Previously, I had blogged my opinion on the protein Laminin and its supposedly “cross” shape. The shape of this protein was seized upon by one evangelist, Louie Giglio to support a proposition in his sermon. I did not know much about the protein at that time (except what I wrote in that blog) and I was reluctant to believe that a scientist would say that the protein was “cross” shaped partly due to the sensationalism of Louie, I must admit. However, I now have found some interesting information regarding this protein’s role in cancer research.

Recently, whilst I was reading the [excellent introductory pathology and core text in my course] book, Cell, Tissue and Disease by Prof. Neville Woolf (2000), I came across this little paragraph about laminin:

“Laminin is a cross-shaped glycoprotein present in both the basement membrane and the interstitial stroma. In normal cells laminin receptors occur on the aspect of the cell apposed to the basement membrane and are occupied by basement membrane laminin. Invasive cells, however, have laminin receptors diffusely distributed over the entire cell surface and these are often unoccupied. If such tumour cells are treated with the receptor binding fragment of laminin, their invasiveness is greately reduced” [my emphases]

Firstly, the author refers to this protein explicitly as “cross-shaped”, so Louie’s description was accurate. Secondly, it appears Laminin fragments reduce the metastatic potential of a neoplastic (tumorous) growth and hence, rids the neoplasm of its dangerous property. This potential therapy can be used if the cancerous growth had not metastasized already. Even if the cancer has spread, it could (in theory) arrest further spreading. It should be noted that this is less likely to happen naturally even when there is enough laminin in the body [to arrest the spreading of a cancer] because there is little laminin fragments freely floating around in the body. I suspect that the laminin fragments have therapeutic potential because they don’t have the binding domain for the basement membrane, otherwise (I think) they might actually help the invasive cell to adhere to the basement membrane and achieve malignancy easily!

So, the cross shaped Laminin not only proves God’s promises to be true, it helps scientists to cure cancer! 

Reference:

Woolf N (2000) Relationship of Neoplastic cells with their environment. In Cell, Tissue and Disease: The Basis of Pathology. 3rd Edition. London: Harcourt Publishers Ltd. p446

By now we’ve all heard the carnage that happened in Mumbai. Though I’m appalled by these terrorist attacks, I feel sort of apathetic to the whole situation. There is nothing new under the sun.

Is terrorism new? No. Are terrorist attacks against India new? No. From the time I can remember, it was a fact of life that Kashmir continued to be terrorised by similar heinous acts. So when the 9/11 attacks happened and a big deal was made about it, I was like, there is nothing new here. I had grown desensitized by the amount and frequency of evil that was being committed continuously in my own home country. By the way, is the fact that the Indian PM blaming Pakistan for terror attacks new? Hell no! Why would he want to break that ugly tradition? Rather than apologising for the lapses in the security of his own land, the guy starts playing the blame game! How sad. All I can say is clean your own house dude. And before you do that, take that plank outta your eye.

I’ve always thought that terrorists are cowards (counter intuitively) who can’t fight a straight up war against an army. During the majority of the times they use self-destructive tactics (hence, the counter intuitiveness) aiming for the maximum number of unarmed innocent lives they can possibly take. For the past few days I have struggled to understand the thought processes that would have led to undertaking such a level of attack. *sigh* Extremism. Is it new? No. There is nothing new under the sun.

Its been quite a while since I posted something. I had started my second year at University and I’m finding less and less spare time. This is going to be a quick post of what I posted to my University blog.

Recently while I was in a lecture in Human Genetics, I heard this thing uttered by a lady who lectures on Human Genetics. I was rather surprised by such a thing coming from such a position. So I posted this to my other blog:

For the comprehension-impaired, this is a little rant on a statement made during a Human Genetics lecture by [name with held]. My female colleagues are understandably finding my impatience quite amusing. But I, being a man, could not take that statement lightly. Here is the context:

The lecturer stated how all of one’s mitochondrial DNA is inherted from his/her mother and in so doing, threw out a little dig. Since the sperm does not contribute to the mt-DNA, it was suggested that, this kinda lends some support to the idea that men are merely parasitic on women.

I don’t know about you, but apart from being gobsmacked by the irrationality of such a supposition, it was strangely amusing to consider the implications. I guess this is one of those ideas where the vagueness of it keeps you in the dark about how exactly the proposition “men are parasites on women” follows or is related (however tangential it may be) to the fact that the mt-DNA of every single human has maternal origins.

The sperm is anthropomorphized. Poor little thing. The word “parasite” suggests that, the sperm is in someway harmful [to women]. I have no idea how this could be supported. But everything I know suggests otherwise. After all, the sperm is required to fertilise the egg cell to produce an embryo. Furthermore, “parasite” suggests that sperm has nothing of value to contribute to the whole shebang. It strikes me as a rather naive thing to say.

That’s all. End of Rant.

I was trying to understand where she was coming from. I’m still puzzled by her very short comment. It was neither explained nor justified. Just an offhand remark.

The converse of this happened today on a lecture in Human Genetics, only this time it was from a guy. He was discussing Human Pedigree Analysis and in explaining women as “carriers” for certain X-linked traits, he indicated that women have something “hidden” and guys are more “open and honest”. One could hear the murmurs of women all over the lecture theatre the moment he uttered it! I must hasten to add that his tone was very light-hearted and he was smiling as he said it. Everyone could see he was joking around. And atleast everyone had a vague idea how this comment is related to the Human Carriers, unlike the previous “parasite” comment from the other lecturer.

This is huge everywhere. For a reliable source of this news check out the links in ChristianityToday’s news page.

Okay, I neither want to beat a dead horse nor do I want to repeat all the accusations against Mike, ad nauseam. I’m not like OMG! Mike is teh sux0r!1!0!1!

I first came across the news of Mike’s deception a while back, though I never really realised how big it was. Mike apparently wrote one of the popular song, Healer and performed it to a huge Hillsong Australia crowd. Now, I’m not a huge fan of Hillsong by any means, though I do have one album of their youth team United. So, it is no surprise that I did not know of this whole shebang before. And, it is a good thing. I’m not into hugely “emotional” ways of worshipping where stuff like this can creep into quickly [though, I do not abhor appropriate emotion entirely in worship settings].

Although I can empathise with the reactions of some of the young Christians, I feel that some of their very negative reactions are hardly reasonable, and hardly “Christian”.

As a dude who is interested in the psychology of things, it was interesting to note that some of the physical symptoms Mike was showing originated when his porn addiction began:

“When he was about 12 he did vomit all the time, he’d get really really sick,” [Danny Guglielmucci, Mike's father] said.

“He was in the Adelaide Children’s Hospital for seven weeks at one stage; he didn’t eat and we thought we were going to lose him.”

“They took out his appendix, thinking that it might be that, but they realised that it wasn’t.”

“We signed him out from hospital and then he would go a few months and then he would get sick again.”

“We’d always take him to hospital; we’d always do the proper thing but they couldn’t get to the bottom of it until now.”

“We have watched our son go through what we thought was cancer,” [Mike's father] said. “My wife and I, over the past two years, have watched him vomit in buckets, having nosebleeds, and even his hair fell out in clumps at one stage.”

“Every time we saw him, we saw symptoms. He stayed with us for a while where we had to put a special air-conditioner in one of the rooms because he would heat up so much in the middle of winter.”

“He had this cold air-conditioner blowing on him to try to keep the heat down. As a professional minister I’ve stood in front of my congregation and cried and said to pray for my son.”

From here

That’s quite extreme, you know, the symptoms. Its like tons and tons of guilt blowing up inside. The fact that Mike is a youth pastor would have contributed much to his depression, I reckon. All that cognitive dissonance is on a completely different level on Mike’s case. It must have been mind blowing. If what is related by Mike’s father is accurate, I truly feel sorry for this man.

Many Christians have completely renounced Mike’s song, Healer. However, I take the song as expressing Mike’s own desire to be healed from his addiction. I believe it will be a good song for Christians who are struggling with addictions to relate to. I think the lyrics express this:

“You hold my every moment
You calm my raging seas
You walk with me through fire
And heal all my disease”

“I trust in You
I trust in You”

“I believe You’re my Healer
I believe You are all I need
I believe You’re my Portion
I believe You’re more than enough for me
Jesus You’re all I need”

“Nothing is impossible for You
Nothing is impossible for You
Nothing is impossible for You
You hold my world in Your hands”

I’m sorry that Mike had to express his true desires couched in a deceptive story. When I think about the whole episode, I think, “Man, Freud would have had a field day in this dude’s life!”. It is that exotic, psychologically.

Before I bought the Vox DA20, I found it harder find reviews about this amp around the web. With this review along with pictures, I hope to give some idea about the features of this amp and how it sounds to prospective buyers. If this was useful to you, please comment. Also, if you have any questions regarding this amp, don’t hesitate to ask in the comments.

I bought the Vox DA20 mainly to use for practising. This amp does not have valves/tubes in it and it is a digital modelling amp [wait! don't write it off just yet]. At the shop, I did have the choice of the “AD15 Valvetronix” amp but since I’m a student, I didn’t want to bother with tube amps-mainly due to maintenance concerns.

front view

I gather from reviews of the valvetronix line of amps that many don’t like the front “metal grill” style view. But its fine with me. Don’t mind the reflections in the metal grill in the above picture. The 2×8″ speakers you can see is the coolest bit of the amp IMO.

The controls section is divided into two–the ‘amp section’ and the ‘effects section’. Overview of the controls of the amp (with pictures) after the break…

Overall view of the controls

The “amp” section consists of the input jack, the modelling amp selector, gain, tone, and master volume knobs. This section is enlarged below…

The amp section

The blues amp models were excellent with the “Blues 3″ model very SRV-like. I also liked the “HiGain 3″ model; Playing in dropped tunings, it takes you to Metal heaven. The tone is unmistakable; It is also great for soloing. The overall sound of the amp models are organic in its character too.

A thing I loved about the amp models is that they were sensitive to picking dynamics and also to volume roll-off in the guitar. I was genuinely surprised by this because, from my previous experience with multi-effects pedals (like Zoom G2), I did not believe this was possible. In the blues and crunch models, you keep the Gain a bit past half-way to achieve this.

You must have noticed that there isn’t an EQ. Yep, there isn’t any; instead, it is replaced with the Tone knob which works exactly the same way as the one in your guitar. I don’t miss that feature very much at all since I’m using the amp only for practice. Now, on to the effects section…

the effects section

It should be noted that there is no way to control or switch between the effects or the amp models by using a foot-switch. Other than that this is a very decent set of effects for practising. The auto-wah is quite cool, though again since there is no way to switch between different effects without taking your hands off the guitar, its use is very limited. You can bypass or turn off the effects altogether with the bypass button. The “tap” button is used to set the delay time and parameters like that in other effects. The unique features of this amp are at its back…

the cool bits

On the right you see an input for your mic with its own volume adjuster adjacent to it. The ‘Line/Phone’ and ‘Aux In’ are self-explanatory. By far the best feature is the Power Selector in the left. This is literally a life saver as you can basically practise at midnight through the amp speakers without disturbing a person in the same room. I know, ’cause I’ve done it! And I’m not a good guitarist by any means. So far, I’ve never felt the need to change from 0.5 watts while practising alone; its plenty loud already. I never actually realised how much power that puny 0.5w is until I played through this amp. It’ll be interesting to see if I’ll need to increase the power when practising with a drummer, a bass guitarist and a rhythm guitarist. I’ll have to wait till I get back to uni for that though.

Since, I really like this amp for practice I’m going to be using it in one gig at least. I’m constrained to use only one tone. I don’t need a gazillion different tones anyway (I play Lead). And I’ll pick “Blues 3″ with a little delay or reverb for that. Rock On!

At ScienceBlogs, a teacher blogs about why it is dangerous to teach evolution in wherever he works in America. This guy who goes by the handle Coturnix opines:

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like [Natalie Wright] who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time.

First question, what is truth here? Or is it Truth (capital T). Most likely it’s the latter since the guy denies NOMA. Second, why teach your Truth: your spin interpretation of the scientific data and concepts as the truth in a public school/college? Whatever happened to the noble ideal of secularism.

As a student, I say if ever I knew that my biology teacher was using NOMA to gain my trust, only to teach his version of the “truth”, I’d be mad. Thank God, my A-level (and high school) Biology teachers were not like that. If they were, it will only have served to destroy the respect I have for whatever truth the teacher represents.

I do not understand why it is necessary to use some ‘inaccuracies’ about evolution in order to “reach” the students (is it some kind of evangelism?). I mean Coturnix is most definitely not teaching about evolution to little children; rather to teenagers and adults I guess. So why the need for ‘inaccuracies’? And by the way, the students are not gonna like you for teaching inaccuracies (or lies if knowingly done) if they find it out later on in their academic life.

Reading Coturnix’s article, initially I thought I found a positive thing to commend:

If there is a potential resentment of my lectures, I have to thread carefully. I have to remember that I am not trying to turn them into biologists, but that I am trying to make them think for themselves and to understand evolution even if they do not want to ‘believe’ it for religious reasons.

However, I found his intention very insincere in light of his other desires.

Now I will mention some of the things about my science teachers that inspired me and put me steadily on the path to becoming a scientist. My chemistry teacher in A-levels was a huge inspiration. He almost never talked about religion or anything controversial–even when once given a chance to comment on Christianity, he politely declined. Not a disparaging word mentioned; he was definitely not religious. He was also a very genuine man–no false intentions. I must mention here that my interest in Genetics was kindled by him, since he was a Geneticist prior to taking up the teaching job. See, totally unrelated to what he was actually teaching but very much connected to how he conducted himself. It puts a positive perception on whatever the teacher stood for. He was the best chemistry teacher I had in my life I would say. He did not try to introduce ‘temporary inaccuracies’ in what he was teaching just to get a point across.

Another important teacher in my life was my lecturer for A-level psychology. He was a critic of evolutionary psychology. The way he teaches itself is inspiring. What he does is describes a model or a scientific study and asks everyone (we were about 10-15 students) to come up with one or two criticisms about it. Then he explains how the valid criticisms we raise applies. In the other subjects I studied (the more “hard” sciences), I had never encountered this type of teaching. They all merely expound on the “facts”. The pinnacle of my high regard for this teacher was reached when in one class, we were allowed to ponder whether psychology itself is a scientific discipline with arguments for and against. Think about it. Imagine the uproar if a teacher allowed some teenagers to ponder whether Evolutionary Biology is scientific. Hmm. Needless to say that I understood much more about the way science works and the scientific method there than in any other class I have attended in my entire pre-university life. As far I could tell, the lecturer wasn’t religious (neither was he explicitly atheistic).

The things that appeals and inspires students like me the most is humility and honesty. Being humble about what you confidently teach and know through the scientific method. Understanding and explaining the limitations of science. Honesty is the most appreciated. Making assumptions explicit. Not afraid to criticise received theories and models. Openly saying what we don’t know yet as “We don’t know”. Not being afraid of admitting it. We know you are not omniscient.

This is a hilarious parody of Kanye West’s song Gold Diggers with the theme being Evolution. The lyrics’ got digs at Paleontologists. No offence to them! I just find the pop culture understanding of stuff like this funny.

Lyrics after the break….

Bone Diggers – Apologetix (a parody band)

They make a monkey right out of me — Yes, they’ve been tryin’ endlessly
Overeager bonediggers — they never found that jigsaw piece
They make a monkey right out of me — It makes for funky biology
I’m not the kid of some hominid, who comes from a lizard, whose mama was a fish

Now I ain’t hatin’ on the bone diggers, but I say evolution don’t figure
Now, I ain’t hatin’ on the bone diggers, but I ain’t never seen no holes bigger
It sounds like no evidence found, it sounds like their heads in the ground
It sounds like they’re just too proud, it sounds quite boneheaded

You need to ponder whether evolution is wrong
Whether maybe you was put on under cover of dawn
They said, “We can tell from rocks, we tell by the carbon”
‘Cause this world has gotta flock of descendants of Charles Robert Darwin
But I’m lookin’ for the odds at casinos
That life could come to be from random acids amino
Zero — we know it’s hocus pocus
And they wanna make all of that an accidental process?
O.K., let’s pretend a fishy got some kids
That stood up on their fins and crawled up on land
Without evidence and here we are today
If you’re trustin’ in this worldview you better have faith
You know why? They make too much of nothin’
Stuff that I’ve heard it should have been on Mythbusters
Their best forensic samples couldn’t cut the mustard
You don’t care what none of us say you still trust it

(They make a monkey) Now I ain’t hatin’ on the bone diggers (right out of me)
But I say evolution don’t figure (It makes for funky)
Now, I ain’t hatin’ on the bone diggers (biology)
But I ain’t never seen no holes bigger (I’m not the kid)
It sounds like no evidence found (of some hominid)
It sounds like their heads in the ground (who comes from a lizard)
It sounds like they’re just too proud (whose mama was a fish)
It sounds quite boneheaded

1859’s the fateful year — they’ve had 150 years to prove their great new theory
I know some funny ways they found support for some of it, kids
They made some hominids from parts of gibbons and pigs
Your museums are deceiving when you visit one they
Take a couple bones pawn it off as a primate
They were s’posed to find all sorts of life forms we could study
They went to the rocks and got dinosaurs in the muddy
They’re talkin’ down actin’ like the Bible is so funny
Could’ve got dinos sooner if they tried Job 41-y
If it ain’t no bunk, holler “We want proof now, we want proof now, yeah!”
It’s somethin’ that’ll make you mad
Cause all the links they had were either weak or bad
Great big digs since the 1860’s
And after waiting and searchin’ they found out it doesn’t exist?

*CHORUS*

Now I ain’t hating on the bone digger, no, not me
I’ve found trilobites in stone and some petrified trees
You know evolution ain’t paleontology
Transition forms are lackin’ — got a hole up his sleeve
But — the other option’s not fun
So he gonna make you into a man out of that pond scum
This is his religion baby, don’t be surprised
That fishy on all fours on his jeep’s his messiah
So, let’s not fight — I won’t abuse Darwin ’cause that’s not nice
And they’re gonna keep stallin’ and tryin’ to prove they’re right though
And when you catch on we’ll lead you back to the Bible

*SECOND HALF OF CHORUS*

“Storm the Gates of Hell” is the title for the latest album from the Metal band, Demon Hunter. I had quite high expectations for their newest album since I loved the previous one (The Triptych). I got the ‘Special Edition’ of the album as I like to watch interviews with the band members and hear their commentary about the album. What follows are some thoughts from a fan so it might not exactly be a dispassionate critique of the pros and cons of the musical complexities expressed in this album. So here we go…

One thing that impresses me of this band is the whole presentation of the album. The covers and the booklets are well designed. The cover design is a departure from the conventional CD cover design (a positively artistic departure at that):

I like how the cover opens like a door; Hell’s door with the logo of the hunted demon on it. The demon is ‘hunted’ because of a hole in its head–presumably made by the Hunter’s weapon. I liked the symbolisms. As you open the doors you see a statement on the inside of the doors…

“Hell Hath No Fury At All”

I liked the very bold statement. This statement of rebellion to dark forces is very appealing in the midst of bands that sing about embracing darkness. The irony is that those bands that sing about embracing darkness started out as a rebellion themselves! Now there are so much of them that they are the “mainstream” and bands like Demon Hunter are the rebels!

All this prepared me for the sonic pleasure that awaited. As usual, I played the CD in my home theatre and the first song was “Storm the Gates of Hell”. The start sounded like the stampede of the hunters and the hunted but what followed it could only be best described in the words of the bassist, “…pure aggression from beginning to end, no ceasing, no letting up, no choruses, not giving you chance to breathe…y’know just pummeling from beginning to end…”. Nearing the end of the song, the phrase “Hell hath no fury at all” was screamed/growled by the lead singer Ryan Clark with ’squealies’ flying off the guitars like arrows in the background. It…was…pure headbanging awesomeness. A phrase like that found its ultimate expression from the mouth of Ryan Clark. It really does makes one think, “Hell hath no fury at all”, indeed. Oh yeah, I was screaming it in my mind too since I did not want to ruin Ryan’s vocal performance by doing it audibly myself.

The song “Sixteen” captured my interest. It had guest vocals from Bruce Fitzhugh of Living Sacrifice. The vocals by him reminded me of the album Burning Bridges by Haste the Day. It was different and dare I say a bit refreshing as well. This type of growling is one of the deepest and darkest form of vocals I have heard. When a whole album is comprised of vocals with only one type of vocal style it would get rather monotonous and grow stale before you know it. The original vocal style would then quickly become unoriginal. However, employed like in the song “Sixteen” it adds to the texture of the song very well while maintaining variety.

A thing I adore about Demon Hunter is the lyrics of the songs. The main reason is that they are real and honest about whatever it is written about. There is no watering down or softening of the lyrical content. Songs like “I’am You”, “Thorns”, “Follow the Wolves”, “Carry Me Down” speak to this fact.

Notably, the song “Carry Me Down” is about looking in to the future death of the author. It is the one ballad-type slow song in the album. Vocalist Ryan indicates that it is a letter to his family and friends in the DVD included in the Special Edition of the album. The lyrics will speak for themselves:

If you see me losing ground
Don’t be afraid to lie
I know the pain inside my heart
Can’t break the fear inside of yours
And if you see me losing faith
in what it means to die
Don’t let me leave before I know
what lies beyond the stained-glass doors

Save sorrow for the souls in doubt
Bleed every care out

Will you carry me down the aisle that final day?
With your tears,
And cold hands, shaking from the weight
When you lower me down,
beneath that sky of grey,
let the rain fall down and wash away your pain.

For every word we never spoke,
We have a tear to cry
For every silence like a wall
between a better you and I.
So if you see me losing sight
of all the death in life
You’ll find the peace
in every time I fail to see the death in mine

Let all the fear inside you drown
Tear out the blade and lay it down
Save sorrow for the souls in doubt
Bleed every care out

Oh, the blood is rushing out
Oh, I’m better off without
Oh, The walls are closing in
Oh, Sing for me again

The video of the song will put a tune to the lyrics. [Youtube link]

Over at the bands website, the bassist, Jon had witten a journal entry about the above video/song which I think is pertinent:

A PERSONAL NOTE ABOUT THE “CARRY ME DOWN” VIDEO…
Hey Everyone- I wanted to share a few words regarding our newest video for “Carry Me Down.” Let me start back when I was in High School. One of my best friends, Aaron Barkland and I spent most of every day together, causing mischief, working on cars, and all those other joys of our youth. Aaron was a year younger than I, so I headed off for college while he was still a senior. We stayed in touch despite being hours away, and he would always come out to the weekend shows I would play while in college, but because of the distance, there wasn’t the closeness we shared in high school. In December of 2001, Aaron took his own life, just weeks before Christmas. I don’t know what was going through his mind to drive him to that point, but it is safe to assume he felt alone and that no one cared. It was a terrible tragedy and was very hard for me to deal with, as well as his family and other friends. I kept thinking that if I was only more in touch and not away at school maybe things would be different. Aaron had written me a note in high school about our friendship that I had always carried around in my wallet, and still have to this day that I used to read whenever I was feeling down and out. It’s a painful reminder of the pain of that loss.

Fast forward to December 14th, 2007. We are shooting the video for “Carry Me Down” in North Eastern Washington, up at Whidbey Island. I wasn’t really aware of where we were shooting and all the locations and such. The first location we shot at was a bridge called Deception Pass, which was the bridge where Aaron took his life, 6 years earlier on almost the same day. I had not been up to the bridge in those 6 years, and now showing up there unannounced was a little unsettling. Interestingly enough, we were shooting a video for a song about a funeral and the hope we have of Life after death. One of the most moving lines, for me, in the song is “Save sorrow for the souls in doubt.” I pray, that by the Grace of God, one day I will see Aaron again in the sweet by and by. I sincerely hope that Aaron’s death was not in vain. I hope that anyone that might be reading this will take from my heart that you are loved not just by family and friends, but by our Creator. There are things I wish I could have said, and shared, with Aaron before his passing that haunt me to this day, and I have made it a point to lever lose another friend without sharing the joy and love we all have with our Heavenly Father. If you find yourself in a position of thinking of suicide, please find help, reach out to your friends, family, pastor and know that you are loved. In loving memory of Aaron Barkland.

You see, these dudes are Christians. Much of their song lyrics are from their perspective as Christians. I like the fact that, the lyrics are not condescending or condemning, but still maintaining integrity.

One criticism I came across somewhere was that the album is “overproduced” with effects in places. I agree with this as there are a couple of places in the album where less effects would have sufficed.

Overall, I liked this album very much. I close this post with one of my favourite piece of lyric from the album, its almost like a battle cry:

Raise your glass to death

Not one second left

Hell hath no fury at all.

“We were on tour in India. We visited Prem Kiran–a humanitarian project in one of the red light districts in Mumbai, and it left us in shock. To see women enslaved in such circumstances is an outrage, but to see their own children growing up in such a completely hopeless environment was a tragedy. But there was hope. The team working at the project were taking the kids off the street and housing them, feeding them and giving basic education. They were working alongside the mothers, helping them find order in the chaos–a little peace in the storm. It’s hard for a band to know how to respond to things like this. Mostly we just stood there with our mouths open and hearts wrenched out–unable to be put back the same. We knew we had to do something, no matter how small. And so we have committed to give part of our royalties to Prem Kiran. This money will primarily be able to put food in the children’s stomachs but also help to provide school lessons and eventually re-house them and their mothers. Thanks for buying this CD and becoming part of the solution.  – D boys”

As I read this in the booklet accompanying Delirious?’s new album Kingdom of Comfort, I felt an immense sense of gratitude to the band. I was also humbled by the Love that motivates them to alleviate such pain.

These people in the “sovereign and secular” India live a life of hopeless despair and pain. The pain is so much that it numbs their hearts. All Indians know about this. The Indians who just get by hear it, see it and yet are unable to do anything about it. It desensitizes our hearts hearing it all the time. Such is life in the not-so-great parts of the Third World.

Then I got lost in thoughts of the people being helped….Thoughts the afflicted might be thinking as I got in to their mind…

As I was listening to the album I really liked the song “Love Will Find a Way”. The lyrics capture some emotions one goes through when thinking about these things…

I thought I believed but I just turn away from these souls living in this hell today

Tears are falling on my face from face

Love, love will find a way to break through

This Love, finds a way to shine through….

I try to make sense of the things I’ve seen between the poverty and the five star dream..

Love will lead me to your feet

Love won’t pass me on the street

Love will look me in the eye

Love won’t leave me here to die…

To your arms I’m gonna run and escape what I’ve become…

At the end of my previous blog post, I had indicated that biblical “Faith” does not mean “belief without evidence”. So what exactly does it mean?

One of my favourite apologist JP Holding in his article (link) regarding biblical “Faith” offers four different ways people understand the word “faith”:

1. A “faith healer” named Benny Pophagin offers to heal Joe of his lumbago. Benny lays hands on Joe and prays, but the lumbago remains. Benny waves Joe away, saying, “This is your problem. You don’t have enough faith.”
2. A Christian faces several objections to his beliefs that he cannot answer. He says, “I don’t care what people say, I still have faith.”
3. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard “contends that the scriptures included in the Bible verify that the Christian belief system is based on a leap of faith, not on tangible proof.” This is because Christianity involves paradoxes offensive to reason.
4. The famous skeptic Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

The third and fourth points are much closer to the modern use of the word ‘faith’ by skeptical polemic while the first and second points reflect the folk understanding of ‘faith’ by religious people. However, Holding indicates that:

The Greek word behind “faith” in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian, and in the NT in Acts 17:31:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

If you are used to thinking of “faith” in terms of our first two examples, this will assuredly come as a surprise. The raising of Christ is spoken of here as a proof that God will judge the world.

The concept of ‘faith’ is also expanded to include “trust”. Quoting Holding again:

With a form of pistis used over 240 times in the NT, it will not be possible to examine every instance of it. But it is enough to highlight some of the more obvious examples.

Matthew 8:5-10 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed… When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

We see the definition of “faith” in terms of loyalty to, or trust in, a deserving patron, exhibited quite clearly here. The centurion knew of Jesus’ miraculous abilities (v. 8). His faith was not “blind” but based on the evidence of Jesus’ past works. He considered Jesus worthy therefore of his trust and came to him for help.

This is the sort of “faith” also exhibited by other people who come to, or are brought to, Jesus for healing. The man with palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Jairus, the blind man (Matt. 9), the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15) — all came knowing of Jesus’ abilities to heal. Their actions were based on evidence and proof. Of course one may argue that their trust was misplaced and that Jesus was a charlatan, but contextually that is beside the point. Our point is that faith is not “blind trust.”

Now, this might come as a surprise to many; it was certainly to me when I first read it as I too had been caught up with the ‘blind assent’ characterisation of the word ‘faith’ and had mistook it for the biblical word ‘faith’. Holding’s article makes so much more sense as he develops the contextualised concept of ‘faith’. I can relate to this type of ‘faith’ readily as I come from a collectivistic culture. I would not say that the culture I was raised in was similar to Ancient Near Eastern culture, but certainly I can relate to these concepts of ‘loyalty’, ‘honour’, ‘trust’ as explained by Holding intuitively, more so than an average person in an individualistic culture.

Many times I have encountered dialogues where a skeptic in trying to prove that the Christian’s faith is in fact blind will resort to a dictionary argument where a dictionary is used as an authority to support the premise. I find it very comical in that, in scientific discourse a word/phrase describing a concept is defined by the scientists using them–the word might have an entirely different meaning in the general/normal use but if that word is used in a scientific context it will have the specific meaning attached by the scientists working in that field. So what would an expert in the field think of a lay person trying to demonstrate that the scientific word means what is meant by the normal/every day use of the word by using a dictionary? Some skeptics find it hard to give a similar privilege to theological concepts. Certainly they would not allow another meaning for ‘faith’; For the ‘blind’ view of faith as used by them gives much emotional force to their arguments and/or rhetoric and a theological meaning like the one explained above would destroy the polemical force of the word.