Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

Just stumbled across this, which I think actually asks a few very good questions.

Burgled

So my wife and I went to visit our best friends who moved into the same beautiful little town we live in. We parked in front of their brand new home and it got somewhat late.

Now I have to explain that they bought a little house in a complex that is still under development. Their house is the first one completed, so they practically live on a building site.

And unfortunately that is how we pick real estate in this country. We check on a map how far away it is from the nearest low-cost housing and/or slum area and how many building sites there are in the area. Unfortunately these distances are directly proportional to the crime rate in your area.

So halfway through a very delightful evening we hear a horn blowing, a car horn. Then we realise there cannot be that many cars in the area and we rush outside. Sure enough, a window is broken and a few non-essential things is stolen from the car. Initially I'm glad when I notice that the car radio is still in place, but it is here where the biggest damage occurs.

Our friend (literally) from the other side of the tracks tried to pry the radio loose. I of course made the decision for him by not removing the removable faceplate from the vehicle. Yes people, learn from my mistake. The faceplate is removable so that you can remove it from the vehicle, not hide it under the seat.

In any case, as he's struggling to get the radio out of the dash he must have accidently pushed on the horn, and he abandoned the attempt, but unfortunately he left WITH the faceplate.

So I contacted the agent, quite proud with myself that I kept the little piece of paper with "Kenwood audio passport" written all over it. Guess what, the faceplate is overly expensive, not to mention that stock is low and the ETA is three to six months. Result: I'm now claiming the damage from insurance and replacing the whole thing. I'm replacing a brand new stereo (it is two months old) because faceplates are in fact non-replacable.

Benny Hinn

Now here is a evangelist that stirs up some controversy. Just this Sunday there was a program on one of the local channels, which was really a rebroadcast of a documentary made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Now some people swear by Pastor Benny, most notably this person (read the topmost letter). Specifically, this person's argument seems to be that an unbalanced picture was painted of the beloved pastor, and that had a more balanced picture being painted it would somehow make things ok.

I really don't understand HOW people can think that way. If we consider the things he has said (documented) the only conclusion we can come to is that he is either somewhat crazy, or he is one of thebest scam artists the world has ever seen.

But of course I have a specific way of looking at things. I have a degree in Applied Maths and Computer Science. We learned that to disprove a statement only requires a single counter example, a single documented case where the statement fails.

Now, lets consider that Benny Hinn said that Jesus told him that He will physically appear at one of his crusades. According to Matthew 24:26, this is not possible. Jesus could not have told him this. If He did, He would be contradicting Himself.

The only conclussion I can come to is that Benny Hinn is a liar.

If you don't believe me, come to Africa and I will show you how the other half live. Then come back to me and tell me it is okay for him to do what he does.

Late night TV and Islam

So I was lying on the couch watching a bit of late night TV on the national geographic channel, and there was a program on about Muslim extremists and how they plan their terror attacks on the US. This made me wonder once again: Why do they hate the US so much?

There appears to be more than one answer to this. For starters, they hate the hipocrissy. You have a nation that has Christian origins and subscribes to Christian foundations, yet they are legalising abortion and teach evolution in their schools. But mostly, the extremists read the Quaran in a way that tells them that Christians and the West are evil and the world needs to be rid of them. It also teaches that when a believer dies during jihad he is ensured of a place in heaven. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.


But then I came along this gem and I just had to say something. The specific quote that prompted this:

In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.

Now how do you say a thing like that when Jesus specifically said things like:

1. I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
   
2. On that day you will pray in my name (John 16:24-26)
3. Specific mention of the Trinity (Mat 28:19)

I can assure any muslim that Christians keep to the teachings of Jesus as much as we can. We still make mistakes though. Like any other religion, Christianity is used as a cover to commit terrible deeds. This should not be a stain upon Christianity.

Christianity brings with it a clear message of peace. We are not to hate the world, even though it hates us. We are not to hate our enemies. We need not fear anything (Romans 8:39). We do not have to participate in a holy war to reserve a place in Heaven, in fact the oposite is true (Mat 25:31-46). I cannot imagine how it must be to live in constant hate of those who believe differently.

Nevertheless, I suppose the hipocrissy of people who call themselves Christians is a cause for concern. But there will be many that say that they follow Christ, but not all of them will be saved (Mat 7:21). Should we kill them? Purify the earth from their wickedness? Mathew 13:27-30 tells a story that seems to warn us against prematurely trying to gather the weeds from between the wheat.

Relativism and Christian Rock

So I had an argument again today with a more religious friend of mine. To put this into context, I have to say that this was the good sort of argument where we throw arround ideas, although he tends to take it rather personally. I also have to say that I am also a religious person.

This argument was a spill-over from another, whether it might be wrong for a certain type of person to listen to a certain type of music. Why you may ask? Well, certain people believe Christian Rock is an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms).

In any case, I believe that we can apply Romans 14:13 in many of these cases. I believe that many people listen to this sort of music and find it spiritually uplifting. Personally I will never find rock spritually uplifting. Nevertheless, the question would be whether it could be okay for one person to listen to christian rock, yet at the same time have another person regard it is a stumbling block and/or a sin.

Of course at this point my friend yelled "That's relativism!" How can it be right for one person and wrong for the other?

The problem I have with this viewpoint, is that it would seem to suggest that there is something wrong with me for avoiding christian rock music, even though to me it is a stumbling block. My parents are even more old-school. It would imply that their discrimination AGAINST Christian Rock is unjustified.

The only conclusion I can come to is that sometimes, when used for the right purposes, this sort of relativism is appropriate. When is that? I don't know, you tell me.

Greedy White Farmers

So the government (or at least certain people within the government) are accusing white farmers of being greedy, asking prices that are at least double the worth of the land. Now I don't know much about the whole process, but it did make me think.

In a recent publication of "Landbouweekblad" (an Afrikaans agricultural magazine) there was an article on farms that have been marked for purhcase. The land was valued by a state appointed assessor and a price was agreed upon. However, in this case government is dragging it's feet, and nothing is happening to complete the transaction. According to the article a re-assessment of the land value had to be done in the meantime. At least in this one case it appears that it is not only the greedy white farmers who is the problem. However, the white farmers invariably takes the blame for this state of affairs.

It also makes me think of something my father told me once. He said that the improvements made to the land he owns is worth more than the land itself. Every fence, borehole, windmill, house and dam needs to be counted. Even the prickly pear bushes that was planted needs to be added (we use prickly pear leaves as food for the cattle in time of drought). If you keep this in mind, perhaps it is not a strange occurence that the "greedy" white farmers want more than double of the land's value.

It is entirely possible that some farmers out there really are a bit greedy when it comes to the land they legally owned for several years. Perhaps they are trying to hold onto it by asking exorbitant prices. I think these greedy ones are few and far between though. I suspect the majority of them would simply like to be compensated for the investment made into the land. It is also interesting to note that in the above mentioned article the capital gains tax on these properties contradicted the (much lower) evaluation made by the state appointed assessor.

Now depending on your viewpoint, it may be either right or wrong for these people to expect full compensation for the investment they made into the land. This borders on a discussion between Capitalism and Socialism, which I am not going to discuss.

By providing compensation of any sort, the government in principle subscribes to the capitalist model. That would seem to imply to me that if a farmer will not be compensated for improvements made to the land, he should be allowed to sell it off. That is sell all fences as scrap iron, take down the windmills and sell all farm machinery. The effect of that will be much worse.

Above all I often wonder why there should be a problem. Wouldn't it be easier to have an independant assessor value the land and the improvements made to it, and both parties agree to abide by that? Wouldn't that be fair?