`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


Sunday, February 17, 2013

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter


And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter’s ‘market’ was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the ‘market’ to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time.”
While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
“Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.”
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”
“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”
“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.”
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”
Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible.
For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today’s article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today’s readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically.
For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices.
And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to ‘reach’ God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form.
However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other’s views.
I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious?
If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will.
In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called ‘Christians’ but ‘followers of the Jesus Movement’)? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about.
For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows:
1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew).
2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater".
3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James).
4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter).
5. Philip of Bethsaida.
6. Thomas (Didymus).
7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel).
8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.
9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser".
10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite).
11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.
12. Judas Iscariot.
The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also 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." (Matthew 16:18).
In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 12 but Paul.
Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen’s cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement.
One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul ‘saw’ Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This ‘miracle’ prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement.
However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak.
Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul’s reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork.
And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter’s ‘market’ was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the ‘market’ to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.
Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul’s movement expanded faster than Peter’s. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts.
And because Paul’s version of Christianity, so to speak, was more ‘liberal’ (for want of a better word) compared to Peter’s (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter.
The ‘headquarters’ of the Church of England is St Paul’s Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The ‘headquarters’ of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine.
Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)?
This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me).
Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity.
That is how democracy works, unfortunately.
So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat ‘delicious pork’.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.