Sunday, April 19, 2009

[easter day] today in the eastern tradition


This article was from the Melbourne Age from 2005. Sadly, I can't attribute it, as it is from my pre-blogging days but it does put the significance of Easter in perspective. There are statements in this article you're going to challenge.


The question is how our shared values might be kept from consignment to the museum if the faith that shaped them continues to decline in influence.

The cross, according to Christians, stands at the centre of history. On this day, about 1975 years ago, Roman soldiers scourged Jesus and nailed him to the cross. Christians believe this appalling piece of cruelty was God's deliberate plan, the supreme demonstration of his love and his identification with human suffering. The cross is used repeatedly in the New Testament as a metaphor to sum up the content of Christianity.

On the cross, the Bible teaches, humankind was ransomed, redeemed, reconciled with God and acquitted of guilt and sin. Sydney Smith, the 19th-century Anglican wit, was surely right when he observed that "man is certainly a benevolent animal. A never sees B in distress without thinking that C ought to relieve him directly." According to Christianity, God saw A, B and C's distress and acted, in the cross.

Non-Christians, of course, don't see it this way. Nevertheless, for them, too, the cross represents a defining historical moment because Christianity's influence has reached most of the globe. Certainly it has been the overwhelming force shaping Western culture and values, so much so that many humanists concede there is little in their ethical outlook that wasn't earlier in Christianity.

Sometimes the influence is obvious, as in the church's work among the poor and broken. Hospitals, for example, are a Christian invention, along with free public education. And sometimes the influence is malign, as when the church has helped to entrench injustice and endorsed the status quo.

Sometimes the influence is so deep it is taken utterly for granted. Take the ethic of love: Christianity took the Greek concept of unconditional agape and gave it new meaning, centred in human relationships. Or humility - perhaps the central virtue of a Christian - is by no means esteemed in all cultures. Agamemnon and Achilles, Homer's heroes of ancient Greece, fell out over the honour owed them.

Centuries later, Aristotle's great-souled man was duty-bound to trumpet his worth and require due recognition, so long as he did not exaggerate it. As Australia moves into post-Christian modes of living, humility is ever less valued, and most of us regret its loss (at least in other people).

The most enduring ethical bequest of Christianity is the belief that all humans are equal in dignity and have unique worth as individuals. That flows directly from the belief that every person is created in the image of God. Many can no longer use that sort of language today - opting instead for the discourse of rights - but most still insist that humans have individual value. Whatever else people might make of what Christians commemorate today, this enduring value flows from a Christian culture.

Most Australians, while valuing a pluralistic and multicultural society, also admire many other ethical values that linger from our Judaeo-Christian heritage - such concepts as compassion, love, forgiveness and redemption. The question is how our shared values might be kept from consignment to the museum if the faith that shaped them continues to decline. Some ethical capital remains but it is fast being spent.

One thing Christians note with interest is that though atheists and agnostics may reject the notion of a personal deity they admire the example Jesus set in his life and teaching. Non-believers often suggest that these ethical qualities can endure independently of religious belief. Christians have their doubts, because Jesus' ethical teaching flowed directly from his theological commitments.

But, in a pluralistic society, Christians should be glad that their values retain the purchase they do. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the church is to present and preserve a world in which these values can flourish.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

[hillary] where is huma now


The thing which always puzzled me was why Abedin would have wanted to.

[unwitting partners] we’re always the good guys, aren’t we

The importance of being right

In Russia, there was a particular father who had this unfortunate habit of concluding every third sentence with, ‘… am I right?’ This also went to show that people are the same the world over and that middle-aged men [and women], including me, are susceptible to this characteristic.

For us, the blog was invented, to pour it all out and to spare our partners an earbashing. Would that women would all blog as well and give us some peace and quiet 30% of the time.

By the way, there’s only one thing worse than an old pontificator, who at least knows something of the world … and that’s a young ponitificator. I still remember an eighteen year old mate of mine talking cars with my father and saying, ‘Well, you know, I’m not impressed by the Jensen Interceptor.’

My father replied with the equivalent of, ‘Who gives a f--- what you’re impressed with?’ He didn’t say those exact words because he never swore and taught me not to – that’s fraying a bit round the edges now.

That boy was little different to Mark Twain being impressed how much his father had learned between Twain’s 14th and 21st years.

Mr. White [a motif in itself] also said, in Quantum, ‘We have people everywhere,’ and concluded the remark with, ‘… am I right?’

Everyone likes to think he [and she]’s right. This personality quirk of yours, though annoying to us, is hardly as world shattering as, say, Gordo’s omnipotence.

When concepts don’t work

Svali, who incidentally said in 2000:

The good news is that if a person is debt-free, owes nothing to the government or credit debt, and can live self sufficiently, they may do better than others. I would invest in gold, not stocks, if I had the income. Gold will once again be the world standard, and dollars will be pretty useless.

… also said about Them, the ignorant Middletons, Balls, Millipedes, Obamas et al who corrode the cogs, nuts and bolts which help the world cough and splutter along:

Basically, they are in denial. They believe that history can be changed …

and:

They dominate the financial picture, have immense wealth, several mansions around the world, anything they want, and the (to them) joy of controlling millions of others. They believe their intellect is sharp, and that they will be the "good guys" in the New Order. They are Luciferians, and so believe the Bible is misguided in its assertions.

They believe that basically, they are GOOD and doing a good work, even if the means are tough to endure at the time. They are weeding out the weak and unfit, and developing a supreme human being. I know it sounds like hog wash, but they truly, honestly believe this at a core level.

If you think your humble blogger is ‘impressed’ with this woman, you’d be right, especially as it was said in an interview in 2000 … and look what’s happened since. Malcolm Fraser [former Australian PM] was in line with this thinking, smugly delivering to a suffering electorate [at the time]:

‘Life wasn’t meant to be easy.’

Look at Gordo and Harold Wilson, the pied pipers towards austerity. All part of the plan, comrades. The pound in your pocket – anyone remember that?

Agatha Christie, no less, wrote in ‘N or M’, 1941:

‘Incredible!’ said Tommy.

Grant shook his head.

‘You do not know the force of German propaganda. It appeals to something in man, some desire or lust for power. These people were ready to betray their country, not for money but in a kind of megalomaniacal pride in what they - they themselves - were going to achieve for that country. In every land it has always been the same. It is the Cult of Lucifer — Lucifer, Son of the Morning. Pride and a desire for personal glory.’

Now, you tell me how any of that is different to Gordo’s socialist world vision?

How is it any different to the principal speaker at the Oxford meeting of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders On Human Survival [1988], co-sponsored by the Temple of Understanding and the UN Global Committee., James Lovelock, a Fellow of the Lindisfarne Association (a New Age group headquartered at the Cathedral), who authored the book The Ages of Gaia?

… on Earth she (Gaia) is the source of everlasting life and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.

Lovelock wrote:

Orthodox Christianity, properly understood, is a distortion of the pure forms of religious truth … we must immediately return to the worship of the Earth goddess if we are to save ourselves from destruction.

Present there, nodding on and making speeches in support, was Maurice Strong, whose claims to fame include:

In 1992, [he was] chairman of the United Nation's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro He was co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum, became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), found time to serve as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance. Friends include former Vice President Al Gore.

This is Them and here is their global vision, which Strong was heavily involved in promoting:

The purpose of the World Service Intergroup is to generate a focused, conscious and deliberate intergroup effort to specifically assist the Externalization of the Hierarchy and the Reappearance of the Christ.

I'm not making this up. I wish I were. And this does not refer to JC. From an article I can't find the link to:

Strong was at Findhorn, together with the Lucis Trust. Gordon Davidson and Corrine McLaughlin, who set up the WSI in Washington, D.C. in 1995 were also instrumental in setting up the Valdez Principles, committing corporate America to the Gorean Eco-principles now in vogue today. Here is the mindset:

The Shamballa force is in reality Life itself; and Life is a loving synthesis in action. We also used the Six Laws and Principles of the New Age to lead us towards creating a vision of how these principles might create patterns for the New Civilization humanity will be constructing over the next 2500 years.

The environmental movement therefore has an occult angle influencing it which sets it apart from the mindset of most people who see themselves as at least partly green. Shamballa force would seem to have little to do with recycling your bottles and using eco-friendly lamps and yet the connection is forced at high levels of society.

These people really believe they are the Good Guys. Black is White [Mr. White] and White is Black. Does anyone recall the biblical ‘woe to them who call white black and black white’ [or words to that effect]?

What socialism really entails

In 1990, Strong gave an interview to writer Daniel Wood [West Magazine], in which he discussed a novel he'd like to write:

'Each year,' he explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot, 'the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO'S, prime ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.'

With this as a setting, he then says, 'What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world leaders.'

'They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered a panic, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich countries -' and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

Ravings of a loony? Maybe and there are many loonies, even in the blogosphere but the point is, this man is one of the Gorean ‘in-crowd’ of which Obama is a key member. In other words, the people coming out with these loony ideas are the people running things.

Look at the top in Britain and there he is in all his glory – El Gordo, with his global economic plan. If you’re an economic writer [I think here of Cityunslicker and Sackerson], you’d want to dissociate the ‘pure’ economics so beloved of you guys from the Shamballa guff but boys, you can’t separate it, not because I say so [and people have called me left field before] but because it really is the driving power behind Their actions.

Them.

You wouldn’t ignore inconvenient statistics, would you? You’d include all the stats. Ditto here. You need to weave the ravings of the people who actually run the show into your eco-view, at least to take the opposition into account.

Remember boys, these are the people who say capitalism and the free market have failed.

To my sweet, everyday, garden, socialist friends whose hearts are true

In Maurice Strong's April 8, 1997 speech introducing the Earth Charter to the UN, he said:

There is a need to address the fundamental ethical imperatives of sustainable development.

And what are these ethical imperatives?

Strong spoke of 'ethics of participation' . . . and 'ethics of inclusion' . . . in order to 'foster a healthy balance between quality of life and quality of environment — because development must henceforth be in balance with Mother Earth.' It will 'develop a sense of belonging to the universe.

There you go – tolerance, balance, the ethics of inclusion, love for humanity, multiculturalism where racism is anathema – all good stuff, eh? You’d subscribe to those values, socialists and left liberals, wouldn’t you? I hope Aaron’s reading this.

Of course you would, except that certain people at the top, Them, have hijacked the agenda and are pushing a very much unsustainable and bizarre policy which includes you, yourself, my socialist friends, who voted Nu Labour back last time and are now regretting it.

It’s not your fault but you can’t seem to see how the people at the top are manipulating your basic good will for completely other purposes.

Look at what motivates you. Look at what motivates my dear friend Cherie – care and compassion. Care for her members, care for the poor who can’t find a way on their own, respect and tolerance for humanity. Giving back to society.

Beautiful values.

You really are the Good People … except that you’ve been unwitting partners to the hijacking … and the agenda you think you’ve been supporting has actually been skewed and twisted into the shambolic Shamballa, at the higher echelons.

The fish rots at the head and always has.

You, my socialist and left liberal friends [and I mean good friends in many cases], are no different to the right of centre libertarians in that we all want prosperity and the right to a slice of the good life for our families. Yet we find ourselves on opposite sides of the political fence.

Why?

The simple fact is that the world does not owe us a living and even if it was altruistic enough to wish that, the resources don’t exist to implement such a panacea. Especially not when the resources are being skimmed off by Them.

If everyone felt the same and wanted to, rather than were compelled to , make personal sacrifices, as Lord T says, then people would not be as unemployed and living off the state which can't afford it, the current situation.

The nub of the matter

Look, I’m no wiser than you, considerably less so in many ways. Your world view you’ve sorted out in your mind has much to recommend it but if it does not include ALL the facts, including the inconvenient ones above, then it is flawed.

I’m not wise, I just report report these things as they happen, that’s all.

[political gaffs quiz] can you get all five


That gaff wasn't political though.


1. Name the gaffmeister who allegedly told British students in China: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

2. Obama had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians and ...whom?

3. Name the man who said: "I don’t particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."

4. Name the person who sent this e-mail message to the Department of Local Government, Transport and the Regions on 911, : "Today is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury." [H/T Paul]

5. Who originally used the epithet "the longest suicide note in history" to describe Labour's 1983 election manifesto?

Answers

Phil the Greek, David Cameron, Dubya, Jo Moore, Gerald Kaufman

Friday, April 17, 2009

[air travel] fly the python way


How would you like to find one of these on your in-flight magazine?

[pascha] good friday today



It's Orthodox Easter Friday today and you might be wondering about the discrepancy between east and west.

The Christian Easter is tied in with the Jewish Pesach or Passover.

The Passover itself is complicated and ties in with the Metonic cycle of years, which involve the Golden Numbers 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19.

From this come calculations for the Jewish calendar year which - the Hebrew Pesach is determined in the Old Testament to begin on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan.

Originally, this meant, from observation of the moon, that Passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Christians, therefore, celebrated Pascha according to the same calculation-that is, on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

Almost from the very beginning of the existence of the Christian Church, the issue presented variations. Although the New Testament relates these events to the Jewish Passover, the details of this relationship are not clear.

On the one hand, the tradition of the synoptic gospels identifies the Lord's last supper as a passover meal, placing the death of the Lord on the day after Passover. On the other hand, the tradition of the Gospel of St. John situates the death of the Lord at the very hour the paschal lambs were sacrificed on the day of Passover itself.

In practice, one group were celebrating it on any day of the week [wherever the Jewish mid-Nisan fell] and the other was putting it on the Sunday after Passover.

The First Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea in 325 took up the issue. It determined that Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday which follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox-the actual beginning of spring.

There was a strong feeling in some quarters that the Christian tradition should not tie in with the Jewish calendar.

Also, there was the question of determining the calendar. In the East, the 19-year cycle was eventually adopted, whereas in the West an 84-year cycle. The use of two different paschal cycles inevitably gave way to differences between the Eastern and Western Churches regarding the observance of Pascha.

A further cause for these differences was the adoption by the Western Church of the Gregorian Calendar in the 16th century. This took place in order to adjust the discrepancy by then observed between the paschal cycle approach to calculating Pascha and the available astronomical data.

Therefore, in practical terms, the invariable date of the vernal equinox is taken by the Orthodox church to be April 3 in our current calendar (but March 21 on the Julian Calendar).

To this blogger, except that it is celebrated vaguely round the spring equinox, it hardly matters, as long as it is celebrated. Personally I like the two Easters plus the rabbits and eggs but I also like the kulich and all that tradition, as well as the midnight vigil.

It all seems to give a nice balance of gravitas and fun. After all, the Resurrection is joyful by definition, not gloomy.

[blessed are the little people] not ... and other topics

You might like to see this article.

Is this the car of the future?


English singalong [Hat tip UKIP]

[censorship] do community standards exist


Does anyone remember the 1971 Schoolkids Oz pornography trial in the UK? Does anyone remember Judge Alex Kozinski in 2008?

Not only does there seem rampant hypocrisy in the matter of what constitutes community standards and the actions of its supposed defenders but these days, I wager no one really knows what community standards are.

Let's face it, the games kids are playing on the net and using the new technology, the sex, drugs and the instantly clickable gross porn kids can access any time they want on the net has changed the ground rules completely. Parents are either naive, turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair.

What are community standards now?

Censorship classifications are a case in point. Take three films I've seen in the past months - Saw [18], In Bruges [18] and From Russia with Love [12].

Now Saw deserves its classification for gratuitous violence [people hung up with meathooks, limbs being twisted asunder and so on]. So if that constitutes an 18 rating, then what of In Bruges?

It has tame sex [Clemence Poesy even keeps her clothes on], has swearing and one drug scene. There's a point where someone throws himself off a tower and you don't see the splat, you see a closeup of his face, still alive, with some ketchup spread about. Poesy, in an outtake, uses the F-word to describe the F-act.

That's it. So where's the 18 and for what? For swearing?

On the other hand, the re-released Lowry Bond FRWL is tame in itself but the menu and links feature unclad females who are quite clearly unclad and therefore the silhouettes don't work. Let alone the womanizing theme of Bond in the early episodes.

This is rated 12?

So I ask again, what are the community standards which lead the censors to decide on classifications, on what do they base it, who enforces it and is there any need for it at all?

My own view is that what adults watch is their affair but that kids need some form of protection. However, I'm well aware of the obvious flaw in that - where is the line drawn.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

[keyes] beautiful



Hat tip Lord T, from here.

Changing the topic, this on privacy and the lack of choice in the UK now:

Just look at what BT does with your phone service now. You don’t even want a BT phone but you need one to get a broadband connection with any ISP so you pay BT £11+ a month even if you don’t need, want or use the phone. OFCOM should fix this but is clearly toothless. It’s effectively a cash cow for BT and an additional cost for subscribers that looks very much like a license fee on broadband. BT marketing did well here. What consent is required for this? If you want broadband by anyone other than Virgin then you need to pay it and sign up to their user agreement. No options.

[pirates] a time for everything

Humorous line of the day:

Is anyone else getting tired of reading about pirates in this day and age?