Radicalization

When people hear the word radical they almost immediately think of a muslim, as if only muslims can become radicalized. The fact of the matter is anyone of any faith, or those without it, can become radicalized. Yes, certainly muslims can be radicalized, but so too can Christians. We can look back to Torquemada and his inquisition, was he not radical? We can look to the protestant reformation in which protestants killed people, burned churches, disrupted services and even defacated in baptismal fonts. There are also more recent examples we can cite such as the Robert Lewis Dear, the planned parenthood shooter in Colorado, was he not radical? Jim Jones is also an example of radicalization, his radicalization, which consisted of a mix between Marxism and religion, resulted in him leading 918 people to drink cyanide laced kool-aid.

One would think that the problem is nothing other than religion, but that is not true. You can cite many dictators who were radical but were atheist. One example is of Benito Mussolini, a proud and staunch atheist and fascist who committed unspeakable atrocities in African nations, namely Ethiopia. There are also scientists who became somewhat radical in the sense that they used science to justify racism. Thomas Huxley was a proponent of this idea that the white man was superior to the black man saying, "It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man."  While Huxley never went out and massacred anyone, these types of ideas led to radicalization of other people who did go out and massacre people, ideas like his essentially led to radicalization. This scientific racism had led to the massacre of the aboriginal people of Austrailia, it led to the African slave trade, or at the very least its justification. People were even put into human zoos for the white public to stand in awe of their supposedly lesser ancestor. Ota Benga is a fine example of this as he was captured and put into a human zoo. 

Radicalization can occur with anything, and it does occur when we allow ourselves to become too zealous in whatever it is that we believe, wether it be religion or some scientific or political ideology. We must remain grounded in reason in whatever it is we believe as not being moderate in anything can lead to one becoming radical and carrying out horrible atrocities. So please remember, radicalization is not something that is a product of islam, it is a product of the human being allowing themselves to become unhinged, not grounding themselves. Allowing themselves to become filled with emotion which turns into fervor. When this happens reason is thrown out the window and we begin justifiying horrible things to meet an end. 

The Evolutionary Advantage of God

                  Dostoevsky famously said "Without God everything is permitted." This I believe is true and has been proven so. This is not to say that all atheists are amoral people, it is to say that everything is permitted, meaning there is nothing to stop someone from doing something immoral. This, in my opinion, is a complex problem for atheists. Its not how or why people are moral and just without God but why be moral or just without God? There is no reason to be good if you are a self serving person who rejects God. With God there is a sense of justice and moral purpose that is lacking in the atheist model. Why be a good person if there is no justification for it? If I want to make millions and I have to hurt people along the way, what is stopping me from doing so in a world without God?

                   I suggest that if God is not in fact real, as I believe He is, then faith is an evolutionary advantage developed some time with our conciousness and self awareness to keep us in check morally. We see what happens, say, in Soviet Russia when the leadership is not only atheistic but against all forms of religion, a blood bath ensued. Why? Because as Dostoevsky says "Without God everything is permitted." There was nothing stopping Stalin from massacring people because to him there was nothing wrong in doing so. He was in a sense his own god, making his own rules and own morality and therefore everything he did was permitted. There are numerous examples that highlight this fact, which makes abandoning God a very scary prospect.

                  If this is true then at some point we will evolve beyond religion, right? I supposed it is all entirely possible that we somehow evolve to a point in which we will not need religion or God, but the problem is not what will make us be moral it is why be moral? We all know what is right and wrong wether or not we believe in God, so why be moral if there is no God? I suppose there is a scientific answer for this as to how we could evolve to that point but right now I think it is safe to say it is good to believe in God, both spiritually and scientifically. I say we wait and see if we actually do evolve past this point. If evolution is true then we will. We will evolve beyond this and still be dedicated to being moral and just, despite the absence of God.

                 I assert that we will not evolve beyond this point because I believe we are created as spiritual beings and therefore we will inevitably be spiritual for the rest of our existence. I suppose there will be many people who say we are evolving, but being an atheist does not mean you are evolving to this state, it means you are an atheist. An evolution would be a collective change from one state to the next. But I assume that many will try and use the rise of atheism as justification for an alleged evolution of the human from religious to irreligious.

              

Infinite and the finite

A conversation between two about a finite being understanding an infinite being


A: It is absolutely absurd for anyone to hold any sort of belief in any God, especially the Judeo-Christian version.

B: Why? What is so absurd about it?

A: The concept of God is so far fetched. How can a finite being even begin to understand an infinite being? It is impossible, so to even assert you know him or believe him is absurd, it is an impossibility.

B: You are a mathematician correct?

A: Yes.

B: So do me a favor, count to the number one for me.

A: Is this some kind of joke? One!

B: No no, I mean count all the numbers.

A: I am not quite understanding what you are asking of me.

B: Between zero and one there exist numbers right?

A: Yes.

B: About how many numbers exist between zero and one?

A: Its impossible to say, probably an endless amount of numbers.

B: An infinite amount of numbers would you say?

A: Yea that would be fair.

B: So why don't you count them when counting to one?

A: Because you would never get to one.

B: So does the number one even exist?

A: Well yes of course, you kind of have to set aside the absurdity of infinity in order to get past all of that.

B: But how can you grasp counting to any number if there exists an infinite amount of numbers in between? It may be absurd to count them but it certainly is also absurd to skip them.

A: What is your point?

B: My point is that despite the absurdity of the infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, you still can grasp and believe in the number one. Likewise, with God I realize that he is infinite and I am merely a finite being but I still am able to know Him and believe in Him, despite the absurdity of the infinite.

A: You believe because it is absurd?

B: I believe it despite the absurdity.

The Council of Chalcedon from an Oriental Perspective

I am by no means a great theologian, or well schooled in Christology. I am however very history minded and therefore this will be from a historical point of view. One thing that really rubs me the wrong way is when in discussion with an Eastern Orthodox Christian about this schism, the EO tends to tell the OO what they believe according to their understanding and then they attack it. This of course is not every EO that I have encountered but quite a number of them do this. Its perplexing to me that someone would not first ask the other what it is they believe, what is their perspective, and how they understand what took place.

The EO tend to point to Dioscorus as a heretic, adhering to a monophysite Christology simply because Dioscorus was trying to rehabilitate Eutyches who was in error. The fact is that even at the council Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This idea comes from later interpretation of Dioscorous' actions and not any decision by the council of Chalcedon. Dioscorus later did condemn Eutyches who persisted in his error of a monophysite Christology, which apparently is overlooked. But what about the Oriental Orthodox perspective which is almost entirely ignored by the Eastern Orthodox?

From our perspective we were very suspicious of Leo. Why? Well, like Dioscorus making the Eastern suspicious by supporting, and attempting to rehabilitate Eutyches, Leo supported Theodoret, a known Nestorian heretic. When Dioscoros read Leo's Tome he most likely thought it was suspicious in its wording, which is probably why he refused to read it. Not only that, Nestorious himself said that Leos Tome was a "vindication of the truth." So we had enough reason to be suspicious of Leo and his intentions to reject what was taking place at Chalcedon and the Antiochene formula. Of course in hindsight we know that Leo was not a heretic and that while he was friends with Theodoret he was attempting, like Dioscorus, to rehabilitate Theodoret, even rebuking his Nestorian Christology in letters to him.

You will find most, if not all, Oriental Orthodox accept both EO and OO formulas, namely because St Cyril himself affirmed that both formulas are Orthodox, even though he preferred the OO formula to the EO formula. The formula itself is pretty much a non-issue yet I find so many EO are obsessively focused on this, again telling us what it is we believe and then attacking it. Without ever actually asking what we believe, or if we even accept both formulas. We are not monophysite, never have been and never will be. We have adhered to St Cyrils formula of "One nature united out of two" which was accepted at the 3rd council. How exactly could that be Orthodox in one council and then heretical in the following council?

At any rate, we accept both formulas.