Tuesday 20 June 2017

Love will win

With recent terror and criminal activities at the forefront of everyone's mind, the new 'hashtag' #lovewillwin has emerged.

But what kind of love are we talking about? Not all love will win against terror campaigns.

English just has one word 'love' to represent a whole multitude of things. The love I have for sweet food will not win against terrorism. The love I have for my wife will also not win against terrorism. The ancient Greeks had a number of words for love:

1. Eros
From which we get the word 'erotic,' this is the intimate love a person has for their spouse. It was this kind of love which drove the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and was the undertone of the anti-war slogan "Make love, not war."

2. Storge
This type of love describes the strong bond between a parent and child. When a father tells his daughter that he loves her, it does not mean he's an incestuous paedophile: he refers to the storge love, not the eros love.

3. Phileo
From where we get the suffix '-phile': an Anglophile is someone who loves England, or rather, is a friend of England. This is the love between friends. When people sign letters with 'lots of love,' they are not initiating extra-marital relations, they are merely expressing friendship.

4. Agape
This is often referred to as self-sacrificial love. It's the type of love that goes out of its way to care for others. It is the unconditional love that the Bible says God has for the world.

Agape is the only love that will win.
But it's often misunderstood.

Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. Or, more correctly, to agape God and to agape our neighbour. The same love we should have of God should be the same love we have for the people around us.

After his resurrection, Jesus seems to ask Peter three times if he loves him. This is actually incorrect. The first two times, Jesus asks, "Peter, do you agape me?"
Both times, Peter responds, "I phileo you."
Then Jesus finally asks, "Peter, do you phileo me?"
At this, Peter must be rather annoyed because he's already told Jesus twice that he has phileo for him, and he repeats it a third time.

Jesus calls us to agape each other. But the Christian church has copied Peter. Today's version of Christianity is full of 'acts of kindness' which, although not a bad thing, is phileo love for others. You would buy your friend a gift, you would take your friend out for coffee or for a meal. Even buying someone a Bible is only a display of phileo. The personal cost is not much, only a bit of money.

Jesus says that no one has greater agape than to lay down their lives for their friends. The love Jesus wants us to have, that his followers should display, is that of denying ourselves and putting first the Kingdom of God.

Jesus showed us how to live: calling for people to repent because the Kingdom is here, and displaying the power of that Kingdom through healings, miracles, casting out demons, raising the dead and so on. Unfortunately, Christian leaders are happy to call people to repent, but the rest of it is too difficult. Those 'other things' might make us look silly. It might draw unwanted attention. It might land us with persecution... and yet Jesus says we are blessed when we are persecuted!

The Gospel of Jesus is not just a 'hope in life after death': it has power now. We are to expect the incredible and ask for the impossible.

If Christians took their call seriously, just imagine the headlines:
"Suicide bomber raised back to life so that he can face justice."
"Driver ploughs into pedestrians: ambulance called just in case, but group of Christians healed all the victims."
"Terrorists hijack plane and crash-land: 3 dead, all terrorists."
"Teenager jumps suicidally from 10th floor: a couple of nearby Christians raise her from death and give her a renewed hope for life."
"Cancer research goes bankrupt: patients flocking to church due to much higher success rates."

The agape love will win. Christians just need to learn to embrace it. That is the Gospel of Jesus. It's what Jesus calls us to do. We need to get back to that: deny our materialist, consumerist culture; accept that some sicknesses really are evil-induced; share our things with no strings attached; learn to agape each other. The true victory is in Jesus, when we learn to agape him.

Expect the incredible; ask for the impossible.

Monday 19 June 2017

"Terrorism" is overused

It seems that nowadays every incident designed to inflict injury and/or death on others is an act of 'terrorism.'

But 'terrorism' implies forcing a particular agenda/ideology through fear tactics: making people succumb due to terror.

ISIS is a group which force their way through terror. People join their group and commit violent acts in the name of the group. Perhaps ISIS have claimed responsibility for attacks which haven't really been related, but this would be purely to promote their methodology: inciting change through fear.

But we can't just call everything 'terrorism.'

The Westminster attack on 22nd March was committed by a person who was waging jihad. ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The Manchester arena suicide bombing on 22nd May was committed by a person who may have been acting alone. But he was a Muslim, and his attack falls in line with particular Muslim ideologies. Plus, ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The London Bridge attack on 3rd June... ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The prevailing trend is that a normal person wouldn't do such things, and therefore these people must have been 'radicalised.' This is why there is the 'Prevent' strategy in place to try to prevent radicalisation.

The problem with labelling everything a 'terror attack' is that not everyone is 'radicalised' like that. It's not prolonged brainwashing that causes all people to commit evil.

And this is where the problem lies.

The Finsbury Park attack on 19th June was committed by a white British citizen. He is not linked to ISIS or any 'terror group.' This attack was not an act of terrorism.

That's not to say that what the man did is acceptable: it is still an act of evil. But it is one man who fancies himself a vigilante. He has mistakenly thought that all Muslims are terrorists, just because a few of them are. His vigilante efforts were aimed at the wrong people, so instead of being attempted justice, it was a tragic act of injustice.

Like many other white British citizens, I do not with to see my 'motherland' destroyed by Muslim extremists, or by any other force of terrorism. I think such people should be stopped.

Also, like many other white British citizens, I see a trend in these acts of terrorism... that they are committed by Muslim extremists. Because of this trend, it would seem sensible to investigate all suspicious people, but especially suspicious Muslims... but given the culture of the day, such investigative methods are seen as discriminatory and racist.

And yet, it is the same process of deduction as knowing a suspect is most likely male, and so only investigating suspicious males who fit the description... such efforts could be considered sexist if the police didn't investigate both sexes equally. But it is this very nature of selective investigation that allows police forces to solve crimes quickly and efficiently. Political correctness has become a blight on such investigations.

And it is this political correctness that makes people lose faith in the police and in government policy. The leading officials have effectively shot themselves in the foot. And this is the reason that a vigilante acted as such at Finsbury Park.

Twitter comments have gone crazy over the 'discrimination' at how the Finsbury Park attack was reported, compared with the other terror attacks. It is because Finsbury Park was not an act of terrorism. And yet, it seems that the news channels have succumbed to the political correctness and peer pressure of the social media:
The Guardian is calling it a terror attack.
As is The Telegraph.
As is CNN.

It's all part of the exaggeration culture that Britain has adopted for itself.

British citizens are fed up with violence committed in the name of a 'holy war.' But this is exactly what ISIS is about. Europe is at war with these 'jihads.' A thousand years ago, we called them the crusades. It's the same thing, but with new technology.

A world apart

Every week, UK news headlines show a nation more and more divided. Britain is, quite literally, on the brink of war.

It comes in two parts:

Racially
Muslim extremists and the role of ISIS (who seem to claim everything as part of their terror campaign) have developed a huge distrust of Muslims. The peaceful Muslims are branded the same as the extremists - after all, how can you tell them apart?

Civilised British citizens (including Muslims) don't want terrorism as part of their culture. But it has got to the stage where people will - or have already - start taking 'justice' into their own hands. Acts of terror will be committed by any vigilante:
- Angered Muslim extremists, because their version of sharia law isn't being followed by the British justice department;
- Angered white British citizens, because they don't feel the police are doing their jobs and because they feel the government 'policies' on immigration are too soft.

Politically
It's no surprise that news stories often get polluted with political bias, but recently it has become rather strong. Jeremy Corbyn, probably annoyed at not having won the general election, recommended Theresa May to resign after the election wasn't as strong in her favour as she expected (note: it was much more in favour of her than of Corbyn), and then blasts the government over failures regarding the Grenfell Tower incident.

Government parties seem forever pulling each other down, rather than working together for a better Britain. Even within parties, there are certain individuals wanting to make a power play.


The nation is divided. 'Tolerance' is only for the few who stay out of the way. There is already civil unrest. People respond with exaggerated reactions. Unless big changes come, there will be war.

Social media pressure

There is such huge pressure to be on social media sites.
News reports often quote Twitter comments.
I was just reading this article and wanted to leave a comment... but I had to log into Facebook in order to do so!

All of this tells us something very interesting about how the world has become: if you're not electronically connected, you're not important.

The article even points out that "the more we seem to embrace this social media-managed consumerism, the more unhappy our children become."

It's not just children. It's marriages too. (This article too.) The pressure to be connected and then to stay connected is huge. But this addiction causes a lot of depression. Internet bullying is rampant - not just amongst kids - as people feel that they are not shirking their duty as a civilised member of society by posting exaggerated and insulting comments on the internet.

Because humanity is incapable of treating technological advances properly, social media has become just another way for people to wage war against each other. Facebook has a tragic side which most people want to ignore.

It is that side of Facebook that made me come off it back in 2009. I have never looked back, never had any regrets. I might not be as 'informed' on the social life of people I might have met once or twice, but my life doesn't suffer from Facebook-addiction. Yes, there are some people I have lost contact with, but I retained the ability to make new friends.

Many people tell me that I should go back to Facebook, that I don't have to be so involved. I refuse to give into that kind of peer-pressure.

But now I'm finding that to be a part of online communities (and it's only a few communities), there is more pressure to re-sign up to Facebook.

It's as if Facebook has just become part of normal life. The term "Facebook official" is, quite honestly, laughable, yet so many people succumb. It's as if my refusal to be involved with Facebook makes me unacceptable to the internet community.

It's all or nothing: let yourself get sucked in, or be gone from the internet.

I'd rather be gone from the internet. There's no match for having real human beings for friends, rather than a Facebook façade.

Thursday 15 June 2017

Taking things out of context

I don't know much about the DUP that Theresa May is trying to work with. What I was surprised to find, though, is that this article does a great job of misrepresenting the truth.

The Metro is a free newspaper and can be found all over the UK. A lot of people read it, even myself when I've been on public transport.

Links to terrorism
The article claims the DUP has links to terrorism, particularly the Ulster Resistance. The Ulster Resistance, along with the IRA, opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. Interestingly, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), which the article describes as "relatively harmless", also opposed the Agreement.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party, also opposed the Agreement. Does that make him a terrorist too? No, because he didn't engage in violent protests.

Sinn Féin also opposed the Agreement... because it would be official that Northern Ireland was part of the UK and not part of the Republic of Ireland.

But the Ulster Resistance opposed the Agreement because it would make it easier for Northern Ireland to be reclaimed by the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the Ulster Resistance was fighting for Northern Ireland to remain part of UK... essentially fighting for the UK's interests.

According to this logic, the protests following the Brexit referendum was also an act of terrorism. Good one, Metro.

Women's Rights
The article says that the DUP is against women's rights and talks of their stance on abortion. It portrays the DUP in a negative light when the reality is that the DUP are simply pro-life. They believe in the rights of the unborn child. The comment would imply that the Metro doesn't believe unborn babies have rights.

Personally, if a woman (or a man) doesn't want to be responsible for a child... don't have sex. Such a simple solution. But no, people want sexual freedom without the responsibility that comes with it.

(Note: Rape victims are in a different category because they didn't consent to sex.)

Same Sex Marriage
Actually, the majority of the world hasn't succumbed to same-sex marriage. Just because David Cameron pushed it through parliament for the rest of the UK, that doesn't mean it's universal. I wonder what the result would have been if Cameron had had a referendum on it?

Accusations of Racism
It is a fallacy to quote an example of one individual and apply it to the whole party.

Creationism
Evolution isn't scientifically proven, and probably never will be (due to the need for millions of years of observation, rather than backward extrapolation of limited data). Unfortunately, scientific and political agendas have pushed evolution as 'fact' and marginalised other explanations of humanity's origin. And when it comes to finding 'proof', philosophical arguments are often discredited by scientists who favour their own theoretical and unproven ideas.

Brexit
The article at least has an unbiased factual statement regarding the DUP's position on Brexit.



On a tangent...

What I also find incredibly interesting is in the 'comments' section of the article. Since the main reason for the article was Theresa May's apparent forgetfulness of all the letters of the LGBT group, one comment reads:
"Can you really blame her? An extra letter seems to get added every other month."

This was actually my thought too. It was only in the last year that I found that some people added a 'Q' on the end. Some people add an 'I' as well, others an 'A'. Many people put a '+' in there too just to try to cover everything. It all boils down to a culture of people taking offence over insignificant things. And the Metro put it as an article so that the public could rally together at such 'offensiveness'.

But there's a reply to the comment which includes (and I've included the bad English for purity of the quote):
"... it ain't forgetting a few letters , those letters represent people she as prime minister has a DUTY to help defend, if she's too much of a dimbulb to even remember the letters then how the hell is she going to remember the opeople those letter represent?"

And that's where I get annoyed.

I am also a person that my government is supposed to have a duty to represent. I am not 'homophobic' (I don't 'hate' LGBTetc. people and I don't have an irrational fear of them), I simply believe that endorsing such activities will ultimately be detrimental to family life and to young people's childhood. I believe that it will pave the way for further 'freedoms' currently considered wrong, such as polygamy and paedophilia.

Adulterous behaviour ruins marriages, families and friendships, and I believe there should be a law against it... yet it is not illegal to commit adultery. Being 'legal' does not make something moral or ethical.

Unfortunately, from reading many articles and comments, I believe I am considered 'intolerant' and 'bigoted' and probably get slapped with 'fundamentalism' and 'extremism' for my views. And who would call me such derogatory and insulting things? The 'tolerant' and 'politically-correct' LGBT group, of course!

Extremist Britain

Extremism in the UK isn't just about terrorists. The term gets applied to anyone who is in disagreement.

It all comes from a culture of exaggeration. Humour is founded on exaggeration (it's only a matter of time before 'Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman' jokes are considered racist) and comedians are often given similar speaking platforms as government officials (appearing on the same TV shows, for example).

Add to the mix the UK's national loss of identity, people revert to comedy in order to be liked, and this often involves exaggeration... or 'extremism'.

After the General Election, Jeremy Corbyn said Theresa May should resign... why? For overestimating her popularity and public support? That would be the same as sacking a teacher who predicted a pupil would achieve a grade A when the pupil obtained a grade B.

Plus, a number of petitions were started by the public, calling for Theresa May to resign. Here's one, here's another. The way the UK election is set up, it allows for what's happening to happen. There is nothing illegal or immoral about it... it's just that a few people are angry that they didn't get what they wanted. It happened with Brexit.* American influence isn't particularly helpful either.

I thought that rebelling against a democratic system would be seen as... Undemocratic? Intolerant? Irrational? Or, to use more 'extreme' words... stupid, selfish and bigoted.

But would Jeremy Clarkson be considered and treated as an extremist... for saying strikers should be shot? The article even states that Clarkson "sometimes overstepped the mark in his quest for "comic" value."

Stating the facts is no longer seen as good for ratings. If I were to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson is simply quite immature, most would think that was an understatement. In order to win public favour, I would need to step-up the level of animosity: like Frankie Boyle (regarding a different incident) who called him a "cultural tumour" and a "growth".

Even David Attenborough sought after comedic praise by saying Donald Trump should be shot. But then, the response to such immature comments by some people were (according to the article)... death threats! An immature response to an immature comment.

Seriously, what hope is there for society?

We need to go back to calling a 'spade' a 'spade' and stop calling it a 'weapon of mass destruction'. News articles are guilty of exaggeration too.

And this is my point: we live in a society where people's reactions are completely disproportionate to facts and events. But sometimes the reaction is tolerated and sometimes it's not. It often depends of who has the loudest voice.

For example, if I made the following comment:
"LBGT, transgender and gay marriage supporters are intolerant bigots and homosexuality is a cancer, not just to the nation, but to the universe."
There would be huge backlash, not just from those groups but if my boss found out, I would be forced to publicly apologise and remove the comment. I would be called a bigot, fundamentalist, intolerant... I could even be done for hate crime! (Despite, of course, that view being traditional in Britain until the mid-1900s...)

But if I simply changed a few words... substituted "LGBT, transgender and gay marriage supporters" with 'Christians' and substituted "homosexuality" with 'Christianity'... nothing would happen.

But how is that justice?!

You can't counter 'extremist' comments with extremist reactions. For society to progress, we need to cut out the exaggeration and must learn to hold civilised discussion. The Western world is meant to be founded on such values, but we seem to have lost them!!

Is it any wonder that we are seeing a rise in extremist behaviour, when extreme language and comments are considered normal throughout our society, right to the highest levels of government?



*Please note the drawing of four penises on the picture of Nigel Farage's head in the photo on this link. Note also the seemingly joyous expression of the lady holding that picture. I wonder if this shows the level of maturity of those who would oppose democratic systems?

Targetting the innocent?

In a world gone digital, where traces can be put on keywords in any form of electronic communication, I was rather horrified to find the following in my 'spam' folder:


It's clever, isn't it? The "To Unsubscribe" statement makes it look as though I have already taken an interest and signed up to something. I wonder how far the "well, it was in my 'spam' folder, not my inbox" excuse - the truth - will get.

What is to happen with something like this?
Will I now be targetted by the police?
Will I be put on the 'possible terrorist' list?
Will they try to find some way of linking me with a radical group?
Will they say that my whole lifestyle is just an attempt to 'cover-up' my true nature?

Often, with spam emails, I copy and paste the text into Google to see what other people say about it (as those emails are usually sent to a group). But would that just raise more suspicion? It could be seen as me trying to 'look-up' how to get involved.

What if I report such an email?
Will that act in itself make me a suspect?
Would such an act be classed as an attempt to 'throw them off the scent' and work against me?

The truth can be twisted. Society has managed to eradicate trust. Vindictive people have the upper hand. Innocent until proven guilty is just a dream which idealists believe is reality.