What is Justice?

Treating the neighbour justly is a classic case of loving the neighbour. The third century Roman jurist defines justice as steady and enduring will to render to each his or her ius. Society is just insofar as its members are rendered the ius that they possess, the ius that is theirs. One may possess some ius without enjoying that ius; so it is important to note that justice is rendering to each his or her right or deserts (what he or she deserves).

Example: When you are deprived of your ius, your right, to a seat in a train, you are not enjoying your right; here justice is not rendered to you. One may call this ius as primary justice. When a murderer is let scot free without any punishment, we don't speak of punishment as something the murderer has a right to but as something he deserves. Here punishment is the murderer's just deserts, the ius. One may call this ius as corrective justice. Thus justice is rendering each one his or her right or deserts, ius.

Right-talk is to be located only in a social context, not in a vacuum. I have a right to be treated in a certain way by you or vice versa. This social bonds of rights are foundational to human community and human flourishing. To fail to treat a person as she has a right to my treating her is to wrong her. To fail to treat a society as it has a right to my treating her is to wrong it. Conversely, to fail to treat me as I have a right to be treated is to wrong me.

Was it Resurrection or Resuscitation?

Did Jesus really die on the cross or was he just fainted? What happened to his body after it was buried in a tomb? Did the disciples steal the body or did he recover from the unconscious state and walked out of the tomb? Is there plausible reason to trust the testimony of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ who said he is risen?

Crucifixion under the Roman authority was not unusual. The criminals were usually scourged first so much so that there could be so much of blood loss due to cut from the leather whip that has pieces of balls or bones attached. The Roman soldiers were expert in executing criminals; and escape of any crucified criminal is a death penalty for the soldiers. Expertise plus the penalty for the escape made crucifixion a very certain form of execution.

We read that Jesus was arrested at night. He was then led to the courtyard of the high priest where there was an attempt to charge him of various crimes, after which “the guards received him with blows” ( Mark 14.65). In the morning Jesus was delivered to the Governor Pontius Pilate. At the order of Pilate, Jesus was scourged and then delivered to be crucified ( Mark 15.15. The soldiers also plaited a crown of thorn and put it on his head, and there on the head they would strike. Jesus was then led out of the city and put up on the cross, with his hands and feet nailed to the wooden cross. Later on to check whether he was really death, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus with his spear and “at once there came out blood and water”.

After he was certified death, Joseph and Nicodemus were granted the body of Jesus to be buried. The body was then laid in a guarded tomb, which was then sealed so that none might roll away the stone without prior permission. This was Friday evening probably around 4- 5 pm. Sunday early morning, the tomb was found empty. What happened to Jesus' body: resurrected or resuscitated and gone?

( 'Resurrection' was a term employed only for those who came back to life with special physical properties. Till then 'resurrection' exists only in word; no one has really seen it nor did they expect it to happen then. The ancient people were clear about the difference between resuscitation and resurrection. They were not so foolish to confuse the two. They knew as much as we now know that dead people don't come to back life.)

How plausible it is for scourged and bleeding Jesus to survive the cross for 3-6 hours? And how plausible it is to suppose that the Roman soldiers mistook Jesus to be dead for having fainted when such mistake would invite death sentence for the soldiers? And how plausible it is to suggest that scourged and speared Jesus on his own would be able to roll away the stone that sealed the tomb? And how plausible it is for wounded and frail Jesus to claim that he has conquered death and his disciples are now to tell the whole world including the Roman soldiers and religious leaders who crucified him that he is now the king of kings and lord of lords?

The disciples did indeed preach to the Roman world that Jesus is risen and every knee, including the emperor's, is summoned to bow before Jesus. For preaching this “Gospel”, they were jailed, beaten, thrown to the lions, burnt to death and so on for approximately 300 years. Only in 313 AD through the Edict of Milan did Christianity become one of the religions that could be practised without inviting persecution. Why did the disciples who run away when Jesus was arrested began to worship and adore him in spite of death haunting them? What gain would they receive for telling a lie that Jesus is resurrected when what they actually was witnessed was only the resuscitated Jesus and who now have fled to Kashmir? In the face of hunger, imprisonment, head being chopped or being thrown into lion's den which is more plausible: To say that the disciples had such boldness to proclaim to the Roman world that Jesus is resurrected and he is Lord because they actually witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus or to suppose that they they witnessed the battered Jesus surviving the tomb and later escaped to India. Well, I choose the former explanation: that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead and he is who he claimed to be.

Arguments for God's Existence

I am putting forth the argument for God's existence here syllogistically.

A.
1. Every entity that begins to exist has a  cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4. The universe that contains energy and mind is best explained to have caused by God who is powerful and has  mind.

B.
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

4. Being designed implies a Designer

C.
1. If God did not exist, categorical moral laws would not exist.

2. Categorical moral laws exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Was Jesus of Nazareth Married to Mary Magdalene?

There is this idea that Jesus of Nazareth was actually married to Mary Magdalene and yet because the idea was blasphemous, since that would amount to portraying Jesus as a mere man, Christians hid this piece of truth. The story that Jesus was unmarried and he is divine was then proclaimed to the world by the Christians. But how plausible is this theory? Is it more plausible than the traditional story?

Jesus was a Jew, and he was raised according to the Jewish tradition. He knew his 'Book' well. Even at a young age of twelve, he showed deep understanding ( Luke 2. 47). According to Jewish belief, marriage was God's design. Procreation through sexual union was ordained by God himself. And, therefore, marriage was a way of life for both godly and ungodly individuals. Work, marriage, friendship etc were all godly activities. They became bad only when cheating, hatred, jealousy etc. would get entangled.

Being a member of a society that believed likewise, would Jesus marriage be considered an evil act by other members of his society? Of course not. Jesus had friends; he used to work and if he did get married that would be considered normal. Whether Jesus was divine or not had nothing to do with his marriage or lack thereof. And therefore there was absolutely no reason why the disciples who penned his 'biography' would hide such fact for fear of his divinity being compromised. If Jesus was divine, he would be divine even if he was married. So why were Jesus' 'biographers' silent about his marriage? Well, for the simple reason that he did not marry.

Writing to the Corinthians in around 55 A.D. Paul said “don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brother and Peter?” Paul did not say “don't we have the right to take with us a believing wife as our Lord Jesus had done?” Paul appealed to the apostles for examples, not to Jesus himself, because Jesus was not married. Had Jesus been married, he would definitely have appealed to the example set by Jesus himself. After all Paul or Peter or Jesus alike all considered marriage to be godly act. The fact is that Jesus simply was not married.

Those who think that if Jesus had married, then that would portray Jesus as a mere man, and not divine, are mistaken about the idea of marriage given in the Bible. The idea of Jesus' marriage was not at all blasphemous. It is just that Jesus actually never got married.

Can Religion & Science Be Friends?

The recently retired Oxford Professor and a biologist-atheist Richard Dawkins, in his book God Delusion, writes that the biblical God is “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. The book has sold over 2 million copies since it was published in 2006. Such words coming from an Oxford professor are unsettling; and even more unsettling are the number of people who bought such a book. This indeed showed that Dawkins has a huge following! When Prof. Alister McGrath, who is a biochemist-Christian theologian asked why there was such an anger, Dawkins replied that religion stopped people from raising intellectual questions and also that religion can and has been used as a lethal weapon, eg. 9/11.

Dawkins was illogical in explaining away religion in general for what Muslims did on 9/11 or for that matter members of a particular religion do. Dawkins should have posed that critique only to Muslims or to members of that particular religion that were espousing unjust and inhuman violence. However, for the other point that he raised, let us examine if it is in the nature of religion to stop people from raising questions critically.

“Different levels of explanation”

Take a question: Why is the water in the kettle boiling? One answer which is used at home is to say it is boiling because Thole wants to make tea. Another answer which is used in physics textbooks is to say that it is boiling because the vapour pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmospheric pressure. Though the two answers are different they are not contradictory. The answers are valid depending on the level it was asked. Take another case: A Christian will say God healed her of cancer. And this is as valid as saying that through surgery the cancerous growth was removed. Different answers, but at different level. Religious answers do not attempt to subvert and undermine scientific explanation. If a Christian wishes to counter an explanation given by science, she does that by going into scientific methodology. Otherwise, Christians take the explanation given by science and go on to add another level of explanation to the event which is theological/religious. The relationship between science and religion is more of mutual enrichment than that of warfare.

Given this nature of religious enterprise in adding another 'higher' dimension to the level of explanation offered, science and religion are not enemies but mutual friends; making the explanation of reality richer. Scientists, philosophers and theologians in the 18^th - 19^th centuries have made the mistake of importing “God” to explain an event when science failed to explain it. Twenty years later when science made the breakthrough, they removed “God” from the picture. This kind of approach of using “God” to fill the knowledge gap led to what is called 'god of the gap'. But this kind of “God” is not the God the Bible talks about. And Dawkins rightly said that such a “God” stopped people from raising critical questions. However, the God of the Bible is one who works through scientific laws, not one who works in shifts between him and scientific laws.

Christians have all the more meaningful reason to study science, for exploring the world is about knowing and enjoying God's creativity. New scientific discovery that leads to enhancing human flourishing is about undoing the effect of sin that Christ himself has been spearheading when he came to this earth on that first Christmas Day. It is for such reason that Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge, England, where many of the pioneering breakthough in nuclear physics have been made, has inscribed on its entrance Ps 111.2 – “Great are the works of the LORD, studied by all who take pleasure in them”. History witnessed that Christian religion in particular did not stop people from raising questions and deeper investigation of reality; it rather spurs them on.

Science Alone?

It is science that gave rise to the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A deadly bomb like Napalm used in theVietnam War by the US was invented by a brilliant scientific mind. It was a scientist like Joseph Mengele who performed horrifying medical experiments using his scientific skill on innocent people in the Concentration Camp. Science and scientists devoid of moral conscience can commit heinous crime on humanity. But this moral conscience has to come from a source outside of science. The crime mentioned however, does not mean that we negate all the good fruit of scientific enterprise.

Limit of Science

Scientific enterprise is a modest discipline. It does not try to answer questions about morality, nature of state, end purpose of human individual/society, beauty, art and so on. Yet these enterprises are extremely important for meaningful human existence. Therefore, it is rather naïve or arrogant when someone puts it up as science vs religion or that in this modern scientific age we don't do religion etc. For the world to be enthralling and livable we need religion, science and many more.

Conclusion

Is the God of the Bible really who he is as described by Richard Dawkins? Selective reading of the events of the Old Testament or the Bible is an incomplete way to understand the Bible. To get the fuller picture of what Christians understand of their God, look at Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God ( Col 1.15). This crucified and risen Jesus Christ, in whose being is rooted justice and love, embodied the totality of God. And it is at this man, Dawkins and his fans need a closer look to know the God of the Bible.

Maya in Śankara's Advaita Vedanta and Impediment to the Rise of Science in India

Maya is an important category in explaining the philosophy of Śankara (pronounced as Shankara). For him Maya is not pure illusion. It is a cross of the real and the unreal. It is neither existent nor non-existent nor both. It is not existent as the only one that exists is Brahman nor is it non-existent as it is responsible for the appearance of the Brahman as the world. It is called superimposition, like a shell being mistaken as silver. And when right knowledge arises this error vanishes. This relation between shell and silver is neither that of identity nor of difference nor of both. It is unique and is known as non-difference ( tadatmya). Thus, when right knowledge dawns, which is realisation of the oneness of jiva with the Paramatman, Maya vanishes. 

Śankara emphasizes the phenomenal point of view that the world is real as long as true knowledge does not dawn. It is not an illusion. It is a practical reality. In his book A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidas; 1983), Chandradhar Sharma writes, " He who imagines that Shankara's position means complete denial of this world, of this souls, of action, of philosophy, of religion and even of God, may know anything but Shankara Vedanta."

Just as it is said that Hegel is a born foe of Mysticism, Madhvacarya (b. 1197) may be said to be a born foe of Sankara. Madhva is the champion of dvaita (unqualified dualism) as much as Sankara is the champion of advaita (non-dualism). His hatred for Advaita is so great that he called Advaitins 'deceitful demons. For Madhva there is a real difference between God and the world; whereas for Sankara the difference is appearance, subjectively different, and not real as in the sense of being ontologically different.

In his book Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark quoted the very distinguished Joseph Needham, Oxford historian of Science, to conclude that the failure of the Chinese to develop science was due to their religion, to the inability of Chinese intellectuals to believe in the existence of laws of nature because the conception of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature never developed. Quoting Needham he continued, " The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being to naive for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it."  I believe it's not just the Taoist, the Advaita Vedantins as well would have scorned such an idea. Chandradhar Sharma noted, " Shankara... gave the final death-blow to Buddhistic philosophy", and after this we saw the rise of Advaita Vedanta into prominence among Indian religious scholars. And within Sankara's non-dualism there is no scope to recognize the 'lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature" because the concept of the difference between Creator and creation never fully developed.

I do think that Madhva's philosophy would provide a far better philosophical ground than Sankara's for science and moral philosophy to flourish in India. Christianity and Islam have such distinction between God and the world and would be equally fertile for scientific advancement. However, for the Hindus I believe the answer to human flourishing does not lie in Advaita Vedanta. Madhvacarya's Dvaita is perhaps a very viable alternative philosophy that needs further engagement.

One of My Favourite Hindi Film Songs

Should the Present Generation Ever Apologize for the Atrocities the Past Generation Committed?

It is not uncommon to hear some people say that the present generation is not responsible for the atrocities the past generation had committed, and therefore there is no reason why one should offer an apology. But is this argument really a valid one? I think it is not. Here is why I think so. 

Many Indians would take pride in the fact that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation,  had struggled for independence without using violence as his tool. If some people somewhere make false and denigrating remark about Gandhi, not only would these people protest because the content was false and denigrating but also because it is about someone who is close to their heart and mind. These people feel angry and insulted because they consider themselves to be sharing some kind of "solidarity" with Gandhiji. And when such false and insulting remarks are made, they feel angry because their leader with whom they share this sort of solidarity is insulted. And this sort of solidarity with people in the past who have achieved great things is common. People feel patriotic about telling their stories. The sense of patriotism surfaces in that person's heart  when such names are invoked because of this sort of solidarity.

It is also common to come across situation when we hear someone say, " I forgive my uncle for the way he took advantage of my widowed mother or sister or father". Or when someone say, "our family has forgiven their family for all the wrongdoing they have done in the past". When some people harmed my family members, I identify with them. The harm may not have anything to do with me at present, but because there is some sort of solidarity with my family members of the past, I identify myself with the event. If that solidarity with people of the past is not there, forgiveness does not make sense.

Thus, if we share some sort of solidarity with people of the past for which we feel patriotic or invoke forgiveness for their act or acts done unto them, we also must share in their guilt in some way. The fact that there is some sort of solidarity; some sort of 'shared narrative' between past and present is an essential component of a nation, a community and a family. And it is because of this sort of  relationship or solidarity that I think present generation do need to apologize wherever necessary for the atrocities the previous generation committed.

Can Christians Charge Interest?

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 says, "You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess."

For the Christians this could be understood as something which could be practised outside, but not inside, if not for what Jesus says in Luke 6:34-35, " If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

Since the OT permits Jews to charge interest from the foreigners, non-Jews, this explains why Jews were moneylenders in older times. Early Christians, however, following the teaching of Jesus generally did not endorse charging interest. Things changed centuries later as many Christians came to understand that charging interest was okay as long as exploitative interest rates would not be charged. But how much interest rate is exploitative? In Senapati district, 48% per annum is charged from loan given by Society; and 60% from those given by individuals. In emergency situation, it goes up to 120% to 180%  per annuam. I believe such interest rates are just too high, and they are exploitative in nature. I am not sure if charging interest rate is right or not, but even if it is right it should not go beyond 2.5% per month or 30% per annum, the rate set for the micro-finance companies in the country.

Can We Have Woman as a Deacon?

In the last chapter of the letter to the Romans, Paul sent his greetings to various people in Rome. As he was finishing his letter, he commended Phoebe who traveling to Rome and was probably carrying the letter to the Romans. Paul described Phoebe as a deaconess (Gk. diokonos) in Cenchreae, a port city of Corinth, and a person who has been a 'helper' (Gk. Prostatis; patron ) of many people. As a patron she would own the home in which the church met and hold position of honour too.

Paul also lists two fellow-apostles, Andronicus and Junia. And this Junia was a woman as her name indicates. Earliest commentator like John Chrysostom in 4^th century understood this person to be a woman. And tradition says that she was one of those 70 sent out Jesus Christ as found in Luke 10.

Paul also underlines two women, Euodia and Synthyche, in Phil 4:2-3 as true yokefellow. These women have loboured side by side with Paul like his male labourer Clement. Since Macedonia was historically more progressive in allowing women to take prominent religious roles, it would have been relatively easier for Paul's women colleagues to take such prominent role.

If women were allowed such prominent roles in the early church as recorded in the Bible, there is no reason why we should be closed to women's participation in the leadership role in our 21^st churches. Like those earlier days we should be willing to work side by side in His vineyard.

The Myth About 'Evil-Eye'

“Hraomai” as it is called in my Poumai Naga dialect can best be translated as 'evil-eye'. It is a common belief that if a person from such a family of 'evil-eye' casts a spell in the form of a compliment or something of that sort, the person upon whom the cast is spelled will fall sick. And in certain cases the so called victim (let me put it that way) would even die. One of my older brothers was considered to have been 'attacked' when he was 2 by a person with such 'accursed power' that he remained physically and mentally challenged even when he died at the age of 32. So if there is such a thing as 'evil-eye' I have strong reason to be angry with such people for bringing such hardship and suffering in the life of my parents and their children specially my brother who was the 'victim'.

I learnt that there is a slight variation between different communities about how 'evil-eye' works and how it is transmitted across generations. In the community I come from, it is believed that the 'power/curse' is transmitted from parents to children. And suppose a 'clean' person marries such 'unclean' people, then both of them eventually become 'unclean', and their children will also become 'unclean'. The implication of such belief is that 'clean' people avoid marrying such 'unclean' people. And eventually a kind of caste system prevails in the community. One group is considered clean and the other as unclean!

I have now come to believe that this story that some people possess power to cast spell on others is a myth. If a word or a speech can cast a spell that could make another person sick, how could that power be transmitted from the DNA of parents to the children's? But if it is transmitted from parents to children like sickle-cell anaemia or haemophilia is transmitted then how could it possibly give power to a person to cast a spell on another person? It does not make sense scientifically. Here someone would counter saying that it is the power of the evil spirit that make things possible. For the sake of argument let us grant that this is possible. But if it is the evil spirit that works then how could it possibly be transmitted from parents to children? The power of the evil spirit cannot be transmitted from parents' DNA to children's DNA. And if it is the power of the evil spirit, then how could the 'curse/power' infects those who confess and believe Jesus Christ as Lord and God? So the whole argument does not make sense. But if anyone invites the evil spirit and asks power from the evil one, then of course the issue is different! But as far as I know there is no one in the community who does that.

I believe the traditional story has been passed on from one generation to another. And even today the same story continues about those people about whom the story has been told. And because we typecast such people, we find allege incidents of such people having cast spell on someone. And in a close knit societies like ours where interaction between members of the community is extremely frequent such 'unclean' people interacting with other members is bound to happen, and when some sickness occurs we just attribute it to such 'unclean' people. And so this story continues in the neibourhood.

The story is passed on among the 'clean' people. But because telling the 'unclean' people in person that you are unclean will make the society unlivable, the story remains an open secret. There are stories: an 'unclean' people felt that strong urge to cast a spell on someone yet because he remained indoor the whole day he avoided harming anyone... but because the urge was so strong and he had to wrestle with the urge, the house was as if a tornado had just passed through; such 'unclean' people are able to see through the intestine and other organs of a person; such people, however, cannot cast spell on their enemy and they 'attack' only whom they don't hate, etc. Since these are all stories that cannot be verified because the 'unwritten law' prohibits one to openly discuss name or talk about such people, even if I consider them as myth I cannot prove such stories as unathentic nor could anyone prove the stories to be true. So if there is anyone out there who is a member of such family whom others consider them to be 'unclean', please write to me and provide comment about such stories. I shall not disclose names, but I wish to continue to write and discredit such stories as myths. My id is jeremiahduomai(at)gmail.com.

And those who are consider themselves clean, why do you believe that anyone could have such power to cast a spell? Comments from other communities would also be appreciated.

Does the Bible Endorse Homosexual Practice?

In the biblical narrative, after male and female were created, one of the things God told them was to multiply and increase in number. And so in the Bible, one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. Since two men or two women coming together in marriage will not necessarily result in procreation, homosexual partners coming together in marriage cannot remain true to what the Bible teaches. So there is one reason against homosexual practice for those people who consider Bible to be the final authority for their faith and conduct.

But how about just two homosexual partners coming together for mutual pleasure if homosexual marriage is against biblical teaching? Would the Bible be against such act? The Bible in the book of Romans consider sexual relations between males or between females to be unnatural. So what is natural sexual relation is one man and one woman within the context of marriage. The Bible did not say whether it was against  male/female prostitute practicing such sexual act or whether it was against casual homosexual conduct between two willing partners. It considers homosexual practice in general to be unnatural, and therefore goes against God's design. So again we have here another reason against homosexual practice. 

I don't believe that our conduct is driven by our gene. I don't believe that gay gene is there at all. But even if it is there, I don't believe that our behavior is determined by our gene, and the person is not responsible for his or her conduct. I do think that homosexual relationship is primarily a matter of choice. Humans just don't dance to the tune of DNA/gene, but it's the choice we make that is finally reflected in our conduct. As a Christian believer, therefore, I believe homosexual behavior is some conduct we cannot accept within the church. 

This does not mean I should hate them. Just as much as God loves all people, followers of Jesus must love all people.

Defect in Immanuel Kant's idea of Rights

There is a tendency to attribute so much of importance to Kant's contribution to the idea of universal human right. No doubt Kant did contribute to the idea of human right, but I do think there is an history that goes beyond Kant why the concept of universal human right so emerged. I shall, however, not delve into that part for now. Kant believes that every human person is worthy of respect. His idea of worth of a person is derived from the fact that we human are rational beings. 

Jeremy Bentham argued that pleasure and pain are our sovereign masters. And so in Bentham's moral philosophy, what ought to be done is governed by this preference for pleasure and our dislike for pain. Bentham thus considered the idea of natural right as 'nonsense upon stilts'. Kant disagreed. Kant argued that we like pleasure and dislike pain, yet we are also governed by reason.And this capacity to reason gives an individual that worth, and so the right. Kant's ground for right thus is grounded on individual's capacity to reason.

But is Kant's idea well grounded for human right? I don't think so. If an individual's worth is based on her rational faculty then those individual's whose minds are blank have to be considered as devoid of any worth. This would leave out children who are not yet able to think rationally think or those aged human persons whose mind is now vegetable or even those who are in coma. Kant did give so much of respect for a human person. He went to the extent of arguing that we are to treat human person as end in themselves, and never as a mean to some end. However, had he provided a more sturdy grounding for the worth of a human person that can include all human beings, his overall argument about the idea of right would have gained more coherency. 

Junia or Junias?

(This is a post that I have lifted from Scot McKnight's previous blog. Scot's present blog -- Jesus Creed-- is listed in my blog list)

If you’ve got a Bible close at hand, open it up to Romans 16:7. Herein lies a tale I want to tell you. And I begin by quoting the NIV, then the NASB and then the NLT:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with
me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ
before I was.
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who
are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Then there are Andronicus and Junia, my relatives, who were in prison with me. They are respected among the apostles and
became Christians before I did. Please give them my greetings.

There’s a little trickiness in Greek here, but you’ll have to take my word for it that the best scholarship — and nearly all of it — thinks Junias (male name) was originally Junia (female name), and the earliest Greek-reading commentator here was John Chrysostom and it was clear as a bell for him: Junia was a woman, and a woman who was called an apostle.But there was a persistent (and at times pernicious) logic sometimes at work that went like this: women can’t be apostles so, therefore, Junia (woman) was really Junias (man). This logic impacted what was printed in Greek New Testaments.

Here’s the story you need to know: the Greek New Testaments — the ones your pastor may well have studied in seminary and then studied from in his/her office — of the 20th Century began with Junia and then shifted to Junias and have only of late recovered the original text as speaking of a woman. What I also want you to know is that most readers of the Greek New Testament rely on the decisions of the textual critics who determine what goes in the text (Junias or Junia?) and what goes in the footnotes (Junia or Junias?). It makes a difference. Correct that: It can make a huge difference. Here’s what happened.

Early in the 20th Century some churches started ordaining women, and they had support in Romans 16:7 because it read “Junia” (female). The standard Greek NTs used then were the German-produced Nestle text (editions 1 through 12) and the English-produced British and Foreign Bible Society (from 1904-1958).

But, in 1927 Nestle’s 13th edition changed from Junia (woman) to Junias (man). In Nestle 13 the footnote said some other Greek NTs had “Junia.” So “Junias” was in the text and our female friend Junia in the footnote until 1979 when Junia disappeared even from the footnotes. That meant that pastors were trained from then on with a Greek text that didn’t even let the reader decide if the reading was “Junias” or “Junia.”

In 1958 the British and Foreign Bible Society Greek NT changed “Junia” to “Junias,” following in line with Nestle. They put the woman in a footnote and most simply trusted the critics who said that apostle was a man, not a woman. 

Now a third Greek NT becomes well-known, the United Bible Societies’ text and from UBS 1 to UBS 3d edition Romans 16:7 read “Junias.” Oddly enough, and blatantly wrong-headed, the UBS text rated “Junias” (a man) as a “certain reading.” Only in 1993 did UBS admit that “Junia” might be a reading.

In 1998 Nestle’s 27th edition lifted poor “Junia” from the footnotes into the text itself; in 1998 the UBS 4th edition did the same. Now the Nestle-Aland 27th edition doesn’t even mention “Junias” in the footnotes.

This once gifted woman, Junia, because she was a woman — and because women can’t be apostles by definition (so it was assumed) — was removed from the text and hidden in a footnote and then she disappeared altogether. But, thanks to folks like Eldon Epp and others, Junia has returned to the fold, Junias has returned to his own non-existence, and we’ve got once again a woman whom Paul considered an apostle.

This story is best studied in Eldon Epp’s technical book Junias but if you’d like a short story, one on which I relied for this day, you can read two quick pages in R.R. Schulz, “Twentieth-Century Corruption of Scripture,” in a journal called The Expository Times 119 (2008) 270-271 (the whole article is 270-274). Yes, there is some dispute; there were no accents in the original texts, but there is now a consensus that “Iounian” was a woman.

Listen to Tony Blair this bit!

Lokayuta in all the states

It is high time Lokayuta comes in place in all the states. Karnataka has system in place and so Chief Minister who has been indicted by the Lokayuta has been replaced. There has been uproar in Gujarat too because the ever controversial Chief Minister Modi wants to have his way. Uttarakhand is another state where Lokayuta is in place, but since Chief Minister is left out of the reach of Lokayuta one cannot hope for much result. Chief Minister does not handle matters of national security like Prime Minister and therefore there is no reason to leave the post out of the reach of the Lokayuta. 

Many North Eastern states is out of the reach of CBI. When have you heard of CBI going after a Chief Minister in the NE? Manipur CM Ibobi, who is also known as Mr. 10% for he asked for such cut for every project, needs to get Lokayuta in place as soon as possible. Civil societies should rather press for setting up the anti-corruption commission than getting into some not so pressing matters like putting in place Inner Line Permit. It will be good that Governor and civil society press for inclusion of Chief Minister in the reach of the Lokayuta specially in a corrupt state like UP and Manipur. 

Giving in to the demand of state's politician as argued by BJP in Gujarat will render Lokayuta impotent. Governor should be given more power to see that not any party is spared if corrupt practices are entertained. It must be mentioned that even Team Anna members must also be investigated if there is any suspect of corrupt practices. They cannot ask the Government to be accountable while oppose any kind of investigation against them.

Fair Conduct on Bandh & Blockade!

Manipur would be the state in India that tops in experiencing some kinds of bandh or blockade. This time the bandh in and around National Highways started on 1st August The bandh was called by Sadar Hill District Demand Committee (SHDDC) in their demand for the upgradation of Sadar Hill area of Senapati District into a full-fledged district, which entails that present Senapati district be bifurcated into two. Six people have lost their lives in bandh related incident, and 12 women have began fast unto death, out of which 7 are reported to be critical condition. United Naga Council, the apex body of the Nagas in Manipur, oppose the move and therefore have called for indefinite bandh in the Naga areas from 21st August This implies that Imphal, the capital of Manipur, is virtually cut off from all kinds supplies.

SHDDC argues that the demand for upgradation is for better administration of the Sadar Hill area. UNC argues that Naga villages be excluded from the proposed district, implying that only non-Naga areas should be considered for upgradation. This tussle, for and against, has been going on for decades. And it is high time that Government finds a solution that is acceptable to both the parties, instead of postponing it for later generation as well to fight! 

This post, however, is meant to be about how one should conduct bandh and blockade. This time the third major community of Manipur, the Meeteis, are ambivalent on the issue. But they seem to be the community that suffers the most because they live mostly in and around Imphal. However, considering that Meeteis are equally notorious in calling bandh or blockade, this post is meant for them too. If anyone would accuse me of seeing the problem through communal lens, let me assure that such is the ground reality. Whether one likes it or not the political aspiration in the state are drawn almost virtually on ethnic lines. 

First, I would say 'economic blockade' is not an appropriate phrase.  I thought so because I believe it is wrong to put a bandh/blockade on all kinds of economic activities. I believe food item should be given safe passage even in bandh/blockade. 'Food items' are basic needs for survival, and imposing bandh/blockade amount to assaulting on human right of a person or a community that suffers due to such bandh/blockade. Second, I also believe that ambulance should be given safe passage. Even in time of war, Red Cross is allowed to work per international norms. And this is not even war, so ambulance, medical supply etc should be allowed to pass through. Third, party on a funeral duty should be exempted from such bandh/blockade. Allowing such party would not affect the bandh/blockade overall because such party would generally be very rare. Moreover, on humanitarian ground such party should be given safe passage.Fourth any party calling for bandh should not cause major damage to roads, bridges or property, private and government. Fifth, this is a slightly different point in that it is about the norm to protest, not bandh/blockade. I believe 'fast unto death' as a political tool should be employed only in extreme situation. For example, I support the kind of 'fast unto death' by Irom Sharmila because her demand is against human violation by the army. However, the 'fast unto death' by the women demanding Sadar Hill district does not amount to human right issue, and so is not an extreme situation that deserves 'fast unto death' kind of protest.

I believe bandh/blockade are democratic means to press for one's demand or aspiration. So I am not against any party calling for bandh/blockade to press for their legitimate demand. But such activities must be carried out within certain norms. And unfortunately, in Manipur all the parties calling bandh/blockade oftentime violate one of these norms. And it is high time we rectify such erroneous methods for the sake of common good.

NB: Since the issue is highly explosive I would request that those who post their view do so in a civilized way. Thanks!

John Stott on Evolution

Indeed, speaking for myself, I cannot see that at least some forms of the theory of evolution contradict or are contradicted by the Genesis account of creation. It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue begin by assuming that the words 'creation' and 'evolution' are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naive alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today. For example, although the great majority of scientists continue to believe that there had been a long evolutionary process, the Darwinian theory of 'natural selection' ( or 'the survival of the fittest') as its operational principle is being increasingly questioned, and instead of a single and gradual progression a theory is being developed which posits multiple changes, in fits and starts, and sometimes by inexplicable major leaps. Of course any theory of evolution which is presented as a blind and random process must be rejected by Christians as incompatible with the biblical revelation that God created everything by his will and word, that he made it 'good', and that his creative programme culminated in Godlike human beings. But there does not seem to me any biblical reason for denying that some of purposive evolutionary development may have been the mode which God employed in creating. 

To suggest this tentatively need not in any way detract from man's uniqueness. I myself believe in the historicy and Adam and Eve, as the original couple from whom the human race is descended. I shall give my reason in chapter 7, when I come to the question of how we are to interpret Scripture. But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic 'hominid' seem to have existed for thousands of years previously. These homonids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin the phrase, the first man to whom may be given the  specific designation 'made in the image of God'. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. Bu it seems to have included those rational, moral, social and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given 'dominion' over the lower creation.

NB:  Quoted from John Stott, Understanding the Bible: GLS, Mumbai, 2008 ) pp 48-49

Why there is corruption in India...

I think everyone acknowledges that there is widespread corruption in our system. Even before Anna Hazare became a household name, the talk is already there that we need to do something about corruption. It is just that Anna Hazare translated the talk into action. I very much endorse modifying or introducing new systems that will arrest corruption. Just that I am not happy with 'fast unto death' kind of approach. I believe some other different measures should be employed to put pressure on the government for setting up Lokpal.

Legal systems are not going to be sufficient for ethical uprightness of a nation. Strong legal systems may deter people from being corrupt. After all no one likes to go to jail. But we need more than legal systems to run the nation. We need moral uprightness too. And moral uprightness go beyond legal demands. And I believe that is why religion or moral philosophy is an essential element for a nation. For example, our legal system cannot deter people from committing adultery; it is only religious teaching that can exhort people to restrain from such act. Our legal system cannot deter people from "expecting" gifts for favour done. Our legal systems cannot deter people from "loving" one person more than the one who deserves it.

So how is our/your religion teaching us/you about moral uprightness? If a religion offers only moksha and not teach us how to walk uprightly on this earth, such a religion is lame. If a religion teaches us only about rituals, and not about how to conduct our life in relation with other human persons, such a religion too is lame. Most of time that is in our disposal we spend time with other human persons; and most difficult part of life is to get along with all other human persons in the righteous way. It is easy to get along with machines, difficult to get along with human persons. And this important aspect of human life, a religion that undermines is lame and therefore is not to be taken as a valid religion. 

I do not think that all religions give equal importance to moral teaching,  and teaches moral matters equally. If you are concerned for the moral condition of the nation, and wish that people conduct their affairs with moral uprightness, it is important which religion you follow. Do not think that the religion you are born into is the automatically the best for the nation. Human legal systems will have flaws; similarly human religious institutions too will have flaws. It is so because though the One communicated to human being rightly, we do not always rightly received the message since our heart and our mind are not always tuned to taking that which is pure and good.There is a bit in us that loves to go astray, even knowingly. Let us say Aristotle would call that as akrasia; and Augustine original sin.

To believe that human legal system alone is sufficient to out weed corruption is, I believe, to fail to understand human nature correctly.So coming back to why there is corruption, I would say the legal system is not adequate and even the moral injunction that religion is supposed to provide is not adequately provided.

Some statistical figures from India's 2001 Census.

Name of Religion	Literacy Rate ( Total )	Literacy Rate ( Male )	Literacy Rate ( Female )	Percentage of Population	Sex Ratio
Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Buddhists Jains Other religions India	65.1 59.1 80.3 69.4 72.7 94.1 47 64.8	76.2 67.6 84.4 75.2 83.1 97.4 60.8 75.3	53.2 50.1 76.2 63.1 61.7 90.6 33.2 53.7	80.5 13.4 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 100	931 936 1009 893 953 940 992 933

Few quotes from Vinoth Ramachandra

1. Unless we subscribe to the naive belief that governments do not engage in acts of terror against their own citizens, let alone the civilians populations of other nations, the one-sided use of terrorism by the world's media is baffling. Violent actions by the Israeli army or Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians are never described as "terrorist," but the term is routinely used in large sections of the Western media for violent acts undertaken against Israelis. Surely journalistic integrity requires that the term terrorism should either be dropped for its vagueness or be used evenhandedly to embrace all organized acts of terror, including those by government. The term militants, guerrilla or insurgent do not carry the same connotations of evil that terrorism does; and hence the hijacking of that term by governments who want to scapegoat those who challenge their legitimacy. ( p. 41)

2. So, a morally and culturally "neutral" state which makes no moral demand on its citizens and is equally hospitable to all cultures and conceptions of the good is logically incoherent and practically impossible. And since every law coerces those not sharing its underlying values, a morally and culturally noncoercive state is a fantasy. Openly recognizing this fact is the first step forward in reconfiguring the nature of politics in any pluralist society. ( p. 143)

2. We all have what has come to be called our cultural blind spots. However rich it might be, no single culture embodies all that is valuable in human life and develops the full range of human possibilities. Only when I am deeply exposed to another cultural tradition and community do I become aware of my own; my imagination is stretched as I am forced to rethink my own in the light of the another way of life, and I come to cherish wha this good and challenge what is bad or ugly. (p. 145)

3. Why are North American or British or German theologies never named as such, but Indian or Latin American or African theologies are? Western theologies are simply assumed to be universal, but non-Western theologies are "contextual." The insularity of most Western theological institutions is astonishing... The only situation in which the typical theology student is likely to learn about other cultures, histories and religious is if he were to follow a course on missiology. In the more academic faculties, these courses do not exist. And in most missiology courses Asians religions are taught in an Orientalist style. Moreover, where chairs of mission or missiology have been established, these studies have become isolated from other parts of the theological task. They became what David Bosch calls " the theological institution's 'department of foreign affairs,' dealing with the exotic but at the same time the peripherical." ( p. 259)

NB: These quotes are from Sri Lankan thinker and social activist Vinoth Ramachandra's Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping our World, published in 2008 by Inter Varsity Press, US. To my friends, I wish to suggest that you purchase the book and read it because it is so good. If you don't have money, sell your coat and get this book! 

You can purchase with debit card or pay when it is delivered from here: 

http://www.flipkart.com/books/0281060231?_l=CJHVEqJO3veuHytbACc9dw--&_r=3QWdvuC3Mw%20wz_dRf_fZmw--&ref=5b142d01-b7b2-4eba-9931-85ddab7cf15d&pid=rsw3f9cd0w

Conduct Unbecoming of an IPS officer or a Chief Minister

It was in 2002 that 790 Muslims were killed after Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, allegedly asked the officials to allow the Hindus to vest their anger on the Muslims. The controversy surrounding the present controversy is whether the CM indeed asked the officials to allow the Hindus to vest their anger on the Muslims or not. And when an IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt alleged that he was present in the meeting when CM had said it, the matter cannot be taken lightly. Modi does not want anyone to question him, whether it is the Muslims or any government official. Anyone who dare point his finger will get his finger burnt. If Muslims challenge him they will invite his wrath; and if any government official press charges against him, the officer will be dealt with severely. And that has happened exactly to Mr. Bhatt when he was suspended from the service.

The people of Gujarat elected Mr. Modi as  their Chief Minister. However, BJP lost the election at the centre government because of Modi. Had Advani allowed Vajpayee to remove Mr. Modi from the chair then, BJP probably would have been in power, and its image not dented. But that was not to happen.  And even today the ghost of Godhra returned to haunt the Chief Minister. His conscience would prick him, yet the lust for power would never let him stay quiet whenever anyone questioned him on Godhra riot. Modi's love-and-hate story of the Muslim community is well known. And as long as he is in power, democracy will continue to be abused. His conduct of going after anyone who would point finger at him for involvement, or lack thereof, on Godhra masssacre is unbecoming of a Chief Minister.

Shepoumaramth and its cultural evolution

It is traditionally believed that Maram, Mao, Poumai and Thangal have a common grandparent. The belief  is shared by all the four groups and has no rival oral tradition, and so it is plausible to hold it as true. The one word to denote these four groups is Shepoumaramth. Somehow along history it has come about that Mao and Poumai have much closer resemblance to each other than to Maram and Thangal, and vice versa. But the Maram, Mao, Poumai and Thangal are also member of Tenyimi. And Mao and Poumai have closer resemblance with Angami and Chakhesang than even to Maram and Thangal. This is so despite the fact that in term of geneology Mao and Poumai split from Angami and Chakhesang earlier. And since this split occurred earlier, Mao and Poumai should share commonness more with Maram and Thangal. However, this is not the case. In turn, Maram and Thangal share resemblence more with Zeliangrong, another group of Tenyimi, though in term of geneological split they should share commonness more with Mao and Poumai.

How do we account for such observation? When we look at the geography of how each group is situated, Mao and Poumai share boundary with Angami and Chakhesang respectively, and also with each other;  and Maram and Thangal share boundary with Zeliangrong, and also with each other. 

Culture of each group underwent a dialectical transformation vis-a-vis their neighbour. Shepoumaramth would have one culture when the dispersion took place. But as Mao and Poumai interacted more with people in their north i.e Angami and Chakhesang, culture evolved and brought them thus far, which is a culture much closer to Angami and Chakhesang. The language is also not very different from each other and the traditional costume is almost the same. So though Mao and Poumai should have more in common in with Maram and Thangal, due to geographical location and the interaction they end up sharing closer similarities with Angami and Chakhesang. The same applies to Maram and Thangal as well. 

So we have few points. First, language evolved over a period of time depending on who the neighbour  is and where the group is located in term of weather, food item etc. Second, Custome and practices also evolved depending on with which culture a group interacts. Third, culture of a group never remain stable for a long long period of time; it has an effect on others and others have an effect on it too. 

This culturally evolution is the main reason why when British came in the 19th- 20th century to the region, Mao / Poumai and Chakhesang/Pochury were identified Eastern Angami by certain people because these groups were very similar to Angami in term of language and costume and other features. The term Eastern Angami was, however, not applied to the Maram and Thangal.

NB: This is a hypothesis. I have no expertise in this area. But I am writing this so that someone may pick up this thread and do a more detail research in the subject. 

Uniqueness of Christian Religion

When Sadhu Sunder Singh was asked what was in Christianity that was not there in other religion, he said, " Jesus Christ". Rightly said. Christian religion stands or falls with Jesus Christ. Remove Jesus Christ, and there is nothing that's worth being a Christian. Did not the philosopher Bertrand Russel once uttered that historically it is quite doubtful that Jesus existed, and if he did we know nothing about him? Similar line was mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion. Well, sometimes even intelligent people make unintelligent remark! 

But what makes Jesus Christ so central in Christian faith? Why not have the abstract theological reflection without the person? It is so because Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the anointed One, the Lord and God of the universe. If indeed Jesus is Lord, then nothing else can take his place. But if he is not Lord, then he is just an ordinary person; just that he is more famous than most people. Nothing worthy for which he deserves worship and allegiance. But it is said Jesus is Lord because it is believed that he is risen from the dead. And as the person who has conquered death, he is the One who gives life to those who come to him. 

The question of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in time and space i.e in history, is key to Christian religion. If resurrection is a fiction, Christians are deluded; if resurrection is true, others are missing out in knowing the most unique person ever walked on the earth. And since resurrection is an event that is believed to have happened in history, it can be empirically verified, so to speak, using appropriate tool. It is not just an abstract theory that cannot be falsified. So the invitation is there for every serious seeker to explore and verify for oneself! 

Attempts to portray Jesus Christ different from what the Gospel writers portrayed would surface from time to time. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code will not be the last novel/movie to portray Jesus as devoid of divine character. After all a human person who has such a huge number of followers the world over is an intriguing character. And if one could  prove that this person is just a mere human person, then that person who led to such discovery deserve Nobel Prize, if there is any for such category! But until such time  arrives Jesus Christ will continue to draw people from all over the globe to himself. And unfortunately for those who wait for such time to arrive, it will never arrive. Prove me wrong, if you would!

From Blaise Pascal's PENSÉES

Our greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in us some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness. It must also account for such amazing contradictions. 

To make us happy it must show us that a God exists whom we are bound to love; that our only true bliss is to be in him, and our sole ill to be cut off from him. It must acknowledge that we are full of darkness which prevents us from knowing and loivng him, and so, with out duty obliging us to love God and our sin leading us astray, we are full of unrighteousness. 

It must account to us for the way in which we thus go against God and our own good. It must teach us the cure for our helplessness and the means of obtaining this cure. Let us examine all the religions of the world at that point and let us see whether any but the Christian religion meets it.

PS:  Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician and physicist. Following his 'second conversion in 1654, he left scientific pursuit and devoted himself to writings on religious topic. In honour of his scientific contributions, Pascal is the name given to the SI unit of pressure and to a programming language. Pascal's law, Pascal's triangle and Pascal's Wager too bear his name. His most famous writing is Pensées (Thoughts), and is one of French most eloquent books on prose. It is an examination of Christian religion. He died at 39.

Role of educational institutions and hospitals in religious conversion

Christians in India have been known for establishing educational institutions and health care centres in India. The first half of 19th century saw various educational institutions being initiated to teach about reading, writing and arithmetic. The non-availability of medical care specially to the "outcaste" and the poorer section of the society in general prompted Christian mission agencies to established health care centres as well. These emphasis continue to be part of Christian contribution to nation building in India even today.

The later part of 19th and early 20th century saw large scale conversion of the "lower caste" communities as followers of Jesus Christ. Certain reasons as indicated, not in term of order though,  have been cited for such mass conversion. First, a desire for shelter from being oppressed by the "upper caste". Second, a desire to educated their children on reading, writing and arithmetic. Third, a conviction that Christian religion is the true. Fourth, influence of Christian relatives upon others. Fifth, witnessing the transformation of character and status of those who have become Christians. And of all these reasons, the issue of casteism emerged as the strongest reason for the conversion. In short, the search for improved social status, greater self-respect, liberation from oppressive caste system and a hope for fulfillment of religious and spiritual needs inspired those from "lower caste" towards this religious conversion to Christianity.

People simply do not changed religion with improvement in their material condition. There are other factors involved in the reasons for conversion. And educational institutions and health care facilities just served as the catalyst for people to cherish and value freedom and self-respect. Even today educational institutions and hospitals do not evangelise people though members of such institutions may be doing such activities on their own. The institutions that evangelize are rather different from these institutions. Educational institutions and hospitals were set up primarily to help people come from the tyranny of illiteracy and ill-health, and they remain so even today.But as people are emancipated from such oppression, they learnt to value freedom and dignity. And that is how these institutions serve as catalyst for conversion.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states that "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion." Surely Dr. Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution, knew what this meant. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism with thousands of "lower caste" from Hinduism because he could not hope for a better future within the religion of his birth. Well, that was him. But even today people do convert from one religion to another. And as long as we have caste system in our practice; and as long as we have institutions that empower people there will be conversion. Christianity has also not been free from the practice of "caste system". In fact, Ambedkar rejected Christianity because he felt that it did not go all the way to erase such evil practice. Christians do struggle to reach the  biblical standard even today. But the Bible is clear: There is no longer Jew or Greek,  there is no longer slave nor free,  there is no male nor female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ( Gal 3.28 RSV)

Millenarianism and Christian hope

Millenarianism is "the expectation of the universal kingdom of Christ and the saints on earth in the final future of this world, as a kind of this-worldly, historical transition to the new creation at the end of history", writes biblical scholar and theologian Richard Bauckham, emeritus professor at St. Andrews University, Scotland. ¹ Meredith B. McGuire, a sociologist, defines it as “ the expectation of an immenent collapse of the entire social order and its replacement with a perfect new order.” ² This eschatological outlook emerged among the earliest Christians and flourished till 4^th century and then reappeared late after Reformation. 

There are various strands of millenarianism. Common at present are historical premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. The former commonly espoused by scholars and the latter common among lay Christians. And this latter version is a later development in Christian thinking. This is derived from a passage a Revelation 20, the last book of the New Testament, where it is mentioned that Jesus Christ will reign for a thousand year with the saints on earth. In her book McGuire writes that this term millenarianism “ is derived from occult Christian predictions that the world would end one thousand years after Jesus' birth”. But McGuire assertion is not found in the Bible nor in the history of Christian thought. So I am quite intriqued where from she got this idea! Millenarianism is not about a belief in a thousand year reign after Jesus' birth, but a thousand year reign of Jesus in the future on earth with his saints.

However, this idea of “Jesus reigning on earth for a thousand year” has been interpreted in different ways by Christians throughout its history. There are those Christians, quite many of them, who approach the book of Revelation with a more non-literalistic interpretation. Since the book Revelation is filled with colourful symbolism, such interpretation is a valid one as much as a more literalistic interpretation is valid, if not less.

The kind of future presented in popular novel/movie like Left Behind is the least preferred option among trained Christian theologians. Due to popularity of such view among common Christians, it is possible to project that as the universal Christian understanding. But it is not. I am open to historic premillennialism though at present I prefer ammillenialism. But millennarianism of the kind of dispensational premillenialism is the least preferred position. One strand of meaning system that attempts to locate human lives and events within that millenarian framework is the work of Jürgen Moltmann. Not all Christians agree with everything he says, but he is perhaps the most popular and rigorous contemporary scholar who has written much on the subject.

1. Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelica Esssays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, Eds. Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott ( IVP, 1997)
2. Religion: The Social Context, Meredith B. McGuire( Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2002)

One of Christians' finest musical compositions

 

This musical piece called Messiah is composed by George Frideric Handel ( 1685-1759), a German-British. Handel is considered to be one of world greatest composers.

Key Idea in Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice

Substantive freedom is the capability of a person to choose life form one has reason to value. Or put it differently, substantive freedom is the capability of a person to choose various lifestyle that she has reason to value. Maximising substantive freedom serves as the foundation for Amartya Sen's theory of justice. Injustice, thus, is unfreedom that restricts a person from choosing life form that she has reason to value.

For example, a rich man who fasts to give his meal to a poor man is in a different condition than a poor man who fasts because he has nothing to eat. The rich man here has freedom to eat or not to eat; whereas the poor man does not have that freedom. For Sen, justice would then mean providing mechanism/opportunity so that the poor man too would have the kind of freedom like the rich man.

His book Development as Freedom has very useful practical means to enhance justice. He argues for democracy, not least because democracy as opposed to totalitarian regime is good in itself but because such political arrangement compels political leaders to be accountable to the people. He also argues for the upliftment of women and importance of public reasoning. All such implications are important features he cogently argued for.

One of the flaws, I see, in setting substantive freedom as the foundation for theory of justice is that those individuals who cannot make choices are not included in the scope of the theory. There are human persons because of sickness or from birth who cannot make choices. But since they are also human person, one needs to be inclusive and not just bracketed them out. Thus for a theory of justice to be viable one must have an intellectually robust viewpoint of who a human person is. John Rawls in the opening page of his book A Theory of Justice underlines that each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot orveride. The problem with Sen's theory is that once there is an intellectual loophole, the next generation will live it out in flesh: bad or good. And I fear Prof. Sen does not intellectually protect that flank which a mad political leader or a scientist can perform some bizarre act on those who cannot make choices.

But I must mention that I have high respect for Prof. Sen specially the kind of humility and sincerity he exercises in putting forth his arguments. His books have sharpen my thinking in many respects.

Interesting conversation between two famous personalities

John Stott is dead, and so is Sai Baba; and so will you, and I too.

John Stott ( 1921 - 2011) who is one of the most respected clergymen in the world is no more. He passed away on 27^th July. The kind of influence that he had among Christians may be similar to the kind of influence that Sathya Sai Baba (1926-2011) had among Hindus. Stott was educated in Cambridge University, and he rose to become a prolific teacher and writer. And until his death he remained a celibate.

Whether one is rich or poor, black or white, male or female, all will die one day. That is an appointment we all cannot evade. Proud men and women, they too will die. Death indeed is the greatest leveller. The money we have earned working day and night will be left behind, and somebody else will enjoy this fruit of our hard labour. If this person is wise, thank God, the fruit of our labour will not be in vain. But if it is otherwise, I won't want to know how the money would be utilised!

The person you love the most will die as well. Your parents, your spouse, your siblings or your children. This is reality. And once a person is dead, nothing can be done about him or her. All prayers and rituals can do nothing good for that person. Sympathy and tears are all for the living ones. The dead simply remains dead, unmoved and untouched. So take time to think about your life NOW!

Is dead THE END? What is the PURPOSE of your life? What are you doing to FULFILL that purpose?

We have a fear for death. For the unknown. There is one person who have faced death, but return to life. It's not some kind of resuscitation. But it is returning to life after having really faced death. My guru or your guru will all die. But this person is different. And he is Jesus Christ. He died on 7^th April, 30 A.D, and came to life on the third day. On 19^th May, he ascended to heaven. He says that for those who accept him as Lord and God, death is NOT the end; death for such person is just a gateway to the other side of life and BEYOND.

John Stott is one person I admire and he has influenced my life so much through his writings. I know that dead is not the END for him. I have never seen him here, but I shall see him one day. And it is because Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, is risen from the dead. That is the hope I have. 

What kind of HOPE do you have and what is it BUILT upon?

Is it immoral to tell a person that her religion is wrong?

If religion is about a way of life, then certainly it would have so much of influence on the way a person lives. A religion that has nothing to do with our lives is a useless religion. The way we eat, dress or conduct our moral behaviour are all influenced by our religious preference. If we observe people of different religion and compare their way of life, it is not difficult to spot such differences. Yet we all do have common practices too. 

A Muslim would not eat certain food item. And that is true for a Hindu too. Jains are vegetarian in complete contrast to Christians who have no religious sanction for avoiding any food items except for health reason. Sikhs wear turban as part of their religious tradition; Muslims women do wear burqa and one often comes across Muslim men wearing topi (cap) as if to express their differentness. Christians and Hindus do not have any particular dress code that is binding on them as it is with the Muslims and Sikhs. 

Christians are to work for six days, and on the seventh day to rest and gather for corporate worship. This concept of observing Sabbath Day is a very important feature of Christian practice. Buddhist and Hindus do not have such a day in a week as in the sense of Christians' Sabbath Day. Muslims gather together for prayer on Friday till noon, and the rest of the day can be as other days so that you can even conduct business and other works.Muslims are allowed to have upto four wives provided certain conditions are fulfilled. But such polygamy is prohibited for all the other religious systems. 

But all these differences in practice emerge, so to speak, from differences in doctrinal or metaphysical belief. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the incarnated God, as Lord. And the language of the Bible too incarnated in the world in which it was born. Therefore, there is no sacred language in Christian belief. Since incarnation is a key concept, Christians can 'incarnate' into any culture. Thus, there is no particular dress code or food habit etc for Christians. Except in moral areas Christianity 'incarnates'  into any culture. For Muslims, Allah cannot take on human form, and  Arabic is the language for Quran. This Arabic cannot incarnate into other culture. Thus we find elements of Arabic culture and language  wherever Islam spreads. Hindus belief about deity has been so diverse, that there can be millions of belief or no belief in a deity. Atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, animism or deism can all be appropriated into Hinduism.

Buddhists' nirvana is cessation of suffering. Hindus' moksha is getting out of the karmic cycle. Jains and Sikhs have similar understanding of liberation. Christians and Muslims' salvation is about being in God's presence forevermore. Buddhism is not world affirming as much as Christians, Muslims and Sikhs are. Hindus and Jains have different patterns for different people. And thus these religions engagement with the world or lack thereof differ. And none of the religions have such thing as Sharia Law as is found in Islam.

So we have even the purpose or goal of the religion itself different from one another. And therefore we have such diverse ways to reach the goal. Are all the goals correct? No way. Unless we live in madhouse no one with sane mind can say all the goals are correct. Now one can say, "you pursue your goal and follow your ways to reach your goal." But suppose there is no God as Jains or Buddhist would say, the very goal of Christians and Muslims are incorrect. So is it then the obligation of Jains and Buddhists to show others the right way? But if indeed your belief -- goal and ways, are true, and you remain silent about it,not telling others the right one, you are being immoral. Well, like other aspect of life, one must be respectful in telling that she is mistaken about her way of life (religion). But religious conversion or helping people towards the correct path is a moral obligation. To insist that all religious goals and ways are equally correct is just to render all religious belief and practice meaningless.

If there is no scope for conversion or reformation or refinement, then religious dialogue is superflous. If we are to cultivate religious harmony, inter-religious harmony is important. And when such inter-religious dialogue takes place, introspection results and the next step is refinement of one's religious traditon. Or sometimes one has to make drastic reformation and sometimes convert.

Daniel Duomai & Melissa Bleck

Norway Attacker a Christian Fundamentalist?

So the Norway terrorist confessed himself to be a Christian, and hates Muslims and adores Hindutva ideology? Well, he is doing some of the things a follower of Christ should never be doing.  Terrorizing innocent people to achieve one's political or religious objective is never a Christian approach, and should never be. In fact, it's not just about being unchristian, but every human person or organisation or government should never use such approach. 

Jesus does not teach his followers to hate anyone. Jesus hates sin, not the sinner. And the same attitude is expected of his followers too. Put it differently, is it a morally acceptable practice to hate Muslims? No. It's quite alright to think Muslims are wrong in their belief, as much as it would be right for them to think Christians are wrong in believing and worshiping Jesus as the divine Lord. And what do we do about it if we disagree with their belief? Kill them? No way. Tell them about Jesus Christ, and show love and respect to them.  Had Anders Breivik understood his Bible, instead of engineering such massacre he would have shared about Jesus to Muslims, and given them the choice to accept or reject.

Did Anders know what Hindutva's attitude is towards the Christians, forget about its attitude towards Muslims? As much as Hindutva's attitude towards minorities like Christians and Muslims are harmful and bad for human flourishing, so much so would any of such attitude of Anders towards Muslims be harmful and bad for human flourishing. I don't know what Anders' ideology is, but if it is like that of Hindutva fringe group I am sure it is bad for any society. No wonder majority of Hindus do not share such ideology! 

If religion is a way of life, as all Christians, Hindus and Muslims would claim then it is quite reasonable that people would have different set of beliefs about it. Utilitarians come up with an approach to life which is different from that of deontological way of thinking, and they compete with each other in public square in a free and fair way. And let such atmosphere prevail even among different religious adherents. You think you are right, share your way of life in free and fair way. No bombs; just words. Let truth win!

Funny Video