Which season am I?

This test I found with the help of Jeannine

It is quite funny in fact to come out as being "Winter", since I hate temperatures above 30°C. I get sick (literally). Also my trips to the nord do indicate a certain tendency to go for more fresh areas and times.

But most of all, I do feel quite as being winter sometimes as well, although one should not forget that even in winter, heavy storms can torment the landscape...

You scored as Winter. You are WINTER. You're more introspective, thinking deeply, feeling deeply. You love nothing better than to enjoy one on one time with those who are important to you. You are cautious, and sometimes second guess yourself. Dreams, though you have them, are a luxury, because life is not a plaything. Winter 70% Fall 70% Spring 40% Summer 40% What Season Are You? created with QuizFarm.com

My bro RULES !!!!!!

HOORAY for my bro! Yesterday, he finished his bachelor in social work with distinction ! And I was there to see his moment of glory.

Spread the word, spread the word! My little bro became a man!

My theological worldview

I found this quiz thanks to Jeannine. My (predictable) result :

You scored as Modern Liberal. You are a Modern Liberal. Science and historical study have shown so much of the Bible to be unreliable and that conservative faith has made Jesus out to be a much bigger deal than he actually was. Discipleship involves continuing to preach and practice Jesus' measure of love and acceptance, and dogma is not important in today's world. You are influenced by thinkers like Bultmann and Bishop Spong. Modern Liberal 86% Emergent/Postmodern 86% Classical Liberal 82% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 54% Roman Catholic 43% Neo orthodox 36% Reformed Evangelical 21% Charismatic/Pentecostal 18% Fundamentalist 7% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

On the road to f(l)ame

It’s exciting, helping with the birth of a brand new project. Lately I became more and more involved in the organisation Ell Circo d”Ell Fuego (ECDF) . A bunch of chaotic artists is not that good in doing the paperwork, and after some complaints of the Belgian Tax-Office, I agreed on following those things up. In the meantime, I blow my saxophone on tons of occasions, mostly as backing “solo-band” at circus performances on the street.

The street is our main stage, but also teaching circus is one of our core businesses. And then there are the BIG projects. Last year, we organised a show called “WRRRIGHT!”. You can find tons of pictures at our photo album. For next year, we have even bigger plans : a new, big show in cooperation with a bunch of technicians, specialized in crazy constructions (the organisation “Bolwerk²”).

In September already, we and “Bolwerk²” will cruise the Flemish roads with a procession filled with crazy vehicles : a riding bath-tube, a riding fantasy-house, a truck with 5 moving podia, … The complete tour will last a whole month. Every Saturday, we will stop in a big city, and our artists will take care of the entertainment. Sounds like fun² !

The show next year will be similar : Bolwerk² will take care of all the technical constructions, and we will use those constructions in a big circus show. Theme for the show will be all kinds of lusts and frustrations : we will present ourselves as the children of the flower-power gen-eration, that are amazed about how those principles were left, and how the may ’68 revolu-tion changed the world into a hedonistic nightmare. Sounds heavy, but we will bring a dreamshow with tons of fire, satire and feel-good-acts. And more FIRE ! Just going com-pletely crazy is not enough for us.

Yesterday, we stormed our brains to find a nice concept, and to find the right people to en-gage in this project. The next year will be discussing over and over again, and training until we’re nearly dead. Wild plans are made, training schemes are prepared and everybody is screaming for new challenges. We just have a minor problem around financing, but who ca-res about those details? A new show is born, and I was there to give it birth. Halleluja!

On the French "NON" to the European constitution

This weekend, the French people voted against the European Constitution. This causes an important problem: Since France does not ratify the constitution, the game is over. All countries have to ratify the constitution, or else the European Governement has to start all over again. So guys, back to work.

But why? Was this constitution really that bad? What is in fact the problem those French have with the European constitution? The answer is : they don’t know. This referendum is a typical example of how people vote for the wrong reasons :

The “No”-side is pretty diverse : both extreme left and extreme right were very much against the constitution :
- Extreme left claims that the construction “Europe” caused an economical crisis in France. There is a high rate of unemployment, the economy stagnated for years, and Europe is to blaim. (For the sake of reasoning, they tend to forget that it was as bad or even worse in the rest of the world. They don’t mention the strong position of the euro, especially compared with the dollar)
- Extreme right is very much against introducing Turkey in the European Union. They’re not “Christian” enough (read : they’re bloody moslims). I looked through the constitution. I couldn’t find an article saying that Turkey has to be accepted as a candidate. In fact, Turkey has nothing to do with the constitution.
- Both claim that this constitution is too liberal. I checked, and I couldn’t really see what they mean. When I ask for an explanation, they mention tons of European rules and directives, that are absolutely not mentioned in the constitution. They may be right about the constitution, but they definitely can’t explain.

The Yes-side keeps it very simple : vote “yes”, or the Europe-story is over. Yeah right!

So much for the “intense and nuanced debate”. To me it’s clear: France didn’t vote for or against the constitution. It was Turkey and the economical situation in France. People don’t even know what the constitution says. In fact, I have the impression they don’t even know about the concept of a constitution at all: the topics France debated about, don’t appear in any constitution in this world. The big mass of normal people just put their pencil next to the word that was mentioned the most by some populists who knew how to play on the sentiments and fears of the plebs.

As always...

On Darwin in the Netherlands

Today the Dutch minister of Education announced she wanted hearings in court about Darwin. Apparently this idea spreads faster than the flue. The debate started when a rector of a school in Groningen refused to hire teachers biology when they only “believed in Darwin” (there is no such thing as “believing in Darwin”, like there is no such thing as “believing in Newton”.)

As explained in my previous post, only the idea of a hearing is already absolutely ridiculous. Until now, nobody could give one reasen (not even a bad one) to NOT teach Darwin at school, or to teach Genesis in Biology classes. Some of the Dutch reactions :
- Ronald Plasterk, Biologist : “Intelligent design and Darwin are two different things. They don’t have to be contradictory, but they have to be separated from each other. Intelligent Design has no meaning whatsoever in biology. Imagine a bunch of fakirs claiming that gravity does not exist. Do we have to organise a hearing for that too ?”

- Abdelkader Tayob; professor religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen : “Stories about the creation are a religious and not a scientific topic. I wonder why the government has to interfere in religious matters. There is a separation of Church and State, and this has to be respected.”

- Mariëtte Hamer, specialist education of the parliament : I expected that the minister would deal different with the case in Groningen. A debate can however not be forbidden.

- Bart Dertien, teacher Biology : In the description of the teaching plan is written that the students have to learn about different views on evolution, both in history and today. I don’t understand what else we can do as teacher.

Anybody who knows a reason to even start with thinking about having this debate?

On the Darwin trial in Kansas

It’s unbelievable! When are they ever going to stop with that madness of putting Darwin on trial. For Gods sake, and I mean that literally, stop spending tons of money on stupid hearings where nobody knows the truth anyway. And this time I’m particularily upset with those Creationists, trying to tell science teachers what they have to tell.

If it wouldn’t be so sad, it would be hilarious. What are they talking about there? The Big Bang. Come on, did nobody ever tell those Creationists that they shoot the wrong man? For the Big Bang, go to HAWKINS ! Keeping it in this discussion is like blaiming Lincoln for the Holocaust.

I want good education. Good education means that people learn something about different topics. When you learn about biology, you cannot escape Darwin. Not because he was right, but because he’s one of the founders of modern biology and systematics. Without Darwin, there would be no modern biology. Off course, there are new insights. Darwin saw the evolution and especially the natural selection as the hand of God (the man was very religious!). Nowadays evolutionary biologists talk about genetic drifting. Darwin stated that evolution has a direction (forced by the natural selection), whereas genetic drifting has no direction at all (like the word says). Systematics is based on genetic distance, and that genetic distance is considered to be the consequence of evolution, whatever the mechanism. This lead for example to the discovery that the malaria-musquito is in fact not one species, but 7 different species of which only 2 are actually carriers of malaria. Talking about an important knowledge to fight against malaria in developing countries.

Now THAT’s biology. Genesis is NOT. Nobody asks economists to teach Biblical tax law in their classes! Nobody asks jurists to teach Biblical jurisdiction in their classes! Nobody asks doctors to teach that Abraham reached the healthy age of 700 years old in medicine classes. Nobody asks for Genesis in geography classes or in history classes. So why the heck do we have to teach Genesis in Biology classes? Not one biologist uses Genesis as a tool to predict bacterial resistance towards antibiotics. Darwin on the other hand….

So basically, creationists don't know what they're talking about. Sadly enough, a lot of scientists don't know either.

On the fight that never ends

Twelve years of my young life I suffered from that little bastard, aka son of the devil, mr. Smokey. Ten years of that same young life I suffered from that big green bastard, aka wife of the devil, Mary Huana. You know the drill :
1. be young.
2. have the wrong friends (who are still my friends, and I never regretted that!).
3. be stupid
4. tell everybody you’re not addicted.
5. find out you’re addicted.
At a certain point, I couldn’t lie to myself any more : I was destroying my body and my mind. At the point where I realized I was walking the same path as my grandfather, now one-lunged, I got harsh on myself and quitted smoking whatever I was smoking.

Great, it actually worked. I quitted before, but that only lasted 3 months. When I got past 3 months, I grew proud of myself, and confident that I had finally beaten the bastard. OK, I had nightmares, some ghosts in my head woke up again after being sedated by the drugs for years, and an irregular flow of energy made me rock the sky sometimes, but I was healthy! I was not dependent any more on that green stuff to fall asleep.
Then I got fired. I decided to throw a hell of a party to forget, and, stupid stupid me, I tried a joint again. That became two, three, even more, and at a certain point, I noticed I was smoking far too much weed to be healthy. So instead of joints, I started smoking cigarettes again. And joints before I go to bed...
Dammit!

OK, I know : stupid! Idiot! Weak animal! Bastard! Loser!
I kicked myself long and hard for this BIG mistake. I’m preparing again for quitting once more, but an addiction is not that easy to set aside.

When you consider smoking, don’t let yourself be fooled : once an addict, always an addict. You can try to be an ex-addict, but your body never forgets. Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!

On guardian angels

It is a fact, they exist. Nobody has to tell me any more that guardian angels are just a production of my lively imagination. I know they’re there. Praised be the Big Boss of all guardian angels and the rest, for looking so well after this little ol’ punkhead of a sheep in His rather incredible huge flock.

Poor fellow though, that guardian angel of mine, no nine-to-five for her. Somehow I have the tendency to end up in deep “excrement” every time I even think of pulling my head from under my blanket. But every time somehow it always ends up far better than anybody could have hoped. Must be that guardian angel. She sure knows how to surprise you. Must be a woman.

This time, she introduced me to the job-hop-trick. It’s a very nice experience, that starts with doing a solicitation for two jobs. For the first one I got through the first selections, but was second choice. The second job, I got. Three months later, I had a phone call. The first choice for the first job was fired, and they would like to know whether I was still interested in the offer they could make me, since I was now their first choice. But too bad, I took the second job, so very sorry, but I couldn’t help them out.

After four months of working, I had the experience of being fired. Somehow I didn’t really fit in the team, and they decided I “did not fulfil the criteria for the second job”. So I mailed, asking whether they found another first choice for the first job, because when they did not succeed in filling up that vacancy yet, my services were, rather unexpected, suddenly available. And I knew my chances were nonexistent, since a month is a long enough time to find somebody else.

They didn’t. I am grateful.

Social Security League on a trip to Berlin

The day was chosen pretty well: I was fired right before I left on holiday, and since they had to tell me one week in advance, I didn't have to go back to the office any more after my holidays. So with a free mind I drove off to Germany, ready to visit a friend I didn't see in almost five years.

The drive to Berlin was already quite some experience : 750 km of highway without speed limits, so everybody passes you when you're driving only 150 km/h. Somehow, Germany was pretty much in a hurry when I passed by. about 100 km before Berlin, the sun made me decide to put the car away for some hours. A nice swampy forest with some more swampy fields drew the attention of my traveller-friends and me, so we wandered away from the highway into Germany's wild nature. Some wet feet and trousers later, we brought the sun to the horizon and finished our trip to Berlin.

The first night we stayed in some kind of a student housing, although hardly recognizable as housing at all. It was in the eastern part of town, right next to Treptow park. The next day, we couldn't escape the classical tourist tour through the more or less only part of Berlin that survived the second world war, the district Mitte. Heaps of stones with famous names and interesting functions, but touristic and sterile. It's not exactly the most lively part of the city, to put it in a kind way.

The evening of that second day, we met with my german friend L and his boyfriend P. Together with my roommate T we went for dinner in a cosy restaurant not too far from the appartement L and P were living together. I admit, german kitchen has defenitely something to offer, as long as there is no "bratwurst" or "sauerkraut" mentioned :-) We took a good night rest, so we were fit enough to enjoy the alive part of the city the next day. It is completely different when you run through a city accompagnied by a member of the local tribe. That day I discoverd the heart of Berlin, spread over quite a big area. But even more nice was the fact that it appeared as though L and I just said goodbye last week instead of five years ago. Suddenly memory of Norvegian times was very vivid again, and at a certain point, I even longed for what has been finished long ago.

The next day, I managed to convince my roommate T that you didn't visit a city when you don't take a look at the surrounding nature (which was my way of escaping the concrete). Luckily, L had the marvellous idea of convincing T by promising him a portion of culture as well: the monastery of Chorin. I loved it. Both the monastery and the surrounding nature. And even more, we all enjoyed what was the best restaurant meal I had this year (the best meals are without doubt cooked by my mommy and my grandmother). Close to the monastery, there is a restaurant that serves tons of honey-specialities : every dish they have, is prepared in one way or another with honey. Go check out the website of the Immenstube. When you're ever close to Berlin, it pays to drive another hour to visit the monastery and the Immenstube.

The evening of that day, we went for what would become the most extravagant experience of Berlin I could have: We went to one of the last parties in the worldfamous Club Tresor. Since I'm not that much of an electro-fan, I needed some wodka-mixtures to fully appreciate the party, but I had the night of my life. Tresor is a former bank building, and the partying takes place partly in the old banksafe. This fact alone results already in a special atmosphere. Next to that, everybody was there to celebrate the last days of Tresor, because the club will be closed soon. Don't need to say that the crowd was determined to build an extreme party. And anyway, party people in Berlin are already of a very special (but extremely nice) kind, so the night was quite too short. When we got back to L's appartement, we greated the people starting their day of work.

After waking up in the afternoon, I was accompagnied by a slight but persisting headache during what was left of the day. There was not that much to do any more : pack, say goodbye, promise each other it would not take another five years before we meet again, pick up some poor people that had to get to Antwerp as well, and head home to start looking for a job.

But not after promising Berlin I would be back one day.

On Social Security in difficult times

After six years of primary school, seven years of secundary school, six years of university studies and two years of PhD, I found myself one day with a nice and well paid job, for exactly 4 months. Now I'm lining up to receive my part of social security. Isn't it ironic that one has to study that long in order to retrieve appx. 600 euro per month survival money from the state?

One way, thank you Lord for letting me live in Belgium with their nice social security system. I can at least be sure I can pay my rent the next month. Don't know about the insurance of my car, but hey, who cares about the details? Time to think about the next chapter of "Naive and Stupid on a trip in the Real Word."

so long...

On Terri Schiavo: looking for facts

Finally, I managed to get a more or less clear view on the history of this case, between the waterfall of accusations in all directions. Yet, I managed to find only one looks-like-objective-and-does-not-take-sides website:

Abstract Appeal: Terri's infopage

A must-read for anyone interested even a bit in the background and the legal aspects of Terri's case.

Terri Schiavo : Where do I stand?

I'm stirred to the bones by the whole Terri Schiavo case. Basically, I'm astonished about how people keep on rambling about it, telling contradicting stories and use this case for their own means. This probabely sound harsh since so many people let their heart speak out, are honestly concerned with Terri and are horrified by the whole case. I don't choose a side here, and although some people would like to eat me alive for this, I can't help it.

The first thing that I cannot understand, is the fact that a judge can actually decide to starve somebody to death. S T A R V E ! Giving her morphine for pain reduction until she sleeps in forever can't be. That would be murder, which can only be carried out on innocent and guilty people in death row. I thought I was mad, but stuff like that can hardly be found in a banana republic! " I rule that you don't want to live any more, so I decide to starve you to death." What does that judge know?

The second thing I cannot understand, is the fact that somebody who is getting control over such a huge amount of money, is also the one who can decide whether or not the person for which this money is ment, can live. This is asking for troubles anyway, but is also making it impossible for the person controlling the money to defend any other decision than "life". There will allways be someone who accuses him for being after that money, as proven by the quote going around : "it's not what the parents want, it's what we want." Off course, the parents want Terri to live, "they" want to fulfill Terri's wish. I don't say he meant it that way, but it's a possible one. How can we know why that husband does what he does, and who are we to condemn him for that?

The next thing I cannot understand, is the prayer to save her life. Why should she be kept in a situation like this, while she can go to heaven and meet her Creator? It sounds cruel to me : "We decide the Lord didn't call you yet, so we keep you alive artificially." Let's be honest : with half a minute of difference, she would have been dead long time ago. And even then, feeding somebody through a tube is hardly an argument for the fact that she can live "without any machine support". So how would we know what the plan of the Lord is? O, I hear it coming: "If the Lord would want her with Him, His power is great enough etc etc etc" True. So he uses Terri's husband as a tool to bring her to Him, teaching both Terri and the husband patience and endurance in a struggle by adding some opposition. Sounds like a great plan to me. Why would that be any less His idea than letting her vegetate another fifteen years until her body dies from some parasite infection around that tube (as seen pretty often in patients that are fed with a tube for longer time)

The fourth thing I cannot understand : the contradicting opinions on her medical situation/feelings. Is she or is she not in a coma? Some stories say she reacts on her family, some say she doesn't at all. Is she or is she not in pain? Is she or is she not willing to carry on? Does she or does she not know what is going on around her? And even more important : How can people having either one or the other opinion can be so sure about it? And if you know nothing about these things, how can you decide either way?

Face it : choosing either side is forgetting about half the picture, and I can permit myself not to choose. But I know that the way this case is dealt with, disgusts me from the tip of my hair to the nails on my toes.

When I put myself in the place of Terri, I would be sad for all that commotion and madness, and I would ask nothing more than to make place for somebody who could use the care I got a lot better. Other people would like to give it a shot and carry on in the hope to get better again. And since I don't know Terri, who am I to even consider to believe I would know what she wants?

Gratitude

Some people just keep on having nice ideas. Again, Jeannine found a nice subject to put in a new post, namely What am I thankful for today.

Perfect topic for people with a lack of time and an angry boss complaining about too much internet traffic :-)

Things I am thankful for today :
- mommy (oh God, a mommy's boy!) Indeed, as long as I don't have her naggin off my ears, my mommy is the best mommy in all the worlds. No discussion possible.

- my brother and sister. Two perfect partners to drive the mommy mentioned above nuts. But since my sister and me moved out, mommy doesn't mind at all any more having us around once in a while.

- my grandparents : two wonderful people that, although life wasn't fair for them, still insist on cooking one of the best meals I ate in my life every time I pass by.

- Daddy, for the love he feels for us (although he isn't that good in showing it) and the warning he is for us (can't say we don't know how to screw up your life).

- Thomas, my roommate. This guy rocks: he endures my madness already more than a year, and still lives through it every day with a patience that is almost supernatural.

- that bunch of crazy mates, showing me the whole time that there is something next to seriousness and madness : complete madness.

- my friends abroad. You don't have to meet them every day to know they care.

- My saxophone, source of everlasting relaxation for me (and distress for the people surrounding me)

- Ell Circo Dell Fuego, a bunch of nutcases playing with fire and calling it circus and street theater (I'm their sound on the background out on the street). Splendid way of spending your free time

- Those birds in the cooker hood of our kitchen for whistling the whole time when I have breakfast. Can spring get nicer than that? I don't think so.


So long...

The Sad Mistake

This is my little contribution to the Apologia IX (hosted by Razorkiss), dealing with the interesting question :

Glory to Man in the Highest: Humanisms dangerous claim?

Indeed, when Humanism would place humans where Christians place God, it would be especially a sad mistake. Worshipping humans as perfect, loving beings that will be our rescue from pain, sin and misery can only be looked at with laughter and/or pity. Time to call in the funny guys with the funny white coats.

Is it? Maybe the “dangerous claim” that Christians like to put in the mouth of humanism is not so much a claim of humanism than it is a (common) misinterpreting by Christians of a theory with its roots in Christianism.

First we have to take a look at the definition of Humanism. Immediately it is clear that there is no such thing as “humanism”: there are literally dozens of definitions on the web to be found. Most agree though on the following characteristics:
Humanism defines a socio-political doctrine whose bounds exceeds local cultures, to include all of humanity and issues common to all human beings
It is very important to note that we’re not talking about a religion, even not about a philosophy in the strict sense of the word. Humanism is a way of thinking, stressing the individuals dignity, and capacity of self-realization through logic and reaon. It is a start that lead to a number of different philosophies, with one common ground : the uttermost respect, love and compassion for other human beings.

Mostly at least two different subgroups in humanism are distinguished.
Secular humanism abandons every religious dogma. They might even believe in a supernatural being, but rather see the different religions as a divided view on this being than on a synthesis. They are very convinced of the power of reason and logic, as a tool to enhance the quality of life and to solve important problems, being problems that are more of a practical nature.

And then there is religious or christian humanism. Do I see some eyebrows go up?

In fact, one of the first humanist writings is to be found in the Bible. Where secular humanists place mankind among the rest of the creation, the Bible clearly places mankind on top of the creation, as the most perfect part of it. Talking about belief in the capacity of mankind. Even more, after Jesus gave the most important commandment, He immediately added : "Love your neighbour as yourself". The former Apologia dealt with "the least of these". What more is that than putting respect, love and compassion for other human beings very high on the priority list?

Also the second aspect of humanism is found back in christianism pretty much: What else is this Apologia than critically discussing different aspects of the Christian teachings, in order to grow as a human and as a christian?

Humanism started as a reaction on a totalitary Church in the late middle ages, and initially focused on a cultural revival of the old Greeks. Yet, the way humanists look on dealing with eachother, could very well be rooted in Jesus words. They were submerged in a deeply religous society, which makes it hard to believe that they would not be influenced by it at all.

So their "claim" might not be that crazy after all…

Other nice websites from christian humanists :
Christian Existential Humanism

Clarion Call, Christian Humanism

Steven D. Schafersman’s essay on the history and philosophy of humanism and its role in unitarian universalism

Divine Wisdom and Christian Humanism, lecture by father Augustine di Noia

The Sad Environmentalist

John Schroeder comments on his blog on Christian Environments. I understood that he is not the biggest friend of environmentalists, but his views are not reflecting reality. Some comments on his opinion :


He couldn't be more wrong. I would like to comment a bit on his statements, since they appear to me as a rather common belief among conservatives.

1. John stated that :
Too many, way too many "environmentalists" put the environment on a higher plane than people.
The fact is that people, even with all technology they have, die when the environment gets bad. Take a look at what's happening in Somalia now. Or check out the story of the Love Canal, and be horrified: kids exposed to toxic waste, because it was cheaper to put it in the ground than to recycle it. Or even better, avoid that it is produced. The Love Canal is located near the Niagara Waterfalls in the US, and the tragedy came out in 1979...

2. John stated that
environmentalism, as a movement, is anti-industrialization. From toxic air contaminants to garbage disposal, from species diversification to global warming, its all about beating back the actions of mankind, particularly those acts that result in industrialization.

Wrong again. Hybrid cars, riding on hydrogen, solar energy, recycling technologies, biofuel, ... : that's moving forwards. The point of environmentalism is not to go back to the stone age, but to move on to the next century, leaving behind older (and more polluting) technologies.

3. John stated that :

Even if we accept for a moment that global warming really is our problem, as opposed to just a natural occurrence, Bjorn Lumborg, argues, quite effectively, in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" that it is far less expensive to cope with it than to try and prevent it.

Pure technical : there is no discussion what so ever that CO2 is a greenhouse-gas. The greenhouse effect is by the way essential to life. Bringing more carbon in roulation by burning the fossile fuels, is enhancing this effect. The discussion is to what extent. Even Lomborg agrees on that. Now Lomborg is one statistician that did some calculations. When you read his book, some things have truth in it and others don't. There are a thousand other scientists doing calculations, and coming to a completely different insight. Why pick out one, instead of critically reading all of them?

But there is more to the story than global warming alone, something forgotten way too often by people opposing "environmentalism".

Oil prices are at an all-times maximum. How comes? We use a LOT, and there is not that much available. Result? all prices go up, because transportation gets more expensive. Is it then so stupid to look for other ways, and at the same time avoiding that our kids get asthma because of exposure to fumes? Smoking causes lung cancer. Driving your car every day in traffic jam is as good for your lungs as smoking. Smokers are banned in the whole US, but nobody cares about driving...

So please, I don't say you have to believe all the greens say. But inform yourself thoroughly, look at ALL sides critically, and don't call all environmentalists wrong because some of them take it a bridge too far. Your health is worth more than you realize. Until it's too late...

On how I believe Part II : My current views

As I explained in my previous post, a short but interesting discussion with Samantha brought me to reflect on my own belief again. After a short overview of my travel along the path of faith, I will go a bit deeper into my current beliefs and my view on Christianism. On Samantha’s blog, I found a nice start : her questions to non-Christians :

1. First, are you simply "not a Christian" (with another spiritual belief or religion) or are you an atheist? If you have spiritual beliefs, please describe them.
It’s easier to say what I am not than to say what I am. I do believe in a Higher Power, not just some higher order, but a real, concious, being. I do believe that Jesus roamed this earth, and that he said a lot of very interesting things. I’m a bit sceptical about the whole trinity concept. Jesus as a prophet, OK, but He’s not God to me. After reading the Bible, I couldn’t find a quote where He asked to be worshipped. He asked to follow Him and to worship His Father. This probabely makes me no Christian in the strict sense of the word, but I’m also not an atheist (or belonging to any other belief.) Yet, I consider myself as a semi-follower of Christ : I try to walk at least a few miles on the road He showed us.

2. If you don't believe in a creator, how did all things come to be?
I have no clue, I was not there. I don’t care either, we’ll never know for sure anyway. Science goes back to the Big Bang, and the first questions that rise then are : And what before the Big Bang? Where did that one come from? Religion goes back to a Creator, and the first questions that rise then are: And where did that Creater come from? Why did He wait so long? What did He do before he Created?
I don’t go for the strict Creationist view though : there is a big discrepancy between what’s said in the Bible, and the reality we see. Genesis is a static story : some things were created, and that’s that. Nothing on bacteria and virusses and their incredible fast evolution (although essential for life!) for example. It also does not give any explanation as why or how new stars are born now and old stars explode (as noticed by astrophysicians). According to Genesis, stars were created once. Another example is what we call “micro-evolution”: especially for lower organisms, fundamental changes in their appearance and behavior can be noticed within one century. Imagine how they would have been evolved in 7000-and-a-bit-years. That 7000-and-a-bit years is also pretty hard to believe; everybody who knows even a bit of radio-active half life realizes that for this to be true, current physical laws have to be violated. I know, God can make these laws and break these, but still.

3. What basis is there for saying anything is right or wrong without an objective Lawgiver behind these concepts? How can there be any basis for a real morality rather than pragmatism?
Well, there is no basis. Everybody has his own ideas about what’s right and what’s wrong. Even Christians have their own ideas about it. When reading different blogs, it’s more than obvious : a lot of devoted Christians disagree on fundamental things.
One of my favorites is death penalty : this can be justified by a lot of quotes from the Bible, and a lot of Christians refer to them when defending death penalty (cfr. the Bush administration) Yet Jesus said “whoever is without sins, …”. And even this is seen by some as a condemnation of the death penalty, and by others not.
Or the war in Iraq : although murder is wrong, following the bible it is justified to kill by the dozen when you do it in the name of God. You can even send you rival to the front, let him get killed, marry his wife and get away with it, if you pray hard enough. I put it in a rather blunt way, but sad enough some discussions among christians on the war in Iraq come down to the same.
Personally, my guidance is my empathy : Treat others like they want you to treat them. That’s a fair start I suppose. I also try to gain at least a bit of the unconditional love and compassion He feels for His children, and I hope this love will keep me from hurting others. I try to be grateful for everything that overcomes me, for even from sad things you benefit by learning, and the worst catastrophe is the best lesson for empathy, compassion, gratitude and grace. It’s a bit more difficult when it comes down to hurting myself, but there I try to let myself be guided by respect for His creation : He gave me a body I have to respect, he gave me a mind I should keep clear.

4. What awaits people after death?
Again, no clue, I haven’t been there yet (at least, not that I can remember). I like to believe that people who died, are now in a place where they can still feel my love, and where they wait for me. Whether I will come back again afterwards, go to heaven or go to hell, that’s something I’ll only know when my time is there. Again, all religions say something different, and it cannot be that they’re all right. But I like to believe that at least the people that I miss, look down on me and know that I try my best.

5. What is it about the Christian faith and philosophy you most dislike, and why?
What I dislike most about Christianity (and every other belief) is that their way of belief and worshipping is often put up as “the only way” and they condemn everybody who is not agreeing with their idea to hell. Muslims see the whole worshipping of Jesus as idolatry: only God should be worshipped. Jews didn’t like all the things Jesus said. Yet they all pray to the same God of Abraham. And they all say they know “the way”.

6. A statement commonly heard among non-Christians is "that's your truth, but it's not mine (or something like that). How can truth, which is, by definition, that which is objectively real, be seen as subjective? (I will grant that sometimes what is true is invisible and non-material). How can two contradictory statements or beliefs both be true?
Exactly my point: two contradictory statements cannot both be true. God cannot both agree with death penalty and disagree with death penalty. There are numerous translations of the bible, and some of them are quite different; they cannot all be the same Word of God. There are numerous views on Jesus and faith within christianity, and they cannot all be true. There is a lot of similarity but a lot of discrepancy as well between the three main religions that pray to the God of Abraham, and they cannot all be true.
So truth is this case is not so much a reality, but a collection of different conceptions of that same reality. In that case, your truth can be different from mine.

Note :
This said, I like to stretch that I have an enormous respect for everybody who takes his firm belief as a guidance in life. I value faith, and especially Christian faith, a lot higher than one would conclude from my raving here. I hope the disillusions and doubts that I explained and that form the base of my current view can count on your Christian grace and understanding.

On how I believe part I: the road I took

After a short but inspiring discussion with Samantha on the blog of not-crunchy, I felt it was about time to reflect a bit on how my belief evolved and where I’m standing now. I’ll start with the evolution in my thinking, and I will give my current view on things in a next post.

I started as a very convinced catholic, one of those kids dressed in white that carries the bread and wine to the priest during the celebrations, ringing the bell when everybody had to rise, … Unfortunately, the priest we had in our hometown was not exactly the kind of figure that reflects the message of Jesus. In contrary, his rather extensive beer consumption and total lack of empathy for refugees in our village are the main causes of my first big disappointment in the Church. After reading some more of the Bible and looking a bit more sceptical towards the actions of other Christians, I saw a lot of Pharisees but hardly any Samaritans. Realizing that God had created a world full of madness, pain and lies, I grew angry on Him for hurting the people I love so badly. Even more, I found Him selfish : first tempting us to be dragged to sin, and then asking complete devotion to be forgiven. I turned away from Him in anger and turned myself to the other side.

So I started to read the “satanic bible”. Although I have to admit that LaVey (the “satanic pope” and author of the satanic bible) is not as scary as most christians think he is, he still preaches things I don’t agree with. I have to point out that his version of satanism is not so much into worshipping satan (since worshipping is something done by christians as well), but very much into leading a life full of egoism and without empathy for others. His credo is: “the God that saves you will be yourself”

In fact, what La Vey preaches is a very common way of living in our society, even among people calling themselves christian (sadly, but it is a fact!). Because I did not want to walk that same path, I left that path again, and looked elsewhere for answers.

One guy showed me a way I could follow : the Dalai Lama. Through him I rediscovered the concept of empathy and compassion, of loving your ennemy, of being grateful for whatever happens, because life is the most precious gift you have. But most of all, what appealed me so much in the words of the Dalai Lama was that he did only talk of “a” way, not “the” way. All other religions and philosophers told me that they were right and all the rest was wrong, but for a soul floating on an ocean of conflicting ideas, it’s impossible to tell which one is telling the truth. For if only one is right, all the others must lie : jews, sunnites, shiites, catholics, protestants, anglicans, orthodox christians, newborns, baptists, hindus, Hare Krishna fellows,…

I read the works of some philosophers and books from other religions. I also rediscovered the bible, although I read it in a different way than I used to do. I took His existence for granted, yet, I couldn’t ask for His forgiveness, for I didn’t deserve it. And I still didn’t feel the need to worship Him. I even wouldn't have a clue how, because everybody seemed to have his own way.

And then I met an angel. She was (still is) a very convinced and active baptist, with a firm belief and an overwhelming kindness. But most of all, even today I am convinced that she was sent to me by the Big Guy Himself to kick some sense in me. I still don’t pray, I still don’t ask for forgiveness, I still don’t go to church when not necessary, but I learned again about unconditional love and complete devotion. And although I was not ready to accept it, I learned a lot from her love. The love He feels for His people must be something similar, and even greater. So I reckon that He understands my struggle, and I hope that He understands my way of prayer. I don't pray in church, but I try to do it every time when face to face with the least of His children, remembering His words :

“Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
(Matthew 25:40)

Blogger International Interviews: the answers

As I settle in my chair, laughing lots and fidgeting until that chair starts groaning from this physical abuse, my host Jeannine runs through her questions and puts on a glorious smile from ear to ear (as allways) before she fires the first one :

1. What is the best thing about where you live?
I live in Antwerp, also known as “the Center of the Universe”. For people who don’t know the nicest city of the world, we’re famous for (among other things) our great cathedral, our well preserved Middle Age buildings, our 6 wordlfamous fashion designers (Ann Demeulemeester, Dirk Bikkenbergs, Dirk Van Saene, Dries Van Noten, Marina Yee and Walter Van Beirendonck) and off course, our enormous modesty. People that heard little of our city, only remember that we have a quite big extreme right-wing party (the Flemish Block, now called “Vlaams Belang” or “Flemish Intrest”).

Well, don’t let yourself be fooled : the greatest thing about Antwerp is the intense mix of colors and cultures. Although there are more than 70 nationalities living in our city, the city is not so much divided into quarters. One can find all kind of people everywhere through the whole city. This means that you can dance salsa in a cuban café between a pakistani night shop and a Greek restaurant, after listening to a Venezuelan-Argentinian guitar performance in a dutch literature pub across the street.

More info can be found on The tourism website of Antwerp

or the website of Trabel.com


2. Which is your pet plan for the future?
This question assumes that I would have more than one plan for the future. In fact, the strange truth is that I do not really have any future plans any more. Once I dreamt of emigrating from Belgium as soon as possible, doing great things in Science and changing the earth, but the most important thing for me now is making sure I have a steady job so I don’t have to worry about what to eat tomorrow. I’m even considering bying an appartment or a small house in the near future (like in two years or so). Not so much because I need to be settled, because I don’t really bother with that. But I found out that when you‘re comfortable yourself, it’s a lot easier to help out other people. So I gave up changing the earth at once, I started doing it in little pieces. Call that my pet plan for the future : bringing a bit of sunshine to those who can use some whenever possible.
However, there is still that part of me that is longing for a quiet place in the middle of nature, and who knows I will end up finding myself either in a far away country, or in a Belgian monastery brewing the best beer in the world :-)

3. Which public figure has influenced you the most, for good or for bad?
(I start sweating from the intense efforts these questions ask of my poor brains)
I can’t really point out one public figure that has influenced me most. If I have to pick one, I would go for the Dalai Lama. My thinking is influenced to quite some extent by the Dalai Lama, although I would not go as far as to call myself a buddhist. But some of his views, especially on empathy, anger, sorrow and pain, are a great inspiration for me and helped me finding at least a bit of inner peace I look for so long already.
As an extra, I would like to mention Kahlil Gibran, libanese poet and author of “the Prophet”. When I first learned about his existence, I was especially amazed about his life : being a libanese guy emigrated to the US, he became one of the most famous poets and writers of the States, and tons of people have “the Prophet” lying next to their beds. I wondered why that was, and started reading whatever I could find from him. At that point, I was amazed a second time, this time about both the passion and the wisdom on which his whole work is built. Although I only know him pretty well for only a year, his influence on my view on life cannot be ignored.

4. What is you[r] favorite song? Why?
I cannot answer this question without doing injustice to tons of other great, inspiring, touching or merely brilliant songs. Next, I have to restrict myself to a very rigid definition of “song”. Otherwise I would take the whole Requiem of Mozart as my favorite vocal piece of music, but this brilliant work of art is a class on its own.

This said, I proudly present you my favorite song :
Old Shoes (and Pictures Postcards) of Tom Waits. This song can be found on his first CD, Closing Times. First I have to admit that Tom Waits is my all times favorite musical genious, and my favorite song could be any of his masterpieces, depending on the situation and the mood I’m in. But I chose this one, because it struck me some time ago by being so incredible recognizable. I’ve been listening to it over and over again, letting tears run freely for the pain it touched so accurately. The way Tom Waits paints a whole set of complex and contradictory feelings with just a few lines, is more than genious.

5. What do you absolutely want to share with the fellow bloggers who read this interview?
Finally an easy question. I am what they call a “restless soul”, lacking any great target to head to. In that respect, I have an enormous admiration for people who take their strong belief as a guidance in life. One day, I was going through some of the texts of Kahlil Gibran when I read a sentence that hit me like a rock. From then, I decided to change my attitude towards life radically. In fact, it cured me from some unhealthy ambition, and opened my eyes for the real important things in life. There we go :

For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed.
--- Kahlil Gibran (in “The Prophet”)---


This said, It's my turn to host another session of Blogger International Interviews. When you dare facing my questions, just follow these easy instructions :

1. Leave me a comment saying "interview me." I will interview at least the first five who leave a comment “Interview me”.
2. I will respond by asking you five questions.
3. You will update your blog/site with the answers to the questions.
4. You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions.

So long...

Blogger International Interviews

Yes, indeed, it spreads as a contagious sickness. It cannot be kept under control. It is raging over the wires. It is lifted to complete madness. Yes indeed, I'm talking about the Blogger International Interviews!

I don't know who started it, but here is how it works : somebody was asked five questions. This somebody answers those questions on his own blog, and adds an explanation of how exactly to proceed from there. At least the first five passengers that like to be interviewed, can leave a comment on the interview saying "interview me", and can pick up their questions there later on. They have to answer them on their own blog, after which some more people can ask for questions, which are then answered on their blogs, and... You should get the picture by now.

I'm expecting a set of inspiring questions from Jeannine (with great coffeegirlthoughts) to answer. She was interviewed by Catez from Allthings2all, and has now the heavy duty upon her shoulders to fire some questions to me.

I'm excited, not only about the questions. In fact I'm at least equally curious about who will dare to be interviewed by me...

Go elsewhere!

Unwanted visitors, what do I hate them. They come unasked, they almost literally tie you to your place, they disturb any kind of normal activity you might have planned, they make sure the rest of the world is avoiding your presence and they never leave early enough. And there is no way making them clear they're unwanted, except by using the heavy stuff. And even then they tend to struggle until you blow your own nose to pieces.

Indeed, they passed by again. Every year they manage to pay me a visit, as usual that very moment they're most unwanted. Wednesday evening they struck me already, and from thursday until sunday they did not leave me one minute of peace. The whole place had to be invaded, to such extent that my mom passed by with tons of food, vitamins (you know moms), fresh tea, ... She even managed to take some of my laundry home, something she wouldn't even dare to think about when I am running around without those bastards. Anyway, my whole weekend was filled with loud barks and tons of slimy business, and going to work on monday was even a relief, albeit a very feeble one. So far for the planned quality time with the family. Bloody Bastards!

...

It must be true : men nag your ears off when they have the flu.