Picture Perfect

One of the best Jewish holidays EVER.

Whassat?
It's the time the Jewish people leave their houses and live in temporary dwellings. Dwellings which are pretty much exposed to all the elements. They're essentially little huts or tents, the roof is made from any organic material which has been detached from the ground, but it has to be possible to see the stars at night from inside (thus invalidating wooden boards). There are loads of stipulations, I once learned all of them when I was 10 years old (I found them really boring, but am pleased today I slogged through it all). The basics are that it has to have three walls and be of certain minimum dimensions in width, length and height.

We sit in these huts whenever we want to eat a meal or snack. The hardcore Jews sleep in them at night too (I slept in it one year; not a terribly wise thing to do in september/october in England, is it? But really loads of fun, especially as I wasn't alone [if I was alone, it would have been rather rubbish] - just wrapped up really warm and slept on a few garden chairs all stuck together. The myriads of blankets couldn't stop the rain falling on me though, there was this one really annoying leaf above my head which constantly dripped rain drops on me...a bit like Chinese water torture. I woke up because of it at about 6:30am and left the garden at about 7:00am. 

History:
When the Jews were wandering around in the wilderness all those years, they were protected by a load of clouds during the day and a pillar of fire by night (repsectively called "ananei hakavod" and "amud ha'aish" in Hebrew). In memorium of this divine protection, the bible commands we build these little huts. In this way, leaving our dwellings into comparatively fragile dwellings, we show our trust and faith in the protection of God. 

Biblical Source:
It is recorded in the Bible no less than three times, to my vastly incomplete knowledge:

1) Leviticus 23:34 (2) Numbers 29:12 (3) Deuteronomy 16:13. 

Etymology:
In Hebrew, it is called sukkot (soo-COt, or s'cot). This roughly translates into "huts" but the official translation is either "Festival of Booths." Wikipedia tells me it's also called "Feast of Booths, the Feast of Tabernacles, Tabernacles, the Season of Our Happiness, the Feast of Ingathering, or simply The Feast." All these are English/Christian renditions, I would never refer to it in the English vernacular, it's just too cumbersome.

As I said, this is one of my favourite festivals. Think of it like Christmas without the booze and outside the house, in September/October time.

It is the custom to invite guests for dinner and eat it in the hut. We always over invite people and end up having 15-20 guests and only 14 or so seats. But somehow, there's always a place for people to sit and eat comfortably. And there's always always enough food (obviously. And thank God, too). It must work on some sort of rotational basis...

Oh, also. I shall upload pics for you all, once its nicely set and stuff. its quite good!!

Nothing is simple with China. Everything is so controversial, but ok, I can deal with that and it appears that my editor can too. But that doesnt't make it easy; there are always complications to contend with, usually due to the trappings of Communist government.

For example, how many Christians are there in China? The official figures say there are 14 million in total, whilst unofficial estimates range between 40-100 million. 

The olympic games is being hijacked by Chinese and non-Chinese as a political device, so it's impossible to just write about the games for the sake of the games.

Human rights, pollution, taiwan, tibet, it's all old news. What hasn't been said about these topics? All one can do is report the newest developments on the issues, but it's all the same: Human rights continues to be shaky and won't really cease to be so, as one expects with a communist government.  Taiwan continues to fall to the monster of international politics and is still not considered it's own country, it's appeal to be recognised on the UN body as such rejected for the 15th year in a row. Pollution still does it's worst in China and doesn't look like it's giving up anytime soon. Tibet still isn't "free" (contentious issue, who said it was ever subjugated? I'm not convinced). 

So, what to say? I don't know, but all I do know is if I don't churn out a few more articles, I'll be out of a job before I've held it for a month!

Unfortunately, I continue to be very, very busy with other things, but have the whole of this afternoon to write articles, which I must get to straight away. So, bye folks!

That is what I am. Tireeedd.

I've found a good speaker to speak on a massive London-wide event I'm organising for university students. He's pretty high profile, but at first was pretty stand-offish and uninterested in speaking, so I had to get him excited for this speakers role... we've finally set a date we can both do, 6 days later than I had hoped (significance of which is it's 6 days after a memorial day I wanted him to speak on) but no matter.

I have no idea how many people will come. I estimate 700 students across London universities will be e-mailed directly to their accounts about the event. I need to find sponsors (no one is interested - I'm only asking local businesses for something like £350. They probably take that much in the first 3 hours of their day. I also want to negotiate cheaper food for my events and such, seeing as they're bakeries and restaurants).

What else? Nothing much. The people back in where I shall now call "HQ" continue to be busy, unavailible and therefore ignorant of the fact that they're going to have sudden expendatures thanks to me, as I continue to organise more and more events... Oh well! It's my job to spend their money.

I've now bought a domain name, and hope to get a website for the society up soon.

Nothing else is news, much.
Visiting friends, making new friends...

Ah, yes. Tomorrow is the day of repentence. A few people have told me - of their own accord - that they greatly dislike this day too. Who doesn't? It's a killer. For those unaware of this day, it's basically fasting for a 25 hour period and praying for 15 of those 24 hours (the other 9 hours are for sleep). So yeah, not going to be around until at least Sunday.

Adios, people! 

It's been interesting, spending 5 hours with people who I really don't know. I'm meeting someone who I really don't know this Thursday, to spend another 5 hours like that.

But developments! I went to the flat of girlies today, only to find that red-haired-girl does not in fact inhabit that flat: purple haired girl does. I don't want purple haired girl :'(  She's a right character though and an interesting person to be around. I didn't ask where red-haired girl did live, because I'm not a hardcore stalker (ifI know where you live already, you're not safe from me. If I don't, you are. But then, those who give me their address should expect I'd use it. Of course, I'm not speaking about cat and helen and ant, whose addresses I have; wouldn't bother venturing out of London for them! heh heh).

Who knows if our paths will ever cross again...dun dun dunnnnn!

Anyway, have to go now cos I have lots of stuff to do. 

Adios!
----------------------------
*Update*
-----------

So there I was, admittedly facebook stalking (I was bored of working, it was late, ok?) and with a bit of blind luck and determination as well as my super-spy powers, found red-haired-girl's facebook profile (I've reached new levels of sadness, I realise, I really do - but I'm pleased to point out my lowest levels of sadness are other people's highest levels of coolness). Sadly (for me) she's listed as having a boyfriend (who I shall not anonymously send abusing messages to). Anyway, I uhh, have some messages to send...to, umm, people...umm, friends. Yeah, friends...heh. Bye bye!

Today I met some old friends, and met some [new?] people I didn't know, but who knew me (I hate it when that happens and it always does. Sometimes I walk down the street and have a whole conversation and not know who it is I'm speaking to), who i'll hopefully be hanging out with tomorrow.

Also, there's this girl I think I may stand a chance with, who's really cute and who has red hair. That last fact isn't really important, but I thought i'd mention it anyway. Hopefully, she's unattached...I don't know her, but she's the flatmate of the person I do know (who I don't know that well. Basically, I don't know anyone in that flat). I've been invited around to their place tomorrow (the art is being invited and letting them think they're the one inviting you. Not even I'm sure how it all works, but it does, evidence of which is I'm going to little more than a strangers flat tomorrow). We'll see what happens, it's a bit risky, 'cos I don't know who'll be there, but even if red hair girl isn't there, I've arranged it as such that it'll still be productive.

If I manage to ensnare this particular girl using my guile and sneakery (I have no wit or charm, so guile and sneakery it is) all is well. Perhaps she's the one i'll take to the ball with me (that's right folks. This isn't about love or anything, it's just about not going to a brilliant party by myself. Of course, when I say "take to the ball with me" I mean get her to shell out £40 for a ticket so that we can go together). I may be getting well ahead of myself, but the speculation was more for comic relief than anything else. I assure you my feet are firm on the ground (if worst comes to worst, I'll go to a bar, get someone [hopefully a girl, but i'm not that fussy] really, really drunk, and then the next day, thank them for agreeing to go to the ball with me and can they please send off their cheque).

I'm also going to be spending less time online - no, really - and i suspect my blog won't be filled in for a long time.

But look! I changed it and stuff! It's all different now!

That's basically all I wanted to say. Anyway, adios.

I don't really have anything to say. Oh, yes. I wanted to make a faithometer. See left.

Gorgeous. Terrible. Lovely. Shmexy.

Four adjectives for four girls, one word each. I'll let you decide which one describes you ;-) 

That's right, folks! I am now connecting to the internet via a stable, good, internet connection! YEAHHH!!

Orange broadband finally sorted themselves out, after TWO MONTHS.

In other news (that gap was just for Helen) I got a phone call from a friend who I've tried keeping in touch with, but was always unavailable - a really nice guy - who is currently thousands of miles away from me. The point is, he was wishing me a happy New Year - the Jewish New Year starts this eve and effectively ends Saturday night, so I won't really be around much. It is said that the New Year is the time of judgment, where God decides whether or not the next year will be a good one for us, based on our past (mis)deeds. I'd place it as the second biggest event in the Jewish calendar, second only to next week, the Day of Repentance.

What a miserable day the latter is! I dread that day every single year and when I rejoice at the end of it, it's never because I feel repented, but because I know there are now 364 days until I have to do it over again. What happens on this day is, we spend an entire day praying and fasting, from sunrise to sunset. Many people are of the opinion that it is a happy day, as it is when sins are forgiven. I, however, am not. The bible calls this a "day of affliction" and I enjoy reminding everyone of that fact.

The old, famous, question goes - if this is the day of repentance, why on earth don’t we have it before the Day of Judgment? Why do we repent after we've already been judged? Good question. Unfortunately, I never remember the old, famous answer, but this year asked my dad why it was. He said, essentially, it was because we're, uhh, storing credit for the next year. Well, guess what? I don't want to store credit, the price is far too high.

There is another answer, and I believe this one to be the old one; it just came to me. Though judgment is decided on the New Year, it's not until the end of the day of repentance (some say later) that it is actually "sealed" - i.e. unchangeably decided.

Why then do people pray the rest of the year and what hope do they have of changing anything, if it's all been decided?
I suppose because though the judgment mayn't change, the way in which it is carried out is...as the parable goes, a king who threatened, in his anger, to have a large rock thrown at his son if he crossed him one more time, cannot simply back down (why not?) from his promise if the son was naughty again. So the King keeps his promise, but has the stone chipped into little, tiny bits and throws those harmless bits at him instead.

I don't know where all this leaves me. As most of you know, I have a little trouble with the ol' faith these days (actually, I’ve had trouble with it since I was 17, but didn't want to say anything until I was in an absolute position of knowledge to do so - basically, until someone couldn't accuse me of being ignorant about Judaism, the scriptures, spirituality, or anything else. "If only you'd read the bible, you'd believe" - "If only you'd have studied xyz in depth, you'd believe" - "if only you'd accept Jesus, you'd believe" - "if only you'd..." it doesn't apply to me. Been there, done that, looked at it all in depth, dedicated an entire year of my life to the study of various things [very interesting and a great intellectual challenge; ironically, disbelieving me was one of the few to actually finish the book we were reading. Ok, so, the book we were reading was in an ancient dialect of Aramaic, completely incomprehensible without the myriads of commentaries and is probably the equivalent to a fair few thousand pages of a modern law textbook, factoring in said commentaries... but we all had the same start, didn't we?], and rejected (most of) it.

But there's a little tiny niggle. What if I’m wrong? What if, despite all this, there is a God who shall smite me down (I can't help but think of Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty raising his arms to the heavens and yelling "Smite me, oh Mighty Smiter!" and then Morgan Freeman, playing God, reading his file saying "recently though, a few things you've said do have me concerned....'smite me, oh mighty smiter'...?")?

What of the evidence I do have? It's a tiny thread, and faith shouldn't depend on it, but can I just disregard that? Evidence is evidence, and it does suggest there is much truth in the bible. "Inconclusive evidence" doesn't strike me as a good defense when standing in front of God. But then, if there's no God to stand in front of, I've nothing to worry about, do I? And so the circle of doubt goes, around and around.

As I told someone recently (yes, it was you. Yes, I mean you. Stop thinking "he doesn't mean me" because I do. Think about it! Ok, ok. I don't mean you. Sorry. I was being mean...but anyway....you know who you are!)  stepping out in a moment of uncertainness is a bad, bad idea...disbelief is not, contrary to what people seem to think, a wishy-washy idea of closing your eyes and deciding you don't believe anymore, it's a definite, educated choice. People tell me "it's easy to not believe, people who don't believe just want an easier life" and I go mad with them. I challenge them if there is not one honest person out there who doesn't believe in God because they honestly, intellectually, don't believe there could possibly be a God?

No, it isn't easy. It's full of uncertainty. Ok, it so happens once you've made your certain choice to not believe, it gets very easy from there...but it's a major life style change, at least for me. It's like I’m falling and there's no one to catch me at the bottom... if there was someone to catch me, to run away from my life here with, it wouldn't be so bad. But that person doesn't exist for me and it's therefore an impossible choice for me to make.

Just to pre-empt people, faith is subjective. And yes ant, I still say you have faith based on faith - though you say you know you have your God given faith from God because it led you to Him, from a Muslim's perspective, that faith is misplaced and therefore couldn't possibly be from God. But you have faith it is from God, and so you believe it is - just as he would have faith your belief isn't from God. And you're not allowed to say "you've twisted my statement" or any derivative thereof, for that's how I honestly believe you explained it to me the last time. At 1:30am. On MSN. You may, however, explain it again, or argue with my idea here.

Anyway.
I was reading the Sunday Times, as is my wont, and was wondering if it is time I moved on without it. I fear it is a paper which is far too conservative in its write-ups, though I agree with many of the views voiced within. It’s just the way they say it. What prompted this uncertainness was the fact that they described the adverts from Bacardi as aimed at “hedonistic youth” and “typically features swim-suited models cavorting on palm-fringed beaches.” Cavorting?! I have seen them sun-bathe, move, walk, stand, dance and swim, but never, never have I seen them cavorting! And anyway, what on earth is wrong with cavorting swim-suited models?! The person writing that needs to be shown what a good time is, I think.

Little to report in real life. I hope to be paid as a "real" journalist shortly. An old friend's (i.e. a friend of old; I don't really know them anymore, last spoke to them 7 years ago) mother passed away. I'm still going to the funeral today, as she kept in touch with my mother, who - understandably - doesnt want to go alone. In matters of the heart, I continue to have little to no interest in anyone. In matters of the soul, I continue to bounce about aimlessly. In matters of the flesh, well. heh heh heh. And lastly, in matters of the work, I continue to not understand that dirty four letter word.

I'm taken with the passion religion inspires, especially in debate.

I once had such a passion myself, but it died when I realised that no one who was willing to debate would never change their mind about the things they debated. For those ccuk'ers, I used to be one of those theo hacks, arguing with 7 people at once and lashing out with bible verses left right and centre in response to various arguments. Many times in those early days I saw fit to "have some fun" - obviously, at everyone else's expense - and often placed people in a theological conundrum, which saw me thrown out the site many times. For those interested, one of my tricks was to challenge those around if they believed in the NT 100%. The inevitable answer was "of course." Thus, my victim was pretty much hooked. I then informed them they'd have to comply with Luke 6:30 which states "Give to all who ask of you, and do not ask for anything in return of the one who takes from you" and demanded bank account numbers, car keys, cheques, cash and other such things, the implication - often voiced by yours truly - was that if they didn't do as I said, they'd be forsaking their own beliefs...So why should someone like me believe in the NT if Christians themselves didn't?

But this isn't what I wanted to discuss.

Christianity and Islam are interesting religions, but I must admit I don't think much of their attempts to explain why they think they're the only true religion, or why members believe in what they do. For Islam, it goes something like this:

Me> So, why do you think Mohummed was true and not a false prophet, as Christians and Jews have said for over a thousands years?
Puzzling response> He was sincere, as one can tell from his actions and words.

Of course, this is a laughable proof and it actually pains me that there are people who believe this is an acceptable proof of the Ultimate Truth: one man's alleged sincerity. If sincerity equals truth, which is what was being peddled over here, then every politician worth his salt must be straight as the M1 and honest as God Himself. I have no doubt in my mind that when Tony Blair was making the "let's go to war" speech in the House of Commons, he appeared absolutely sincere. I have little doubt that Blair believed everything he said as the absolute truth at the time he said it. "They have weapons which can hurt us. I think" just wouldn't cut it and as politicians will tell you, no wishy-washyness is acceptible, especially not in the big league (ironically, in the rest of the world, someone who changes their views and opinions with the latest facts and information is considered intellectual, open minded, honest and generally clever. In politics, someone who does that is considered "wishy washy" or a flip-flopper, not strong and a silly centrist). But have you read what he actually said?

"I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.

And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.

I believe we must hold firm.

The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation...."
(to read more, go to "http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916790,00.html")

Compelling stuff! Not only does he have a personal stake in this entire thing, but he begs to move the motion! Not only will the decision made that day affect the UK and Iraq, it'll effect the entire globe! This was no small matter. 

But was one man's sincerity enough to conjure the WMDs in Iraq? No. Was it enough to move nations to war? Yes.
The same can be said of Bush.

The point here is, just because someone believes something is the truth, no matter how much they appear to be sincere about it, no matter what they do in acting on that belief (such as declaring war and sending thousands to an uncertain fate) it doesn't mean it is true. If I was in Blair's shoes, I would also wish to appear as sincere as possible. If I was in Mohummed's shoes, I would want people to believe what I was saying, so would be as sincere as ever I could be...otherwise who would follow me? If no one believed me, I wouldn't be much of a prophet and if God didn't speak to me, I'd be entirely deficient as a seer. That would certainly put a crimp in my plans for domination of lands - if I have no believers in my cause, I have none to fight in my name.

Another typical response is "Mohummed could't read or write, so how else did he get the Koran if not directly from God's hand coming out of a burning bush?"

But let me move on to Christianity.
All but one of my readers are Christian, I'm pretty sure you were all waiting patiently to know what I was going to say about Christianity and either read what I had to say on Islam in agreement, or skipped to this bit anxious to get on with it.

The Christian arguments are somewht similar in their nature.

Me> So, why do you believe in Jesus?
Puzzling response>  "I have faith..."

what follows after those three words varies, perhaps an anecdote of how they came to have their faith (God himself spoke to me. I'm a prohpet) or a pseudo-theological answer (he died for me on the cross to attone for my sins), but it isn't relevant. The fact is, they believe as they do because they just believe. They just have faith.

So, what did they do before they had faith?
They took a step into an intellectual void and simply had faith, thus starting the vicious circle of "how do you know you're right?" - "I just have faith" - "but how do you know?" - "faith" which I so love. 

Whilst there are those who maintain that this is indeed a circular argument, I don't agree. The argument can be attacked thusly:

1) What prompted them to take that first step of faith? If the answer is "faith" then they'd be justly accused of having blind faith - making a move based on motives completely devoid of intellect. "But that's what faith is!" No, it isn't. That's what blind faith is. Faith is when you see X, know X is true and lovely and good and well, then have faith it leads to Y. That applies to anything. For example, you have faith signposts on a new road are correct. You don't KNOW absolutely that they are, you just have faith (others may prefer "presume" but it amounts to the same thing) that they are. But it's not blind faith, because it's based on the fact that signposts are usually correct and have been usually useful to you. Of course, you're aware that people may have tampered with it, such as rotating the sign to point in a different direction from the true destination. But still, you have faith.

In such a context, blind faith would be, perhaps, not to have faith in the signs, because you presume/believe/think/have blind faith that all signs are wrong. Why? Faith. But how do you know they're wrong? You just have faith. Maybe they're not wrong? Maybe not - but you have faith they are. But the signs serve millions of other people without harm! That may also be true, but you have faith they're all wrong and you're right, and the sooner they believe as you do, they'll be better off too. And what are the benefits of believing as you do? You never have to worry about wondering whether or not a sign has been tampered with. You never have to think about it in a real life context...you never have to think. Because you have faith! Who needs intellect anyway? That's useful for things like forwarding the Message of the Road Map over that of the devilish Signposts to others, or gaining a deeper understanding of Road Maps over signposts. But to use it to question and, RoadMap forbid, undermine your faith? No no. Also, not knowing anything about the opposing arguments are virtuous. The less you know and the more you have (blind) faith, the better.

So far, this is an attack on the first step of blind faith they took, devoid of intellect. Second attack would be on the continuation of blocking out intellect and rationalisation (you may have heard a religious leader speak of "rationalisation" in negative tones). Third, the lack of change in their stance in a system which they now know for sure to have compelled them to make those two moves in the first place.

If a personal anecdote was inserted, it too is easily dismissed, not just because personal experience hardly mounts to proof of truth (interestingly, Jesus/few followers and Mohummed both had entirely personal experiences, away from the prying eyes of multitudes of witnesses...apparantly God didn't want to cause a fuss), but because the supernatural in a natural world was assumed, whilst the natural explanation was completely ruled out and perhaps not even entertained.

Notice also, just because you have blind faith - or even faith- it doesn't make what you believe in true, no matter how hard one shuts their eyes and wishes it to be so. 

So, what do I believe?

I believe in knowledge and understanding as the springboard for faith, as Deuteronomy says "you shall know today that the Lord is your God."

That should really apply to anything - customer/employee x has proven his reliability in the past, so based on that, you may have faith they'll continue as they have done if something changes (e.g. the boss doesnt come in to work for a day, or you have faith a regular, reliable customer won't break a credit agreement and not pay when the time comes). It may even work in relationships.

So, what's the springboard in Judaism? What's the solid platform of fact? What better evidence than eyewitness report...? It is estimated that between 4-6 million people (fairly conservative figures) witnessed the revelation on mount Sinai. They were then instructed, as the bible says, to relate the events to their children and so and so forth, forever. 

Indeed, I have, somewhere, photos of evidence of the Exodus (availible upon demand) - archaeology unearthed (haha) gold chariot wheels in the likeness as described in the bible, broken in the same fashion. They matched chariot wheels found in a tomb back on mainland Egypt, giving estimated dates. This is in addition to inscriptions found on either side of the Red Sea, placed there (so the inscription reads) by Solomon to mark the place of the point of crossing of the CoI - thus confirming too (if there was ever a doubt), the existence of Solomon. The wheels and inscriptions were found along the same route plotted by some famous bloke in the 1970's that he thought the CoI were most likely to take. Oh, also, the part of the sea they were crossing? Sonar revealed the entire sea had massive "cliffs" hundreds and in places, thousands of feet deep, except between the place the plaques were found, which was actually elevated (so it looked to me) above all the rest.

Whilst this latter evidence just confirms those eyewitness reports, all this is nontheless actual, factual hard evidence. It's independent of the argument that "it says so in my holy book" which is entirely unconvincing and doesn't have an iota of "revelation of God was a personal experience. have faith and if youre worthy, youll realise its true."

Now, time for bed, for it is late.