“Humans need something more than themselves” – John Gray: Dog

Why does the human animal need contact with something other than itself?, asks political philosopher, John N Gray.

He writes in the BBC News Magazine:

“Montaigne didn’t want his animal companions to be mirrors of himself, he wanted them to be a window from which he could look out from himself and from the human world..,He understood that the good life means different things for animals with different natures. What he questioned was the idea that one kind of life, the kind humans alone can live, is always best.”

“Dogs seem to be capable of showing human-like emotions of shame, but though they are more domesticated they still remain different from us. And I think it’s their differences from us, as much as their similarities, that makes them such good companions…Whatever you feel about cats and dogs, it seems clear that the human animal needs contact with something other than itself. For religious people this need may be satisfied by God, even if the God with whom they commune seems too often all-too-human..It’s also obvious thatsearching for a way of looking at the world that’s not simply human expresses a powerful human impulse.”

“What birds and animals offer us is not confirmation of our sense of having an exalted place in some sort of cosmic hierarchy, it’s admission into a larger scheme of things, where our minds are no longer turned in on themselves. Unless it has contact with something other than itself, the human animal soon becomes stale and mad. By giving us the freedom to see the world afresh, birds and animals renew our humanity.”

There’s the joke of the dyslexic atheist who woke up one morning and realised that there was a dog. However, as John Gray tells it above, it may not be necessary to be dyslexic – or even a philosopher to realise that there IS a dog; but it (the dyslexic and the philosopher) does yelp. As Paul Newman said in 1956: Somedoggy up there likes me.

Jean Paul Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” and Al Mohler’s Sex education in kindergarten

In the philosophy of Socrates and Plato we find the distinction between the “form” of the thing and its material composition. Another term for “form” is “essence,” which generally defines the “function” of an entity. In Plato, “forms” are realities that pre-exist entities. The term “entity” comes from the Latin ens “being.” Entities, or beings, consist of two “macrobutes” (two overarching attributes): essence and existence. For example, the essence of chair is “sitting on-ness.” The essence of the chair precedes (logically and chronologically) the chair itself.

Look, there’s Plato sittting in his chair thinking about his thinking. In most traditional philosophy, including Christian philosophy, the essence of Plato precedes his existence. This essence is his human “nature.” He comes into existence with his pre-formed human nature, his essence.

Jean Paul Sartre says, “non,” it doesn’t work this way; it mustn’t work this way, because in such a scheme human freedom is lost owing to the fact that human “nature” implies a fixety, a determinism in which man is reduced to a robot. Rationality, for Sartre, can only operate when man is totally free to think and feel what he wants, independent of any pre-existent restraints such as rules of morality, which many philosophies claim are part of the essence (nature) of man.

Here is a good description of Sartre’s “existence precedes essence.”

Jean Paul Sartre

“In Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism and Human Emotions,” the author discusses the philosophical concept that existence precedes essence, a theory which involves elements of responsibility and freedom in regards to human choice. The idea that existence precedes essence means that a human being, as well as human reality, exists prior to any concepts of values or morals. A person is born a blank slate; humanity has no universal, predetermined principles or ethics common to all of mankind. Since no preformed essence or definition exists of what is means to “be human,” a person must form his/her own conception of existence by asserting control of and responsibility for his/her actions and choices. Consequently, a human being gains his/her essence through individual choices and actions. It is solely through the process of living that one defines one’s self.”

Which brings me to Al Mohler‘s “Sex education in kindergarten” (The Briefing, 28 Feb 2013).

Al Mohler

Mohler discusses new US laws that cater for transgender children. In brief(s), if a boy feels that his essence is a girl, then he should be allowed to frequent the girls’ bathroom, and if a girl feels her essence is a boy, then she may use the boys’ bathroom. And if that arrangement becomes impractical (unmanageable? – peek-a-boo), then perhaps there should be transgender bathrooms.

What, though, if they change their minds later and choose to revert to their former state (essence?). And backwards and forwards: today, Arthur; tomorrow, Martha; next week, Arthur; next month Martha; in Sartrian terms, creating and recreating their essence, limited, alas, to only four options: girl, boy, birl, goy.

Setting – Kindergarten

Teacher – Martha, you said you wanted to be a boy, so why are you back in the girls’ bathroom?

Martha – Don’t call me Martha; my name – you promised! – is Arthur.

The blond and the black: Jews of (South) Africa

In Followers of Yeshua keeping Torah: What’s the pork? I wrote on the RoshPinaProject (RPP) article “Pigs become kosher when death and evil are defeated – but should Messianic Jews eat pork?”

One of the comments in he RPP article stated that I was not Jewish. Whenever anyone tells me that, I smile, because if I’m not Jewish neither is Golda Meir or the Lemba (I explain shortly). Here is the relevant conversation on RPP.

Golda Meir (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

[The square brackets are my appended clarifications/inferences].

Dan, a Jewish follower of Yeshua [who can't be blond]

“Let me ask you [Dan is responding to someone else's comment], if you were in my place would you participate with the Mormons in their Christmas celebration, something that they asked us to do. Would you sit in their sanctuary and listen for half the night to all kind of Christmas carols and songs, knowing that they will participate in your Pesach seder? How would you feel if you have to come every Shabbat and just above where they let you keep your Torah ark there is a picture of the blond blue eyed Jesus hanging? Would you have stayed there for 2 years?”

[Me – Bography, Bog, Raphael, Refooel, chipping in]

“A (picture of) blond blue-eyed Jesus – and next to Torah! Dan, there are Jews with blond hair and blue eyes recognised (halloi, Refooel) by frum rabbis. When I was much younger, I was blond; my blue eyes, though, haven’t turned colour yet. Or was it the idea of a picture (of Jesus) that was your problem?”

[Dan replies]

Sorry Bog [my user name is Bography], South Africans are not Jews….LOL! [Lots Of Love]

End of RPP conversation [RIP]

I must protest, ’cause there are indeed some Jewish Africans. Here is moi [time past] with members of the Lemba congregation; and they ARE Jewish: they have the genes to prove it. (The origins of the Lemba ‘Black Jews’ of southern Africa: evidence from p12F2 and other Y-chromosome markers).

As for me, I haven’t had my DNA checked for Jewish genes, but I’m not worried, the Rabbinate in Jerusalem and my two Israeli brothers know that I’m a Yid. And hey, whose fault is it I look like a Khazar – before they converted to Judaism. (The invention of Shlomo Sand – a thousand “Jews” make one Palestinian).

 

Related articles

• Followers of Yeshua keeping Torah: What’s the pork? (onedaringjew.wordpress.com)
• Pigs become kosher when death and evil are defeated – but should Messianic Jews eat pork? (roshpinaproject.com)

When “awesome” loses its power, compound it.

In The yuckiest word in the English language, I said that one word I absolutely hate to pieces is “awesome.” As a few Jews and Christians know, “awesome” used to mean “inspiring deep reverence and healthy fear.”

I have noticed recently, though, among the lexically challenged that “awesome” is no longer explicit enough and is beginning to pall. There is a new compound out there, with WordPress.com leading the way. Why click merely “like,” when you can boggle with “super-awesome.”

LOL

I mean LOVL (Very)

James White’s eternal doctorate: And what’s yours worth?

James White’s blog aomin.org is my favourite, especially his podcast “The Dividing Line.” Alas, owing to the haaaalidays, there have been no podcasts, and so I’ve been feeling rather forlorn.

What I want to talk about here is White’s Doctorate obtained from the unaccredited “Columbia Evangelical Seminary.” (See “Of Doctorates and eternity”

Before I talk about the besmirching of White’s degree, let me say something about degrees in general. Did you know that some accredited universities in the US accept doctoral students from certain countries and when they graduate their degree contains the stipulation that it is not valid in the US?

When I was teaching at Fort Hare University (Nelson Mandela studied there – whoopee), one of the junior lecturers in the (English) Department said he was going to the US for 18 months to do an M.A. I said to him: “Eighteen months! Why don’t you do two or three?”

I know several South African graduates from accredited British Universities, who couldn’t explain what their dissertations/theses were about, and never published, and will – if I’ve got nothing to do with it – never ever be able to publish in an accredited journal.

Back to James White. What counts, as White, correctly points out, not exactly in these words, that if you can’t DO, your piece of paper is not even worth the doo-doo you wiped it on. And James White sure can do. So all you Arminians and Muslims (now not only James, but me as well, has put his foot in it), put that in your pipe and smoke it.

But hey, James, you too are not exactly snow white. Remember that time you cocked a snook from your underground bunker at Liberty University at Ergun Caner’s PhD from the “University of South Africa.” Now, it is you who is being horrible. Of course, I know that if you knew (and knew me) that I did my teacher’s diploma and B.A. Honours (French) there, you would have been more – as the Apostle Peter admonishes – gentle and respectful.

There’s another South African University tucked away in the cute North-Western town of Potchefstroom (formerly “Potchefstroom University,” now “North West University”). As far as Christian theology goes, especially Reform theology, Potch is high up there. Ask any Dutchman. Mike Licona sometimes hangs out there.

“Mike has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria). He completed all requirements “with distinction” and the highest marks. He is a frequent speaker on university campuses, churches, Christian groups, retreats, frequently debates, and has appeared as a guest on dozens of radio and television programs. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Mike is currently the president of Risen Jesus ministries and serves as an external research collaborator, Faculty of Theology, North-West University (Potchefstroom).”

Now James, or any other (North) American, don’t diss North West University (Potch), ’cause I did my M.A. there. En passant, I also have a Ph.D. (applied linguistics – so now I am qualified to do something with it) from a South African University, the University of Cape Town. Stop it! Didn’t you know that the first successful heart transplant was done there? True, the patient, a Jewish grocer, Louis Washkansky , only lived on for 18 days.

Viva University of Cape Town, viva Potchefstroom University – and vivaaaa Columbia Evangelical Seminary. And viva all Calvinists, Jewish and otherwise.

There are only two kinds of sensitive intellectuals: You wish.

There are only two kinds of sensitive intellectuals: sensitive Jew-ish intellectuals and sensitive You-wish intellectuals.

(ISH, here, is Hebrew for “man”)

By the way Hymie, if your father is Jewish but your mother is not, the Israeli Rabbinate will not accept you as a complete Jew, that is, as a Jew ISH but merely as Jew-ish. If, however, your mother is a Jew, then you are Jew ISH.

The yuckiest word in the English language

You’re at the doctor’s.

- Open wide your mouth. Say “aaaah.

- Aaaaaaaaaah.

- Say it coupla times.

- Aaaaahhh, aaaaaaaaahhhh, aaaaaahhh

- That’s aaaaahsome. Now shuddup.

In the wide wide world or sitting in front of the TV. Make it the TV. Turn to any North American food programme or “American pickers,” or just about anything to do with feeding your eyes, your stomach or your face, and you’re sure to hear (that’s) “aaaahhhhsome.” “That 1920s coke sign is aaahhsome.”

 

 

If you’re watching a non-American English programme (say British, Australian, South African) you’ll hear something else: say aaaahhh. Keep it coming out of your throat but round your lips. “Oooorsome.”

I hate that word to pieces. It was not always that way because it hasn’t been that long since all English expletives of impressiveness have been sacrificed to the gods of “Cool” and “Awesome.” As Jews and Christians know, “awesome” used to mean “inspiring deep reverence and healthy fear.”

“Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How AWESOME is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”

(Genesis 28:10-17)

Sadly, even among Christians, “awesome” is used as a superlative for “cool.” And it’s not rare to find preachers using it in the pulpit: “It was awesome” (describing the “fellowship” {becoming fast another icky word} at the recent church picnic).

Hang on, think I’m going to, going to aaaahhh, aaaahhh, aaaahh TISHOOOO; all over you.

Please forgive.

Vengeance and the cartoons about Mohammed: None can change the words of Allah, except Allah, which he does

In Islam and the Book: The heart of the matter, I presented a discussion with a Muslim on the inspiration of the Quran and the Bible. The Quran states that the Hebrew and Christians scriptures (the “Book”) are divine revelation but they have both been corrupted from time immemorial and thus in Mohammed’s time no Jew or Christian – no matter how faithful to the original scriptures – had a copy of the original scriptures. The closest any Jew or Christian came to the “Book” sent down by God was, argued the Muslim, the few snippets they carried in their hearts.

I present here a specific example we discussed of the clash between the two religions on this matter: the Islamic violence unleashed on the world occasioned by the Danish cartoon of Mohammed.

(My part is in normal characters; his in italics).

- Do you agree with the violence that resulted from the silly cartoon.
- Yes. Muslims have to defend Allah’s honour.
- Why do you need to do that, can’t he defend his own honour?
- We can’t just let people do this.
- You say the Christian Bible is corrupt and only what the Quran says is true in it is really true. In my copy of the Bible it says: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19). What do you think of the idea that vengeance should be left to God. Do you think this verse is a corruption of the original “Book” sent down to the Jews and the Christians by God.
- I think it is not wrong (that vengeance be left to God).
- But then why does the Quran say “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Surah 9:123).
- You can only understand the Quran in Arabic.
- I take it that the reason why Muslims acted so violently again the cartoons is because they believe they are obeying Allah in doing so.
- Yes.
- But you said that it was not wrong for the Christian Bible to say that vengeance belonged to God alone, and now you say that Muslims are required to take vengeance on those who make fun of Mohammed.
- They are both true. What happened was that when the original (uncorrupted) Christian Bible was written, it was Allah’s will that vengeance should be left to him alone, but when Mohammed came, the Angel Gabriel revealed to him that Allah had changed, and that from Mohammed’s time onwards, it was now right to take vengeance on those who insulted Islam.

The conversation ended here. Something to do with my Muslim friend’s cat (Leo – of Judah?) causing with another cat over the wall.

I say something about the last response of my Muslim friend, namely, Allah changing his mind. The theological term for this is “abrogation.” I find this idea of abrogation odd because according to the Quran:

“No change can there be in the Words of Allah (Surah 10:64).
“There is none that can alter the Words of Allah (Surah 6:34)

Now Muslims say that Allah inspired the original Torah and Gospel (Injil), which according to my Muslim friend, have been corrupted  from time immemorial. My Muslim friend agrees that there is nothing wrong with the Christian claim that God said in their Bible that we should leave vengeance to God, but later in the Quran, he changed his mind. Yet we see in Surah 10:64 in the previous paragraph that Allah’s word can never be changed. The only conclusion I can come to is that Allah changed his mind about “No change can there be in the Words of Allah (Surah 10:64). What justification does the Muslim have for this change of “no change” to “change”? Answer: “There is none (no human beings) that can alter the Words of Allah”‘ (Surah 6:34). The upshot of these two surahs: none can change the words of Allah, except Allah, which he does.

I say a little more about the Christian position on vengeance:

The Lord does not desire to get back at those who hurt him. As Christians it is tempting to react violently, especially when you see evil all around and our neighbours insulting us. We tend to think like an unbeliever. You mess with me and I’m gonna mess with you, in spite of the evidence in scripture of Christ doing the opposite. Satan wants to win his kingdom by taking lives. He hates humanity, he hates Christ. But what does Jesus do? He lays down his life to save people.

Proverbs 20:22 – Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you.
1 Peter 3:9 – Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

When we Christians are insulted or see insults to Christ in the media, we need to step back and trust God. Thirst for justice, yes, but not for revenge. It’s hard for anyone, including a Christian to do this. Trust the Lord. It is he who will avenge one day. Muslims and others are killing Christians every day. Most of us have no idea of the destruction and death perpetrated against Christians. What we must guard against is the media’s encouragement of “righteous indignation”  - which is not righteous at all – against the perpetrators.

Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

 (Jesus in) Luke 6:28

Islam and the Book: The heart of the matter

I (Raphy) meet a Muslim on are regular basis. We are very fond of one another. We were discussing the Muslim view that the Bible is corrupted. Our conversation went like this:

R – Is there anything in the existing Torah (the whole Jewish scriptures) or the Injil (NT) that Muslims accept?
M – There are bits and pieces.
R – Which ones are those?
M – The ones mentioned in the Quran.
R – The Quran says:

“It was We who revealed the Law to Moses, therein was guidance and light … and in their footsteps, We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him, a guidance and admonition to those who fear Allah. To thee (Mohammed) We sent the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety.” (Surah 5:47-51).

In Mohammed’s day, were there any Jews and Christians who were following the Law of Moses and the Gospel?

M – Yes.
R – Then they must have had an uncorrupted version of the Torah and Gospel.
M – No, they didn’t.
R – But then how could these Jews and Christians remain faithful to the Law of Moses and the Gospel?
M – They carried the pure Law of Moses and the Gospel in their hearts.
R – Didn’t they get it into their hearts through their heads – through words, written words, a text. Surely, there can be no Islam without a Quran; indeed, all religions depend on texts. The Quran says:

“They did not form any proper estimate of Allah when they said: ‘Allah has not revealed anything to any man.’59 Ask them: ‘The Book which Moses brought as a light and guidance for men and which you keep in bits and scraps, some of which you disclose while the rest you conceal, even though through it you were taught that which neither you nor your forefathers knew – who was it who revealed it?’ Say: ‘Allah!’- and then leave them to sport with their argumentation” (Surah 6:91).

Are you saying that the Book of Moses that Allah was referring to had become so corrupted that Jews never managed to preserve an uncorrupted version from time immemorial?

M – Only bits and pieces. Also, the Torah and the Injil were written down by human beings and so errors crept in, whereas the Quran is a pure creation of Allah with no human interference. That is why we are sure that it is free of error.

R – Why then does the Quran say this about the People of the Book?

“Dispute not with the People of the Book, save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say: ‘We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; Our God and your God is One and to Him we have surrendered’” (Sura 29:45).

If Allah says “dispute not with the People of the Book” doesn’t it follow that – at the time of Mohammed – there existed a book, a written text that “has been sent down to you; Our God and your God is One and to Him we have surrendered.”

M – No; by “Book” Allah means what used to be written in the “Book” before it became corrupted, which happened long ago before anyone can remember. In Mohammed’s time, the “Book” that Allah is talking about didn’t exist as a written text; it existed in a few of the “People of the Book’s” hearts.

 

Othello’s history of the postmodern brain

I am enjoying Carl Trueman’s “History and fallacies.” Arguing against the postmodern notion that texts have no fixed meaning, he says (p.57):

“You cannot, for example, use Shakespeare’s Othello as a guide for brain surgery. At least, if your brain surgeon tells you that that is where he obtained his knowledge of surgical procedure, I would strongly recommend you ask for a second opinion.”

I agree. You’d swear someone stole them beastly postmodernists’ brains.

Othello, Act II, Scene 3

A hall in the castle.

Iago. What was he that you followed with your sword? What
had he done to you?
Cassio. I know not.
Iago. Is’t possible?
Cassio. I remember a mass of things, but nothing distinctly;
a quarrel, but nothing wherefore. O God, that men
should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away
their brains! that we should, with joy, pleasance
revel and applause, transform ourselves into beasts!

The cult of options and the paradox of choice: Monkey business

In his “Fools Rush In where Monkeys Fear to Tread,” Carl Trueman refers to Mark Dever’s
(pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church) fulminations “against what he sees as the ”cult
of options’ that is so important for young people today. In essence, the cult of options
is the desire to keep all life options open, of not making commitments that close down possibilities in the future. Arguably, this is a function of a consumer society where choice is exalted as a virtue; it is perhaps particularly ingrained in America where even the education system allows for options to be kept open even to university level, ln Britain, at least in my day, you limited your academic subjects to three at the age of sixteen, and thus the fundamental choice – arts or sciences – was made very early on, Against this cult of options, Mark argues strongly for committing oneself early to particular things and thus cutting off the temptation to choose and to drift and to drift and to
choose throughout life.”

Trueman asks whether it is possible in such a willy-nilly dilly-dally society to produce responsible leaders, for a leader has to be able to make decisions.

Mark Dever’s diatribe reminds me of Barry Schwartz’s TED talk on “The paradox of choice” where he argues with panache that the more options we have in life, the more miserable we are.

Don’t be a monkey; Barry Schwartz is not a Calvinist; he’s Jewish. Oops, I’m both! Or is that all three?

My son wins gold: From this Olympian moment, my life is plain sailing; thank you Zeus.

Being a South African citizen, I am naturally proud of how well our swimmers are doing, having achieved two gold medals, and one of them pipping Michael Phelps to the post. Surely, the gods of Olympus must have been smiling down on Cameron van der Burgh and Chad Le clos. It is reported that:

“Chad le Clos’s father is being called ‘the winner of the Olympics’ after giving a hilarious and heartfelt interview to the BBC following his son’s remarkable victory in the pool.
 As Le Clos stepped up to the podium to receive his gold medal for the 200m butterfly, his emotional father was becoming a hero in his own right. 
Gazing over his shoulder at Chad, Bert le Clos told an amused BBC interviewer to ‘look at him, he’s beautiful’ while pointing out how fat he himself was.
 ‘I have never been so happy in my life, it’s indescribable,’ said Bert. ‘It’s like I have died and gone to heaven. Whatever happens in my life from now on is plain sailing.’”

So, Christians, eat your heart out; and now will you give Zeus a chance! As smiling Bert intimates, reconciliation with the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and eternal life compared to how he feels right now is nugatory. As the saying goes better the nugget round your neck than…or something like that.

Afer all, what’s more precious than gold?

“The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” (Psalm 119:72).

C’mon Bert, reach beyond the sky.

Related articles

• This BBC Interview With Chad Le Clos’s Father Is The Media Moment Of The Games So Far [Video] (deadspin.com)
• Le Clos bags SA’s second Olympic gold (iol.co.za)

Later. Someone typed in a search engine: “chad le clos jewish.” No, Chad never attended chader (Hebrew School). He’s an African, silly. Don’t you know your geography. Somewhere near Timbuktu. Hopefully at least one Jewish boy, or girl, will bring home gold. Keep ‘em peeled.

The fly in the cup: a lesson from the Hadith by Nadir Ahmed to Robert Morey

In “Orthodox” Judaism there is the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, which are both considered as divine revelation. In Islam, there is the analogous Q’uran (Koran) and Hadith. Many (if not all) Muslims regard the Hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari as divine revelation. Dr Robert Morey has made a deep study of Islam, and maintains that it is, at best, inauthentic. In his books and lectures he is very critical of the Hadith, specifically Sahih al-Bukhari. I must say that it is hard (for a non-Muslim) to believe much that appears in both the Q’uran and the Hadith(s). Here is an example on the fly.

In his “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him: Dr. Robert Morey: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?”, Nadir Ahmed throws out this modest challenge:

“If Dr. Robert Morey can show us the proof for the following statements, which he made in his lecture at the Calvary Chapel San Bernardino… he will receive:

$500.00 U.S. dollars!

Here, says Ahmed, is Morey’s “lie #4″

The hadeeth which Dr. Robert Morey is referring to DOES NOT teach “drink it with the fly”. This is a pure concoction, rather the hadeeth states:

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.”

My comment:

When the Hadith says “If a house fly falls IN the drink of anyone of you” the “in” must mean merely on the surface or close to the surface of the drink, for if the fly had fallen deeper down, there would be no need to DIP it IN the drink. But let’s not occupy our minds with how deep the fly falls into the drink. Deep or shallow, Ahmed is indeed affirming with Morey that the Hadith says that the drink contains both the disease (from one wing) and the cure (from the other wing) of our fly.

It’s no good, alas, me suggesting that we should not bother with the fly once he’s deposited his potion-poison, because Ahmed insists that (the Hadith is saying?) the fly has to go, whereas Morey (the liar!) is “insisting” a little bit of protein can only be good for you. Can we be sure that the drinker was directed to remove the fly before he drank; a fat lot of difference that would have made to the point the Hadith was making.

What is that point? “When it comes to flies, one man’s meat is the same man’s poison.” Or has it got something to do with not to worry too much about that fly; do what you will with it (I suppose they were hard to avoid in Mohammed’s day). The main thing (and I don’t see why Ahmed should object) is, you can indeed have your concoction AND drink it – protein ‘n all.

The “Sahih” in Sahih al-Bukhari means “authentic.” So, Muslims better believe what is written in his Hadith – as the word of God. I ask the Muslim, how can such nonsense be the word of God? How can you believe that these are the words of the God of the Abraham of the “Book.”

Thinking about thinking mystically: the cat with at least nine Dads: Water Colour version

Here is Cathy, my wife’s version of Thinking about thinking mystically: the cat with at least nine Dads.

1.

2.

 

Related articles

• Thinking about thinking: the cat with at least nine Dads (onedaringjew.wordpress.com)

Greece and the Vatican: The Irony in Western civilisation

Commemorative stamp of Greece, The First Olympic Games (1896): Wikipedia)

Greece, the cradle of Western civilisation, will in modern times perhaps bring about, ironically, European (and all of Western?) civilisation’s downfall. “Downfall?” you may ask. Surely, civilisation is much more than economics.

True, but unless a civilisation can feed its face, civility withers away, and with it much of its cultural accoutrements. But all may not be lost;  there will still remain the Kingdom of iron – Rome; more specifically, the Vatican – to iron out the Olympian Mess.

(In the book of book of Daniel, the Kingdom of iron appears to be Rome).

Enjoy the Olympics.

Thinking about thinking mystically: the cat with at least nine Dads

Misty and Sammy, two kitties, and their parents live in a duplex. Sammy has one Dad and one Mom. Misty, “ee-ee” (term of endearment), in contrast, has several Dads, at least nine. They fall into two groups: the downstairs Dads and the upstairs Dads.

Sammy

Downstairs, there’re the standing-up-downstairs Dad, the sitting-down-downstairs Dad, the lying-down-downstairs-Dad and the lying-down-very quietly-downstairs-reading Dad.

Misty on "her" memory foam mattress

Upstairs there’s the leaning-over-the-bed-to-kootchie-me Dad, the lying-down-very still-with-no-ipad-on-lap Dad, and a few more Dads in different stages of position and transition. I forgot, there’s also the Not-upstairs-not-downstairs Dad, namely, the going-up-the-stairs Dad. The latter Dad is Misty’s worst. Why worst, what’s so bad about Dad going up the stairs? Well, he’s not just the going-up-the-stairs Dad but the going-up-the-stairs-only-in-his-underpants IN-THE-DARK Dad.

What made me think of Misty is the book I am reading at this very mo called “The cradle of thought” by Peter Hobson, Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at University College London. On page 1, he writes:

“Just think … and you will realize how remarkable thinking is. In thinking about thinking , or even (on simpler level) in thinking about whether to read on, you are doing something that no other species but ours can do.”

{The lying-down-very quietly-downstairs-reading Dad is thinking: “They call ‘thinking about thinking’metacognition.’ So when I’m thinking about Hobson thinking about thinking about thinking, then, I’m meta-meta-meta-meta-thinking.”}

What on earth does Hobson mean by “No other species but ours can [think]!” True, Misty can’t read signs like words but she can sure read other signs. How else would she know whether to stay put downstairs safe in the crook of Mommy’s soft arm resting on the even softer and spongy arm of the comfiest Lazyboy in the world OR to go upstairs for her tenth rest for the day on “her” memory-foam mattress?

Misty on arm of Lazyboy with Marmee

“I’m comfortable in Mommy’s crook but I think I might need to go upstairs where I can stretch better. But look meeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuu! What’s that on the stairs? It’s it’s my going-up-in-his-underpants IN-THE-DARK Dad! Marmeeeee!!

Misty with her Kootchie-upstairs Dad: "Genuine communication could not take place without a background of sharing" (Hobson, p. 259).

Here is Hobson’s final  thought (p. 274, Pan books Paper Back Edition):

“The infant has been lifted out of the cradle of thought. Engagement with others has taught this soul to fly.”‘

The infant has been lifted out of the cradle of thought. Engagement with Misty has taught this soul to fly.

I remember Mollusc Mania with a little help from Carlos Montoya’s farruca

Carlos Montoya: One for the thumb, one for the index, one for the middle, and one for the ring finger

Yesterday, while preparing for my debut public flamenco performance of the farruca – as accompaniment to my daughter, Rushka, I was watching Carlos Montoya’s hands shimmering through the farruca. I flashed back several decades to the “Space” theatre in Long Street Cape Town where I performed in a show called “Mollusc Mania” based on Gus Ferguson‘s book of poetry (1978) “Snail morning.” Gus and Jenny Pichanick were also in the show; Jenny directed, while I drekted.

Gus and Jenny recited most of the poetry, while I sang, played the guitar and also did a few poems, one with Jenny called “Gastropoda.” Jenny did the poem and I followed with a description of a flatulent inflated yiddishe snail Montgolfier;  ascending and “descanting,” through my descant recorder and the snail’s shfinkta.

Montgolfier Balloon

But enough of versatile me and to the very talented Jenny Pichanick. She didn’t just recite the poems. It wasn’t merely a poetry reading. One of the poems was the mournful “Shellancolia,” which required many dramatic effects. Jenny was marvelous.

After the show, my sister Sonia – she is now in her eighties and lives in Highlands House, a Jewish retirement home in upper Cape Town – went up to Jenny and said:

“You were wonderful…the way you this and the way you that; and, and and – the way you remembered your wooooooorrrrrds!
And I say to Carlos, the way you this and the way you that —- and and and – the way you moved your fingerrrrrrrrrrs!

A woman of the first order of human talent: Madame de Staël

“MADAME de Staël, writes a 19th century reviewer of her “Complete Works,” was not only the most remarkable woman of her time, but is in one respect strikingly distinguished above all her sex. She is, perhaps, the only woman whom a majority of competent judges would place in the first order of human talent.” (The Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol 14 1834, London).

She was also the bugbear of the Napoleonic regime and told what she could or could not write. Here is one example of the censor’s scissors:

She must not say that “un homme peut faire marcher ensemble les elemen(t)s opposés, mais à sa mort ils se séparent.”

(Translation: A man may succeed to live a contradictory life but at his death these opposing elements fall asunder).

The implication is the goats will be separated from the sheep. The secular regime weren’t into divine husbandry.

So, “the only woman whom a majority of competent judges would place in the first order of human talent,” hey. Wha’ abou’ George? “Was that Madame de Staël’s hubby?” But I forget, George was only about 15 when the review was written.

George Eliot

The groan of the unutterable prayer

Remember the most spiritual prayer is ‘a groan which cannot be uttered,’ Rom. 8:26; or a cry of ‘Abba, Father,’ Gal. 4:6.”

Robert Murray M’Cheyne.

Thank you for the moonshine: A prayer

When I was about 15 years old, I was at boarding school in Wellington, South Africa, the base of the great missionary and Bible teacher, Andrew Murray Jr.

 

After evening studies, we had “bid uur” (prayer time) in the 12-bed dormitory.

 

 There were never more than three-four Jews at the boarding school in any specific year, and only a small resident Jewish community in the town of about 30-40 families. I joined in the evening prayers before dinner. One evening, about six of us were kneeling on either side of the bed, facing one another.

One of the Afrikaner boys prayed: “Thank you for the sunshine and the moonshine” (Dankie vir die sonskyn en die maanskyn). Trying to preserve decorum, I almost split both gullet and groin. For years after, I told the story of the silly boy who thanked God for the moonshine because he didn’t know what to thank God for after the sunshine.

Blessed of the Lord be his land. . .

for the precious fruits brought forth

by the sun, and for the precious things

put forth by the moon. Deut. 33:13—14

Hmmm.

(See School years after the Orphanage: Wellington)

 

Moon landing: The strong leg of Neil Armstrong

Here is another one of my lessons from 2005, at Sultan Qaboos University in Muscat, Oman. The students were doing a year of preparatory English before they entered the faculties.

05 December

In the morning lesson today with my students, the topic was the Space Race. Neil Armstrong was, naturally, mentioned. One of the lines in the text was “one step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.”

The reason, I “explained,” why Armstrong was chosen to be the first to walk on the moon was not because his arms were strong but because his legs were strong. They had to be strong to avoid Armstrong buckling under his legs when he touched down on the surface of the moon.

I then asked one of the students to tell me why Armstrong was famous. She replied: “He was first man to step his leg on the moon.”

Don’t touch my heart; you might broke it

I have created a new category called “Motley Brew”  - a miscellany of thoughts..

Motley refers to the traditional costume of the court jester, or the harlequin character in commedia dell’arte. The latter wears a patchwork of red, green and blue diamonds. (Wiki).

Here is my first entry.

Between 2004-2006 I taught English at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. In one lesson, I got the students to divide in pairs and write a dialogue on the theme of giving to charity. They were provided with a set of phrases they could use. One of these was “touch my heart”.

The one pair of students asked to present the dialogue in front of the whole class – very unusual in this part of the world. One of them was called Yousef (Joseph). He didn’t only talk, but acted the part. One of his lines was: ” I don’t want to touch somebody’s heart because I might broke it.”

Who worries about grammar when such tenderness, poetry and beauty abound. At the same time, ain’t it sad?