|
|
Resistance Thinking Culture
Culture is a term used to describe why humans act the way they do. The study of culture attempts to explain why certain behaviours have special significance for some humans, where as for others it is completely meaningless. Culture encompasses everything from watching television and surfing the web, to doing yoga and having pre-arranged marriages.
All of the human behaviours that make up a particular culture are founded on a certain set of ideas. For instance, Islamic women wear a hijab for modesty because of teahcings in the Hadith and many Christians wear a cross around their neck in rememberance of Christ. These are human behaviours that are founded on a very clear set of ideas. Ideas are expressed in human behaviours that make up a certain culture.
In this culture section you will find articles, news and reviews on an extrememly diverse range of topics that relate to culture: the media - TV, news, magazines, movies etc., other religions - Islam, Judaism, New Age, Buddhism, Hinduism etc., philosophy - postmodernism, existentialism, humanism, consumerism etc., popular culture, music, Christian culture - music, moviews etc., and a whole lot more!
Please browse through the articles below
|
|
Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:10 |
The Age, Katharine Murphy and Brendan Nicholson, and Richard Baker, February 28, 2007
HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion.
Former mining executive Arvi Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House.
The book claims climate change is nothing new and declares Howard Government investments in solar power and in cleaning up coal a "complete waste of taxpayers' money".
"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.
"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.
"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."
The function is organised by the Lavoisier Group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan to test claims that global warming is the result of human activity.
Mr Evans is a longstanding friend and colleague of Mr Morgan and a committed activist on issues such as workplace reform through the HR Nicholls Society, which he founded with federal Treasurer Peter Costello.
Former Labor minister Peter Walsh also will attend today's function, and the group will hold a dinner to be addressed by climate-change sceptic Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at Auckland University.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has organised the function on behalf of the Lavoisier Group and expects about 50 people to attend the dinner.
Dr Jensen, a nuclear physicist, has said he is not convinced that human activity is responsible for global warming.
In an interview with The Age last month, Mr Evans acknowledged that last September's visit by former US vice-president Al Gore to promote his Oscar-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth had helped generate a lot of publicity on climate change.
But he described Mr Gore's film as "bull*&%# from beginning to end".
"The science from the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly recognised as irrelevant," Mr Evans said.
"But the Government's frightened.
"Cabinet, from what I understand, is by and large still sceptical of climate change, but it is scared of the drought and worried about how Labor will make use of it."
At The Age news (click here) |
|
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 21:31 |
Bill Muehlenberg, June 2007
Not bad for a get rich quick scheme: peddle some old myths, repackage and cleverly promote them, and get Oprah Winfrey to gush about it, and there you go: instant success, fame and fortune.
Pretty good for an Australian single mum in her 50s. The Secret has only been out since late last year, but has already sold around 3 million copies, along with another 2 million DVDs. In just a matter of months Rhonda Byrne has gone from financial difficulty to being worth over $40 million.
The former Melbourne television producer (who now resides in LA), has certainly struck a pot of gold in recylcing old mental postivism beliefs. The gist of the book is just old fashioned mind-over matter mumbo jumbo. It is a bit of creative visualisation, and bit of positive thinking and a bit of name it and claim it theology, all rolled into one.
The premise is that your thoughts and feelings can get you anything and everything you want. Thus if you want to be thin, focus on thinness. Do not look at fat people. She speaks of the “law of attraction,” the idea that thoughts, either good or bad, “attract” more of whatever they’re about. So the way to get thin?: “If you see people who are overweight, do not observe them, but immediately switch your mind to the picture of you in your perfect body and feel it.”
Indeed, it is all just mind over matter: “Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight.”
She told Oprah that her book was inspired by a 1910 volume she came across called The Science of Getting Rich by Wallace D. Wattles. And that is what this book is all about: how to get rich, how to get that luxury yacht, how to get the new home, how to get that dream vacation, how to conquer cancer, how to snag the love of your life, etc. It is one big exercise in greed, selfishness and avarice. And as one critic put it, “It’s pseudoscientific, psychospiritual babble.” Nothing new under the sun
Anyone who has studied the New Age movement and its predecessors, New Thought and the mind sciences, will immediately find plenty of family resemblances here. New Thought can be traced back to Theosophy (founded by Madame Blavatsky in 1875), and Anthroposophy (founded by Rudolf Steiner in 1912). The real founder is P. P. Quimby (1802-1866) who practiced Mesmerism and advanced the notion that sin, sickness, and disease exist solely in the mind. After his death, a number of Mind Science groups emerged and prospered in the early parts of the twentieth century, including Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, and Religious Science.
All these New Thought movements emphasised the importance of mind over matter in various ways, claiming human beings can experience health, success, and abundant life by using their thoughts to define and condition their lives. As Mary Baker Eddy put it, “The cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health”
And the New Age Movement is full of this thought as well, especially in the form of creative visualisation (using mental concentration and direct mental imagery to achieve certain goals, be they material, psychological, vocational, or spiritual).
Shirley MacLaine is one New Age advocate who speaks much of creating your own reality, of scripting your destiny. In one of her books she tells of how she thwarted a mugger by willing a different reality: “I am learning to alter my perceptions and therefore change my ‘reality’. . . . I remember my flash reaction that I, by God, did not like playing the part of a victim. Instinctively I changed my ‘part’ and lunged back at him. . . . I changed the script. Jesus said, ‘Everything is possible for him who believes’.”
All this sort of thinking brings to mind an old limerick:
There was a faith-healer from Deal
Who said that though pain is not real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel.
Or the story of a boy who went to a Christian Science practitioner and asked him to pray for his father, who was very ill. “Your father only thinks he is sick,” the man told the boy. “He must learn to counter those negative thoughts and realize he is actually healthy.” The next day the boy came back, and the minister asked how his father was doing. “Today he thinks he’s dead,” replied the boy.
And it is not just New Agers and occultists who have been into all this stuff. Some Christian groups have taught these things as well. Much of the positive confession movement, the health and wealth gospel, the name it and claim it theology, the word of faith movement, and the prosperity gospel teachings all nicely fit in here as well.
Consider a few representative quotes. Kenneth Hagin says, “You will never be a conqueror until you confess you are one. If you wait to become a conqueror first to believe you are one, you are mistaken. You have to confess it first to become one. Faith’s confessions create reality”.
C.S. Lovett puts it this way: “The ability to picture something which does not have existence is called IMAGINATION. Imagination is the most spiritual faculty of man. By means of imagination we can give reality to the unseen. We can picture things before they come into existence. . . . Man’s imagination allows him to create things in an endless stream. Anything he can conceive he can build.”
John Avanzini concurs: “Use your imagination to see things the way God intends them to be, instead of as they are. To do this, you will need a good, concise mental picture of God’s will for your future. If you are not enjoying good health, project pictures of yourself in the best of health on the screen of your imagination”. Conclusion
No one denies that a good healthy attitude can be helpful in life. A positive outlook on life can have some helpful psychosomatic outcomes. But the world of the mind over matter camp is simply pagan superstition. Whether it is called mental training, self-talk, positive mental attitude, mind over matter, creative visualization, possibility thinking, positive thinking or positive confession, it is all of limited value and certainly has little or no place in the biblical Christian worldview. And any teaching or philosophy that puts all its emphasis on you, and what you can get out of life, is clearly at odds with the biblical message which says we are to deny ourselves, die to ourselves, and serve and love others.
The Secret has nothing to do with hidden truths now revealed, or freshly revealed wisdom. It is simply a con job to suck dupes into shelling out money to buy more self-help and motivational material they simply do not need.
[1184 words]
At: BillMuehlenberg.com (click here) |
|
Thursday, 21 June 2007 03:37 |
Herald Sun, David Rising, June 04, 2007
MASKED protesters showered police with rocks and beer bottles, injuring almost 150 officers in a rally against this week's G8 summit. |
|
Read more... ['Peace' protestors injure Police]
|
|
Saturday, 02 June 2007 21:30 |
Bill Muehlenberg, May 2007
There have been a number of names given to radical Islam. Terms such as the Islamists, or Jihadists, or militant Muslims, are often used. Another term often used is Islamofascism. It is a fitting term, in many respects. All-embracing Islam can be every bit as totalitarian and dictatorial as fascism was.
It might also be possible to speak of radical Islam as Islamomarxism, to coin a term. That is, there appear to be a number of parallels between Marxist thought and radical Islam. Both tend to argue that politics is everything, even though one rests on atheism, and the other on strident monotheism.
English commentator Theodore Dalrymple teases out the similarities in an intriguing article in the May 2007 New English Review. He begins his piece by describing how he studied Marxism in his earlier years. He notes that reading the main Marxist thinkers was a daunting task: “Marxist writers were not famed for their clarity or elegance of exposition. Indeed, clarity was rather looked down upon by them, for the dialectical nature of the world was inherently hard to understand and therefore to express. For Marxists, clarity was simplification, or worse still vulgarisation. It was the handmaiden of false consciousness that misled the workers into not being revolutionaries.”
He continues, “As with philosophy, I am not sure whether my efforts to understand Marxism were a complete waste of time, which I could and should have employed better. At any rate, when the Soviet Union collapsed, no thanks to my efforts to understand Marxism, I thought, ‘Well, at least I shall never have to struggle through any ideological nonsense again if I want to understand what is going on’. How wrong I was! . . . I found myself reading about Islam because it had suddenly emerged as the next potential totalitarianism.”
The rest of the article is taken up with an examination of one of Sayyid Qutb’s best-known books, Milestones. “Qutb, who was hanged by the secularising nationalist, Nasser, in 1966, for allegedly plotting the overthrow of the government, was one of the most influential Muslim thinkers of the 20th Century. He did not start out as an Islamist, but became one partly in response to his sojourn in the United States. He was appalled by what he saw there as its moral laxity (though he went at a time now looked back on by moral conservatives as a time of great and even exemplary personal restraint, at least by comparison with the moral atmosphere of today).”
Dalrymple argues that “Qutb’s thought has many parallels with Marxism. Where Marx has Historical Inevitability, Qutb has God‘s Law. Marx, you remember, envisages a time when the state will wither away and history will end. In Marx’s vision, political power will have dissolved, and the exploitation of man by man will have ceased, to be replaced by the mere administration of things. (How anybody of minimal intelligence could have believed such a thing beats me.) In Qutb’s vision, all political power will have dissolved, replaced by man’s spontaneous obedience to God’s law. Just as the administration of things in Marx’s utopia will not confer power on the administrators, presumably because everything will be so plentiful that no one will be tempted to appropriate more than the next man, so in Qutb’s utopia no one will have to interpret the law and gain power from doing so. God’s law will be as evident as things will be abundant in Marx’s classless society.”
Both believed in the New Man: “In both Marx and Qutb, the idea is expressed that, under the new dispensation, man will become more human, less animal. Personally, I have always found this kind of thought an appallingly arrogant slur on all the people who have lived before the thinker of it: does humanity really have to wait for Marx and Qutb before it becomes truly human?” And both believed that violence was essential in bringing about the New Man: “Marx understood that the classless society could not come about by merely preaching socialism, as if it were merely an ethical demand or theory. Violence would be necessary. Similarly, Qutb denies that the world will become Islamic merely by preaching the word of God. He refers to Mohammed’s Meccan period, when the Prophet did not resort to arms. This, he says, was merely tactical; it would have been impossible in practice to impose his rule by force. But when he went to Medina, he had no hesitation in fighting his enemies, including those who simply did not accept his message.”
He continues, “Just as Marx says that a showdown between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitable, leading to the triumph of the former and the subsequent establishment of a classless society, so Qutb thinks that a showdown between believers and infidels is inevitable, leading to the victory of Islam, which will eliminate all religious conflict. Is this Marx or Qutb speaking: ‘[there] is a natural struggle between two systems which cannot co-exist for long’. It is Qutb; but it could have been taken from the writings of thousands of followers of Marx, if not from Marx himself, including Mao Tse-Tung.”
Just as Marxism was a secular religion, or worldview, so too, ironically, is the militant Islam of Qutb: “There is very little that is specifically spiritual in Qutb’s book: it is a political rather than a religious manifesto. And like Marx, he insists that Islam is not so much a body of doctrine or theory or facts, but a method. His notion is uncommonly like the Marxist one of praxis, of a dialectical relationship between theory and practice.”
He continues, “The only religious aspect of Qutb’s thought is his belief that the Koran is the unmediated word of God, a belief that he does not, because he cannot, justify. For him, the will of God is indisputably known without any need of interpretation, and in fact he knows it. It isn’t difficult to see, then, that in the name of the destruction of all political authority and of the lordship of man over man in obedience to God’s will, Qutb thinks he ought to be total dictator, and that he is as obsessed with the here and now as any Marxist.”
Concludes Dalrymple, “It is the same old story. As Dostoyevsky said, starting out from limitless freedom, we end up with total despotism.” Quite so. Dalrymple is certainly on to something here, and his entire article is well worth reading.
Back in 1983 Erich and Rael Jean Isaac penned a book entitled The Coercive Utopians. Marxism has clearly been a classic example of this, but hardline Islamism certainly comes to mind here as well. And just as the free West needed to actively challenge the coercive Marxists and their plans to radically remake society, so too it needs to resist with all of its strength the totalitarian designs of the utopian Jihadists.
Click here for article in the New English Review
This article written by Bill Muehlenberg |
|
Saturday, 02 June 2007 21:29 |
Summit, Chuck Edwards, April 2007
"What's your worldview?" Try that question on a friend sometime. What do you think would be the typical response? A blank stare? A forty-five minute monologue?
If you asked the average person about their philosophy of life, you would probably get some sort of answer, even if it turned out to be a little sketchy. While many people may not be sure what they believe, they would admit to some set of ultimate beliefs and values. This set of beliefs, or worldview, is the basis for ones whole approach to life. And while everybody has a worldview, most would have a tough time defending what they hold to be true.
The reason it is difficult for many of us to discuss our worldview is because our generation has lost the art of thinking deeply about why we believe what we believe. During the past fifty years in the United States, our educational system has not directed students to contemplate the meaning of life as much as it has sought to instill certain practical skills. This has led to what Allan Bloom describes as the closing of the American mind. Ron Nash has taken that idea to the next logical step, suggesting that there has been a concurrent closing of the American heart as well. With closed minds and hearts, Americans are not accustomed to thinking seriously about the meaning of life.
Yet, because actions are based on beliefs, we have to start with some basic assumptions about our place in the world. So the question comes back to "What's your worldview?" To answer that question we must define what we mean by the term "worldview."
How Should a Worldview be Defined?
While there are various ways of "slicing the worldview pie" (depending on whom you read), we at the Summit divide a worldview into the following ten disciplines which answer life's key questions: At some point, everyone asks the question, "What about God?" (theology). Also, we are curious about the nature of reality and how we know what is true (the questions philosophy seeks to answer). We have questions about life's origins (biology), ourselves (psychology) and how we make moral choices (the study of ethics). We question how society ought to be structured (sociology), how to solve legal issues (law), what government should look like (politics), how to make and spend money (economics), and where we have come from (history).
Combining these ten disciplines provides a comprehensive framework of life—a total worldview. The Western educational enterprise is structured around these disciplines, with universities offering courses in each discipline to explore the answers to these vital questions. Dividing a worldview into these ten disciplines corresponds with how we approach life's important issues.
The Worldview Tree
Also, dividing a worldview into these ten areas helps people see the inter-relationship between the various disciplines. An illustration may help. Visualize a fruit tree supported by a large root system spreading out underground. The tree draws nourishment from its roots and produces fruit at the end of the branches. In other words, the fruit is connected to the root. In a similar way, a worldview works as an organic whole, with the fruit (outward behavior) flowing naturally from the root (inner beliefs).
The root system of every worldview is composed of the twin disciplines of theology and philosophy. Together, these form one's religious assumptions about God, reality, and knowledge. From these roots flow implications for each of the other eight disciplines, which are the branches of the tree. At the end of these branches is the fruit of that discipline.
An Example of Worldview Thinking from the Founding Fathers
For an example of how the "worldview tree" reveals the organic unity of a worldview, think about the founding of The United States of America. Our nation was instituted in 1789 as a Constitutional Republic. The founders of this republic designed three separate branches of government to "check and balance" the power of those who govern (worldview discipline: politics).
This political fruit flowed out of the founding fathers' perspective of human nature, believing that mankind is basically sinful and thus would use political power for selfish ends instead of the good of the people (worldview discipline: psychology). Likewise, the founder's psychology was in turn rooted in their understanding about the existence and nature of God—God created man but man fell into sin (worldview disciplines: biology and theology).
The founders were thinking within a worldview rooted in Biblical Christianity, resulting in a system of government that, while not perfect, has allowed the greatest amount of liberty and prosperity for the greatest number of people of any other political arrangement.
On the one hand, we can separate the institution of the church from the institution of the state. But it is impossible to separate religious ideas from political ideas. To do that would be like severing a limb from the tree and expecting it to bear fruit. Fruit does not pop out of thin air. It is always connected to the branch which draws nourishment from the roots. Likewise, political ideas come from prior assumptions about human nature which themselves are rooted in religious suppositions concerning God.
The fruit always develops from the root. And this holds true for every other discipline of study as well.
Chuck Edwards
Click here for full article at Summit |
|
Saturday, 21 April 2007 21:28 |
Christian Worldview Network, Shane Idleman, April 2007
A youth pastor once told me, “I don’t worry about what I watch or listen to as long as my heart is right. Plus, I need to watch what everyone else is watching so I can relate to them.”
This is a very dangerous view. Most will admit, however, that this statement is really just an excuse to cross the line when it comes to entertainment. Let’s be honest: many rationalize watching and listening to very questionable material not because they want to relate to others, but because they enjoy it.
What we watch and listen to affects the heart; it’s impossible to separate the two. If we would make it our goal to know Christ more personally, we would preach Christ more powerfully. For example, if a pastor fills his mind with worldly pleasures and desires all week and expects the Spirit of God to speak boldly through him from the pulpit, he will be gravely mistaken. “The gratification of the flesh and the fullness of the Spirit do not go hand in hand” (R.A. Torrey). Who he is all week is who he will be when he steps to the pulpit—the passion and conviction of his message is only as strong as the passion and conviction within him. The same is true with you and me: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). What goes in ultimately comes out.
The Scriptures are crystal clear on the issue of entertainment; there’s really no debate. Philippians 4:8 says to fix our thoughts on what is true and honorable and right, and to think about things that are pure and lovely and admirable and worthy of praise. Ephesians 5:1-20 also addresses this issue, and enough is said in II Timothy alone to silence any debate: everyone who names the name of Christ should depart from anything that goes against His standard of holiness. We must be pure vessels that God can use. (See II Timothy 2:19-21.) A pure vessel cannot come from a polluted mind. Years of feeding the flesh will leave us spiritually weak. James 1:27 reveals that Christians are to remain “unspotted” from the world; which literally means to be free from the world’s corruption. Are we “affecting” the world, or is the world “infecting” us?
Let your freedom in Christ, and a relationship with Him, guide you. We’ve all watched questionable material and have made wrong choices; don’t live with ongoing regret. But don’t justify wrong behavior by thinking that God doesn’t care about what you watch or listen to, because He does; we serve and love God with our mind. (See Romans 7:25 and Luke 10:27.) What we view and listen to clearly affects our relationship with Him. If we find dozens of hours a week to watch movies and television programs, but have little time for God, our relationship with Him will suffer—period.
Years ago, I realized that if I wanted to grow spiritually, some things would have to go, or, at the very least, be minimized; I needed to draw a line. Instead of watching hours of television a day, I began to devote my time to activities that strengthened my relationship with the Lord. I cannot begin to tell you how much of a difference that made. Although far from perfect, I began to put first things first. As a result, I began to hunger for God’s Word and spiritual truth like never before. It’s impossible to develop a deep respect and desire for God if we repeatedly fill our mind with things that oppose Him.
Let me leave you with this thought: if you are a young adult, are you willing to do what it takes to protect your mind and your relationship with the Lord? If you are a parent, are you willing to do what it takes to protect your family? It’s your choice. Drawing a line can be out of step with the mainstream, but, like Joshua, we too must say: choose this day whom you will serve, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15).
This excerpt was taken from What Works for Young Adults—Solid Choices In Unstable Times, © 2007 by El Paseo Publications (www.elpaseopublications.com);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
At: Worldview weekend (click here)
Discuss this on the forum |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 26 of 26 |
|
|
