justice is charity.

tzedek. a simple hebrew word. it has been translated over the years to mean justice, yet the western capitalist version of justice conjures up all sorts of idealism about fairness and equality and the punishment of criminals. while the first two ideas are noble at an anthropological level, i shall remark only this about the third. "by the same measure with which you judge, so too, you shall be judged."

yet, however noble the ideas of fairness and equality may be, they are not true representations of the word justice in its hebrew origin. for indeed, the word 'tzedek' is more accurately translated as charity and not a social system of order. the prophet micah, speaking for the Lord, states that the first quality God seeks is the pursuit of justice, the pursuit of tzedek, not of social order, but of charity. man is to actively seek out charity in all things, in all situations he is to be just only as it means he is charitable to his fellow man.

in our society, charity is often viewed as a crutch for the lazy and apathetic homeless man, whom we call a 'bum' on the streets, begging for money. and though 'social justice' has become a cultural buzz word most often associated with helping children in africa, the dominant mindset in our capitalist society is that homeless people deserve, in all fairness, their poverty because they did not work hard enough to earn their own living. this thinking is in complete contradiction with the command to pursue tzedek in micah. a command echoed by the fulfillment of jewish law and prophecy, Jesus, when He describes His sheep in matthew 25:34-36.

"then the King will say to those on His right, 'come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'for I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

in a society of competition, the american dream, and such excessive materialism, it is easy to see why justice is defined with fairness and equality, that criminals are so punished and that homeless people are seen as blemished people, lower-class degenerates. yet, this is not a new development of human selfishness or greed, for indeed throughout history this illusion of 'equal liberties' has been propagated by those up high in their social positions of comfort. just as the american who proclaims the individual rights of all man as being created equal under God, does so from the air-conditioned comfort his wealth has afforded him.

we preach social justice, the great charity of man in helping fellow man, but we are deceived by our own lies. we hope for a better world, but continue to keep it separate, segregated, and inequal. by our own false definition of justice we are the unjust. we are the criminals who deserve punishment in stealing that which is not ours. we are the goats who call themselves sheep. true justice is in charity, not of man's noble aid to another, but of God's philanthropy. His great love of mankind which overturns the man-made system of legalism and morality which severs man from God and claims to hold the power of reuniting the two. true justice does not come from man but from God, in His charity.

to bear Witness to this truth of His word is to subvert the systematic inequality of western capitalism with unfair kindness that is not deserved nor earned, but given by he who has to he who has not. not to give out of selfish ambition or institutional agenda, but out of love. love which first recognizes the poverty of one's self and then seeks to serve in alleviating the poverty of another, however temporary or permanent. the commandment in matthew 25 is always available to be fulfilled. for even Jesus himself declared that the poor will always be with us, the inequality shall always exist, yet we do what we can in spite of the inevitability of this disparity. we love those who society rejects and exhibit true justice in charity given them out of the absurd hope that when we fight poverty in even a single moment we are defeating it then, even though the same battle waits to be fought again the very next day.

true justice is not given to him who deserves what he is given, but in turning over the tables and giving to him who does not deserve being given what he does not himself have. true justice exhibits the charity of such a subversive love which bears Witness to the Word of God.

matthew 28:20

"I will be with you always, even unto the end of the age."

how incredible! how amazing it is that God should take the name Immanuel, He is with us. that He who is in heaven should come down to the earth He created and involve Himself in the lives of those very people who, throughout history, have rejected Him. for indeed, all of us have at some point, regardless of what religious beliefs we hold, or what position we occupy in society. ironically, many of us reject God in preferring a system of worship over the true object of worship Himself. yet, there are two thoughts which strike me whenever these words of Jesus ring in my ears.

first, that this promise states that God is with us, that He is uniting with mankind and not the other way around. contrary to all religious systems, man cannot reach God of his own volition. every sort of theology which starts with man looking at God and then reaches conclusions within their relevant context of culture fails and becomes only a prideful idol of man's own intelligence and reason. instead, true theological work begins with God and then seeks to understand how God sees man. in the beginning there was not man, but God, and all that follows comes from God. God did not remain in heavenly isolation but involved Himself in the everyday lives of His people. their story is recorded in the tanakh. yet, God transcends this collection of tales and events in that He continues His involvement in His creation daily. God chose to become a human being and walked the earth not as a 'king' by man's standards, but as the true King He truly is. teaching, healing, speaking the truth, serving, dying and rising from death, these are the events of His life which bear Witness to the truth of who He is, yet it does not end with that story. He leaves His kingdom in the hands of those sheep who are His. God believes in man, and shows His love for us; not the result of our religious practice and elegant doctrines, but instead, even in spite of ourselves. who is able to run far enough that they are beyond God's grace and love? the work of God does not begin when we realise it or choose to accept it, for even before we were born, He is. For He is gathering His sheep to Him, and not one of those which are His shall be lost.

secondly, this promise from Jesus does not state that life will become easier to live. in a western culture, such as the united states of america, it is easy to eventually think that we do not need God, for truly we have more than enough and wallow around in our luxury like the pigs do in mud. all of the comforts we can dream of are easily within our grasp, yet as the basic biological questions of survival and reproduction lose their urgency, there arise ideological problems which confuse, frustrate and drive many to the point of suicide. that an epidemic such as 'depression' should emerge within the wealthiest nation of man's world, echoes the comparison of the rich man entering heaven to the camel going through the eye of a needle. in other nations, where wealth does not abound, dictators and despots rule, death waits around every corner and the struggle of the day is finding even the smallest bite of food with which to try and fill one's stomach. history likes to recall the progress of mankind as testament to his abilities to improve himself and make better his world, yet only the context has changed, for indeed the same problems persist. and while many have come proclaiming the truth of man's word about God, only one came preaching God's word about man. yet, despite the difficulties of everyday life, God is with us, not to make things easier or to grant us more comfort and prosperity, but to carry us through the so-called 'deserts' of life. in our ignorance we try to escape and avoid all painful situations, yet not all sadness is an evil, nor is grief unrighteous. God Himself, while walking the earth exhibits traits of anger, sadness and frustration, yet, however misunderstood these traits are to mankind, they are not to be avoided as evil. He is with us. in times of war, in the current scandal, in extreme poverty, in sickness, in joyful times, in wealth, in our despair, in our health, in our uncertainty, He is with us. that is His promise, that is His gospel. His love never fails.

how to change the world 101

a delicate balance of hope and absurdity are the only ideological requirements for truly changing the world. for when these two fuel the fires of action taken by the individual, change cannot be stopped. yet, if this is the case then why does the world remain such a mess? most believe that it's far too great a problem for the individual to solve on their own, and this is where they are not only wrong, but inspire continued apathy.

initiatives, programmes, movements, organisations, these are noble things and it is good to unite, but all that is needed to shake the earth is the individual, passionately afire with justice at the forefront of their heart and mind. this is not to say that these groups and organisations are worthless or irrelevant, on the contrary they are often made up of united individuals who are absurdly hopeful in their resolution to change the way things are. what i am arguing here is that these institutions are not necessary and sometimes their existence causes the individual 'outside' to give up or remain in complacency. so often the frustration seems to be that since one is not a part of a programme or movement that they cannot do what it is that movement proclaims in action, yet this is not the case.

the truth is that history is marked by individual men and women who stood alone, and boldly so, in opposition to the problems and issues they faced. that others soon rallied around them comes after the fact. some recent members of this historical activist hall of fame include the likes of martin luther king, jr., mother theresa and gandhi. they became figureheads of the movements they inspired not because they needed others for their programme to work, but because they, themselves, had a dream, or saw the need for action at a personal level.

ironically it is only after this individual proclamation of principles that others joined in agreement. they found the speeches of dr. king inspiring but also, his words seemed to articulate what they had been feeling all along. the irony of individual importance is that the one who acts in defiance of the inevitable soon finds himself in similar company by those who witnessed his bravery.

in the gospels, jesus sets out on his own and then calls disciples to him, but each of those disciples were faced with a personal challenge. this was not a broad call for all to become a part of his group, but instead to set out with him on a journey that would first change them individually and then turn outward and set the world afire with hope.

in our own day, programmes and initiatives fast become trend and pop-culture groups of association. to see a t-shirt advertising this group is now all too common, and while there is nothing wrong with advertising a noble initiative, when the hype is centered around 'the who' of an organisation instead of 'the issue' a great distraction is created and as a result, apathy abounds. the same is true of religion in america and abroad.

social justice is not the saving of the earth, but rather the ideological fuel that burns a fire of perspective of charity (justice) in the heart and mind of each individual affected by it. there is no situation which exists where the opportunity to make the world a better or brighter place does not also exist. it is not a question of whether change is possible, but to what degree an individual wants to change the world versus the degree to which they are able.

there is no limitation on the potential for global shifts, yet the everyday man and woman are in a place where they may feel infinitely small in comparison to such a large world which rather huge issues and problems. this perspective is tiring and renders one the feeling of futility in doing anything at all. yet the opposite is true. the individual is infinitely large in comparison to the problems of the world, and since they can only change what they can, there is no limit to individual potential on a global scale.

a child who sells lemonade on the corner understands that she may not sell to the entire world, but to those that she can sell to on a hot summer day, she will have affected them and made their world a better place. the elderly man who may not travel to africa to distribute food to orphans and aid victims understands that he may donate money to buy food for the homeless and the orphans in his own neighbourhood. the pastor of a small church may not have a megaphone to shout his message of hope and love worldwide, but he can show love to those around him and exhibit the hope within. a school-teacher may not be able to donate a large sum of money to providing clean water worldwide, but in the teaching and care of those students in her classroom she can inspire such hope that sets those students afire with compassion and generosity.


the simple truth is this:

you cannot change the world, but you can change your world.


it is sad to think, not of what you cannot do, but of what you can do but do not. the opportunities for world-change exist all around you, if have eyes to see them. that is how to change the world.

concerning knowledge.

it is, quite constantly, a battle within mind to root out those beliefs and aspects of nature and reality which are entirely self-generated or, i should also say, reactive to cultural exposure. when applied to the category of 'God' i come across a catch 22 that is inevitable and inevitably unavoidable. what i think of God is just that, what i think. even were i to word the sentence as 'God is ___,' i run into the problem of promoting and advertising what is, ultimately, a subjective position on the subject.

yet before i question whether or not we can ever know something about God, even if it is our knowledge of our inability to know, i must first ask whether or not it is important to know. under the weight of eternity and in the shadow of forever that question may seem silly, and to some, quite offensive, but i ask it all the same. and let me explain why..

whether you regard the bible as a true historical account of everything that has happened within it's time-span, or as allegory there is a truth buried within the first pages that i think is all too illuminating. in the 'beginning,' there in the 'garden' where God created the 'first man' and the 'first woman' they lived in harmony with God. a perfect community, however inevitably doomed it may have been. despite the account of the 'days' of creation, these first few chapters of 'God's Word' do not tell us just how long 'adam' & 'eve' lived in perfect community with their creator. however, it does state the action that led to their banishment. eating, whatever fruit you imagine, of the tree of knowledge of good & evil.

was it evil to obtain knowledge of good as well as evil? ironically, when God commanded that they not eat of that tree, i do not believe that they regarded it as a moral command but they, in no uncertain terms, trusted Him. if they had no knowledge of good & evil then they could hardly judge that learning such virtue & vice would be particularly 'evil.' (what does this mean in terms of the supposed 'innate' or 'intrinsic' moral law, which is preached to be something already inside of us when we're born?)

but what really strikes me here is that 'knowledge of' comes before the words 'good' and 'evil.' it is not that there were two trees named 'good' and the other 'evil' that the first humans were allowed to choose which they would eat from, instead it is a tree that contains the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. however negative it usually sounds, trust in ignorance to the subject of morality seems to have been held more important than the knowledge of morality itself. how can this be?

there are usually a great many angles from which to approach each and every individual story. let's take this tale of a garden and it's ideological trees out of its setting at the beginning of the world and place it at the beginning of each individual human life. born into the perfection of ignorance, all of your needs provided by those looking out for you, trusting in the woman who bore you and the father who provides for you. after a time you begin to make sense of the world around you. you form conceptions from all that you perceive and even begin learning the language, whether that is intrinsic or externally taught to you. eventually you reach a point where your mother is cooking at the stove and you see the orange glow of pure heat, you extend a hand towards it but your hand is grabbed ever so delicately by the soft caring hands of your mother. "don't touch that, it's hot." this command comes to you not as a moral rebuke, though it does try to appeal to whatever sense of reason you may have established up to this point. the command also provides a measure of comfort to the mother who states it, she believes that she will be obeyed, though she really knows better deep down inside. she looks away for a moment to tend to something else, the orange glow pulses again to your eyes and with curiousity and anticipation you extend your arm again and grab the stove with your hand. a split-second later, the pain reaching your tiny nervous system, the synapses being interpreted, you are made aware. in that instant it is not the morality of pain/pleasure you learn but the hard truth that for all of your actions there will be consequences and reactions whether you want them or not.

there is always a down-side to knowing. but human pride extends so far as to believe itself capable of comprehending anything, even the deepest truths of the universe, down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle suspended in space-time and held together somehow explained by quantum physics. "we'll never know till we try." that terrible mantra of human experience: 'experience as much as you can because you only live once!'

the knowledge is what separates us from God. because He is turned into a category, a topic, a spiritual entity summed up in and defined by our human words. we know God, we love to say. He has made Himself known, we shout. when in all reality, the ignorance we were born into was closer to perfection that all of our empirical knowledge and rationality. we have established systems of how to live as God demands, but it remains our system. manmade, created in the imageo vir.

so what are those beliefs that i have built up myself and based upon my own subjective presuppositions? all of them. even the belief that my beliefs are the results of subjective interpretation. we live in the age of information when knowledge is available everywhere, but is knowledge really what will save us? may it never be! one of the subjective presuppositions of mine is that in the ignorance of trust is where i want to be. dependent and utterly reliant upon the being that i call 'God.' man seeks the tree for himself and misses the entire garden as result, which is the result of ignorance?

we shall continue to learn, we shall always interpret reality & our experiences, but lean not on your own understanding*

(*this is a paradox, because it demands that one lean on the understanding that he should not lean on his own understanding, yet a paradox, however appearing to be self-defeating it may seem, is not necessarily false, in an objective sense)

the decline of civilisation.

more often than not, words like 'technology' and 'progress' tend to convince us that we are headed in the right direction, striving toward the goal with blazing speed, on our way, guided by providence and ultimately that things are getting better each day. this type of thinking, when glanced at under the microscope of historical reflection is rendered illusory and false. of course, we already want to believe that this time in history is better than that time which came before, that things are improving and we are contributing to the eventual success of mankind in creating his own heaven here upon the earth. it would be a great despair were one to realise that human civilisation, on the whole, is, at lightning speed, spiraling downward in degeneration, so we turn our eyes away to look only at the small helping of good that is being done. on one hand, this is noble, to focus on the good and general hope of mankind for positive change, however, like all things, when the balance is tipped and the individual turns a blind eye to the suffering and evil which rules this planet, they become stagnant and instead of contributing towards a greater good, halt the process altogether.

yet, i can hear them already, shouting words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' as the cries of proof which make evident the improvements to society. using the american first amendment of free speech as the illustration to justify the progress of mankind as one of positive and not decline. despite the beautiful intoxication we have with such ideals, a healthy dose of pragmatism is always the much-needed shot in the arm. a word like 'technology' needs a definition before it can be more closely examined within the context of our subject, the decline of civilisation.


here are two definitions of the word 'technology'

the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.


it is my argument that technology, though often hailed as the great achievements of mankind in allowing him to perform more tasks with greater ease and comfort, is actually his greatest established self-restriction. the history of technology includes devices from the first arrowheads and the wheel to the automobile and computer. with each new day new 'technologies' are being created and implemented in society with the purpose of providing mankind the material objects he longs after. ironically, man is clever enough to create these technologies with their benefits in mind, yet he rarely perceives their potential for harm until it is too late. starting with the earliest weapons, manufactured with the intent to kill those beasts which provided the much-needed meat for his diet, man had also created a way in which to kill his fellow man, and also be killed by other men, with greater ease and lesser effort. the invention of the arrowhead gave him the ability to keep greater distance between his target, never risking himself to attack, that is, until other men used arrows against him. following the path of weaponry, we find that it does not improve in that man learns how to protect himself, instead he creates the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, each new 'technological' device affords him the ability to exponentially increase the potential for destruction while at the same time he is made more and more vulnerable to attack from the very same weapons. in this aspect, i do believe it is our early ancestors who we should be jealous of, who gathered food and were sustained from the natural growth of the planet. the 'technology' of fast-food illustrates this point all too easily.and what of non-violent 'technologies' such as the automobile or the computer? we can travel greater distances with greater speed. we can perform a multiplicity of tasks within seconds, we are digitally 'connected' with the better part of the entire world. and what of the negative side-effects these 'technologies' produce which contribute to our decline? one might make the argument that we should take the good with the bad, that the negative effects are worth the positive attributes these technologies afford us. and yet, i disagree. when one sits down at an empty desk, with only a computer, a keyboard and a mouse, one is dependent upon that 'technology' to achieve any kind of productivity. the user himself is now, no longer doing anything, but taking up the meaningless task of 'supervisor' to the computer as it hurries itself to perform the desired functions. the man himself may manipulate the 'technology' to the extent that it appears to be 'bent to his will,' but in all honesty the man is in more need of the computer, than the computer in need of the man. with such 'technology' the inevitable by-product is the intellectual decline in man, given that he no longer needs to know actual mathematics, the computer will produce the solution for him. he no longer needs to visit his neighbour, the internet will give him the experience of connection. however anthropomorphic the 'technology' is made to appear the truth remains that it is actually producing less humane 'users.' even this blog entry is dependent upon not only this computer, keyboard and mouse with which it is being created, but also the computer system of the 'user' who is reading it right now. the computer had to be created, with it's great amount of tiny singular parts created by men utilising 'technologies' to produce them, the keyboard had to have been manufactured, likewise with the mouse. but it does not stop there, for we both require electrical power in order to sustain these machines. we require miles and miles of cable in order to 'connect' us to one another and to the greater collective. but it does not stop there either, men must supervise the 'technologies' employed to produce that power, or as i should say to manipulate the products of the 'technologies' which truly produce. men must establish and maintain the 'connecting' cables and systems and networks, so on and so forth. in order for me to 'communicate' even a single idea we are now at a point in human history where it demands and depends upon the numerous 'technologies' involved. and what of the word without this 'technology?' well we should be forced to have conversation in person, that is face to face, or as what is known in this digital world as the world 'in real life.'

that the automobile replaces the exercise of walking once demanded of men is but one of this 'technologies' detriments. one may also consider the impact upon the planet itself when millions and millions of these vehicles burning oil and gasoline are in use everyday. however, it is in this part of my argument where the decline is illustrated as moving with such great pace that it is now demanding harsh and abrasive action to be stemmed, even in the least. that is the practice of combining 'technologies' to produce 'new technologies.' given the concept of natural selection, one might call this the 'technological regression' in that it is not the most beneficial devices which are produced but the most harmful. an automobile which utilises weaponry in order to maximise the efficiency of it's potential for destruction. an airplane with the capability of dropping such an explosive device as to incinerate 70,000 humans within minutes and eventually cause harmful enough effects so as to kill over 100,000 living, breathing people.

sometimes the devastation is not so physically apparent. in some cases the internet as a distribution device for pornography which contaminates the soul and plagues the mind causes damage to millions. that children utilising the 'technologies' of television and video gaming systems prefer to spend hours inside air-conditioned houses instead of running around outside under the sun breathing unadulterated oxygen is a harm that is not truly considered until one views a generation of americans viewed as 'obese,' most of which from no medical illness. that entire economies' are built upon the foundation of immaterial 'goods' produced by 'technologies' is a sign that we are horribly out of 'sync' with the world around us, and each other.

civilisation being the community of interconnected human members cannot be said to be flourishing in such an age of disconnected technological addicts. the basic problems of humanity have yet to be solved because we have busied ourselves in the hurry to attain each new device of self-enslavement. debt, loans, credit cards. civilisation has deteriorated to such a point that it does not even recognise it's own inhumanity anymore, save for those acts of such dramatic shock which litter the evening news. when children are kept inside an academic system which fails it's goal of educating them, the only effects produced are new addicts to the 'kingdom of this world' and its 'technological' vices.

how truly great the despair is that we cannot imagine a world without technology.
yet, even greater the despair when we realise that we are trapped within the matrix of our own creation.


will there ever emerge a community of true connection, beyond the digital age of technology?
will we ever truly progress in producing positive changes to society?

i hope so.

motivation over methodology.

it is becoming more and more clear to me with each new day that the perspectives of man are hopelessly and inevitably skewed. it seems that we fundamentally view all things the wrong way and constantly require correction and redirection. perhaps this is illustrated most profoundly in the arena of religion, personal beliefs and God. each religion contains a set of values and beliefs that they maintain to be fundamental. these foundational doctrines override all other life in that they are paramount for divine acceptance, eternal salvation, etc. etc. in the system of christianity, this is illustrated best by the stories of two men, a businessman and a thief. the businessman holds no religious beliefs, does not attend any form of weekly service, but supports his family and gives to those in need when he can. the thief is a devout believer and holds the attendance of weekly services above all else, even is career as one who steals from others. after a lifetime of giving and good deeds, the businessman dies and is sent to hell. after a lifetime of thievery and crime, the thief walks proudly into heaven where he is rewarded for a life of faith. now, what strikes you about this story? is it the seemingly 'unfair' punishment the businessman receives or is it the reward given to the criminal? i dare say this story illustrates man's perspective on the matter, but what of God's?

the first book of samuel in the jewish tanakh contains this perspective..
"the LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
(i samuel 16:7b)

in it's context, this verse is actually written as a quote from God to the prophet samuel as he is viewing the sons of jesse in hopes of finding one to select as future king of israel. samuel, for all of his righteousness as a prophet, still gets it wrong when he surveys the tall and strong and handsome older sons of jesse. God, however, has the youngest, slim and scrawny son, david, in mind. indeed it is later said of david that he was 'a man after God's own heart.' and yet in his history as king, david is also guilty of committing a list of 'sins' that is quite intense.

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

how does this alter the interpretation of the businessman and the criminal? well, in looking at the criminal, nothing changes really. though he is guilty of a life of sins, much like david and, i daresay, all of us, he is rewarded. and yet, for the businessman, everything changes because he is to be rewarded as well for, although he did not adhere to what Man judges, his loving support of his family and his giving to those in need illustrates his heart, and that is what God judges.

given that no two hearts are exactly the same, one must make the conclusion that as God judges the heart of a person, He shall judge them individually and subjectively within the context of their own motivations. though it may fly in the face of established religious belief, it seems to me that God cares very little for the methodology of a person. perhaps the questions of which 'way' is wrong and which 'way' is right should be replaced with the questions of which 'why' is right and which 'why' is wrong. instead of applying a global solution to how life should be lived, each one should search out his own heart and find what it is that motivates them. even though the appearance might shock Man, it is ultimately a judgment God, and God alone, is able to make.

when pigs fly.

in quite simplistic terms, there is an argument which attempts to prove God's existence, absolutely, on the grounds of man's conception of 'perfection.' this 'ontological proof' is as follows: i postulate that there is a perfect being and since i am not that perfect being there must be one somewhere in the universe, so that perfect being must be God.

to me, this argument is on par with the fool who demands that because he imagines pigs with the capabilities of flight, they must exist. in this universe, in any other universe parallel to this one, pigs do not fly. and why don't they fly? because it is not in their nature to. just as it is not in my nature as a human being to know absolutely everything. all things being as they are, they are not as they are not meant to be. were pigs able to fly then we would not have to imagine them doing so. likewise, the argument that God exists merely because i can imagine 'perfection' does very little to prove His existence in an absolute manner.

also, what is meant by man's conception of 'perfection.' i daresay it varies quite dramatically from fellow to fellow. the man who dreams of a universe in which pigs fly might consider that universe to be perfect, however perfection is dependent upon imperfection to distinguish itself against. that is, were there a universe in which pigs flew and that was the only universe in existence, the man who dreams of pigflight would not consider it perfection, he would merely accept it as reality. so perfection may mean a great many things, but it does not prove that any of those things absolutely have to exist out of necessity, this is all just wishful thinking and nonsense.

directions.

the individual. the collective. and orthodoxy.

"no man is an island."

nor is he a city, a state, or entire continent; and with that the statement is rendered an illogical self-defeating waste of breath. for the very word 'collective' presupposes multiple separate individuals. as for orthodoxy, it is 'a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards ' according to dictionary.com. this sort of ideological laziness is what makes robots and slaves of men. that one should merely accept the conventional and the 'standard' erected by those long before him is, in this writer's opinion, the worst mistake a person can make. the courage to bravely forge one's own trail and beliefs is now unheard of. integrity is thrown away for the sake of subjectivity and remaining neutral so as to not offend. yet, it is the man who stands in the face of the world and chooses to believe as he does who stands not only alone, but against the collective. he pays no mind to the illusory towers of orthodoxy and the conventional standards. he is his own standard. his conviction the result of reaching conclusions on his own without the dependency upon a system to fill in the blanks for him. he lets them lie blank. the mystery intrigues him, gives cause to his existence. the pursuit of more and more truth & knowledge. who can know all there is? what a sad state that person must live in.

when each man realises his status as an island he is forced with the decision to either accept responsibility for his home or he may reject it and instead surrender to foreign powers of control in exchange for the comfort he holds above truth. the defiant island-man must live for himself, the care of his island, the state of his affairs, he is no longer able to blame another for his shortcomings and failures.

in a world of overconnectivity, run by cables and technology, the island-man embraces the benefits these technologies afford without allowing his being to become dependent upon such potential vices. they remain virtue by their recognition as tools and not as necessities. he reaches across the ocean which separates each consciousness from the others and communicates with others, let they, each of them, remain as they are.. islands. separate. it is only in this realisation that they may eventually form a true community. for what is a love which demands that each person bow before the other's control? it can only lead to utter ruin. but two, who remain individually so, may freely and completely love one another without sacrificing their integrity and becoming dependent children.

[think] for yourself.
[act] of your own volition.
[change] your world.

being an island is not such a sad state of affairs afterall.

against religion.

Matthew 15
8 'This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from Me. 9 But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of Men.' 10 And after He called the multitude to Him, He said to them, 'Hear, and understand. 11 Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.' 12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" 13 But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up." 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Lips = external service to the superficial. Lips send words out of the body for the benefit of appearances to others.

Heart = the deeply rooted inner center of a person's soul, consciousness, being.

There are countless examples in which man, utilizing his own creativity and industry, has created for himself such clever institutions and devices which produce effects not previously accounted for in his plan. Weapons, which man initially created to attack with, were used by others to attack and eventually kill him. Governments, which were conceived so as to provide liberty, freedom and justice for all within their borders, but eventually came to rule over their citizens with a rod of iron. And religion, the great hopes of men to appease their gods, gain their favour and create a formulaic systematic approach to attaining eternal salvation, ultimately led believers not to the object of their belief, but to belief in the exclusive method of their belief itself.

Constant reinterpretations of religious belief have done little to change the problem, instead they continually mask the fallacies of religion in a new facade. They are but a new sheep-skin to clothe the same old wolf within. Words like revolution and relevancy flood the religious advertising market, perpetually selling the same product under a different name and label.
Of course there are elements of truth buried within the elaborate institutions of religious belief systems, but if one is able to separate those truths from the religion, it is safe to say that truth is not owned by a particular group of exclusive believers.

'Do not kill' is one of the ten commandments initially given to the Israelites via Moses via God, yet a great many people not associated with any religious system would agree that killing is wrong. We do not consider 'do not kill' a distinctly jewish truth, it is universal. And likewise, if morality can be found independently of religion, it may be said that morality does not belong to religion.

Since God and religion are not inextricably intertwined, it is safe to say that belief in the former does not demand belief nor participation in the latter. If one knows the source and subsequently cuts away the middle-man, one is still able to interact directly with the source without the added formality of dealing with the demands of the middle-man. If I owe a man a debt, i do not need to pay someone else in order for that person to then deliver the money I owe to the man it is owed. Yet, with increasing regularity, the lives of the religious not only reflect the lives of the irreligious, but they seem to outdo the irreligious in their own irreligiousity. That is to say, in the affairs of romantic love, sexual promiscuity and marriage, the striking statistic is not how much better the lives of the religious are, but how much worse they are by comparison. It is now postulated that over half of all religious marriages end in divorce.

Given the failure to lead believers towards ethical lifestyles, religion seems more like the political ideal of communism, in that it works perfectly in theory and is ultimately desirable as the best society, yet it is inevitably malpracticed. Ironically, in the communist system, religion is often one of those institutes that is black-listed and done away with. Though some may claim this to be communism's premier inherent flaw, societies that endorse religion also fail. The reason for this, it seems, is that idealism is perfectly suited to the ideal, yet its shortcomings all too exposed in the practical. Religion, not being a practical institution, also fails in its human execution of the ideals it promotes. It is the case of one talking a great deal of great talk that is ultimately impossible to act out in great action, and what is it that seems to make up for pragmatic inadequacy? More great speeches about the potential religion possesses.

It seems rather clear to me that the worst starting point for any institution are claims to have arrived at its destination prematurely. That is to say, in theory, religion has been developed to the best extent that is exhibits the ultimate in morality and faith. Yet the very notion that we are constantly becoming seems to nullify this ideal of arrival. Is the ultimate pursuit of religion that transforming of one into the best sort of person, or that rendering of worship and service one should present unto God? If the former then religion has very little to do with the God it proclaims to believe in and more to do with the people that form its various denominations. If the latter, one is perfectly able to carry out these tasks without a religious systematic ideology altogether. For how is it claimed that man should live? In justice, goodness and modesty. These are not ideals possessed by singular religious institutions, they are universal. And how does one live out these ethical ideals? By not over idealizing them and therefore rendering them impossible in the pragmatic sense.

To serve is an action, it requires no great speeches or sermons, it is merely a question of either doing or not doing. Is love between Christians to be considered the only true love? Surely not. Doctrines and creeds are not prerequisites for love. Compassion. Genuine kindness. Selflessness. The Christian 'fruits of the spirit' are not only exhibited by Christians, for there exist countless tales of exploits carried out, in action, by those outside of religious association. Are these acts less moral given their irreligious agents? If yes, then the ethical is not universal and is relative to one's convictions alone. Surely religious association is not a prerequisite for exhibiting moral behaviour.

What if the greatest event in history was turned into the cause for the very thing it was meant to fight against? What if the great Hero of that event was now championed as leader of the very movement he rivaled? The countless attacks on the religious leaders and establishment of His day make it all too clear that Jesus was working to subvert religion, and not merely revolt with the hopes of starting a new religion. What if later writers had used this great Hero in order to begin their own institution in the pursuit of, what may have originally been, an ethical lifestyle? The irony of Christianity lies in the truth that while, originally, it was thought that Christ came to overthrow the Roman empire, Christianity and the Roman empire eventually merged into the infamous Holy Roman empire. I need not go into great length in establishing the truth that the Holy Roman empire was not holy at all, but in fact, a gross historical reminder of the dangerous potential for evil that exists within man-made religious systems. Given the nature of institutions and their idealism mixed with the inevitable corruptibility of man, it is not the institutions which change man, but man which distorts whatever ideals those institutions originally implied. As result of this historical pattern, it seems that the institutions exist as arbitrary illusions of progression. True change comes as the result of action alone.

The ethical, however, is such that it is impossible once transgressed against. That is to say, an offense against an infinite being is an infinite offense. Once I have crossed the line, there is no return. I may not live a perfect moral life, and therefore the ethical points to the need for salvation. Yet, how does salvation come? In order to make amends for the wrong committed, there must be a substitute.

It has somehow been engrained in our consciousness, and we have subsequently been conditioned by it, that God and religion are one. As a result of this deception, a misreading of my intentions here will be inevitable. I am not out to kill God or to argue against him, that is not the purpose or nearly at all the scope of this essay, instead I am interested here only in testing the hypothesis that religion is unnecessary in belief, because it is not the cause of nor object of a belief in God.

It is all too easy to become dependent upon the religious system, and those that find themselves within the dogmatic trenches of the so-called spiritual warfare find it very difficult to question the nature of their fight, especially those who are the enemy and those who are allies. I am speaking, of course, of the countless expressions of religious fundamentalism which have led to, and caused, some of the worst events in human history. From the inquisition to the crusades to the modern-day bombings of abortion clinics and terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The religious system is such that it is vague enough for members to be dependent upon guidance from a 'pastor' or 'spiritual leader' and also direct enough to be absolute. One is either a part of the religion or one is on the outside, often looked down upon with pity or, in some cases, outright hatred.

How does one separate their belief in God from the confines of a religious system? I do not pretend to be an expert in world religions and therefore must limit my answers to their applications to the Christian religious system. Christianity is so cleverly named that it seems impossible to separate it from the faith one may have in Christ, since it implies 'follower' or 'disciple' of Christ. Yet, there are many dogmatic traditions within the religious institution of Christianity which seem founded not on the teachings and life of Christ, but more on the life and teachings of the propagandist Paul and other early church heroes. A careful study of the Christian sacred texts, namely the new testament, seem to present a dualism between the loving, accepting Christ and the dogmatic orator Paul. The ironic truth about Paul is that he was first a part of the old religious system which Jesus criticized and then immediately following his conversion began an entirely new religious system, set up and churches and oversaw their development, keeping a careful eye on them so as to make sure they understood his teachings and did not stray from them.

The Roman Catholic church has always been quick to point out a particular verse in the book written by the author Matthew. In the sixteenth chapter, verse 18, Jesus states: "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." This verse has, for years, been constantly used to affirm the authority of the religious institution and the dogmatic traditions of fundamentalist Christians & Catholics. Both, however, seem mistaken in their rendering of the text. The new testament was written in greek, not latin, and the word most often translated as 'church' in the greek is 'ekklesia.' This unique word has a number of possible definitions, among them the words 'assembly' or 'group' could be accurate translations. In fact, the greek word for church is actually a part of the origin of the english word, in greek it is 'kyrianos.' This greek word is translated directly as meaning 'church.' So why didn't Matthew use 'kyrianos' in the text of Jesus' speech? Perhaps Jesus did not intend to build a church based solely on the foundation of Peter the disciple. Perhaps Jesus' intention was for believers, independently believing Christ to be who He claimed to be, to live together in assembly, in groups and together, ask tough questions about life. To seek out the truth in every situation. To knock in search of finding God in their lives. Not another religious system.

that scandalous love.

Perhaps one of the single greatest misunderstandings of an historical event is the collective religious interpretation of the passion of the Christ. The belief that Christ's death as God for God was the key to making available salvation for all men who believe. It is foundational in the Christian religious system and it's doctrines that God sacrificed His Son, who was also God, in order to redeem a condemned mankind. Each year millions celebrate Good Friday in remembering the crucifixion of Christ. The celebration continues on Easter Sunday when the resurrection is remembered; churches filled to overflowing with eager would-be candidates for salvation.

In all of this hubbub and rememberance, the truth that Christ was a man is often overlooked and/or marginalized by the religious establishment. Yet, God, by virtue of His divine nature, is not capable of dying, and therefore it had to be the man that suffered in His stead. Furthermore, the scandal of this great passion is that a single man stood, alone, in the place of many and took the wrath of God upon His shoulders. It is a tale of promethean significance. God the Son, as a man, standing in front of God the Father and offering Himself up for the sake of the guilty. As if Isaac, even after hearing the voice of the angel speaking to Abraham, grabs hold of his father's hand and drives the knife into his own chest, for the sake of his father. Jesus, in the place of every man, woman and child, stands in defiance to the justice of His Father which demands an infinite sacrifice for the infinite offenses committed against Him.

Illustrating His humanity, the writer Mark includes in his gospel the request of Jesus to His Father that the hour might pass Him by; that the cup might be taken from Him. Three times does He ask. Three times He pleads but always surrenders His will to the Father's. Later in the story, as Jesus hangs on the cross in agony, He cries out to His Father those all too human words, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" God the Son, Jesus Christ is forsaken by God the Father and condemned. After uttering a loud cry and breathing His last breath, Christ, a human being, dies.

That Christ suffered a painful death is exponentially intensified by His innocence. Furthermore, the scandal of this passionate tale is underscored by the fact that God, in accepting the sacrifice of Christ, condemns an innocent man and forsakes the most righteous of His creatures to ever walk the face of His creation. Ironically, the symbolism in what follows immediately after Christ's death, that is the tearing of the veil in the temples, reveals the subsequent history of Christianity over the next two thousand years to be an exercise in completely missing the point, in that no longer were ritual sacrifices or traditional religious rites necessary for Man to touch the Divine.

The unorthodox rabbi who healed the sick and taught the people about the kingdom of heaven, stood in direct contrast to the religious leaders who screamed for His death. That His life and its teachings were then taken and interpreted by the propagandist Paul illustrates the ignorance of Man and his insatiable pride in pursuing comfort. The perfect realization of human potential in Christ is distorted into the model of religious living and distributed as a commodity for alleviating guilt. Eventually the Christian Religious regime grows to take over most of the known world via the Holy Roman Empire, oppressing millions, their self-justification arising from Paul's distorted understanding of Christ's defiance.

So there are three scandals, that scandalous love of Christ in offering Himself up as a human for the rest of humanity, that scandalous wrath of God the Father in forsaking His very Son, the full realization of human potential, to death, and the scandal of Christianity which distorts the message of Christ in order to produce a systematic theology by which the religious leaders retain their authority over their fellow men. One scandal is to be applauded, the other above human judgement, the third is to be condemned.