Gospel of Judas and its implication for Christianity

The Judas Gospel has been reported as if it should be shocking to believe for Christians. Yet Chrisitans, and Catholics in particular, should be well aware that the early history of the Church consisted in large part of refuting and expelling heretics of one stripe or another and, in turn, developing doctrine more fully and precisely in response to these attacks. Most of Christology was developed in response to the Arian heresy (a belief that Jesus was lesser than G-d). Much of the free will doctrine was developed in response to the Pelagians (original sin for non-Catholics).

I think this story may be a bigger problem for Protestants than Catholics. Catholics believe that the Bible has authority and is what the Church says it is because the Church posesses teaching authority and is endowed with inerrancy (belief that the Bible is without error) when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. So when the Church says Tom has two natures in one person, or that there is a Trinity, or that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical while the Gospel of Mark is not, Catholics can (and must) believe it. Catholics need to believe in errancy because the fountain of their faith is Christ and they believe he left the Church as his voice on earth.

But what of Protestants and the Gospel of Judas. How can they believe the Counsel of Nicea and the other early counsels that defined doctrine (including the doctrine of which texts are inspired or not)? The Bible did not come down from heaven, ready-made, and in codified form. Numerous texts floated around the early Christian Church. They were only fully codified some 300 years later, where numerous gnostic texts in particular were expelled. It's true the Gnostics thought they were Christians, but the Church said they weren't after an ecumenical (general) council (meeting of bishops). I'll explain what I mean this way -- my girlfriend believes in the Bible because she believes in the Church, therefore she must believe that excommunication was meaningful as well (as a result the Judas revelation has no impact on her religion because the Gospel was expelled centuries ago).

The real question remains: what of Protestants who have no theological basis for believing as Catholics do? Who tells them what to do about the Judas Gospel (I am not saying Catholics are told, more to the point that they take a leap of faith that many do not)? In the end, it seems, they must decide for themselves.

Jews for Alla?

This has got to be a joke website. Pretty funny before and after pictures on it.

Pope Bendict and "reciprocity"

Pope Benidict XVI has recently taken a harder line stand against Muslims than his predecessor John Paul II. Benidict feels there is an "imbalance" in the way Muslim countries treat minority religions as opposed to the way Western countries treat Muslims. The new Pope wants equal treatment of Christians in Muslim countries where they can practice freely without the heavy hand of an abusive state. Here is the article laying out the "reciprocity" policy:

There is, however, one intriguing area of contrast: Islam. To put it bluntly, Benedict is more of a hawk, pursuing a kind of interaction with Muslims one might call "tough love."

The new climate has in part been driven by widely publicized incidents of anti-Christian backlash in the Islamic world, most dramatically the Feb. 5 slaying of Italian missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, Turkey, a small hamlet on the country's Black Sea coast. A 16-year-old Turk entered St. Mary's Church in Trabzon and pumped two bullets into Santoro's lungs and heart, shouting Allah akbar, "Allah is great." He later said he had been agitated by the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons.

Though the teenager's father told reporters his son is psychologically disturbed, most senior figures in the Vatican, where the Santoro murder made a deep impression, saw it as part of a rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment in fundamentalist Islamic circles. That impression was underscored by the recent death sentence for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert from Islam in Afghanistan.

In his March 23 session with cardinals, much conversation turned on Islam, and there was general agreement with Benedict's policy of a more muscular challenge on what Catholics call "reciprocity." In essence, it means that if Muslim immigrants can claim the benefit of religious liberty in the West, then Christian minorities ought to get the same treatment in majority Muslim nations.

To take the most notorious example, if the Saudis can spend $65 million to build the largest mosque in Europe in Rome, in the shadows of the Vatican, then Christians ought to be able to build churches in Saudi Arabia. Or, if that's not possible, Christians should at least be able to import Bibles, and the Capuchin priests who serve the Arabian peninsula ought to be able to set foot off the oil industry compounds or embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia without fear of harassment by the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop in charge of the Catholic church in that part of the world recently described the situation in Saudi Arabia as "reminiscent of the catacombs."

It's the kind of imbalance that has long stuck in the craw of many senior figures in the Catholic Church, but these complaints were largely suppressed in the John Paul years as part of the pope's Islamic Ostpolitik. John Paul, who met with Muslims more than 60 times over the course of his papacy, and who during a 2001 trip to Damascus became the first pope to enter a mosque, believed in reaching out to Islamic moderates and avoiding confrontational talk.

Benedict XVI clearly wants good relations with Islam, and chose to meet with a group of Muslim leaders during his August trip to Cologne, Germany. Yet he will not purse that relationship at the expense of what he considers to be the truth.

No doubt, Benedict intends this tougher line as a stimulus to Islamic leaders to take seriously the challenge of expressing their faith in a multi-cultural, pluralistic world. Whether it's received that way, or whether it simply reinforces the conviction of many jihadists about an eternal struggle with the Christian West, remains to be seen.

I certainly agree that Christians ought to be allowed to worship freely in Islamic countries, but I can't buy Benedict's notion of "reciprocity." This idea seems to suggest that the religious freedom extended to Muslims in the west ought somehow to be contingent on the behavior of the governments of Muslim countries towards their religious minorities.

This is a dangerous and irrational idea. We are not negotiating trade deals here. We are talking about rights based on principles of individual liberty that we consider part of a just society. Religious freedom is not a concession in a negotiation, as Benedict would have it. It is something we value in our society for its own sake. To imply - as Benedict seems to - that if the Saudis, for example, do not grant religious freedom to Christians we should restrict the freedom of Muslims is to miss this criticial point.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I think the Pope's notion of reciprocity is an attempt to secure religious freedom for Catholics in Muslim lands. The Church seeks to preserve freedom of religion as a politcal right so that it may go about its mission and that its members may practice the faith. I do not disagree with this end, but I just don't agree with the fundamental implications for such a policy. What do you do when Muslims tell the Pope to shove it? He cannot very well ask them to not practice their religion in Western countries.

Could one compare Islam to Communism?

I would say, "yes." The only thing Islam lacks is a Stalin, other than that it is an equal opportunity murderer. One edge it has over Communism is it's longevity, give them time, as if they haven't had plenty, and the comparisons will continue to blur. It's interesting that many Soviet citizens held Stalin blameless for their situation as many Muslims remain yoked and faithful to a religion that subjugates all to doctrine.

Braves Notes

Blaine Boyer was sent down to Richmond and Joey Devine was called up. Boyer clearly wasn't ready after his injury and Devine was great in Spring Training. There's a good chance Devine will be the closer at the end of the season.

Alan Dershowitz's response to the "Jewish Lobby" Paper

Much has been written about the Stephen Walk and John Mearsheimer "Lobby" paper. To summarize, it depicts old sterotypes of Jews often seen on hateful websites. Alan Dershowitz debunks the Walk and Mearsheimer paper and offers a challenge to them. I ask anyone who enjoys the entertainment value of my blog to please read the "Lobby" paper and Dershowitz's response.

Danish Moslem: Arise and Protest

This is a great article by Ibrahim Ramadan who writes about the negative impact of some Muslim leaders on the Muslim religion. Although great to see, this gentleman may be the only voice of moderation that will speak out against the hateful leaders who run his religion (into the ground I will add).

My religion is threatened in this country.

Not because I am a part of a Moslem minority in a Christian country. Not for lack of Mosques. And not by the Danish People’s Party and their stereotypical depiction of Moslems.

My religion is threatened by people who claim to belong to the same faith as I do. Threatened by organisations such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and by people such as Ahmed Akkari, Abu Laban and Raed Hlayhel who all claim to work to spread the word of God. In reality, they’re working towards another goal entirely - to control what other Moslems should believe, think and do.

Some Moslems in Denmark have accepted the Danish Imams’ words and take strong exception to Naser Khader. They think he has sold out the Arab cultural heritage and that he’s shed Moslem values to become accepted by the Danes.

But what few Moslems in Denmark understand is that Naser Khader more than any other works to ensure that we qua Moslems are seen as assets and aren’t looked down upon as a problem in Denmark.

Is it really so heretical when Naser Khader dares say that to achieve that, we Moslems must embrace Democracy and Freedom of Speech and that it must mean that we reconsider some things in our cultural and religious background.

Lately this had some inhuman consequences for Naser Khader and his family. Some fanatical fellow Moslems have tried to threaten him into silence because they would rather not have other Moslems critically analyze the context in which our religion is seen.

But it’s time that we - the great silent majority of Moderate Moslems in Denmark - let our voice be heard and take our watch as champions of Democracy. We can’t let Naser Khader carry that burden by himself.

Because what we are witnessing at this moment in Denmark, of all things resembles most an inquisition, one which doesn’t leave out much from the horrors the unorthodox thinkers of the Christian world had to go through during the Middle Ages. In the year 2006, Moslems who don’t approve of authoritarian Islam are condemned as heretics with no right to call themselves Moslems.

Many of those who like Naser Khader champion the idea of integration of Islam and Moslems are marked by co-religionists as bad Moslems. But how did we freethinking Moslems allow this to happen?

“Read!”, was the first word of God which was revealed to the prophet Muhammed in the 7th century. But what we as Moslems do in the 21st century is the direct opposite.

Instead we turn off our brains and let ourselves be dictated to by people who call themselves religious scholars and who claim that only their interpretation of Islam is the right one.

What they omit to say out loud is that they have another agenda: to transform our religion into a political movement. The French documentary about the Danish Imams proved to be a frightening example of that.

As Moslems in Denmark we have a unique opportunity which isn’t given to our Brothers and Sisters in most of the Islamic world. We have every opportunity to get an education. For free. We’re even being paid to educate ourselves.

There is therefore no excuse in Denmark for not using the opportunities we have to seek knowledge. Here we are allowed critical questions and here we have a constitutionally secured right to speak our mind.

If we don’t use that opportunity - well, we’ll be doing the opposite of what god dictated to us. And that makes our future prospects frightening.

Not only will that entail that we as Moslems close in around ourselves, isolate ourselves from the society in which we live and passively let ourselves be led in chains back to the Dark Ages. It will also entail that we increasingle will be hated because of the words and actions which are practiced in the name of Islam without protests from us.

Naser Khader has long been a single lighthouse, leading the way in the dark, while many of us who either came by ourselves or are descendants of those who came here looking for a better life for too long have acted as if Democracy and Freedom are a matter of course which places no demands on our persons.

But its time for us Moslems to choose sides. Do we want to live in this country with all that that entails of Freedoms, opportunities and Rights - or do we really want that the intolerance, the dictatorship and the limitation of the personal freedom which we have left must also be part of our lives in the country we’ve come to?

If the latter is the case, we must take the consequence and go home the the poor neighborhoods, the refugee camps or the persecution which most of us left but which many - of both the first and the second generation - apparently have a tendency to remember in a softer light.

But if the former is the case, if we as Moslems really want this country and its principles, we’ll have to wholeheartedly and unambigously say, in a way which will leave noone in doubt, that those who speak for intolerance and fundamentalism have only a small following among Moslems in Denmark.

I clearly remember my time at the University of Cairo in the 1980s. Then there was also a small group of Islamists who tried to terrorise all of us who had an ordinary, relaxed attitude to the religion. Islamists crashed parties, destroying everything because there was music and dancing. Young men and women who were seen holding hands were beaten, humiliated and portrayed as amoral. And those who who dared criticise the actions of the Islamist students were beaten brutally.

At the end of the 80s and the start of the 90s, the Islamists took to more drastic measures. Primitive nail-bombs in the metro, in cafés and outside schools in Cairo.

Innocent children, women and men were were killed and mutilated. They were almost all of them Moslems. But for the Islamists, the goal sanctified the means and the killing of innocents was the price to pay to overthrow the ‘infidel’ governments of the Middle East in favor of the ‘true’ Islamic state.

In the years following, the Islamists’ fight was escalated to a head-on confrontation with the intellectuals who dared speak out against them. The chairman of the Egyptian parliament was mowed down with a machine gun. He had worked dilligently to modernise the Egyptian divorce laws, which had till then been run by the Sharia principle.

The aging Egyptian nobel prize winner of literature, Nagib Mafouz, was stabbed in the street. He had dared speak against fundamentalism in his hard-hitting columns.

The writer Faraq Fouda was shot dead outside his office. In books and in a debate programme he had dared suggest seperating church and state in Egypt.

The argument the Islamists made in all three cases was that they were apostates or bad Moslems who deserved death for their heretical thoughts.

We, the majority, who opposed the Islamists strongly, chose to stay silent. We bowed our heads and went about our lives out of fear of suffering the same fate. But we were many who had clouded consciences because we didn’t speak up in time.

While the Islamists were spewing hate, violence, fear and chaos, their organisations ran and organised a number of charities, free clinics, feeding the poor, school projects in blighted neighbourhoods and more. Projects which helped where the government failed and created an enormous amount of goodwill among the poorest and least educated.

But Islamism always has two faces - a mild and caring one which claims to be the protector of the poor and the true guardian of Islam and another, which in ideological phrases open to interpretation preach hate and violence, murder for the infidels and the overthrow of existing society.

That is why it is uncanny to see that the same methods employed by the Islamists in the Middle East in the 1980s and which were used to spread terror in the United States, in Madrid and in London are also being used by Imams here in Denmark.

They’re speaking with forked tongues - on one hand, the impression is conveyed that all they want to do is help those who can’t help themselves. On the other, thunderous hate speeches and calls for defending the Prophet, Islam and the Moslems in terms that by the wrong kind of people can easily be seen as a call for Holy War and killings, securing the high status of Martyr.

But the most uncanny thing is that the same unwillingness to stand up and protest this abuse of the religion which I saw in the Egypt of my youth, is predominant among the majority of Moslems in Denmark today.

The Imams who went to the Middle East with the single purpose of arousing the wrath of the Islamic World under cover of defending the Prophet have too long been allowed to be seen as representing the Moslem majority and portray all who disagree with them as deviants.

Naser Khader and the people who’ve supported his union of Democratic Moslems are generally spoken of by these Imams and their supporters as bad Moslems, as rats, as apostates, even atheists who one should warn one’s children, friends and co-religionists against associating with.

To be an apostate is one of the worst things to be in Islam. Something which is comparable to a brand, which gives every true Moslem the right to murder the apostate. So accusing the protesting moderate Moslems of being apostates is a method which makes most keep their protests low profile.

Several members of Democratic Moslems have received death threats, have been spit upon by Moslem ‘brothers’ and have been threatened to be excluded from their Moslem communities if they don’t distance themselves from Naser Khader and the cause he champions. And in the long run, the most dangerous thing about the Muhammed crisis is the consequences it will have for how we as Moslems associate with each other and our fellow Danish citizens in the future.

It’s hard to explain to people who haven’t lived in the Middle East how liberating it is to live in a country such as Denmark. A country where you’re free to say whatever you like, read whatever you like, act however you like, believe whatever you like and join any organisation or party with no repercussions for your life, career or family. But some seem to want to deny us Moslems that right and therefore we must now stand together and denounce these Men of Darkness.

The vast majority of us, the almost 200,000 Moslems in Denmark, have a relaxed and moderate attitude to our religion. Most of us have been passively observing during the Muhammed crisis, many have - rightly so - felt offended by the cartoons’ defamation of the Prophet. But few have realised that it isn’t the caricatures but those who have wielded them as a lever who threaten our religion.

It time for us to choose our sides. Will we as Moslems silently keep accepting that a herd of power-hungry people have taken Islam and the World as fearsome hostages? Or do we want to take back our religion and our right to practice it and live in peace and harmony with the surrounding world?

Our Prophet is not diminished by a handful of caricatures. But we are diminished and crippled as human beings by the hate the fanatics have tried to instill into us as a consequence of the cartoons.

The tone of the immigration debate may be hard and degrading. But have we ourselves done enough to abolish the stereotypical image of Islam as a religion of hate and the image of Moslems as people who have no wish to integrate into and much less accept the West which is persecuting us?

To become accepted and integrated in this country first and foremost demands that we as Moslems must stop pretending we are victims. Though we may be the victims of prejudices, they are prejudices which some Moslems by their behaviour have helped create and they are prejudices which all the rest of us with our passivity and lack of protests have helped keep alive.

The image of Moslems we thus help solidify is far worse than anything the Danish People’s Party have ever said.

To do well in Denmark has as a precondition that the rules of the land are supported - to educate yourself and play an active role in the community and the debate and to not only take from, but also give something back to society.

And to do that, you can’t just watch from the sidelines when someone tries to reintroduce the abrogation of our personal freedom and our freedom of speech which I think all of us left behind with a sigh of relief in the countries we once considered home.

There’s only one solution for us Moslems — use the first words that were revealed by God to the Prophet: Read! Study, be critical and take exception to those who abuse Islam.

And get out of your couch, participate actively in the Democracy because it’s not something that is just given to you along with your Danish passport. Support Naser Khader as the man who is guarantor of us and our children living as an accepted and appreciated part of this country in the future. Help make sure that our children in the future with pride in their voices can say that they are Moslems.

As Moslems we have to loudly insist that religion for us is also a personal matter between ourselves and our God. It’s not the job of any earthly being to go around with a ruler, measuring who are bad and who are good Moslems.

That measurement only God can make on the day of judgement, where all of us will answer for our deeds.

Do one brave thing today ... then run like h-ll!!!

Cool Picture

Ok, tried to weigh myself today and look what the scale said!

Don't have much to say about TO except ...

America ... Fuck Yeah!!!

When Technology goes bad

Two seconds later the dog goes missing

Remember Ladies

Draft Value Chart for all you NFL buffs

Wild Girls Released Back into Civilization

In what wildlifestyle reformation volunteers are calling a "positive step," the first group of rehabilitated Girls Gone Wild were released back into the civilized world Monday, and early signs indicate that they are adjusting smoothly, according to the director of the group responsible for their rescue.

Ali G and Trump

This is a great clip of Ali G trying to pitch an ice cream glove to Donald Trump.

Wish I had one of these in College

Talladega Nights

For those of you who have been under a rock and don't know about the new Columbia Pictures film featuring Will Ferrell and Adam McKay here is a link for all things NASCAR and Ferrell. Release date for the picture is August 4.

Italian Election Coverage

Silvio Berlusconi, the moderate to conservative Italian Prime Minister, is currently on a reelection campaign. He has been a strong supporter of the war on terrorism (how can Italians forget the Red Bridage?) so this election is big for American interests. I believe Berlusconi will win but he appears a bit overconfident. After a debate, a reporter asked Berlusconi how the vote would go. He replied that the Left can't win and I respect the Italian electorate too much to think "che ci siano cosi tanti coglioni" -- that they would have the balls -- to vote against their own interests.

Basically the entire country has reached a crisis point. First, the demographic problem has reached a critical situation. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe and the continuous influx of criminal and terrorist immigrants have frightened even the far left. Second, the generous pension system (that has been a God-given right for generations of Italians) is bloated and can no longer be adequately sustained. Third, Italy has had an overly protectionist economy (especially for its workers and failing companies) that has restrained Italy from achieving its economic potential. Hostility toward foreign investment (i.e. foreign company buy-outs of traditional Italian companies) is common and privatization (which Berlusconi has pressed for) sets off protests and polemic debate. Lastly, Italy’s chaotic legal system is in need of radical reform (the average duration of a civil suit in Italy is between 10-30 years). Navigating through the morass of legal bureaucracy is perilous, time-consuming, and madding at times.

Having said all that, Berlusconi and his coalition have shown more promise than those in the past by attempting pension reform, such as extending the retirement age, and inviting more outside investment into Italy without fear that they are somehow losing their Italian character, among other reforms. In my opinion, a win for Romano Prodi’s coalition would be a return to the same old socialist polices.

And you think you have it bad

So I had a girlfriend for all of 9 months. She dropped by one afternoon when I was sick with a pan of brownies and a video tape with the simpsons on it (my favorite show). so I start eating the brownies and turn on the tape. midway through it, it cuts to her sucking off some dude. his nuts in her mouth, she looks at the camera, and says "you're dumped. enjoy the brownies" - and spits the mouthful of cum into a bowl of brownie mix.

Cathlic Church and adoption in San Francisco

In one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century, the governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a non-binding resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption.

If you clean an elderly woman's yard out of a sense of charity and she starts making conditions on how you do it, it's perfectly reasonable to reply "If you tell me how to do it, I will simply stop." That's all the Catholic Church is doing here. They provide a service regarding facilitating adoptions. Now they are being told they have to go against their own religion and consider homosexual couples to be just as good parents as married hetersexual couples. So the Vatican is picking up its marbles and going home. Glad to see them grow a spine.

Vermont Town-Meetings Condemn Iraq War

Does anyone in Vermont understand the difference between local, state, and federal powers? What I find highly objectionable is not the quotidian mindlessness of the content -- who expects politicians to be insightful or even original? Still, why aren't Vermonters (well, most are ex-New York liberals so they can't really be called Vermonters) angry about the spectacle of public servants spending time and money on a futile gesture that has nothing whatsoever to do with running their damn cities. You would think that if they wanted to pay good money to watch clowns throw pies at each other, they would have bought a ticket to the circus.

Guess everyone wants Jessica Alba