Times of overcorrections

This century may go into the history books by its aim to overcorrect.

Today we are not any more allowed to use lots of words which were quiet normal and not offensive in the previous century.

Today one has to be very careful how one wants to express oneself. Today several youngsters consider it transphobic if someone acknowledges biological sex.

A medical student revealed that she and her fellow trainee medics had access to an online forum where students can correct their professors for using gender-specific terms such as “male”, “female”, or “breastfeed” instead of gender-neutral terms like “chestfeed.”

The online forum allows students to “lodge their complaints in real time during lectures.”

The student recalled how one time a professor started crying because she “upset by students calling her out for using ‘male’ and ‘female’.”

“Wrongspeak” seems the word of the new wave where people find that everything should be considered as normal and possible. So when you are a man you may become pregnant as well and it would be considered sexist when one says only a woman can have a baby.
According to petitions in several countries included use of the pronouns “she” and “her” or the terms “father” and “son” are not acceptable and are “Wrongspeak”.

In several countries we also see people pulling down statues of very well known political and historical figures. But because they did something wrong it is considered not appropriate anymore that they would have a statute to honour them.

One is also not to speak about an Eskimo, Indian, hut, etc.. But the strangest might be the sex which may not be mentioned any more.

Katie Herzog, believes that our publishing houses, our universities, our schools, our non-profits, our tech companies — have embraced a Manichean ideology that divides people by identity and punishes anyone that doesn’t adhere to every aspect of that orthodoxy. In some of the top medical schools and hospitals in her country Katie Herzog found that there was a sort of revolution taking place. She thinks an ideological ‘purge’ is underway in American medicine.

“Wokeness,”

as one doctor put it,

“feels like an existential threat.”

Katie’s latest reporting illustrates some of the most urgent elements of that threat. It focuses on how biological sex is being denied by professors fearful of being smeared by their students as transphobic. And it shows how the true victims of that denial are not sensitive medical students but patients, perhaps most importantly, transgender ones.

Teachers now have to be very careful not to offend some one with saying “he” or “she”

During a recent endocrinology course at a top medical school in the University of California system, a professor stopped mid-lecture to apologize for something he’d said at the beginning of class.

His offense: using the term

“pregnant women.”

“I said ‘when a woman is pregnant,’

which implies that only women can get pregnant and I most sincerely apologize to all of you.”

In the context of their medical school

“acknowledging biological sex can be considered transphobic.”

 

Please do find more about it by reading:

  1. Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex
  2. Common Sense Has Left the Building

We are living in a time of “universal deceit”

From Bible in the news

Honest Reporting recently rounded off an examination of instances of YouTube banning content by saying:

“To paraphrase a quote wrongly attributed to Orwell but which resonates strongly today as we seemingly edge towards the dystopian society that he predicted: ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’”

We are living in a time of “universal deceit”, this is exactly what the Lord Jesus said it would be in Revelation 16. Jesus specifically warned his servants who would be living just before his coming, that it would be a time of deceit and falsehood.

Media Bias and against Israel

The staged protest at NablusThe protest staged for the media near Nablus.

 

An image of the staged protest available on Getty Images.

During the recent war when Israel was attacked by Hamas in Gaza, there were many examples of deceit in the media. The mainstream media as usual, emphasized Israel’s operations in Gaza against the terrorist organization Hamas, over the 4300 + rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli civilian centres. Here are some examples of deceptive media reports during the conflict.

A CNN analysis was entitled

“Hell has been unleashed in Gaza”

and is typical of the type of the reporting on Israel in the mainstream media. Reading the analysis any logical person would think that Israel had unleashed hell on Gaza. However, Hamas had started the war and by the time of the “analysis” had fired well over 1000 missiles targeting Israeli civilian centres. In order to find this out, you have to read to about halfway through. Seeing that on average only 16% of people read a webpage word for word and seeing that readers will on average only read 20% of the text on a page, most CNN readers will never know this. The analysis does state near the beginning that,

“Since Monday evening, Israel’s aerial operation has left more than 60 Gazans dead, militants among them, but more civilians, according to figures from the Gaza-based Palestinian health ministry. More than a dozen of them were children.”

A few crucial pieces of information are missing from this sentence. First the “Gaza-based Palestinian health ministry” is operated by the terrorist group Hamas — their numbers simply cannot be trusted. Secondly at least half of the quoted number of casualties of children were killed by a rocket fired by Hamas that didn’t reach its target. The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza documented a Hamas rocket that fell short of its target and killed 8 civilians including 6 children.

Another one of the images from the staged protest on Getty, notice the ambulance in the background taking away the “wounded”.

Seeing that the terror organizations fire their rockets from civilian areas away from the periphery of the region, the rockets have to travel over civilian areas in Gaza before reaching Israel. During the war in Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired, as already stated, 4,300+ rockets, targeting Israeli civilian centres. 680 of these misfired and exploded inside Gaza, killing and injuring the civilian population of Gaza.

The analysis also misrepresents the blockade of Gaza, stating,

“Cut off from the rest of the world by an Israeli blockade of Gaza’s land, air and sea dating back to 2007, many of Gaza’s inhabitants are dependent on foreign aid to survive.”

It is true that Israel blockades Gaza to stop them acquiring arms, and the tools and materials to manufacture rockets. However, Gaza borders not only Israel but also Egypt. Egypt imposes the same blockade on Gaza. Israel lets a constant stream of aid material into the strip.

The New York Times is an influential newspaper with a circulation of about 375,000. On May 28 the cover of the New York Times featured pictures of children that were killed in the Gaza conflict. The headline was “They Were Just Children”. The introductory text reads,

“At least 67 people under age 18 in Gaza and two in Israel were killed during this months conflict according to initial reports. They had wanted to be doctors, artists and leaders. Read their stories.”

How much information the New York Times had unearthed to report on their stories is doubtful. The third picture on the top row featured a picture of a little 6 year old girl. However, doing a search by image on Google of her returned results back in 2018 when she had apparently been killed also. The anonymous girl has been used countless times to falsely accuse Israel of killing children. Again one of the main sources for the article was the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. One of the “children” was a 17 year old fighter in the Hamas terror organization. Not readily apparent, but once again, a number of the victims were killed by Hamas terror rockets that did not make it. There is only one answer for such shoddy biased reporting and that is that it is not shoddy, but carefully crafted in a way to make Israel into the aggressor.

During the recent Gaza conflict there were demonstrations elsewhere in Israel in support of Gaza. Two Christians who do a podcast called the Joshua and Caleb report came across and documented a staged demonstration near the large Palestinian city of Nablus. There were a couple of Israeli soldiers quite far away casually watching, but otherwise there was no Israeli presence. Only a number of the press and many protesters throwing rocks at no one except an empty road. Yet there were constant “protesters” being taken away in Ambulances. The pictures from this staged protest are now available for sale on Getty Images, one of the largest suppliers of news images in the world. The Getty caption says,

“Palestinian protesters confront Israeli troops at the Hawara checkpoint south of Nablus city in the occupied West Bank on May 18, 2021, during a demonstration in support of those under bombardment in Gaza.”

This is a total fraud. There were no Israeli troops being confronted. There were no Israel defence forces or riot police to hurt protesters, yet the “wounded” were being taken away in ambulances. The press knew this was the case, but reported a complete fraud.

At the root of this bias is a believe that the Palestinian Arabs have a moral right to the land of Israel. That justice is on their side. It is believed that the Jewish state is a result of “colonialism” and that the Jewish people have no right to the land. Any historical connection of the Jewish Hebrew people to the land is denied. This is in effect calling the God of Israel unjust, unjust for bringing the Jewish people back to their ancient land. This is the spirit will bring the nations to Armageddon.

The trending hashtag on social media during the conflict was #freepalestine. What this means as seen on placards at demonstrations all over the world, is to “free Palestine from the river to the sea”. This is a call for the total destruction of the state of Israel. It is in effect a call for another Holocaust of the Jewish people. It is the hashtag of Armageddon.

This has been David Billington with you for this week’s Bible in the News. Come back again next week God willing to www.bibleinthenews.com

 

+++

Related

  1. Revelation 16
  2. It Is Done – Revelation 16
  3. Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell
  4. A Past Future Dystopian Society Is Now Our Reality, Kind of.
  5. Writing Fiction in a Dystopian Reality: How 2020 has Lost the Plot
  6. How to Respond to Cataclysmic Events
  7. The Ministry of Intercession
  8. Priests, Prophets and Kings
  9. Israeli forces kill Palestinian in West Bank: health ministry
  10. Palestinian teen shot dead in clashes with Israel army: medics
  11. ‘Israel’ to expand illegal settlement unit in Nablus
  12. Israeli occupation forces deliver stop-building notices for almost 20 houses in Rujib town, east of Nablus
  13. Settlers, govt strike deal on West Bank outpost
  14. More than 60 Palestinians injured in IOF quelling of night protests in Beita, south of Nablus
  15. Horde of Israeli settlers destroy various type of trees south Nablus
  16. Analysis: Israel/Palestine
  17. Nine out of 10 children in Gaza Strip suffer some form of conflict-related trauma after Israeli attack
  18. A Closer Look at Corruption, Hamas, and Violence in the Gaza Strip
  19. Gaza reconstruction clouded by dispute over Israelis held by Hamas
  20. Hamas sends rockets deeper into Israel after Gaza airstrikes as conflict spirals
  21. Israel strikes Hamas site in Gaza
  22. Israel again strikes Gaza in response to launching arson balloon
  23. Hamas aims to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, but its rockets place both Israelis and Palestinians in peril; 680 misfired and exploded inside Gaza
  24. Now Over 3,500 Rockets from Gaza
  25. Israel, Palestinian groups, agree Gaza ceasefire
  26. Netanyahu vows ‘whole new level of force’ if Hamas breaks cease-fire
  27. “By supporting the plight of the Palestinians, China is cynically stoking the most emotional issue in Middle Eastern politics in order to distract Muslim nations from its own campaign against Uyghurs”
  28. Israel must stop all settlement activities to prevent more Palestinian conflict: Garneau
  29. After the ceasefire, I struggle to imagine what is a normal life
  30. Jewish and Arab Israelis in Lod live under threat of future violence – BBC News
  31. Gaza’s only Protestant church, damaged in latest Israel/Hamas conflict, carries on
  32. Will You Be Ready?

Het vroegere Judea beschouwend

Aanvullend op de twee voorgaande berichten wensen wij graag u te verwijzen naar een artikel van “Baars”, die zich (zoals vele anderen) dingen afvraagt.

In “Het vroegere Judea” haalt hij aan hoe de Romeinen er in sloegen de Joden uit Palestina te verdrijven. In het jaar 135 doopte keizer Hadrianus Judea (IoudaíaYəhuda) om tot de Romeinse provincie Palestina. Die naam kwam van het Griekse Παλαιστίνη, wat vanuit die taal vertaald werd in het Latijn: Palaestina. De Arabische naam daarentegen geeft meer wear waar men de oorsprong van dat gebied moet gaan zoeken. فلسطين, kan getranslitereerd worden als Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn of Filisṭīn. Palestina slaat namelijk terug op de Filistijnen, een volk dat zich waarschijnlijk rond de 13e eeuw v.G.T. in het toenmalige Kanaän vestigde.

Toen de Israëlieten in Kanaän terechtkwamen waren de Filistijnen een van de volken die zij daar aantroffen en met wie ze regelmatig strijd leverden. De Filistijnen bewoonden het zuidwesten van Kanaän tot het begin van de 6e eeuw v.G.T., toen de Babyloniërs het gebied veroverden en een groot deel van de bevolking in ballingschap werd weggevoerd,.

Opmerkelijk is dat de Hebreeën hun geloof in één God ook andere volken aansprak. Zo kwamen in die streek “Palestijnen” het Joodse geloof aanhangen. Terwijl de Joden zich verder over de wereld verspreiden bleven het gros van de Palestijnen in Palestina wonen.

Onderdeel van het Joods geloof is het vertrouwen in God dat Hij Zijn beloften zal waar maken. Over de gehele wereld bleven dan ook heel wat Joden uitkijken naar het ogenblik dat zij bewoners zouden kunnen worden van het Beloofde Land.

Nadat de Nazi’s aan de macht kwamen in Duitsland, kon de gedachte om de eigen geboortegrond te verlaten om naar dat Beloofde land te trekken meer Joden bekoren.

Het boven aangehaalde artikel schrijft:

Toen Hitler in Duitsland  aan de macht kwam en zijn anti Joodse uitlatingen ventileerde, emigreerden steeds meer Joden naar dát Palestijnse gebied.
De Palestijnen kwamen in opstand tegen deze kolonisatie én de Britse overheersing.
Er kwamen aanslagen op Joodse Nederzettingen en Britse doelen zoals spoorlijnen.
Pas na 3 jaar konden de Britten deze OPSTAND  bedwingen.

Eigenlijk wilden de Britten wel van dit “moeilijke” gebied af.
In 1947  begon de  overdracht  aan de Verenigde Naties  en op 15.5.1948 trokken de Britten zich officieel terug.

De Verenigde Naties maakten een plan om het gebied te verdelen: Waar, op dat moment de meeste Joden woonden werd Joods gebied, waar de meeste Palestijnen woonden werd Palestijns gebied.

Het leek een eerlijk plan, maar…… met oog op de toekomstige aanwas van meer Joden in het gebied, kregen de Joden een groter gebied toebedeeld dan de Palestijnen.
Het onvermijdelijke gebeurde: de Joden gingen akkoord, de Palestijnen niet.

Zodra de Britten waren vertrokken, riepen  de Joden de staat Isräel (= strijder met God)* uit.

 

De vlag van Palestina wordt officieel als Nationaal symbool van de Palestijnen sinds 1988 gebruikt, maar werd sinds 1964 ( oprichting PLO)  al onofficieel gebruikt

Lees meer over de 9 wapenstilstanden die al werden ondertekend maar nog geen oplossing brachten: Het vroegere Judea

+

Voorgaande

Uit de Oude Doos: Israël versus Hamas

Hamas en de Israëlische regering weer eens in conflict

++

Aanvullend

  1. Gods vergeten Woord 21 #1 Pelgrims onderweg
  2. Bijbellezing van Vandaag geeft aan hoe God er voor zorgde dat men zich zou herinneren hoe Hij voor Zijn volk zorgde
  3. De nacht is ver gevorderd 8 Studie 2 Schrik of troost 4 De wereld rond Israël
  4. Zuiverheid en verantwoordelijkheid van leden en leiders in een gemeenschap
  5. Scheppers ster verbinding tussen hemel en aarde
  6. Hersenspoeling en voortdurende intimidatie
  7. Een exclusief Plan voorgesteld zonder rekening te houden met een betrokken partij
  8. Hamas en de Israëlische regering weer eens in conflict
  9. Verzet tegen aanslagen op Palestijnse burgers
  10. Niet te negeren gebeurtenissen rond Joden in België

Maison de Transition

Connaissez-vous déjà les maisons de transition ?

Une Maison de Transition est un petit établissement résidentiel où une quinzaine de détenus passent les derniers mois de leur détention à travailler à leur réinsertion dans la société.

Les maisons de transition sont le fruit d’une collaboration entre différentes parties.

La Maison de Transition s’articule autour de trois piliers : la force, la réparation et le lien. La Maison de Transition travaille selon une vision axée sur la force et la réparation.

Pouvoir donner du sens à sa vie et à sa personne est indispensable pour se sentir être humain à part entière. Le sens, c’est avoir et atteindre des objectifs précieux, le sentiment d’être une valeur ajoutée et se sentir connecté.


Logo TransitiehuizenJetez un coup d’œil à notre tout nouveau site web et découvrez-en plus sur ce concept unique. 😃

Transitiehuizen

Ken jij onze Belgische transitiehuizen al waar verschillende teams samen werken om mensen klaar te stomen terug in de maatschappij te stappen?

Een transitiehuis is een residentieel gebouw waar ongeveer vijftien gedetineerden de laatste maanden van hun detentie doorbrengen om te werken aan hun re-integratie in de maatschappij.

Het Transitiehuis hanteert drie pijlers om deelnemers te ondersteunen in hun re-integratie: kracht, herstel en verbinding. De aanpak vertrekt vanuit de kracht van de persoon en is gericht op diens herstel.

“Van betekenis zijn” kan verschillende vormen aannemen en zit vaak verborgen in kleine zaken. De focus op kracht, herstel en verbinding doet deelnemers ervaren dat ze over vaardigheden beschikken, schade kunnen herstellen en doelen kunnen bereiken.

Logo TransitiehuizenGa zeker eens een kijkje nemen naar de gloednieuwe website en kom meer te weten over dit unieke concept. 😃

Theologie versus godsdienstleer of godsdienst geschiedenis

In de Europese universiteiten vindt me de theologie als wetenschapsgebied in directe verbinding met concrete godsdienstige praktijken. Niet alleen in die zin dat die praktijken voorwerp van onderzoek kunnen zijn, maar zo dat de afgestudeerde theoloog bekwaam en geschikt zou zijn om in die praktijken een professionele leidinggevende rol te vervullen.

Als die praktijken uit beeld raken en er geen predikanten meer worden opgeleid, zal de theologie als wetenschapsgebied verdwijnen.

stelde prof. dr. Gerrit Immink in 2014. Toen waren de meeste afdelingen Theologie aan de universiteiten meer instellingen waar de geschriften van theologen werden bestudeerd, meer dan het eigenlijke “Godswezen”.

Theologie betekent letterlijk de studie van God (verwijzend naar Theos = Grieks voor God en logos is Grieks voor `woord`, `leer`, `kennis` of `verhandeling). Dat maakt dat het eigenlijk in theologie moet gaan over de leer of kennis van God. Hierbij zou men kunnen zeggen dat er bij dat onderzoek naar de Godheid ook moet na gaan welke godheden er zo wat aanbeden worden. Inherent daaraan komt dan de studie van verscheidene goden, godsdiensten, godsdienstige groepen en onderwerpen. De term theologie is afkomstig uit de Christelijke traditie, maar kan ook gebruikt worden voor de studie of de geloofsinhoud van andere religies.

Gedurende Krimp zijn rectoraatsperiode werd er gezocht naar samenwerking, verplaatsing.

Op de achtergrond speelde steeds de vraag: Waar gaat het eigenlijk over in de theologie? Welk vakkenpakket is nodig om een predikant op te leiden?

zei hij in 2014.

Tegenwoordig lijkt het wel dat vele faculteiten weg gevaren zijn van de vroegere oorspronkelijke instelling voor dat vak. Ook brengt elke universiteit haar geestelijke instelling naar voor en laat deze geen openheid voor anders denkenden. Zo moet men in een Katholieke universiteit het Katholisch denkpatroon volgen en kan men zeker niet tegen de Drie-eenheid zijn bijvoorbeeld.

We beseffen wel dat al in de 19e eeuw er voortdurend bewegingen in de theologie waren die het accent verlegden van God naar de mens. Bovendien groeide de kritiek op het klassieke godsbegrip en kwam zelfs de gedachte op dat God een projectie is, maar als puntje bij paaltje kwam, liet men toch geen openheid tot andere leerstellingen dan die van de ondersteunende godsdienstgroep.

In 2014 haalde Krimp terecht aan:

Als de theologie de gedachte van de godgeleerdheid – hoe lastig en ingewikkeld die ook is – loslaat, komt het bestaansrecht van de theologie als zelfstandig wetenschapsgebied snel ter discussie te staan.

Het verschijnsel religie, religieuze ervaringen en rituelen – dat alles kan toch ook prima bestudeerd worden door antropologen, psychologen en sociologen? Wolfhart Pannenberg heeft terecht opgemerkt dat de theologie van het toneel zal verdwijnen, zodra we het Godsbegrip louter opvatten als een projectie vanuit de antropologie.

In veel instelling gaat men het geschiedkundig verloop na van één of meerdere godsdiensten. Men moet dan echter beseffen dat men daar dan meer een godsdienst historicus kweekt. Met de studie van al de vroegere theologische werken komt men dan eerder op het vlak van de taalkundige of sociaal wetenschapper zonder dat men de rol van theoloog hoeft op te nemen. Volgens Krimp is daar binnen een theologische universiteit of faculteit zeker ook plaats voor.

Maar als onze vakgebieden samen het geheel van de theologie vormen, moet elk vakgebied ook beoefend kunnen worden als theologie.

Volgens hem is het daarvoor

nodig dat er binnen het vakgebied systematische vragen gesteld worden met betrekking tot hedendaagse godsdienstige praktijken en met betrekking tot het spreken over God. Dat is niet eenvoudig, want dan moeten we zowel het vak goed beheersen als in staat zijn om op systematische wijze theologische thema’s in te brengen. En het wordt pas echt spannend als we dan ook nog het gesprek aandurven over de waarheidsclaims die in teksten of in praktijken tot uitdrukking komen.

Prof. dr. Gerrit Immink vertelt verder

In mijn bestuurlijke functie als rector heb ik steeds geprobeerd het academische karakter van de theologie hoog te houden, in het besef dat de afgestudeerde theoloog bekwaam en geschikt dient te zijn om als predikant in de kerk aan de slag te gaan. De gerichtheid op concrete praktijken en de wetenschappelijke doordenking van het spreken over God zijn voor mij twee zijden van dezelfde medaille.

Decolonising our minds

Every generation has to undergo some turnovers on one or the other factor.

What is to considered to be normal at one time in another generation can be “not done”.

The last few years it seems like we are living in a society which wants to overcorrect itself. It wants to break with previous passages in history. In several countries suddenly a lot of words may not be used any more because they are considered wrong or unjust to certain groups of the population. Often then there are created new words to substitute the older word, but then they forget that happened in the past already with several words as well.

With the “Black Lives Mattermovement this seems to have arrived in a roller-coaster or rapids. It looks like when you do away with all monuments and all related words that part of history shall be made away with and forgotten. Instead of thinking about the value of keeping also the wrong things in memory.

Even the prestigious London university got caught in a row with some of its students who have repeatedly demanded leading philosophers, whose ideas have underpinned civilised society across the Western world. It might well be that a lot of philosophers their writings students may have to cover, come from Europe and as such from white people. Instead of studying the European Enlightenment figures, the students have insisted the majority of philosophers should be from Africa and Asia, and white thinkers only to be studied “if required”.

People often forget that they when being part of a certain culture should learn about their own culture first. If one wants to learn the other culture(s) it should also be possible but in another curriculum. It is wrong to exclude European thinkers, because they are part of our world mindset and provided the patrons with our wisdom, morals and ethics.

What we can see today is that lots of youngsters are trying to desacralise European thinkers, stopping them from being treated as unquestionable. We should not stop studying them, but should be able to look at them critically.

For sure, we may question what should be the place of European philosophy, and European philosophers, in an age of globalisation and of a shifting power balance from West to East, but we should recognise that they are essential to our insight in the construction of our society throughout the ages.

The argument for a more diverse curriculum seems reasonable, indeed unquestionable. After all, philosophers and thinkers come not just from Europe. There are great non-European intellectual traditions, a myriad philosophical schools from China, India, Africa and the Muslim world, many of which have shaped European philosophy as well. It would be good to see that there is made more place to look at the works of Mo Tzu, Zhu Xi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Frantz Fanon, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Feng Youlan, just to call a few.

It is wrong to think that all European philosophy would be tainted by racism and colonialism. Several people are now falling in the same trap as racists, suggesting that because one possesses a particular identity, so one’s ideas are necessarily distinct, and linked to that identity.

A philosopher is white so his or her ideas are contaminated.

John Locke is widely regarded as having provided the philosophical foundations of modern liberal conceptions of tolerance. Yet he was a shareholder in a slaving company.
Immanuel Kant, often seen as the greatest of Enlightenment philosophers, clung to a belief in a racial hierarchy, insisting that

‘Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites’

and that

‘the African and the Hindu appear to be incapable of moral maturity’.

Sian HawthorneSian Hawthorne, convenor of the undergraduate course in ‘World Philosophies’, the only philosophy degree that SOAS provides, observes:

‘Enlightenment philosophers make arguments about knowledge and reason setting us free, and laud the values of liberty, at the very moment that colonial enterprises and the slave trade are expanding. Those very same arguments are summoned to justify Europe’s so-called civilizing mission and make claims about European superiority.’

Jonathan Israel, now Professor Emeritus of History at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, lauds the Enlightenment as that transformative period when Europe shifted from being a culture

‘based on a largely shared core of faith, tradition and authority’

to one in which

‘everything, no matter how fundamental or deeply rooted, was questioned in the light of philosophical reason’.

Yet, Israel is also deeply critical. At the heart of his argument is the insistence that there were actually two Enlightenments. The mainstream Enlightenment of Locke, Voltaire, Kant and Hume is the one of which we know, and of which most historians have written. But it was the Radical Enlightenment, shaped by lesser-known figures such as d’Holbach, Diderot, Condorcet and, in particular, the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, that provided the Enlightenment’s heart and soul.

The two Enlightenments, Israel suggests, divided on the question of whether reason reigned supreme in human affairs, as the Radicals insisted, or whether reason had to be limited by faith and tradition – the view of the mainstream. The mainstream’s intellectual timidity constrained its critique of old social forms and beliefs. By contrast, the Radical Enlightenment

‘rejected all compromise with the past and sought to sweep away existing structures entirely’.

Israel finds the argument that the ‘Enlightenment is racist’, coming from a one-eyed view, the selective picking and choosing of certain individuals and quotes.

Such critics see only the more conservative mainstream figures, such as Locke, Kant and Hume, and ignore the thinkers of the Radical Enlightenment,

an approach that Israel calls

‘seriously obtuse’.

The Radical Enlightenment, he observes,

‘was condemned by all European governments and by all churches, because in principle it insisted on the universal and equal rights of men and the full emancipation of the black population.’

Israel is sympathetic to the demand that university curricula be diversified.

‘There is a strong case for studying non-European traditions as an essential part of any philosophy teaching course.’

But, he points out, such a global view began in the Radical Enlightenment itself.

‘Many radical enlighteners believed their anti-Christian naturalism had powerful roots in medieval Islamic philosophy. They also had strong affinities with Chinese Confucianism. They were free of the Eurocentrism that marked the mainstream Enlightenment of Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hume and Smith.’

+

Preceding

Visual and aural impacts – contacts and concepts

Added commentary to the posting A Progressive Call to Arms

++

Additional reading

  1. The twist of politics and expression
  2. Institutional Racism
  3. Mass Media’s Deception Causing Division

Visual and aural impacts – contacts and concepts

 notes that the world reveals itself to us in a stream of sensation. Man has to face a lot of things in his life; Growing up we always go from one (unexpected) situation onto another, always bringing new and other facts and facets.

All the time we are confronted with lots of imprints, made by colours, shapes, lines, shades of light and dark, whilst at the same time we do have to endure lots of sounds.

female_touching_glassWe hear sounds shrill and bass, harmonious and discordant. Our skin touches cold and heat, hard and soft, rough and smooth. Scent passes constantly through our nostrils and in our mouths we taste bitter and sweet. {Contact, Concept and Art}

How are we willing to cope with everything that surrounds us?

Beyond out physical sensations we have the rich inner world of emotion and feeling. Joy, sorrow, fear, anger, and contentment – our inner reality is constantly fluctuating between different emotional reactions to the sensations that the world presents. {Contact, Concept and Art}

As human beings it are our sensations which bring us into life. Those visible and invisible vibrations and impulses give us feelings and joys.  We get an impulse to go somewhere or do something and that then this leads us to something different, perhaps something bigger, but we never know beforehand how acting on them will transform us and our life.

When walking around on this globe we have to see and hear, or to have a willingness to undergo the vibrations of this earth. It’s really about becoming aware of them and act on them, because the universe is always speaking to us, but lots of people are not fully aware of it. Lots of people ignore signals which are giving all the time.
We should know that all those impulses around us give some direction to our emotions, even when we would not want to be influenced by them.

This cascade of sensation and emotion is not all of our reality, however, because alongside these our minds have developed the ability to generate a parallel stream of concepts that arrange and organize our sensations into ideas that can be held onto long after the sensations that gave birth to the have faded into our even out of memory. {Contact, Concept and Art}

How do we want to look at things? What do we want to allow to influence us? How do we want to form ideas and impressions?

Our concepts take a set of sensations and create an object out of them. {Contact, Concept and Art}

Do we want what we see to be real? Or do we think it is just imagination? And how far do we want to allow our imagination cope with that what passes our eyes and mind? Every one of us experiences similar experiences differently. We might be beings all come from the same one being (Adam), and in a way we all should be partners in sameness, oneness, unity, though being absolute and irrevocably unique. There is not a single person in the world who has the exact same thoughts-feelings-experiences, i.e. story, as you, me or another. None. This insight makes all of us relevant to the history of the life of humankind. It is this uniqueness which makes us all so interesting for others as well as for ourselves. Because we for ourself have to explore and to uncover our own self and the beings around us.

Exploring and developing this uniqueness, expanding and narrating our story, gives meaning, perhaps the only meaning we really need. {The meaning of life – Finding purpose}

All the time we want to find out the truth of what we see and hear. Whilst we go from one year in the next we try to live a life and grow up with reality or what we think is reality. Meanwhile, we have to cope with our strengths and weaknesses, explore our talents and analyze our personality traits. At the same time we often fear to have to explore our own self, being confronted with that what we do not want to see: our weaknesses. Most of us want to ignore them, pretend they don’t exist, and choose to focus only on our strengths, which means we don’t do anything about our shortcomings. So they grow and continue to hold us back. doing so we create a lie, sheeting ourselves.

Facing our weakness requires us to acknowledge and accept that we’re not perfect, and that is often something we do not want to know or not want to be. We would love to be perfect and somehow we also would love to see that others would also be perfect. But they just aren’t.

Why is it that human beings accept that people, in general, aren’t perfect, yet are embarrassed to admit their own imperfections?

One word: vulnerability. Imperfection and weakness mean that we’re vulnerable.

+

Preceding

Philosophy hand in hand with spirituality

++

Additional reading

  1. Ways of dreaming or thinking
  2. Fictional or real world
  3. The meaning of life – Finding purpose
  4. Anxiety Management During Pandemic Days~
  5. Philosophy hand in hand with spirituality
  6. Uncertainty and limitations
  7. Existence of a powerful “life consciousness” in all individuals

How to look at thoughts of philosophers and philosophical systems

In certain religious groups there are people who say one may not read philosophers their work.

Many philosophers their thought have influenced lots of people. We always should remember that their thoughts are best read in context. In the context of the lives that they lived, the times that they lived in, and the history of what came before and what happened after.

Many of the ideas of great thinkers of the past, so many centuries later might look dated to us. And our post-modern sensibilities make it easy for us to find fault, to criticize and to deconstruct these earlier works. Some even think that there is not much real value to be found in their works, whilst others think today some people give not enough interest to those ancient thinkers.

The real value for us is to hunt down the true genius that was driving the ideas. What was the inspiration, the spark that fuelled truly original thinking? We should wonder how they came to think about certain matters and how their thinking was   original or could bring something extra to that period of thinking or for later generations.

If they had not much to tell, I do not think we would still speak of them or would not be interested to read those ancient writings.

What did for example Ralph Waldo Emerson or William James bring that was new, that was passed on from them to the next generations? What made it that people were willing to listen to them or to give them so much attention? Or what did James offer that had not been thought of before and how has that affected the course of things since?

thinks

This is where the value is to be found. You won’t find answers to these questions through only reading the ideas, you have to know about culture and history and personality. {How Do You Read Philosophy?}

What we do have to question is

  • what has this person to tell us
  • in what kind of light is that person looking at things
  • how are their thought fed by the trends in their time or what was the general thinking of their time
  • in which way where such thinkers willing to listen to people of their time
  • how were they willing to place their ideas in context with other ways of thinking
  • what is are were the angles to look at things
  • how could they cope with agreement or disagreement and what were their reactions on critique

Today we have to try to approach the ancient and the present philosophers from different sides.

According

Philosophy is generally seen to be comprised of three main components; Metaphysics, which tells you what is real; Epistemology which tells you how you know what is real; and Ethics which tells you what you should value.

To his understanding

a philosophical system is complete in the sense that it fulfills all of these functions. {Why do worldviews clash?}

His generalised idea of Christians is limited to Trinitarian Christians who believe in hell to be a place of torture, and the belief that man

will abide in one or the other after death based on the way you live and the state of some invisible part of you called a soul. {Why do worldviews clash?}

He writes

Epistemologically the way Christians know what is real is that God has told human beings what is real through the Bible, so what is true is what is written in the Bible. Christian Ethics revolve around things like charity, loving thy neighbor, duty to family, etc. In a closed system like this you can always ask questions from within the system. Question: Should I steal? Answer: No. Justification: Because the Bible dictates that you don’t. But when you start to ask questions from outside of the system such as: Does God exist? Things get more challenging. {Why do worldviews clash?}

He seems to forget many Christians wonder in their life if God exists. So to call it a non-christian question is in our eyes not exactly right or forgetting that all people question matters of life, what is behind it and what is in it.

He probably agrees that

a complete philosophical system – a worldview – dictates what is real, how you know what is real and what to value about what is real. Without those agreements there is only flimsy basis for discussion. {Why do worldviews clash?}

As such we not need as such the Bible to explain that there is a god or The God. Though the problem can be when one says or thinks:

If the question is inserted into the system from the outside, a Christian could answer by saying, ‘yes, God exists because the Bible says so.’ But that argument only works if someone shares the epistemological presupposition that the Bible is the source of truth. {Why do worldviews clash?}

A Christian shall consider the credibility of the Bible being it the infallible Word of God, but a real Christian shall also be able to point to the Divine Creator God and His possessions without having to need the Bible.

also seems to know only creationist or to classify Christians as creationists or people who would not believe in any form of evolution. He also calls his view modernist whilst the Hebrews already had his modernist view then. Perhaps he should come to know some present and ancient views of Bereshith or Genesis.

He writes:

So a complete philosophical system – a worldview – dictates what is real, how you know what is real and what to value about what is real. Without those agreements there is only flimsy basis for discussion.

If we think about the modernist worldview we have a different system. Metaphysically we have a universe that is composed of matter that has evolved to a complexity that gave rise to human beings and a mysterious property we call consciousness. Epistemologically we know what is true based on ‘logical positivism’ which means adhering to certain laws of logic applied to the evidence we gather through our senses. And the ethics of modernism revolves around the inherent goodness of progress. This is also a complete philosophical system.

It looks like he does think we Christians have no sense or “laws of logic” and that because we live by old “ethics of …..” wich would not be the same as his ethics of modernism even when he considers himself a post-modernists. Seemingly believing we as Christians can not have different views about matters, or would not have similar worldviews as certain philosophers.

He argues:

As postmodernists we recognize that there are different worldviews and we value that diversity. We also recognize that we can’t impose one worldview on another because they rest on different fundamental beliefs and each person has a right to believe as they wish as long as they don’t hurt one another.

We wonder where he gets it that Christians would not say that behaviourism is something that can be true.

The pragmatists were trying to find a way that takes us beyond the deadends of clashing worldviews when debating what is true. That is why they said that it was more useful to argue the truth of something by examining its effect. It isn’t that useful to debate, for instance, whether Behaviorism is true or not.

A Christian might say no because that is not the view that the Bible tells us. (This lets us wonder if he has ever read the Bible); A modernist might say yes because that is what the evidence proves. The question that is more useful to ask is what results from a belief in Behaviorism. Does it work? When does it work? Does it work in this instance and not in that? What results from materialism, what results from a belief in the soul, a belief in freewill, a belief in God? Everything can be examined based on Pragmatic grounds. {Why do worldviews clash?}

All the time man is bombarded in his mind with the question of what should he believe, or what is true or what is real. In his postings Carreira also argued that

if a philosophy dictates “what is real,” “how you determine what is real,” and “how you value what is real,” then it is a closed system. Internally it will be completely consistent, and as long as you “believe” in these three pillars everything (to lift a phrase from Carl) on the inside will look like non-fiction (ie. true) and everything on the outside will look like fiction (ie. not true.) {Test Drive a Worldview}

Carreira continues:

A worldview is not only a set of ideas or beliefs about the world; it is a complete psycho-emotional mental filter of the world. It is a 360 panoramic view of the real. Your worldview dictates how you think about the world, how you feel about the world and how you respond to the world. It envelops us so that the world from inside what worldview looks and feels completely different than the world seen from inside another. {Test Drive a Worldview}

We totally agree with his view that it is each individual his or her worldview which shall dictate how that person thinks and how he or she is going to react to certain matters.  How a person feels about the world and how he or she shall respond to the world depends firstly on the way that person looks at the world and secondly how that person his ethics and moral ideas are formed.

We do not need the the romantic poets, philosophers and scientists to see

a world of open and unlimited possibility in which strangely marvelous and unseen natural forces were guiding the movement of life. {Test Drive a Worldview}

Christians are aware of the many sometimes incomprehensible ways of nature. For him

These natural invisible movements were continuously revealing themselves and there was a sense of awe and wonder at the marvel of life and reality. {Test Drive a Worldview}

And that is just where we say is the Power of God. There, by the wonders of nature, man is able to come to see the invisible Hand of the Divine Creator.

Carreira has been thinking about how challenging philosophical discussion can be and he thinks that part of that difficulty comes about when we are not discussing ideas within a single worldview, but are actually clashing one worldview against another.

As I see it a worldview is a belief in a complete philosophical system. Discussing within a given philosophical system is easy, discussing across one system into another gets challenging. {The Trouble with Worldviews}

Is not that the nice challenging idea of our world where everyone may think freely?

William James believed that humanity had evolved beyond the point of absolute truth. We don’t know the absolute truth; we only know part of the truth and what that truth is, is always changing. For that reason truth had to be seen as evolving; utilized for as long as it worked in those circumstances in which it worked. He, along with his Pragmatist colleagues imagined a complete revisioning of all of philosophy based on Pragmatic grounds. {The Trouble with Worldviews}

Dividing walls of “race”

Dividing walls of “race”

All human beings are created in the image of God. This makes that we are or should be, all accepting the other as being allowed to be here by God and to be co-images of God and ourselves.

The Divine Creator, Jehovah, the God above all gods, did not create more than one race. Of the kind that now usually walks on two legs, God created only one kind: a man taken from the red earth, hence his name “A·dham“.

Dr. George Gallant says

Racism, implies that our Creator made more then one race of people. There is but one race the human race. Get use to it people and stop using the word Racism. One Blood, One People, One set of Parents, Adam and Eve.

He has good reason to call for stopping to divide people in races or a sort of brands. We all come from the same original human beings, who probably were not white at all. The first man and mannin Adam and Eve (Chavah or Isha) got children and their children got again children and in the end we come from those children their children.

William D Tillman says

the majority of people have bought into the false construct of color/ethnicity equals – species (sic race). This is really a question of supremacywhite supremacy in particular. The dividing walls of “race” were erected to not only keep “the races pure” but to subjugate all to so-called white people. My real concern is how silent the church is on this.

“let no man think more highly of himself than he ought to think…”

is a principle that is espoused but today’s rhetoric indicates it’s one that rather needs to be lived. The statement,

“I don’t see race”

is another method to dismiss the systematic denigration and disenfanchisement of a whole sector of the population because it places the blame of perception of the suffering and relieves the “race-blind” of the guilt of apathy.

We always should remember we could be born in another region, another culture, or we could have been born with either lighter or darker skin, God chose what we are on the outside but the inside is the same. The inside is the most important factor of our being.

In the life and teaching of Jesus we nowhere can find that he had a particular predilection for a sort human being. The places he went to had Hebrew, Palestinian, Arab and other Eastern people walking around and also listening to him. Never gave he a sign to have a certain preference for or over one or the other person. In Jesus’ teaching is no such thing as racial preference. He teaches that all people are the same. Also for God everybody is equal and shall be equally judged.

As followers of Christ or Christians, we all should be like brothers and sisters and share that brotherly love with each other.

++

Find also to read:

  1. How did the original readers understand Gen 1:1?
  2. A dark skinned Jesus
  3. Why I’m Angry
  4. What is Racism??
  5. A last note concerning civil rights
  6. Even in the so-called freeworld countries racism exist
  7. Where It All Needs to Start
  8. Need to reject an archaic, racist inspired interpretation of the Bible and animosity against other believers
  9. Speciesism and racism
  10. Martin Luther King’s Dream Today
  11. Apartheid or Apartness #1 Suppression and Apartness
  12. Institutional Racism
  13. Immigration consternation
  14. Migrants to the West #1
  15. 150 Years after the 13th Amendment
  16. Forms of slavery, human trafficking and disrespectful attitude to creation to be changed
  17. Walls,colours, multiculturalism, money to flow, Carson, Trump and consorts
  18. Looking at an American nightmare
  19. At the closing hours of 2016 #2 Low but also highlights
  20. Rome mobilisation to say no to fascism and racism
  21. American social perception, classes and fear mongering
  22. A president daring to use the Bible for underlining his hate speech
  23. Trump going over the top bringing a blasphemous act
  24. Apocalyptic Extremism: No Longer a Laughing Matter
  25. It’s Time real lovers of God to Stand and Speak Out!
  26. My Multi-Cultural Childhood Could be the Answer to Racism & Xenophobia