge if it truly is the voice of God by: this, that, and the other".

This is known as a "Begging the Question" fallacy. "How do I know the voice of God?" "Because the Voice of God said so."

If you believe that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, you aren't going to get very far answering this question by saying "You can know the voice of God, because you know that Scripture is the Word of God". Trust me, after a few debates with yourself, this gets a little dizzying. But rather, its the other way around: "Since you know the voice of God personally, you know that Scripture is the voice of God."

3. How Is It Possible To Answer This?
The truth is that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses all would have been able to distinguish the voice of God apart from Scripture, because Scripture wasn't even written--but how could they do this?

Knowing the voice of God is probably like knowing the voice of anyone else, its all about experience--and even about knowing when we are not experiencing God. What is true about how we know the voice of our next door neighbor, might tell us how we can know the voice of God.

It is also more than reasonable to expect that any experience we had with God would be evidential--that is, we would be able to perceive it with our senses. If it wasn't evidential, then how could we know we encountered God?

On a side note: the voice of God was always made evident in Scripture--God provided confirmation--but modern theists seem to have abandoned this fact because of the seemingly "inconvenient" impact of intimacy with God on their world views, and lives. There really is no Scriptural precedent for blind faith. ...

Any valid answer would first have to be naturally true and logically valid, (that is, it must be true apart from Scripture, and must also be consistent). And, this answer would have to be so valid, that it could be used to determine the inspiration of Scripture. (Hard task.)

4. Not Experiencing the Voice of God
Start from scratch for a moment. Pretend that the idea of the existence of an "Almighty Transcendent God" has never been thought about, and you are about to invent/discover this idea. Think of the best notion of God that people would consider to be the best idea of God. What noble characteristics would there be for people to appreciate and internalize the idea of this intimate, and personal, God?

True, Trustworthy, and Just.

What God says is true, God is trustworthy, and is just. (I truly hope to explain the "just" part in another essay, so please just consider the first two if the third seems a little out of place.)

The next step is the easy part. Once you have this idea of what God is like, then look at your local newspaper, and read what people do to each other, and to themselves.

Also, the knowledge and actions of everyone you speak to, are constrained by space, time, and matter. They cannot attain knowledge that is beyond their understanding or time, nor do they possess any authority over nature. This is obvious in their actions, everything they do and can promise is constrained by both space, time, and matter.

Being able to distinguish character, as well as transcendence, we have set up a way to distinguish the voice of God from everything else.

1. If what we experience is constrained by time, space, and matter, then this experience is not "God".
2. If what we experience is not constrained to Truth, Trust, and Justice, then we also know that what we are experiencing is not God.

5. Experiencing God
Now here comes the tricky part.

"But I read about 'Truth', about 'Faithfulness', and about 'True Justice' in the paper; is that God?"

In an abstract sense, these definitely would point to God influencing society. But still, this doesn't help us find and recognize "God", if "God" is personal, and the relationship God longs for is an intimate one with us.

So, we have to go a step further, and personalize these attributes a bit, to see where it takes us.

What would God look like, (hypothetically because God couldn't be a man). What would God look like, in a practical sense, if God is constrained to be 'True', 'Just', and 'Faithful'? This is where the irony becomes apparent.

If we thought up a person that was 'Just', you would expect that they would defend the defenseless, contend with the oppressor, stretch out their hand to those in need, the afflicted, the captive, someone that would correct injustices, (and some of the injustices we see are severe, and would require significant correction).

We would see someone so constrained to truth, that everything they said would be true, and if it wasn't already true, the simple power of their word would immediately be true in reality. We would see someone so constrained by "trust", that despite their own desire, their own suffering, they could aways be trusted to fulfill their promises.

So, when Judaism paints this picture, we see God reaching down to a people enslaved injustly, and executing justice on their captors. You see a God reaching out to the poor, the needy and afflicted, and rebuking those in authority, (especially the so-called religious).

And then, Christianity paints the same picture, a lot more intimately. Actually, Christianity goes as far as to say that "Jesus is the image of God". So, if you had to come up with a good illustration of how God would be one on one, according to a Jewish and Christian Scriptural view of God, Jesus would be it. (Don't get me wrong, Jews are pretty upset with the Christian faith, and for the most part Christians are fed up with the superficialism of the Christian faith--but who Jesus was and what Judaism and Christianity are today are very different things.)

6. Knowing the Voice of God
So, if we are still on the same page, and the attributes that I attributed to God are relatively consistent and accepted, then comes the hard reality check.

"Why would a just, true, and faithful God want to talk to have a personal conversation with me?"

Ever seen a judge interact with a defendent without remorse for the hurt they cause others? The desire for the judge to speak with them, is one dictated out of the necessity to excercise "justice". We could call this, "the voice of the shepherd", (flowing with knowledge and instruction).

But what about another type of relationship, a relationship that is more intimate? What about the "voice of the friend"? What about the voice that flows with revelation and understanding?

I didn't pull "True, Just, and Faithful" out of thin air. There isn't a person alive who has a healthy relationship, and intimacy with another, who they do not trust.

We show favor, we befriend people who we consider to be "true, just, and faithful". Certainly, we understand that people make mistakes. But, for the most part, this is plainly evident truth: we grow in favor with people when we bind these traits upon our lives.

Why would our idealization of God be any different?

If we are not faithful, (trustworthy), then why would we expect the "voice of the friend" and not the "voice of the shepherd"? Why would a faithful God not be just concerning us? If favor with God, is a pre-requisite for true intimacy, (closeness, revelation, etc), then how could we claim to be intimate if we fall out of favor/friendship?

7. Favor Requires Trust
"But God is a loving God and doesn't require people to be perfect to talk to them."

Absolutely true. Neither does a judge require a person to be perfect to talk to them either. A shepherd doesn't expect much from a lamb to talk to one. And then, after fear, and the process of reconciliation, far more is made known. And because of their trust, a friend reveals insights into their own life, desires and plans.

This is the fundamental core of both Jewish and Christian Scripture. "Without Faith/Trust it is impossible to please God." God wanted to be friends with mankind. The only problem here is how we have watered down this word "Trust". This isn't about: "Without belief, it is impossible to find favor with God". Rather, it's about: "It is impossible to find favor with God, if there is no trust in the relationship." Without "trust", no relationship can work.

8. The Voice of The Shepherd
The "voice of the shepherd" that is attributed to God, is readily apparent. Similarly we make this readily accessible, but we reserve intimacy for our friends. But honestly, the "voice of the Shepherd" is a stumbling block for most, because most people would not trust in the wisdom of the shepherd until too late. But there is a certain kind of humility and reverence that would remove the stumbling block.

When we trust the "voice of the shepherd", we are enabled to call the "shepherd" our friend--because the "shepherd" is protecting us.

9. The Voice Of The Friend
How do we find the "voice of the friend"? When the "shepherd" can trust us, the "shepherd" is then enabled to call us friends.

What distinguishes the initmate voice of God from every other is because of an experience, a lifestyle, of trust. Not a single person could claim intimacy with this voice, if they did not also possess the characteristics of God, otherwise there would be no favor.

But as with any friend, we know that more than anything God wants to be in unity--this means we would share his attributes too: true, just, and faithful.

10. Conclusion
If "trust" is genuinely at the core of friendship with God, and knowing the voice of God, then the voice we should beg to hear and understand would be the voice that would teach us obedience, how to walk justly, how to live trustworthily. Because, only in seeking the "voice of the shepherd" is there an opportunity to build trust, and enter into intimacy.

It is not reasonable to claim divine intimacy but not be trusted by God. Intimacy with God is preceeded by have a healthy, life changing raw fear of God, knowing that executing justice is in his nature, but also knowing that truth of his wisdom is intended to build trust.

The evidence that someone does hear God, is that they are passionate for every word that God speaks, they dig, they search, they "glean the fields", so to speak. They look for every crumb, and it is their constant preoccupation. How could it be otherwise? How could someone experience divine intimacy, and ever be complacent without God speaking to them again?

Christian Scripture answers this question simply: "My sheep know my voice."

Sheep. Followers. People that are obedient. If people don't obey and follow, they aren't his sheep. If they aren't his sheep, then they cannot know his voice for certain.

Now, when you learn the voice of God in the courtroom, the correction, instruction and discipline of God, and find yourself walking in it, then the rest of the answer is simple.

The intimate voice of God is not an internal voice, nor an external voice. It is not an imagination, or a feeling. It is Truth. Raw abstract, universal "full of awe", Truth. And if you could manage to get a good dose of it, and not be significantly, and immediately changed--then no, you haven't heard from God.

Alcoholism, ADD, and Hypoglycemia

2010-02-19T09:58:00.004+02:00

cmp.2009.02.19
ed. 2009.02.19.03

I was surprised when I first heard that Alcoholism was a disease where the person who was drunk couldn't actually tell that they were drunk. This just so happens to be similar with people who have ADD and hypoglycemic symptoms too.

The similarities between alcoholism, ADD, and hypoglycemia, I hope, will shed some light on the possibility that ADD children are really not just "acting out", or need more punishment, but that there may actually be a biological issue here. Certainly discipline, (heavy on instruction), is required to help teach self control, but hopefully this ponderous ponder might inspire more patience among parents.

I am not really sure if there is really any "one", "official", symptom list of alcoholism, but I started thinking about all of the other symptoms: the irritability, the shaking, the compulsiveness, the lack of inhibition, (all very much related to elavated levels of epinephrine). And oddly enough, these symptoms as well are eerily similar to ADD and Hypoglycemia, including the lack of knowledge of just how "pushed" one's own behavior gets.

Although Hypoglycemia is not a disease, the symptoms are real enough. Technically, Hypoglycemia is a set of symptoms related to problems with blood sugar, where your body produces too much insulin, or otherwise metabolizes sugar too fast.

Well, recently I came across an article entitled: "On Parenting Are Sugar-Loving Kids Likely to Grow Up Alcoholic and Depressed?", which seems to confirm my hypothesis somewhat, (from: http://www.usnews.com/health/blogs/on-parenting/2010/02/18/are-sugar-loving-kids-likely-to-grow-up-alcoholic-and-depressed.html).

I am very very curious to see how alcoholism, hypoglycemia, and ADD can, and/or will be, linked in the future. I have always wondered why these similarities really are not talked about.

God vs. Rock

2010-02-02T09:05:00.012+02:00

cmp.2010.02.02
ed.2010.02.13.03

Organization
1. Introduction
2. An Irrational View of God
3. A Better View of God
4. Conclusion

1. Introduction
Philosophers, Atheists and even believers are perplexed by the incessant wondering: "If God is Omnipotent, then why is he forced to endure imperfection". Another form of this dilemma takes shape in the inherrent rational contradictions between the three widely held views towards God: "God is all Powerful", "God is Morally Perfect", "God has Free Will".

No matter how you spin this triangle of attributes, you will always arrive at a logical contradiction. So, because it is evident that the God of Scripture has presented himself as highly rational, and that we were commanded to pursue understanding and wisdom, then I am persuaded there must be a rational resolution.

And the answer is simply this: "What in the world were people thinking when they ascribed these attributes to God when God never ascribed all three of those attributes to himself?"

So, here is the explanation that I often give, and I would really appreciate any corrections and comments about the general validity of the response.

2. An Irrational View of God
The irrational contradictions that these three attributes imply have been wrestled with for a long time. These arguments are intended to provide a logically sound proof that these attributes could not describe any being, omnipotent or otherwise. Again, these attributes are: "Moral Perfection", "Free Will", and "Omnipotence".

Contradiction: "God vs. Rock" or "Free Will vs. Omnipotence"
1. God can do anything.
2. So, God must be able to create anything.
3. So, God must be able to create a rock he cannot lift.
4. If God cannot lift the rock, then there is something God cannot do.

Contradiction: "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will
1. God can do anything.
2. God has free will.
3. Where there is free will, there is a choice.
4. Since God can do anything, then God can promise to make a never ending covenant.
5. If God cannot choose to break this covenant, then God has no free will.

Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection
1. God can do anything.
2. God is morally perfect.
3. If God is morally perfect, then everything he does must be perfect.
4. If God must do anything, then God does not have a choice in that situation.
5. If God does not have a choice, then God does not have free will.

3. A Better View of God
If there are "three" attributes of God that are explicitly stated in Jewish and Christian Scripture, they are: "God is Faithful", (Deut. 7:9) "God is Just", (Neh. 9:33), and "The Word of God is Truth", (Ps. 119:160). If these three attributes could be shown to be mutally exclusive, then there would certainly be a problem, because they are found in Scripture.

But as for the other the other "three", it is clear from Scripture that God is not always omnipotent, nor does God always have free will:

1. In order for any "X" to be restrained or restricted there must be some force equal to or greater than "X" to restrain it.
2. In order for God to be restrained there must be some force equal to or greater than God to stop him.
3. It is consistent to assert that there is none greater than the "Most High", God.
4. So, no greater force can restrain God.
5. But what if there is there some force equal to God?
6. Again, it is logically consistent to assert that there are none beside God if there is a "Most High", ("most" implies a single being above the rest).
7. So, if there is nothing greater than X, and nothing equal X, then what other possibility remains to constrain the free will of God, or his power?
8. X = X. God = God.
9. God is not greater than himself, but God is equal to himself.
10. Since God is equal to himself, then it is logically consistent to assert that God can restrain himself.
11. If God creates a rock, then promises to not lift it, then God cannot lift it, until the force that restrains him is removed, (the force of God, himself).

4. Conclusion
In Scripture, if "The Word of God is Truth", (of if the word of God is, or becomes, reality), then everything that God says "must be". And if so, then Scripture is full of examples of God saying things that impose on his own power and free will, (though, God uses his own power and free will to limit his own power and free will). And these promises constrain God in a way that require Him to patiently endure evil as well as to perfect the imperfect, for a time anyway.

What is a far more problematic dilemma would be a God who couldn't restrain himself, or submit himself to his own word, a God who could choose not to be faithful.

The idea that God is "all" knowing is not "traditional theology". Even though there are instances where David, or someone else in an intimate relationship with God declare that God knows everything about them, specifically, Scripture does not explicitly make these statements in generalities.

But on the otherhand, there are MANY instances in Scripture where God chooses to know, or not to know people, (God is therefore not omniscient in the way we think). There are also many instances where God chooses to be or not be different places, (therefore, God is not omnipresent as we think). And, there are many places in Scripture where God constrains himself, (and since he is not mighty enough to overcome himself, he is not omnipotent in the way we think).

So, by modern theologians creating intellectual, unbiblical arguments, they maintain unsustainable and contradictory positions. However, if they would just go with what is written, there isn't a contradicton regarding if God has free will; but rather, in both Jewish and Christian Scripture, there are many examples where God limits his own free will though his own word:

God constrains his own free will:
Gen. 22:16 "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son ..."

Hebrews 6:13
For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself ...

Favor

2009-10-17T04:03:00.005+02:00

cmp.2009.10.16
ed.2010.01.12

We overly complicate and over theologize the term "grace". When Scripture was written, the terms used were common everyday words--without all of the theological complications that we add today. "Grace" literally means favor--something that occurs in a friendship. If someone does a favor for you, they do it because they are your friend, out of love, not because they owe you, or because you deserve it.

How could we find friendship with God, (favor) if we don't trust Him and He doesn't trust us?

Without trust, it is impossible to find friendship with God. But this is evidently true in every true friendship that we have. Is it possible to have a friend we can't trust? Those people that we don't truly trust, (but we call "friends" anyway out of politeness), are merely "acquaintances". An experience is the starting line for a friendship, trust its milestones, love its energy and power, and unity in intimacy the destination.

Experience -> Trust -> Love -> Intimacy

The Gift

2009-09-28T12:49:00.010+02:00

cmp.2009.09.28
ed.2010.01.10.01

Most often, we lightly turn the worn pages of our Bibles differently than we handle a newspaper. In a much greater way, men treat a certain kind of woman, that to them is the rarest of gifts, different from all other women. Because this is evident, a woman looks for this appreciation so that she can know how much she is really treasure--and trusted--so that she can know that he is truly hers.

צבר

2009-08-28T13:54:00.041+03:00

cmp.2009.07.21
ed.2009.08.30.01(Fifth Draft)

Sunlight bent and twisted in the sweltering heat above the desert city street. A cadence of voices coursed through the Bedouin market, punctuated by buses, cars and mopeds. An American man stopped in front of a small falafel stand. He looked at the man behind the counter, and to the walls inside; scripts, numbers, and certificates filled the empty spaces. The American gestured, pointing incomprehensibly, his words fumbling as he looked through the short glass partitions. He kept one hand low in front of his waist, holding a single red rose.

“Lo, Matbouka.” The man behind the stand corrected. He may have been a Bedouin, Arab, or Jew; the American had no way of knowing for sure. The man hoped that the American had some idea of what he wanted to eat. The American mumbled something in English and then something in what may have been Hebrew. Holding a stainless steel spoon, the man shook his head again, and a bubbling stream of Hebrew followed, and then after seeing the blank look on the American’s face, he tried Arabic; both languages poured with the fluidity of the ocean, black under the midnight stars, both cultures spiraling like burning galaxies in a brilliant dance.

“Shakshouka,” the girl behind him helped. Her voice rang in his heart, and he turned towards her, nervously hiding the rose so she couldn't see. The man with the spoon nodded and then turned in understanding, relieved to be over with the frustration; he wondered if the American knew how to count shekels. Her dark hair fluttered across her face in the desert breeze, and she smiled—trying to see what was behind his back.

Her dark eyes were ageless; God sculpted her cheekbones, her eyes—her lips—in perfect harmony with heaven, longing and mystery. Her eyes shattered everything she noticed, searching, always searching; her beauty raged against the piercing wisdom held in her gaze, her soul ensnared within brambles of passion and sorrow. The American had noticed—almost everything.

He had first seen her a month before, in another awkward moment; she helped him pick the right bus when he realized he had been going in circles. He had never spoken to her with any ease, and couldn’t hope to. And so he had found what he knew she would understand; he offered her the rose, her lips reflecting the delicate silk held captive within its petals. Hope, then fear flashed in her eyes. She looked away from the American and to the man behind the stand—he had seen everything.

She turned and ran into the market where the American would be hopelessly lost; she ran past the grocer stands, and then she turned. The man handed the American his order, a pita filled with two poached eggs and tomato sauce. To his surprise, the American correctly handed over twelve shekels without question. The American stared into the clutter of shops, into the knots of clothing racks where the girl had disappeared.

She ran through the Bedouin Market; she knew the American would be confused. A tear nearly fell from her eye before she caught it with the back of her hand. She kept running. Through the cacophony of little shops, then past a small parking lot, and finally she crossed the street. She leaned against the wall of an electronics shop, and looked back into the market; her fingers traced the stucco texture of a plastered wall.

Her first memories were of when she had started to go to school, when she was five. Her home in Morocco was like the home she shared in Israel, small, flat roofed, and painted in a sandy mud colored plaster. The inside floor was usually concrete covered with shiny white, lightly patterned linoleum, making it easy to sweep out the dirt that got tracked in. She would follow her mother around the house with a blue mop bucket; she always laughed when she got to throw water onto the floor without getting into trouble.

On every Friday before Shabbat, her mother would leave work early and pick her up at school. They would hurry to the store and then home to get everything ready. Her mother’s hair would be pulled back showing her face, her neck, her laughter. And when all of the cooking and cleaning were over, they would wait for sunset to light the candles and sing her favorite song.

She didn’t remember her baby sister or when she had died, only that at first her mother stopped coming home for Shabbat. But still, on Shabbat when she was alone, she would sing their song alone. Eventually, he mother had left altogether, and her father would have the neighbors keep an eye on her.

It was years later when she was fourteen that the men came and took her to Israel. She had never known if her father had even asked for money, he certainly hadn’t needed it. She knew that he could still find her and pay to have her back whenever he wanted.

She looked towards the market, and then to the voices coming down the street. She wiped her eyes, and stood straight, a cactus whose limbs were full of life, protected by hardened and forbidding leaves. She started towards a group of men coming down the street; one of the girls she knew was walking with them. The other girl held onto the upper arm of one of the men—evidently the wealthier of the group. When the girls reached each other, they gave each other a quick hug and kissed the other on the cheek.

The man behind the falafel stand set down his spoon and walked out to the American. He rubbed his fingers together; he wanted to sell something else. At first the American didn't understand. The man mentioned two numbers, the first the American understood—three hundred shekels. He took the rose from the American, threw it in the trash, and then mentioned the number again and smiled—that lurid smile that leaves no room for interpretation. The man looked at the American, and considered again. He proposed a different number, but the American didn’t understand; the man wrote it on a napkin—twenty-five thousand shekels: the price for the girl’s passport. Sure he was American, but he didn’t have that kind of money—she wouldn’t understand.

“Very good deal,” the man said in broken English, pointing to the rose. The American smiled politely, pointed to his wrist, at a watch that wasn’t there, and walked away as though he hadn't understood.

Laughing with her friend, the girl chose the gentler of the remaining men; she flinched when he wrapped his arm around her waist. With a quick smile, she moved his hand down to the middle of her back. Her ribs were still bruised when another girl had tried to run away three nights before.

As the two girls and the group of men turned off the busy road into a neighborhood, she saw the American again. She knew he couldn’t try to rescue her; there was no telling what would happen to the girls left behind—he wouldn’t understand. Though, he could afford to ransom her. She smiled. Anything would be better than this.

Pages

2009-08-28T13:32:00.005+03:00

cmp.2009.07.14
ed.2009.08.28.04 (Third Draft)

Heavy tattered curtains smothered the living room window; a heavy gust slammed the screen door against the mountain cabin. Hiding from the lightning, a small boy huddled in the corner behind the bed. He wondered when the daylight would be stolen by the storm. Am I afraid of the light? He closed his eyes in the thunder, and then faded into nothingness as his page was thrown away.

A black, cold iron wood stove stood isolated in its corner; a small ash bucket and a spilled wood cradle spotted the clean wooden floor. A young man watched from his stool, peering between the curtains with his rifle in hand. He slid a round into its chamber, turned, and then closed the bolt. Lightning tore through the mountain top, sundering soul from body—a page torn in half; the clouds crumpled, and then he was gone.

Oil paintings and acrylics hung on the cabin's only wall separating the bedroom from the kitchen. The doorway to the kitchen opened to small stacks of dishes—pots on plates, those on bowls; a few glass perched on top. And there he was, an elderly man, with a frying pan in his hand. He lifted the cast iron frying pan, for a moment surprised by its weight; grease spattered his forearm. Lightning flashed through the kitchen window, and he leaned over to close the curtains; the eggs slid into the bacon that had curled itself up along the side. Get a grip, He told himself. He shook his breakfast to the middle, and set the pan down again, wondering at a wine glass perched perilously on top of a breakfast bowl—inside of last night's bean pan, on top of two heavily chipped ceramic plates still covered with steak sauce and grease. His heart weighed down with sorrow, and emptiness rubbed his life away. The bacon popped, and the eggs hardened under speckles of black pepper and salt. Thunder rolled through the mountain; the dishes rattled in its wake.

His orange poncho pulled in the wind as he tried to look into the kitchen window; steam rose fogging the square fitted glass panes of the dull green mountain cabin. Black, freshly dropped shale stretched in a path around the cabin; the little rocks crunched and compressed beneath his boots as he shifted his weight. Two water pipes ran from the house, one pipe reached to a drain further downhill along the back of the cabin, the other along the shale path to the water pump. Electrical wiring had been laced from the pump to a tall wooden post, and then to a collection of chained down dry cell marine batteries; several cleanly wound wires were tacked to another post and drooped to the solar panels on the roof. Tornado weather slung misted rain from the cedars; droplets danced through the heavily mulched lines of mint. For a moment, he turned his head towards the wind, his short greying beard and wild hair collecting the mist into small beads of water.

Before the front door, he leaned over the three wooden steps trying to look into the cabin. He raised his large thickened knuckles to the metal frame of the screen door; but the screen door bounced out, slammed against the frame, and then bounced out again in the wind. His hand caught the door, and he stepped up onto the top of the stairs. The smell of bacon and eggs turned him towards the kitchen where a cast iron pan popped softly; grease dotted around the pan as he took it off the burner. Whose place is this supposed to be? He asked himself.

Lightning flashed through the windows, and he waited for the thunder—I wonder if there is a storm cellar, he thought absently. He felt his form shift, his consciousness going blank. Wait, do I get a choice? Can I choose this place to be mine? Don't I have the freedom to choose to live?

The woman moved her hand a little to the left, blocking the sun glare pouring into her monitor; her right hand twirled a pencil between her fingers while flipping the worn pages of her journal. She sighed, closed her laptop, and pushed her chair away from her glass desk. Her chair rolled smoothly across the bamboo laminate flooring. Beach front sunlight poured through the blinds of her third story studio; she winced in the afternoon heat as she slid the blinds to the side and walked onto her wooden deck. Her flip-flops smacked against her feet, and then she leaned over her balcony, supporting her weight with the palms of her hands. She swung herself up and then straddled the railing and looked down the waterline of the beach. She tucked her felt tipped pen behind her ear, and ran her fingers through her short, highlighted, frenetic beach blond hair. She pulled her sunglasses over her eyes and set her notebook onto the wide cherry stained railing. Blue ocean waves ran to play with sand castles always battling over their territory.

What would you choose if you had free will? She thought.

Perhaps I really do long for the quiet and the power of the mountains, he replied.

So, I will make it your cabin then.

But this really isn't my desire if you made me with this desire, he retorted. If I take this cabin, will it be something you have taken, or something that I have taken? Whose will, will it be a part of?

What does it matter if you share some of my desires? She challenged.

He reached into the pile of dishes, and pulled out a white spotted, blue metal bowl with chunks of chili hardening along the bottom, perhaps the cleanest in the stack. He flung the bits into the trash with a tomato sauce stained wooden spoon and then scooped the eggs and bacon into his bowl—he kept the wooden stirring spoon.

The screen door was still banging every so often, and he pushed the front-room's door closed. He lifted the wet poncho over his head and onto the door hook, careful not to spill his breakfast. Drops of water spilled onto the wooden floor from his hood. Fine, I'll take it; its really not that bad, he chuckled.

He sat on the double bed, and brought the bowl under his chin. He picked up an entire fried egg with his spoon and quickly tossed it into his mouth; yellow orange egg yolk warmly dripped onto his beard. What action can I take, that is free from cost? Where—or how—can I make a decision that doesn't really affect me any more than any other decision would?

He reached over to the bed-side table, and took a small pad and a stubby charcoal pencil. With his spoon in one hand, and the stub in the other, he slowly chewed the egg while he stared at the first blank page that he could find. And then, he began to write:

A frail main listened from within his cell under a barred and open window; outside, the fishermen quietly set their nets before the dawn, and the river rolled gently along its banks. Hurried hands slid sheaves of paper and two pens under the heavy wooden door; the man ran from the window, his trembling, gnarled fingers grabbing in compulsion. With the paper and pens in his hands, he sat with his back to the wall—Will there ever be a time at the river? He wondered hopefully. A rat ran across the stone floor of the candlelit cell, and the morning air coolly washed the sadness away. And then, he thought about what to write—

Oh good grief! She said, as she dismounted the railing. No way are you going to make this—that—obvious. She gazed over the ocean to the storm clouds off southwest of the island. She tore the page from her journal, and the breeze tossed the ball of paper as it danced along the empty but castled beach. Lightning forked out among the rising waves; thunder marched defiantly to the shore.

The man sat in his cell looking at where the rat had ran under his cot. For a moment he tried to run his fingers through his long dark, matted hair. He gazed at the sheaves of paper on his lap, and while he considered the woman's destiny, he massaged his back against the rounded edges of the cell's stone wall. He smiled, then tore the page in half; two crumpled balls of paper danced off the cobbled floor and then into the darkness under his cot. In silence, he looked and considered the brand new page. Then, with a well practiced flourish, he picked up his pen and began to write once more:

After the storm clouds had faded, the man had left the cabin in the morning before dawn; a well worn and familiar path had led him through the mountain woods. As he tried to straighten some stray tangles in his beared, he gazed at the fading morning stars. Then, with a fish stringer hung from his waders, a fly rod in his hand, and a few extra flies stuck to the brim of his cap, he turned, and walked into the stream.

Sufficient and Necessary Conditions

2009-08-18T09:38:00.023+03:00

cmp.2008.08.17
ed.2008.08.27.01 (Made this into a simple logic post.)

A sufficient condition is a condition that is enough to imply the truth of another condition. If the preceding, (antecedent) condition is true, then it must also be the case that the following condition, (consequent), is true. If "A", then "B". (A is the sufficient condition). It is also understood "B" could be true even without "A". But, if "A" is true, then "B" necessarily follows.

For example:
1. If it rains, then the streets will definitely get wet. Though, the streets could get wet in other ways, like water gun fights. Rain is a sufficient condition for the streets to get wet.
2. Cutting a tree down is a sufficient condition to kill that tree, (all that is needed to kill that tree is to cut it down, there may be other ways to kill it though).
3. Burning a tree down to the grown is a sufficient condition to kill that tree, (all that is need to kill that tree is to burn it down, there may be other ways to kill it though).

A necessary condition is a condition that must be met in order for something else to be true. "B" MUST be true in order for "A" to be true. If "B" is false, then "A" must be false.

For example:
1. It is a necessary condition for me to be breathing in order to live.
2. It is a necessary condition for me to be hydrated in order to live.

TPCS: The Building Blocks of Storytelling

2009-08-10T04:47:00.006+03:00

cmp.2009.07.30
ed.2009.08.11.02

The building blocks of every good story are its themes, plots, characters, and scenes, (think "Topics" to remember all four--without the vowels).

Too much Theme, and you get a lecture.
Too much Plot, and you get an outline.
Too much Character, and you get a biography.
Too much Scene, and you get a geological survey.

Craft Themes, Plots, Characters and Scenes in the appropriate balance and harmony, and you will have the foundation for sharing your story.

TPCS: A Journaling Excercise

2009-08-10T03:53:00.008+03:00

cmp.2009.08.09
ed.2009.08.10.01

Organization
1. Introduction
2. The Exercise
3. Examples

Introduction
The backbone of every story are its themes, plots, characters, and scenes, (think "Topics" to remember all four--without the vowels).

Here is a short journaling exercise to help reinforce the distinct building blocks of storytelling. Alternatively, instead of generating your own ideas, try to identify these components in a story that you have read and how they contributed to the overall quality of the story being told.

Disclaimer: These building blocks relate to the art of storytelling. The art of storytelling is much different from the "writing craft". In other words, just because you can write a good story, doesn't mean that you can write well. Also, just because you can write well, doesn't mean you can write a good story.

Exercise
Step 1: Themes
Think of a theme, or two! Racism, love at first site, the legal and moral definitions of marriage, climate change, crazy Republican/Democrat Nazi polemic morons, (sorry, its in the news), student voice in Iran, whatever.

Just pick a theme you CARE about, this is one of the molecules of your "ENERGY" formula. The more things that you are passionate about that go into the story, the more interest you have for the story, and more energy. Just be careful not to try to get too much into a short space.

Step 2: Plots
Think of a chain of events, (A plot or story), that you are passionate about. Maybe pick a couple to increase the pace. Is there a chain of events occurring in the world, or in your past, or in the past, present or future of one of your friends that you can't forget or get out of your mind?

What about the chain of events needed to make a fried egg? Tie your shoes? Painting an acrylic portrait of someone you love? Installing a Nitrous Oxide system to your car? Baking Bread? Just pick something that you know and care about. Never pretend you know about something when you write; actually know it, and know it well.

This will be your "outline". Change names, dates, places, whatever. If you happen to be using the shoe tying outline, you can substitute, "Go around the ears and bite the leash" with "He held her dangling earring in his lips, moved a little closer, and softly nibbled on her ear. He turned her away from the door, and traced her necklace line with his fingers ..." Okay, so I should never write a romance--moving along... Use your outline as an "Abstraction", (it doesn't tell you exactly what to write, but it gives you a base reference, a framework to work from!).

Step 3: Characters
Casting Call! If this were a painting, a movie, a poem, a stage play, whatever, and you were the director, (you are the author after all), what kinds of actors would you have act this "play" (story) out? What kind of characters would make this the most interesting? Better yet, what people in your life, or in pop-culture, do you know that would be really interesting to have act those parts out? Do you have a friend that should be shot if they ever became a politician? :) Change names, etc, to protect the innocent. :)

Step 4: Scenes
Location, location: Where would these characters likely meet? What is their common ground? Find a place that you, (the author), AND your characters would be passionate about. Why do they go there? How is the place NECESSARY to further the plot and define character?

Examples
Theme:Human Trafficking
Plot: Failing to Ransom, Redeem, or Rescue a girl
Characters: American, Moroccan girl, "Human Broker"
Scene: Bedouin Market, Be'er Sheva Israel

Theme: Socialize Health care, Right or Privilege?
Plot: Person doesn't want it, but needs. Person who needs it, is bound by it.
Characters: 1. Business Owner goes broke, child has leukemia - Rural family has limited access to hospitals/care - family member has rare disease.
Scene: Both families go to amusement park, for some fun and relaxation to de-stress.

Not Quite Forgotten

2009-07-22T05:17:00.009+03:00

cmp.2009.07.21: Just because people don't like it when I "mean" too much.
ed.2009.08.09.02 (First Draft)

I might as well entertain myself while I plunge. Maybe I could talk to myself. Though, if I am going to talk to myself again, I will need a good topic, I don't want to bore myself. The question really is which Me to talk to. Obviously, Present Me doesn't seem very interesting to talk to. Present Me is too busy pontificating the finer points of vulcanized rubber toilet plungers and the efficiencies of their new-fangled long tapered ends. Perhaps if Present Me were more agile at depositing rather large foreign objects into toilet bowls that have previously been considered under questionable spiritual influence, then Present Me would not be trying to leverage my weight with my left foot up on the side of the bathtub.

Though, I am not really sure if I am gaining any certain advantage other than keeping my pinky toe from frolicking out of its untended peep hole at the tip of my sock. My right foot, though, is hopelessly sopping wet—however, it is without the fret of vulnerable appendages deciding to wander off and explore the wonderful depths of toilet water and the floating pieces of rotting vegetables and cheese. Past Me would be helpful right about now:

Past Me, would you be so kind as to enlighten me regarding the highly delicate situation that I have happened upon?"

Well, Present Me, Have you considered the stir fry that you had made four nights ago? (Your time, of course.)

Of course I remember. I lightly steamed the veggies first. The vegetables were snuggly cradled in the top of the steamer, the bits of broccoli and carrots bespeckled with the occasional hacked off morsel of garlic. A little pepper, oregano and not too much salt. In the end, I tossed them into the frying pan with some sliced chicken breast. And for the finish, I sprinkled cheese on top. But, little Boy didn't like it.

Oh no he didn't.

You can say that again.

You mean, I can say that again.

Of course, sorry about that--Oh no, he didn't.

Quite right. I try again: A flush, a thrust, a swirl—will it gurgle? Oh no!

Fight or Flight?

Forgetting the wet sopping towel around the base of the bowl, I set my left foot onto it as I kneel and reach for the "turn-the-water-off-as-fast-as-I-can" valve. I wonder at my proficiency in plumbing terminology. My little toe rubs against the tag of the now dully white towel. I wonder absently if the tag had warned me to not take it off with some daring threat. I jerk my foot away and prop it back up on the tub.

It won't make any difference any more. Trust me, if you keep doing this, you'll be here for a while.

Future me? Is that you?

Yes, and honestly, you are lucky that Boy found his wad of paper-towel-wrapped veggies and decided to flush them. In a different future timeline, he forgets that he hid them in the drawer under the stove. Trust me, it will have had gotten a little foul, and for weeks you won't be able to figure it out. He will have had put the wad in that small pan you never use.

Ooh, Boy is getting quite clever at this. I am going to have to remember that next time I give him veggies. Well, this is going to take a while. I might as well put my back into it.

So, I turn facing away from the toilet, straddling it from above. Technically, it's called the reverse plunge. My little brother said that he once had to resort to this technique. Apparently, due to the massively random nature of the food his girlfriend cooked for him, (apparently in her affectionate desire to prove her culinary skills), his body had developed quite a bit of lean muscle mass to support this particular position. Well, I know my food isn't very good, and I also know that I have spent an awful lot of quality time in this position, so perhaps I will have better leverage too.

"Excuse me? I knocked and …" The maintenance man stared from the bathroom door with a plumbing snake in his hand. His earlobes seemed to twitch.

Oh for crying out loud! Past Me! What in the world?

Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, Future me told me to call maintenance. He mentioned something about saving us the back trouble in the future.

Appendix:

1. Where did the idea come from?

I was contemplating string theory, and kids. A random toilet thought jumped in, and I was kind of hungry at the moment. It was really late. And, I wanted someone to talk to; so, I thought I might be good sport. I do remember hiding my veggies in a very similar manner. And I do remember forgetting them and the foul, very unpleasant odor that led our dog to find them.

2. How many drafts of the story did I write?

I have no idea what a draft is. But, I did edit a bit. I had to slice out a bit, which was mainly the first paragraph trying to figure out which Me to talk to, past, present or future. Really, it wasn't that interesting, and usually never is. These conversations can be quite tedious at times, and so I removed it to spare my reader, (and to fit my story in five pages). Ahem.

The Measuring Stick of a Good Writer

2009-07-17T05:29:00.002+03:00

cmp.2009.07.16

You can know that you are a good writer when you can sit down and intentionally craft what you have imagined others to see, and they do.

I have yet to do this.

-e.s. kohen

Free Will

2009-07-16T09:17:00.067+03:00

cmp.2009.07.14
ed.2009.08.28.01 (Redirect to new post.)

Renamed to "Pages" and reposted.

http://www.kohen.com/2009/08/pages.html

Guinness and George Orwell

2009-06-15T03:05:00.021+03:00

cmp.2009.06.14
ed.2009.06.15.04 (v1.00)

Organization
1. The Mysteries of Sploosh-Splooshy
2. Where Exactly is Britain?
3. Free George Orwell!
4. Scary Intuition
5. Conspiracy Theory

The Mysteries of Sploosh-Splooshy
As I was walking down the assorted alcoholic beverage, chips, dips, and not-so-decaffeinated drink aisle today, my eyes happened to alight upon the selection of Guinness beer. As I was pondering the probable differences between "Extra Stout" and the regular bottled "Draught", a man with neatly cut, black and grey hair approached me, looked to what had caught my attention, then to me, and then asked, "What is the thing inside of the Guinness bottle?"

Now, for various reasons which I hope never to fully explore and contemplate, (possibly due to some sort of obsessive compulsiveness), I had in fact researched this particular anomaly many years ago, (possibly two).

And, as it happens with all things researched in previous lifetimes, some of the finer details that enable eloquent elaboration sometimes fade upon recall.

"Well, its a plastic floaty thing that helps the beer pour better like it does from a tap. And, its stops the sploosh-splooshy gurgle thing from happening when you drink it."

(If it just happens that my highly technical jargon overwhelms you, then feel free to research "Guinness Smoothifier". You may notice that the real purpose is to store nitrogen that is released when said beverage is opened in order to produce a really smooth foamy thingy at the top.)

Where Exactly is Britain?
And, as the ironic ironies in my life go, he proceeded to ask his next query.

"Did you know that Britain has the most surveillance of any country in the world?"

Now, you must understand that I am from the United States, and certain geographical oddities have never really inspired my curiosity enough to motivate me to deeper research. For example: I have never been motivated to find out the exact size of Canada City, and how early they teach their children to milk their family polar bears so they can have something warm to drink in their igloos every morning. Another such example is researching the exact state of general madness in the United Kingdom, what exactly the U.K. is, how it is different from "Great Britain", or if England is actually Britain. Any such geographical detail will probably always be beyond my grasp.

But one particular implication did not escape me. All of a sudden the horror of being caught gazing at a British beer so fiercely grappled at my super-ego that I had to take a quick glance back at the bottle until I was reassured by the quite elegant reaffirmation: "Dublin". Ah, the Irish. (If you do not understand this kind of fear, then know that certain insinuations are quite hazardous to your employability in Washington State, especially in Seattle and Redmond.)

Free George Orwell!
Feeling at peace, I once again looked to the man who furthered our dialogue.

"Did you know they have 32 cameras pointed at the house where George Orwell used to live?"

Now, the mention of surveillance before, warned me of perhaps mild paranoia, but there was something definitely odd in this particular question that I wanted to examine, but alas, he continued.

"That plastic thing has these little fins on it so that it can only go in, but cannot come out."

To which I responded, "I was actually curious about how it looked."

And then he quickly affirmed my suspicion. "I think you have to break it open to get it out; yeah, that's what I did. I think it might be a surveillance device."

Scary Intuition
Now if anyone can be said to know me, they certainly know that I am skeptical and very analytical. But, I hope this is because deep down, I truly am passionate about truth. How is it that people come to believe things? Why do we put so much confidence in tradition, hear-say, and our own speculation absent any real evidence? Just because we believe something doesn't make it true. And certainly, this kind of intuition is not a "spiritual gift" from God as some claim, (especially in light of the fact that God rebuked such hard-headed confidence in our own strengths and intellectualism many, many times over).

"Maybe they have those 32 cameras pointed where George Orwell used to live because it is a tourist attraction, and they are afraid of vandalism?"

This seemingly very innocuous reply, and the encouragement that there might actually be other reasonable explanations for the plastic anti-sploosh-splooshy device, seemed to put him at ease.

Conspiracy Theory
But, I have to ask myself: if such a basic, and simply taught concept of critical thinking could be taught in a moment, (that it is necessary to rule out a rival hypothesis), then what is the justification that critical thinking and logic aren't taught to children in elementary school and consistently thereafter? It certainly cannot be because they are too difficult to learn. Because, critical thinking and logic are the very foundation of learning in the first place. The only thing that enables us to learn, is our ability to reason and assign significance.

And because there is no rational justification to not teach children to think critically, or to reason using formal logic, I have decided to adopt this man's conspiratorial mindset that "They" are manipulating generations of people, and their children, to blindly accept anything that "Them" want us to believe. Or maybe, the truth is that we have already decided that it really is too inconvenient to think for ourselves, and maybe we think it is much easier if someone else thinks for us? Or maybe "They" just want us to think that it is too inconvenient to think ...

ACK!

Rule #1 of Conspiracy Theories: Never critically examine your own theories; it just gets too confusing.

Noodles

2009-06-09T05:07:00.003+03:00

Hey everyone.... Just to be clear, I am aware of the reality that not many people read this blog, and so it is highly unlikely that people will come here to post random questions. This is kind of my scratch pad after all for random thoughts.

However, in the event that there is some philosophical emergency, a persistent recurring existential moment, or just the obsessive compulsion to dialogue about something and every potential outcome of that thought, please feel free to post a comment to this post. I will read it, copy and paste it into a blog post of its own... and we can have a really good "go" at it. :D

Please, please, do not post any questions about llamas and what their significance really is in the Jimmy Neutron series. I really don't know, though I think it might be somehow related to hair spray. (Seriously, have you ever thought about the hair-dos in that show??!).

Post away.

Thanks!

The Path of Favor

2009-05-08T03:57:00.001+03:00

cmp.2009.05.07.01
ed.2009.05.07.01

The Path of Favor

Humility > Understanding > Wisdom > Fear > Trust > Obedience > Knowledge

To The NAACP: Racism in Israel

2009-04-21T02:57:00.018+03:00

cmp.2009.04.20
ed.2009.04.20.10 (Public Draft)

To the NAACP, Department of International Affairs:
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 915
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202-463-2940
Fax: 202-463-2953

The Washington Street Journal recently posted an article that began this way:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel the "most cruel and repressive racist regime" at a racism conference in Geneva, giving a fresh reminder of the challenges the U.S. faces in its effort to improve relations with Tehran.

European diplomats walked out of the room after the comments Monday. The U.S. and a handful of European allies had already boycotted the United Nations event out of concern it would become a platform to criticize Israel, and the Iranian president's planned attendance added fuel to those concerns.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124021935702234443.html

It wouldn't take much interviewing to realize that many of Israel's citizens would agree with his statement. There is incredible racism in Israel and rampant segregation. There is even racism between the different Jewish sects based on "race" of all things, (whether they are from Iran, or Russia, or from Spain, etc). And if there is favoritism, then there is cruelty. Any mistreatment based on race, religion or even gender has been argued over and over again to be cruelty.

The schools are even segregated.

I personally witnessed a Jewish Rabbi take his daughter to Ben-Gurion hospital, and I watched as she was admitted to a medical ward where there were Ethiopian patients. After a day of being in this ward, the Rabbi pulled some strings, and was transferred to a completely different medical ward where it was was far cleaner, and much better staffed.

So, if it is true that "An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere", then why does it seem that the NAACP is silent concerning Israel's religious and racial practices of prejudice? Why does the World seem to ignore these issues? Is it because we all insist on stubbornly believing that "Israel can do no wrong"?

I sincerely would like to know if it is true that we just quote these "idealizations" only when we wish to further the causes of our own families and communities. Or, do we really have selfless concern for other nations as well?

If the NAACP has voiced concern over these issues, (or has decided that racism is not an issue in Israel), could you all point me to research and work done by the NAACP concerning Israel? On the other hand, if there hasn't been any ongoing work in this area by the NAACP, are you all considering investigating this issue?

I would really love to see the NAACP bring a spotlight on these issues, in order to help encourage change in Israel. And I hope you understand that this is the intent of this letter.

Thank you for assistance,

Sincerely,
Elika S. Kohen

Be'er Sheva Burning

2009-01-08T09:15:00.004+02:00

cmp.2009.01.07
ed.2009.01.13.02 (Public Draft)

No, a two room apartment does not mean a two bedroom apartment. What it really means is an itty-bitty living room—dining room—kitchen—bathroom crammed right up next to a small bedroom that has no door. It means incredibly hot autumn days and freezing cold nights. It means paper towels taped over a hole in the front window to keep the nighttime chill at bay; those windows barely had enough insulation to keep the rabid kittens from crawling in at night.

It couldn't have been midnight as I laid on my bed, watching my laptop screen light up half of the city of Be’er Sheva, somewhere in the Negev desert in Israel. It would shut itself off eventually, but of course that magic moment of blissful darkness wouldn’t happen until I was half frustrated out of my mind.

The shutters covering my bedroom window were tightly shut for fear of things that go bump in the night. But don’t get me wrong; even with the random rodent-wanna-be-cat launched at my apartment, I would still opt for open windows. But alas, my upstairs neighbors were somehow inspired to throw their post-rotted delectables out of their windows into a three foot chasm between a concrete fence and the wall of my wonderful accommodations. So, between the aroma of rotting hygiene products, the previously contained contents of a several very active garbage cans, and the occasional kitten carcass thrown my way, I decided to keep that particular window closed.

I should have known not to answer the door. But, when someone is hammering on your door, and half yelling in Hebrew and Arabic, something might just be amiss enough to investigate.

No one was there when I opened the door. After examining a carving knife just thrown out of the window above me, I proceeded to the other bottom floor apartment to see how much of reality I had lost touch of. I tossed the knife at what I think was a cat and started trying to decipher the colorful threats being tossed between downstairs and upstairs neighbors.

Only God really knows what would happen if the Jewish and Palestinian conflict ended; I can see everyone killing themselves, and it would probably involve teeth. The downstairs neighbors were Jewish, (though the “religious Jews” resented them). They were Hebrew at any rate, secular college kids, and living together even though they weren’t married. The Arabs upstairs redefined domestic abuse for me in ways I never knew were possible. I could never tell who was getting the worse end of it. I mean, she could really holler, but was a horrible aim when she threw knives. He was the strong silent type. So, to say this situation was a little explosive would be totally insufficient.

The house was on fire. I don’t have a clue what it was, grease, liquid cat carcass, sewage, I didn’t really care. Just the same old, same old—except it was oozing down the other side of the house onto outdoor lighting. Arabs above me, Jews all around me. All I could really decipher in the chaos of Hebrew and Arabic was that I shouldn’t have been using the water hose to put out an electrical fire.

That’s when I noticed it. Someone had stolen the really nice, long garden hose that I had just bought and put this cracked and crumbling tube of malevolent irony in its place. I sprayed everything, especially the thorn bush.

Back in front of my door, I exhaled as much burnt apartment smoke that I could. I took a moment to breathe in the cool midnight air, glad that the bushes and trees were mostly unscathed. Inside again, I slammed my door and went back to bed; and this time, my room was quietly dark.

Al-Qaeda Bases In Iraq And Around The World

2008-09-27T20:59:00.004+03:00

cmp.2008.09.27
ed.2008.09.27.01

Last night, the first 2008 Presidential Debate was held between John McCain and Barack Obama at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS.

In this debate John McCain asserted that it was critical that United States troops remain focused on efforts in Iraq to ensure that Al-Qaeda is not allowed to establish bases within Iraq.

Perhaps these questions are elementary, but I believe these questions are relevant to discussions about National Security in these debates.

How many new bases has Al-Qaeda established outside of Iraq since the attacks on the World Trade Center, September 11?
How has focusing our efforts on Al-Qaeda in Iraq affected Al-Qaeda's ability to establish new bases around the world?
Have our efforts to concentrate on Iraq increased the World's exposure to threats posed by Al-Qaeda?

Christopher Hitchens Answered

2008-06-10T23:57:00.008+03:00

c.2007.11.24
ed.2010.03.03.09 (Public Draft I)

Organization
1. The Challenge
2. A Response
3. A Logical Validation
4. Assumptions
5. Issues of Validity

1. The Challenge
When I heard this challenge offered by Christopher Hitchens in a debate with Alister McGrath that took place at Georgetown, I couldn't stop my mind from boiling over into a bubbling froth of incredulity. How is it that Christopher Hitchens can claim that no one presented a valid answer to him? This is exceptionally difficult for me to believe and became the inspiration for this article.

“Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever." -Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens stated this challenge with the apparent intent to argue that if there was a moral act that could only be accomplished by the religious, then it could be reasonably asserted that religion has something valuable to offer to society:

2. A Response
Any moral action that is religious and requires belief by definition excludes all unbelievers. This challenge can be fulfilled so long as it can be shown that there is at least one moral action that: is religious, and requires belief in God.

A moral action that a religious person can perform that an unbeliever cannot is to: “Give faithful testimony of God.”

"Faithful Testimony" is a true and consistent verbal testimony, (as in a court), of God before others concerning what He has said or done, (especially what He is saying or doing). This testimony is given credibility by an individual's faithfulness and obedience to God.

Jewish and Christian references that this is a religious action:

Leviticus 5:1 (ESV)
If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity ...

Deuteronomy 26:17 (ESV)
You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice.

Hebrews 3:5 (ESV)
Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later ...

3. A Logical Validation

Argument:

A religious person is someone who: 1, Walks in the Ways of God; 2, Keeps His Statutes; 3, Keeps His Commandments; 4, Keeps His Rules; and 5, Obeys His Voice. (Deut.26:17).
"Giving Testimony of God" is a religious act: "If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity", (Lev. 5:1, ESV).
It is impossible to consider true and faithful testimony as an immoral act regardless of who is being testified of; giving testimony is an ethical and moral action because it facilitates justice.
It is impossible for a true witness of God to give faithful, (true) testimony without believing that God "is"; this act excludes unbelievers.
It is impossible for a religious person to separate their testimony of God and faithfulness: "You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice", (Deut. 26:16, ESV).

Conclusion:
A moral action that a religious person can perform that an unbeliever cannot is to “Give faithful testimony of God while their credibility is established through their obedience to His commands.”

4. Assumptions

Assumption 1:
My interpretation of Hitchens' challenge:

If there were a moral action that only the religious could perform, then it could be seen as reasonable for people to be religious.
If you cannot name such an action, then there must not be one.
Therefore, since there is no moral action that only the religious can perform, then religion does not provide any moral value to society.

Assumption 2:
I can only assume that Hitchens is expecting religious actions to be presented. After all, it is not believing that God exists that Hitchens is attacking--in this context. He is arguing that religion provides no benefit to society; and, further that if this is true, then it is simply "toxic".

Hitchens is evidently attacking religion and the religious. In the end, there is a very big difference between being religious, and those who just simply believe that God exists.

Assumption 3:
There are many very obvious examples of ethical actions that a believer can make that an unbeliever cannot if we were to consider Hitchens' use of "ethical" in the classical sense implying "custom or habit".

Because large populations on Earth are made of believers, this makes nearly every religious action, "ethical" by definition. This readily excludes unbelievers.

Therefore, I always refer to Hitchens' use of the word "ethics" as "morality", (in the ssense that the action is "good", "right", and "just"), in order to differentiate that which could be considered ethical, but not necessarily moral, (for example, slavery was at one time considered ethical despite it truly being immoral; morality differs from ethics in that morality transcends time).

5. Issues of Validity

The Awareness of Morality:
Hitchens' hastily generalizes and mischaracterizes believers by arguing that the religious believe that: "unbelievers "would not know right from wrong if [they were] not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship".

Believers for the most part argue that the ability to discern right from wrong is inherent in all people; and, this inner quality is what is exclusive to humanity and what leads them to the knowledge of God. This belief by Jews and Christians is established primarily upon the act of Adam eating from the tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil". From this point on, it is argued that we are all well aware of the difference between right and wrong.

Furthermore, our religions are not mechanisms to define moral behavior. Neither Morality or Truth are dependent on Men to define them. It is impossible for religion to define Morality. Rather, religion, (obedience and adherence), is our response to apparent morality.

The Justification of Religion:
Religion cannot be justified by simply providing a prescription to do moral deeds. Simple reason and conviction of heart can guide us into undeniably moral and good actions, (such as feeding the hungry).

The justification of religion has never been its view towards morality, but its destination in God. The clearest measuring stick of the validity of a religion is an individual's evidentual intimacy with God.

Argument From Silence
If you cannot name such an action, then there must not be one.

Although Hitchens does not directly make this statement, this implied conclusion is based on silence and the lack of contrary evidence. Just because he or anyone else is ignorant of a truth, doesn't not mean that this truth does not exist.

Hitchens presupposes that there is no contrary evidence and therefore feels his conclusion is justified.

The Issues of Today

2008-06-10T23:44:00.003+03:00

cmp.2008.06.10
ed.2008.06.10.02 (Concept Draft)

Every election I find myself baffled by the reaction of the current president of the United States of America along with the inaction of candidates who are currently serving in the senate or congress.

In every election, there are seemingly at least two candidates who represent the voices of the American people. In every case, these individuals promise to tackle the most signficant issues of that day. But, in every case, those issues that are considered relevant for today, are not actually and practically engaged until after an election or even years down the road.

But what about the current president? What prohibits a president from proposing the same solutions that the candidates are? If these solutions are really that important, why do we have to wait until the next president is elected? It seems that if the current president cared, they would take action immediately--especially in a state of perceived crises. Why does it always seem that during the last year of presidential office, the president never cares about any of the issues that the next candidates are trying to overcome?

For example, a gas tax holiday was proposed this election season by a candidate. Now, if the President of the United States cannot enact this now, what assurance is there that it could be enacted in the future? Furthermore, the candidate that proposed this "Gas Tax Holiday" is currently a senator and has the means to propose this legislation now, and without the help of the president. What gives?

Is it unreasonable to expect a candidate who promises certain changes to show efforts to make these changes now? Certainly running for the office of the President of the United States is not easy--on the contray, it takes extraordinary effort. So, why is it so difficult for a candidate to publish their proposed legislation beforehand? For some reason, it seems far less complex to bring legislation like this to congress than it is to run for president.

What if a candidate for the presidency, especially one already in office, presented their proposed bills to congress and to the senate before they were ever elected president? What kind of impact would this action have?

One, we would know that they were being faithful to the commitments that they have already made. Two, we would know that they were serious about the actions that they promise to take. Three, either through the rejection of these propositions, or the acceptance of them, an incredible dynamic emerges where that metaphorical "line" is drawn in the sand and we are allowed to see into the character of those who represent us in Washington.

But far be it for our president or our presidential nominees to take these issues to congress now. After all, as long as these issues are unresolved, then there are those who believe that these issues can be taken advantage of to secure for themselves a position in office. Truly, the test of selflessness would be to begin the process of change now, in a practical way--regardless of whether or not the presidency is ever attained. With the platform that a candidate has, it would seem reasonable that they would try to invoke as much change as they could. What happens to the aspirations and dreams of those voting for a candidate that never gets elected?

Natural Transcendence

2007-12-30T12:09:00.005+02:00

c.2007.09.12
ed.2010.02.02.01 (Concept Draft)

If every cause is truly an effect of a previous cause, then the only resolution for that paradoxical "First Cause" is that this "First Cause" must have transcended all natural law--must have even transcended that which is ordered, creation itself. Only by not being bound under natural law can that "First Cause" not be required to be preceded by another cause.

That which is above Nature, above natural law, evidences a greater and much higher "Transcendence".

If there is order--and no randomness--in everything I see, then reasonably, I must conclude that I am not random. And if I am a "result", then it is reasonable for me to believe that I have been caused into an "ordered" existence by something much greater and "transcendent" than myself, greater even than this universe.

This transcendence above and within nature, is what I call Heaven.