Min verhale in die Nuwe Testament laat moderne lesers so ongemaklik soos die verhaal van Ananias en Saffira in Handelinge 5.

Dit is 'n kort verhaal, maar die implikasies daarvan is enorm.

Volgens die Bybel het die eerste Christene alles met mekaar gedeel. Sommige het selfs hul grond en huise verkoop en die opbrengs aan die apostels gegee sodat niemand gebrek sou ly nie. Net voor Handelinge 5 word Barnabas geloof omdat hy sy grond verkoop en die volle bedrag aan die apostels oorhandig.

Toe kom Ananias en sy vrou, Saffira.

Hulle verkoop ook 'n stuk grond. Anders as Barnabas hou hulle egter 'n deel van die geld vir hulself terug, terwyl hulle voorgee dat hulle die volle bedrag gee.

Wanneer Ananias die geld bring, konfronteer Petrus hom.

Hy sê Ananias het nie bloot vir mense gelieg nie, maar vir die Heilige Gees.

Die teks vertel dat Ananias onmiddellik neerval en sterf.

Ongeveer drie uur later kom Saffira daar aan. Sy weet nie wat met haar man gebeur het nie. Petrus vra haar dieselfde vraag. Sy hou by dieselfde weergawe van die verhaal.

Sy val ook neer.

En sy sterf.

Die hoofstuk eindig met die woorde:

"Groot vrees het oor die hele gemeente gekom."

Vir eeue word hierdie verhaal verstaan as 'n voorbeeld van God se onmiddellike oordeel.

Maar hier ontstaan 'n vraag wat selde gevra word.

Wat het daardie dag fisies gebeur?

Die eerlike antwoord is eenvoudig:

Ons weet nie.

Nie een van ons was daar nie.

Ons beskik oor een antieke teks wat deur 'n mens geskryf is. Soos met enige ander antieke dokument kan ons nie die gebeure self waarneem nie; ons kan slegs die skrywer se beskrywing en interpretasie lees.

En dit bring ons by 'n belangrike onderskeid.

Die teks vertel nie net dat Ananias en Saffira dood is nie.

Die teks vertel ook waarom hulle dood is.

Dit is reeds 'n interpretasie.

As ons die verhaal met dieselfde historiese nuuskierigheid lees waarmee ons enige ander antieke dokument sou lees, ontstaan daar verskeie moontlikhede.

1. Die tradisionele verklaring

Die eerste moontlikheid is eenvoudig die een wat die verhaal self bied.

Die Heilige Gees het bonatuurlik ingegryp en albei onmiddellik doodgemaak as oordeel oor hul leuen.

Vir miljoene Christene is dit steeds die mees oortuigende verklaring.

2. 'n Natuurlike mediese gebeurtenis

Nog 'n moontlikheid is dat Ananias en later Saffira aan 'n natuurlike mediese toestand beswyk het.

Mense kan onder geweldige emosionele spanning hartaanvalle, beroertes of ander akute mediese noodtoestande ervaar.

In die eerste eeu sou so 'n gebeurtenis maklik as Goddelike oordeel geïnterpreteer kon word.

3. Menslike geweld

Daar is ook 'n derde moontlikheid.

Dit is moontlik dat hulle deur mense om die lewe gebring is, en dat die verhaal later die verantwoordelikheid by God plaas.

Daar is geen direkte bewys daarvoor nie.

Maar daar is ook geen beskrywing in die teks van hoe die sterftes fisies plaasgevind het nie.

Vir sommige lesers is dit eenvoudiger om aan te neem dat mense geweld gepleeg het as dat 'n onsigbare bonatuurlike mag twee mense summier laat sterf het.

Dit is nie 'n bewering dat dit gebeur hét nie.

Dit is bloot een van die histories denkbare verklarings.

4. 'n Teologiese waarskuwingsverhaal

Nog 'n moontlikheid is dat Lukas nie probeer het om 'n moderne historiese verslag te skryf nie.

Miskien wou hy eerder 'n teologiese punt maak oor eerlikheid, die heiligheid van die vroeë kerk en die erns van skynheiligheid.

In hierdie lees is die verhaal minder 'n joernalistieke verslag as 'n geloofsgetuienis.

Occam se skeermes

Hier kan 'n mens die bekende beginsel van Occam se skeermes toepas.

Wanneer verskillende verklarings moontlik is, is die eenvoudigste verklaring – die een wat die minste nuwe aannames vereis – dikwels die waarskynlikste.

Maar selfs Occam se skeermes gee nie vir ons 'n finale antwoord nie.

Dit dwing ons bloot om eerlik te vra:

Watter aannames bring elke verklaring saam?

En waarom kies ons een verklaring bo 'n ander?

Die groter vraag

Wat hierdie verhaal vir my besonders interessant maak, is nie bloot hoe Ananias en Saffira gesterf het nie.

Die groter vraag is:

Wat doen ons wanneer 'n antieke teks vir ons vertel dat God iets gedoen het?

Aanvaar ons dit as 'n historiese beskrywing?

Of as die skrywer se interpretasie van 'n gebeurtenis?

Baie gelowiges antwoord dat die verhaal geïnspireerde teologiese literatuur is en nie noodwendig bedoel is as 'n moderne historiese verslag van presies wat fisies gebeur het nie.

Dit is 'n geldige standpunt.

Maar dit laat 'n volgende vraag ontstaan.

Hoe onderskei ons tussen historiese beskrywing en teologiese interpretasie?

Waar trek ons die lyn?

En wie trek daardie lyn?

As 'n leser self moet besluit watter gedeeltes histories gelees moet word en watter gedeeltes simbolies of teologies verstaan moet word, ontstaan 'n verdere filosofiese vraag.

Is die waarheid dan iets wat die Bybel objektief meedeel?

Of is dit uiteindelik iets wat elke leser, gelei deur sy of haar eie geloof, tradisie en interpretasie, self moet konstrueer?

Dit is nie noodwendig 'n kritiek op die Bybel nie.

Maar dit is wel 'n uitdaging aan die idee dat die betekenis van elke teks vanselfsprekend, letterlik en onproblematies vasstaan. As die Bybel aanspraak maak op metaforiese of teologiese waarheid wat verskil van ware waarheid, hoekom praat ons dan nog van waarheid in die eerste plek? Want net die reine waarheid is werklik waar.

Miskien is die belangrikste les van Handelinge 5 nie dat ons moet vrees dat God ons onmiddellik sal doodmaak as ons lieg nie.

Miskien is die belangrikste les dat eerlike mense moeilike vrae mag vra.

En dat geloof, soos waarheid, nooit bang behoort te wees vir eerlike ondersoek nie.

So wat is dit? Het die Heilige Gees gemoor? Of is met daai woorde deur die mens opgetoor? Wat het meer (morele) integriteit, God of die Bybel wat van God 'n moordenaar maak?

The role of religion in the Gaza conflict

Religion has a deterministic influence on the current situation in Gaza. From both sides, the

eternal unholy alliance between religion and state is unmistakably detectable in this crisis.

The whole world is crying out and condemning Israel for inhumane behaviour, even

genocide, as the Israeli Defence Force is pressing on with its land invasion of Gaza in its

pursuit of Hamas. Western news sources put the death toll in Gaza at 24,000 at the time of

this writing.

Human rights are a most laudable and commendable endeavour and are the foundation of

humanism, the prevailing ethical system in, e.g. middle Europe today, where I live. I

experience this daily, and it is demonstrably the foundation for a tolerant and civilised social

environment and lifestyle. In addition, the tendency to sympathise with and intuitively take

the side of the oppressed is undoubtedly also a praiseworthy human quality. However, in

this instance, I believe there is a bigger picture. Human rights are only possible and

sustainable in a democratic and free environment. And "free" means freedom of speech,

movement, ownership, sexual orientation and relationships, residence, etc.

There is not and will never be a democratic and free environment under Islamic rule. The

tenets of Islam make for a theocracy under Sharia law, enforced by jihad as proclaimed in

the Qur’an and the hadith. It is also Islam's vision for the whole world, with no exception.

Islam claims that theirs is the last and final revelation from God, and there cannot be

another one. The Qur'an is God's last word, comprising all the answers to the world's

problems. I have repeatedly heard these claims during the last ten years of my corporate

career, working with company representatives in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the

United Arab Emirates. And these claims came from a.o. graduate engineers.

The intense indoctrination, the fear of non-compliance, and the deeply ingrained belief that

their culture is superior are so strong, influenced by their holy scriptures and the

interpretations of imams and mullahs, that any reference to moderate Islamism becomes a

contradiction in terms. Here are two simple examples:

a) How many moderate Muslims publicly objected on the world stage when

Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989, issued a fatwa against the British writer Salman

Rushdie, ordering and giving any Muslim not only the right, but also the duty to

kill him on sight, at any time, any place? Not a single prominent Muslim openly

protested against the fatwa. When Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens, a 70s

British rocker) was asked whether he concurred with this fatwa, his answer was:

"Yes, this is justice."

In 1786 (when America was hardly a country), pirates under Ottoman rule

attacked American merchant ships in the Mediterranean, seized the cargo and

killed or enslaved the crew. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (later the 2nd and

3rd presidents of the USA) went to Tripoli to complain to the Ottoman ambassador

Abdul Rahman Adja, pointing out that America never had a gripe with the

Ottomans, was not part of the crusades and was not involved when the

b) Europeans fought the Muslims in Spain. Rahman's answer was simple: The

Qur’an gives Muslims the right and duty to make war upon infidels, enslave or kill

them, and take their property. Period.Israel is by far the most democratic and free society in all of the Middle East among a

multitude of Islamic totalitarian kingdoms and dictatorships run by kings, princes, emirs,

sultans and other despots. All of them hate Israel with a passion and will stop at nothing

before the state of Israel is run "from the river into the ocean" and obliterated from the face

of the earth. Their religion presses it upon them, not only as a right but as a duty. This hate

was not born with the statehood of Israel in 1948; I would venture as far as to say that it has

been there ever since Mohammad couldn't compete with the Jews as a businessman, and

when he came up with his God revelation story, the Jews were the first to reject it as

nonsense. It does not matter what Israel has done in the past or will do in the future; this

hate has always been there and will always be there. In my opinion, the primary reason for

anti-semitism in the “civilised” world stems from envy. I believe there has never been such a

small minority of people - only 16 million Jews in the world today, after 6 million were wiped

out 70 years ago – who have demonstrated exceptional superiority in finance, technology,

innovation, and resilience like the Jewish community has.

Israel is fighting for its very survival as a state. It is my opinion that if Israel agrees to a long-

term ceasefire and pulls back from Gaza at this point, it could be the beginning of the end of

the state of Israel. It is also not unlikely that antisemitism will get another scary boost, as

Jew-haters all over the world will start crawling out of the woodwork again. The democratic

and free world will lose out to a backward and dangerous culture, growing by leaps and

bounds and financed by indulgent riches simply oozing from the ground.

I see a difference between terrorism and collateral damage. When a group intentionally and

deterministically target innocent women, children, and even babies and indiscriminately

kills, rape and murders and takes survivors into captivity to use as bargaining chips - that is

called terrorism. When their supporters, at the same time, gleefully participate by taking

pictures and videos, sending these across the globe to celebrate the slaughter - that is

called barbaric terrorism. Incidentally, in the week after the massacre of October 7, 2023,

before Israel lifted a finger, Islamic supporters all over the Western world gathered in their

thousands in the streets of Western capitals, celebrating the slaughter; the same as what

happened in the days immediately after 9/11.

When an army declares war against terrorists and, in its pursuit of them, tries its utmost to

minimise innocent deaths, made impossible by the terrorists hiding behind and using their

civilian population as human shields, resulting in huge numbers of innocent people getting

killed - that is called collateral damage. The deaths of innocent people in Gaza should be

primarily attributed to Hamas AND the ideologically indoctrinated Palestinian population that

supports them. The Israeli Defence Force pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and in a seemingly

free election in 2005, the Palestinians elected the militant and fundamentalist Hamas as

their representative government. Instead of using the millions of donation dollars from the

West to invest in the infrastructure and future of Palestine, Hamas used the money to build

thousands of meters of tunnels, planning their next attack on Israel, as the Arab states

around Israel have done time and time again since 1947. The Palestinians are now facing

the disastrous consequences of that election decision and their continued ideological

support of Hamas.

The argument about who the land belongs to goes back a very long time, but, in my

opinion, it is, for the most part, irrelevant. Colonisation, for example, was inevitable and

would have happened with any nation/civilisation/ethnical grouping in similar circumstances

(the same can be said of apartheid; it was unavoidable in some form or shape). I sum upmy position on this with the following hypothesis: If, for example, Julius Malema today

claims AND can prove beyond any doubt that he has Khoi San ancestry and therefore has

a claim to Southern Africa, my take would be: Tough luck, go away.

Bruwer Swanepoel

Author of Faith: Full Circle – The Religious Journey of a Baby-boomer Afrikaner

www.bruwerswanepoel.org

PS: As a general observation, it is my opinion that all three monotheistic religions are a

danger to the free, democratic, tolerant, civilised and progressive society we treasure in the

Western world. At this moment in history, though, Islam has revealed itself to be, by far, the

most dangerous of the three. It has been said that Islam has "bloody borders"; meaning that

where Islamic states have land borders with states with other religious beliefs, there exist

permanent border conflicts. Christopher Hitchens summed it up when he said: “Islam is

convinced of the superiority of its culture, but obsessed with the inferiority of its power”.

Believe if you must, but do not confuse Faith with Science.  

 Daar is geen sin in die lewe nie. 

- Die sin wat daar is, 

 is die sin wat jy aan jou lewe gee. 

I wrote the above piece inside the cover of a book (Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari) I gave to  my eldest daughter some time ago. It is the logical conclusion that anyone who understands  evolution by natural selection will arrive at. However, I have since reflected a lot on this statement,  and, as real as it is, I have come to realise that there is a non-rational, emotional dimension to it  that requires empathy.  

To be consistent, one must accept that for some people, the meaning and purpose of their lives is  their religion. Even though, for most churchgoers, their religiosity has far more in common with a  social club than with a way of life focused on and dedicated to their Lord in the first place, and  equally to others. I have crossed paths with a handful of believers for whom their faith truly is the  meaning and purpose of their lives. And I have learned to respect that. I hope I have become more  considerate about not offending people when expressing my opinion on religious matters, as  challenging as it can be, especially when confronted with ignorance, apathy, and general naivety,  which are often at the forefront.  

What I want to say with this is that faith is OK. That belief in an invisible, humanly  incomprehensible, supernatural being is OK when it ensures you a better quality of life.  Keep believing, stay happy and keep hoping for better things to come. I think everyone has  the right to hope and search for happiness. However, do not confuse faith with science.  

This brings me to the concept of Intelligent Design (ID), a relatively modern pseudoscientific  attempt to reconcile religion with science.  

Charles Darwin's 1859 publication "On the Origin of Species" fundamentally changed our  understanding of life on Earth. Darwin was not alone in his findings of the progressive  development of living organisms on Earth. At the same time, but independently of Darwin, Alfred  Russel Wallace reached the same conclusions. Free-thinking and intelligent people at the time  built on the Enlightenment that had begun in Europe 150 years earlier and increasingly freed  themselves from the indoctrinating and addictive influence of religion.  

After Darwin substantiated his hypothesis of gradual change through natural selection in species,  most laughed and scoffed. However, the laughter and jeers became less and less as one scientific  discipline after another confirmed evolution by natural selection as reality, and the theory of  evolution became an existential threat to the three monotheistic religions. Many of the concepts in  the Bible were challenged. For example, the Bible has it that God first created Adam from the  ground and thereafter Eve from Adam's rib, remarkably "in His own image" and even added a  talking snake. Evolution, of course, directly and powerfully opposes the creation stories of Genesis  1-3, exposing them as myths or metaphors at best.  

The image of God again had to adapt to new realities, as it has incessantly adapted to changing  circumstances and environments over many thousands of years. The church's dogma had come  under increasing pressure, and the church had to respond. When the Roman Catholic Church, in a  1950 statement by Pope Pius XII, declared that there was no inherent conflict between evolution  and the church's ecclesiastical doctrine concerning man and his vocation on earth, the writing was 

proverbially against the wall regarding the authority of the infallible Word of God. Fortunately for  the church, the declaration of Pope Pius XII also had the caveat "...provided that certain  precautions are maintained, such as the belief in the divine creation of souls". Of course, Darwin  and science know no such thing as a "soul". A soul is a matter of faith, not an entity that can be  scientifically proven or experienced through the senses. There remained, therefore, an  uncomfortable tension between the theory of evolution and the church's doctrine.  

However, knowledge and innovation also grew among intelligent and thinking clergymen, and the  church came up with an innovative concept: Put God in charge of the evolutionary process,  and the problem is solved! This was exactly what happened, and the idea of Intelligent Design  was born. However, it grew rapidly only in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in the USA, where  sufficient funding was available to support any theme or ideology. Wealthy believers pump in large  amounts of money to protect Christianity from the secularisation of Europe, which has now  received a significant scientific boost from the theory of evolution.  

Intelligent Design is a concept that fits in well with the age-old "God-of-the-Gaps" phenomenon.  The "God-of-the-Gaps" concept was first used by the Scottish scientist and evangelist Henry  Drummond in his 1904 book The Ascent of Man. He believed that evolution was divinely guided  and employed arguments, provocative and controversial to both sides, to reconcile evolution with  a creator God. The "God-of-the-Gaps" strategy boils down to creationists (people who believe that  God designed and created everything in the universe) proactively and eagerly seeking gaps in  contemporary knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena. If an apparent gap is found, it  is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. Areas where a lack of data or understanding exists are  automatically considered to belong to God. Such episodes in the history of science became so  common that the term "God-of-the-Gaps" was coined to label the process of invoking God to  account for natural phenomena not yet explained by science.  

There are, and always have been, unanswered questions, such as: Is our universe the first, last,  or only universe? Or, how old are the Earth and the Sun? Or, what caused the Big Bang and what  was before the Big Bang? Or, what does a black hole's singularity (core) consist of? The further  one ventures into the past, the more unanswered questions there are. What worries thoughtful  theologians (and there are increasingly more of them today) is that gaps in knowledge shrink and  disappear as scientific evidence advances. As scientists fill the gaps, God has less and less to do  and is threatened with eventually having nothing more to do. A famous example that highlights the  God-of-the-Gaps concept involves two prominent scientists, Newton and Simon-Laplace, who  lived a century apart.  

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), in his 3-volume Principia Mathematica, laid the foundation for  classical mechanics, and his natural laws and mathematical formulas could predict and determine  the movement and positions of the planets with astonishing accuracy. However, there were two  phenomena that Newton could not explain: a) the formation of celestial bodies in an elegant flat  plane and rotation in the same direction, and b) he was concerned that an accumulation of the  small gravitational interactions between, e.g. the earth and Mars, when the earth overtakes Mars  in its orbit around the sun, would disrupt the smooth running of the solar system. As a religious  man (like most scholars of his time), Newton believed that God's intervention was necessary to  initiate and then regulate the movement of the planets in the first case, and that his periodic  intervention was necessary to ensure the smooth running and stability of the solar system in the  second case. He believed that natural forces alone could not explain the elegance and harmony of  our solar system.  

Pierre Simon-Laplace (1749-1827) was later able to expand on a hundred years of scientific and  mathematical progress since Newton. He built on the work of Newton and others and wrote a  wide-ranging text (the 5-volume Celestial Mechanics) that explained the workings of celestial  bodies in much greater detail than Newton had. In his magnum opus, Simon-Laplace provided a  comprehensive explanation of the dynamics of the solar system based on gravitational forces 

alone, without the need for divine intervention. While Newton appealed to divine intervention for  aspects he could not reconcile mathematically, Simon-Laplace's work showed that the laws of  mechanics and gravity accounted for even highly complex and seemingly irregular motions of the  planets.  

When Simon-Laplace was asked why God, as the creator, was not mentioned anywhere in his  work (as it was in Newton’s work), he famously replied: “I had no need of that hypothesis”. Simon Laplace’s work caused a paradigm shift, and explanations grounded in natural laws gained  dominance over those grounded in supernatural causes.  

Hebrews 11:1 (Bible, New International Version) gives us a clear definition of what faith is: "Now  faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see". And this  definition, to me, is synonymous with the theory of Intelligent Design. The case for an Intelligent  Designer is based on faith, not science.  

One should critically consider every statement or argument of the proponents of ID. They do not  have, nor do they offer, a single answer to any of today's vexing questions. All they do, in effect, is  question scientific theories that address the tantalising questions and point out that these theories  have not yet been proven beyond all doubt. AND THEN takes the leap of faith and insists that an  omnipotent and omniscient God is not only part of the answer but even designed and/or  produced/created the inexplicable situation. Yet, they never present any testable hypotheses or  predictions to support their claims, a fundamental requirement of a scientific investigation.  

Proponents of ID often use the argument of "irreducible complexity", which states that specific  biological structures are too complex to evolve incrementally through natural selection. However,  research has shown that what appears irreducibly complex can often evolve through natural  processes. Examples once presented as irreducibly complex, such as the eye, the immune  system, and the bacterial flagellum, have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. I  think part of the problem here is evolution's unfathomable timeline, a mental obstacle for most of  us.  

Many proponents of ID appear to misunderstand and/or misrepresent evolutionary theory. For  example, they focus on gaps in the fossil record (many of which exist) without acknowledging the  wealth of supporting evidence. Using the Bible as an authoritative scientific source is absurd. It  would appear that ID supporters have no genuine interest in seriously engaging with the science  of evolution.  

Summary:  

The concept of GOD has manifested itself as one of the greatest and most enduring fictional  stories ever created by Homo sapiens. As with fictional stories, the concept of God has changed  over millennia to keep it real and workable. Both faith and scientific knowledge are constantly  changing. Science increasingly fills gaps in knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena,  and faith adapts to changing circumstances. Each stands on its own and is incompatible with the  other. Believe if you have to, but then, like an ignorant child, as the Bible recommends.  

Bruwer Swanepoel  

Author of Faith: Full Circle – The Religious Journey of a Baby-boomer Afrikaner  https://bruwerswanepoel.org

“The fight for women’s equality in the churches is a formidable fight because it can never be won on the turf of the traditional churches, which continue their program of discrimination each time they recycle and reframe the ancient traditions that dehumanize the female body. As long as the Bible’s devaluation of the female body as part of the natural order of creation is viewed as sacred, as holy misogyny, no reasonable argument can dislodge it. As long as the Bible’s story of the subjugation of woman is viewed as God’s deserved decree laid upon all women for all time, there can be no liberation. How much longer must women suffer the dreadful and damning consequences of the ancient male imagination, which valorized the male body while vulgarized the female, because the Bible tells us so?” (2013:153–154).

Waarom skryf ek nou vanaand hierdie stuk? Want professor Christi van der Westhuizen het pas 'n skitterende stuk op die webbladsy van Netwerk24 gepubliseer waarin sy die besluit van die sinode van die GKSA as "onverdunde vrouehaat" klassifiseer. Sy is volkome reg.

https://www.netwerk24.com/.../verset-teen-vrou-in-amp-dui...

Wat 'n mens teen die bors stuit, is dat vroue dwarsdeur die eeue in die Christelike kerke as minderwaardige wesens beskou en behandel is. Manlike besluitnemers was (en is) daarvan oortuig dat God self vroue nie hoog ag nie. Die ganse Bybel is na regte vrou-onvriendelik – vandaar DeConick se titel "Holy Misogyny" = Heilige Vrouehaat. Lees gerus Christi se artikel. En as haar argumente jou nie oortuig nie, koop April deConick se boek.

Religion has a deterministic influence on the current situation in Gaza. From both sides, the eternal unholy alliance between religion and state is unmistakably detectable in this crisis. The whole world is crying out and condemning Israel for inhumane behaviour, even genocide, as the Israeli Defense Force is pressing on with its land invasion of Gaza in its pursuit of Hamas. Western news sources put the death toll in Gaza at 24,000 at the time of this writing.

Human rights are a most laudable and commendable endeavour and are the foundation of humanism, the prevailing ethical system in, e.g. middle Europe today, where I live. I experience this daily, and it is demonstrably the foundation for a tolerant and civilised social environment and lifestyle. In addition, the tendency to sympathise with and intuitively take the side of the oppressed is undoubtedly also a praiseworthy human quality. However, in this instance, I believe there is a bigger picture. Human rights are only possible and sustainable in a democratic and free environment. And "free" in the sense of freedom of speech, movement, ownership, sexual orientation and relationships, residence, etc.

There is not and will never be a democratic and free environment under Islamic rule. The tenets of Islam make for a theocracy under Sharia law and enforced by jihad as proclaimed in the Q'uran and the hadith. It is also Islam's vision for the whole world, with no exception. Islam claims that theirs is the last and final revelation from God, and there cannot be another one. The Q'uran is God's last word, comprising all the answers to the world's problems. I have repeatedly heard these claims in the last ten years of my corporate career, working with company representatives in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Emirates. And these claims came from a.o. graduate engineers.

The indoctrination, the fear of not complying and the conviction that theirs is a superior culture are so powerful and ingrained by their holy scriptures that, in my opinion, references to moderate Islamism are an oxymoron. Here are two simple examples:

a) How many moderate Muslims publicly objected when Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a fatwa over the British writer Salman Rushdie, ordering and giving any Muslim the right to murder him on sight, anyplace, anywhere? Not a single prominent Muslim openly protested against the fatwa. When Yusuf Islam (previously Cat Stevens, a 70s British rocker) was asked if he concurred with this fatwa, his answer was: Yes, this is justice.

b) In 1786 (when America was hardly a country), pirates under Ottoman rule attacked American merchant ships in the Mediterranean, seized the cargo and killed or enslaved the crew. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (later the 2nd and 3rd presidents of the USA) went to Tripoli to complain to the Ottoman ambassador Abdul Rahman Adja, pointing out that America never had a gripe with the Ottomans, were not part of the crusades and not involved when the Europeans fought the Muslims in Spain. Rahman's answer was simple: The Q'uran gives Muslims the right and duty to make war upon infidels, enslave or kill them, and take their property. Period.

Israel is by far the most democratic and free society in all of the Middle East among a multitude of Islam totalitarian kingdoms and dictatorships run by kings, princes, emirs, sultans and other despots. All of them hate Israel with a passion and will stop at nothing before the state of Israel is run "through the river into the ocean" and obliterated from the face of the earth. Their religion presses it upon them, not only as a right but as a duty. This hate was not born with the statedom of Israel, but I would venture as far as to say that it has been there ever since Mohammad couldn't compete with the Jews as a businessman, and when he came up with his God revelation story, the Jews were the first to reject it as nonsense. It does not matter what Israel has done in the past or will do in the future; this hate has always been there and will always be there.

Israel is fighting for its very survival as a state. It is my opinion that if Israel agrees to a long-term ceasefire and pulls back from Gaza at this point, it could be the beginning of the end of the state of Israel. It is also not unlikely that antisemitism will get another scary boost, as Jew-haters all over the world will start crawling out of the woodwork again. The democratic and free world will lose out to a backward and dangerous culture, growing in leaps and bounds as a result of indulgent riches simply oozing out of the ground.

I see a difference between terrorism and collateral damage. When a group intentionally and deterministically target innocent women, children, and even babies and indiscriminately kills, rape and murders and takes survivors into captivity - that is called terrorism. When their supporters, at the same time, gleefully participate by taking pictures and videos, sending these across the globe to celebrate the slaughter - that is called barbaric terrorism. Incidentally, in the week after this massacre, before Israel lifted a finger, Islamic supporters all over the Western world gathered in their thousands in the streets of Western capitals, celebrating the slaughter; the same as what happened in the days immediately after 9/11.

When an army declares war against terrorists and, in its pursuit of them, tries its utmost to minimise innocent deaths, made impossible by the terrorists hiding behind and using their civilian population as human shields - that is called collateral damage. In an apparent free election, the Palestinians voted a militant and fundamentalist Hamas into power in 2005 and are now suffering the catastrophic consequences.

The argument about who the land belongs to goes back a very long time but is, in my opinion, for the most part irrelevant. Colonialisation, for example, was inevitable and would have happened with any nation/civilisation/ethnical grouping in similar environments at the time (the same can be said of apartheid; it was unavoidable in some form or shape). I sum up my position on this with the following hypothesis: If, for example, Julius Malema today claims AND can prove beyond any doubt that he has Khoi San ancestry and therefore has a claim to Southern Africa, my take would be: Tough luck, go away.

Bruwer Swanepoel

Author of Faith: Full Circle – The Religious Journey of a Baby-boomer Afrikaner

PS: As a general observation, it is my opinion that all three monotheistic religions are a danger to the free, democratic, tolerant, civilised and progressive society we treasure in the Western world. At this moment in history, though, Islam has revealed itself to be, by far, the most dangerous of the three. It has been said that Islam has "bloody borders"; meaning that where Islamic states have land borders with states with other religious beliefs, there exist permanent border conflicts.

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was:

"Do you believe in God?" And his answer was, "I believe in the God of Spinoza". And according to Spinoza:

“If there is a God, he would say ...”

Stop praying. What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything made for you.

Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, and beaches. That's where I live and where I express my love for you.

Stop blaming me for your miserable life. I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. So, don't blame me for everything they made you believe.

Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes ... you will find me in no book!

Stop asking me, "will you tell me how to live?" Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or bothered. I am pure love.

Stop asking for forgiveness. There's nothing to forgive. If I made you... I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies... free will. How can I blame you if you respond to something that I put in you? How can I punish you for being the way you are if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

Stop disrespecting your peers and yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life. Allow alertness to be your guide. My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, nor a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now and it is all you need. I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.

You are absolutely free to create in your life. Heaven or hell. I can't tell you if there's anything after this life, but I can give you a tip. Live as if there is not. As if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist. So, if there's nothing after, then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong. I'll ask, Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?

Stop believing in me. Believing is assuming, guessing, and imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

Stop praising me. What kind of egomaniac God do you think I am? I'm bored with being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, and the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

Stop complicating things and repeating as a parakeet what you've been taught about me. What do you need more miracles for? So many explanations? The only thing for sure is that you are here, alive, and this world is full of wonders.

Baruch Spinoza (Benedictus de Spinoza – a 17th-century philosopher of Portugese-Jewish origin, born in Amsterdam and considered one of the foremost and seminal thinkers of the Enlightenment).

(Happy Guide – Tony McClean Brown)

In Faith: Full Circle, I deal with Yuval Harari's interpretation of Spinoza's God.