Genesis - Chapter 1 - Bible - Catholic Online

Just reading the bible*, as you do, and I’m puzzled by the first chapter of the first book, Genesis.  As I understand it, God made some water and split it in two by means of a vault, whatever that is.  There was then some water above the vault and some water below the vault.  God called the middle bit heaven and made dry land appear in the water below the vault.  Then, he populated the dry land, which he called earth, and the water under heaven seas.

The question I have is this: what happened to the water above the vault?  There doesn’t seem to be any further mention of this at all.  Maybe, God made another planet out of it, but didn’t tell us about it for some reason.

*I’m using the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) for two reasons: 1) because it is translated from the original languages and not the erroneous (Greek?) one that the King James, for example, is translated from, so it is less likely to be susceptible to Chinese whispers (so the NJB claim, anyway); and 2) because it was the one I grew up with.

Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury in his right mind? He wants the UK to adopt Sharia law just because there’s a load of Muslims here, who seem to want to live by it. I say if you don’t want to live according to UK law, don’t live in the UK. Simple.

It’s an absolute disgrace that there should be one law for people of one religion and a different law for people of another. Where does that leave the non-religious?

According to the Beeb, he said, “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that’s a bit of a danger.” I think he’s got this the wrong way round, completely. What does Sharia law say about suicide bombers and other such terrorist activities? Is it going to be ok for Muslims to bomb London in the future?

Luckily, the politicians seems to have their heads screwed on, for once, and are rejecting this nonsense.

If this does go ahead, I’ll set up a religion whereby it’s ok to kill the Archbishop when he has crazy ideas like this. That’ll show him.

I’ve just read this, about a girl who insists on wearing jewellery at school. She’s a Sikh, and wears a bangle to remind her to “do good and not bad with her hands”. Are Sikhs unable to remember that without said bracelet? Apparently, its purpose means it is not a piece of jewellery. The school rules say the only jewellery that may be worn at school are plain stud earrings and a wristwatch, so in my book, she’s breaking the rules.

Apparently, the bracelet is one of five articles of Sikh faith, known as the five K’s. One of these K’s is a kirpan ’silver sword’. Surely, if she wins the fight to wear the bracelet, she should be able to take a silver sword to school with her as well?

I say make all schools secular, ban all religious items - especially swords! - and teach theology and philosophy of religion objectively for educational reasons, rather than making pupils pray to a god they may or may not believe in. Surely, if you pray insincerely to a god you don’t believe in, it’s blasphemy or something, right?

If people were taught about the major religions objectively, and thought about why religion exists, there might be a bit more tolerance and understanding between them all.

After seeing the NSS’s page about de-baptism, I thought I’d email the bishop in the diocese where I was “done” to ask for a form to renounce their faith. I sent it this morning, after having deliberated its contents since yesterday.

I’ll let you know what happens.

In the meantime, I am making do with the de-baptism certificate, which I have printed out onto some card - it looks proper official! All I have to do now is sign it and have said signature witnessed, then I will no longer be affiliated with the Church and I will go straight to hell without even passing purgatory.

Oh dear.

The what?

The CPG. The Catholic Police Guild.

I don’t know specifically why, but the notion fills me with horror and dread.

After this week’s episode of Panorama about Scientology,* I thought I’d have a look at the Internet to see what’s there about Scientology. I discovered they have their own Web site and another Web site has excerpts from their handbook (by the man himself) where you can buy a book on how to bring up your child as a Scientologist for $5 - no doubt Tom Cruise has a copy to bring up his and Nicole Kidman’s children. It also tells you about their ideas about drugs. They say drugs are poisons. The OED says a drug is “[a]n original, simple, medicinal substance, organic or inorganic, whether used by itself in its natural condition or prepared by art, or as an ingredient in a medicine or medicament. Formerly used more widely to include all ingredients used in chemistry, pharmacy, dyeing, and the arts generally, as still in French. In early use always in the pl.”

Scientologists say that caffeine is a drug, which I’d agree with. They tell you that “[t]he degree [to which] they are taken determines the effect. A small amount gives a stimulant (increases activity). A greater amount acts as a sedative (suppresses activity). A larger amount acts as a poison and can kill one.” This means that “[t]wo or three cups [of coffee] stimulates” someone, whereas “[t]en cups would probably put him to sleep.” Tomorrow, I shall drink 10 cups of coffee, and see how sleepy I am then. I’ll let you know.

* You can also see the Scientology version of the documentary.

Good for you, John Safran. Next time, do the Jehovah’s Witnesses?