Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

ID pencurian dapat dicegah. Seperti jenis lain kejahatan selalu ada risiko menjadi identitas korban kejahatan. Tapi ada banyak hal yang orang bisa lakukan untuk meminimalkan risiko itu baik online dan offline seperti Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa menyimpan catatan keuangan yang dilindungi dan swasta merobek-robek surat sampah dan pelacakan Mengembalikan Jati Diri yang melihat informasi pribadi Anda.

ID pencurian hanya kejahatan keuangan. ID keuangan Sementara pencurian pencurian informasi bagi keuntungan finansial yang lebih dikenal jenis lain pencurian identitas bisa sama-sama berbahaya berpotensi mahal dan memakan waktu untuk Mengembalikan Jati Diri menyelesaikan. Misalnya pencurian identitas pengobatan catatan medis pribadi yang digunakan untuk mengakses perawatan medis atau obat-obatan atau untuk membuat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa klaim asuransi palsu. Pidana pencurian identitas seseorang rusak atau dicuri menggunakan identifikasi untuk menghindari penuntutan oleh penegak hukum.

– MEDICAL ID THEFT

– PIDANA THEFT

– PEKERJAAN PENIPUAN

Ini bank saya salah aku menjadi korban. Identitas Beberapa kejahatan tidak berasal dengan pencurian data bank atau diabadikan oleh praktik Mengembalikan Jati Diri keamanan lemah. Namun sebagian besar pencurian dimulai di tempat lain. Informasi pribadi bisa dicuri dengan Jati Diri Bangsa peralatan berteknologi rendah seperti hilang atau dicuri dompet buku cek atau debet / kartu kredit atau lebih metode teknologi tinggi seperti skimming phishing Jati Diri Bangsa dan hacking.

ID pencurian berinvestasi Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa dalam perlindungan dan pencegahan. Tidak semua bentuk perlindungan pencurian identitas dapat dicegah tapi layanan perlindungan pencurian identitas dapat secara dramatis mengurangi risiko Anda.

10 ‘Mitos’ Tentang Alay dan Kenyataannya!

1. Orang alay biasanya menyukai lagu-lagu pop melayu Indonesia seperti Kangen Band, ST12, dan Radja.

Kenyataannya:
Tidak sepenuhnya benar.

Justru alay-alay yang menyukai lagu-lagu seperti Kangen Band, Radja, Angkasa, dsb itu mulai jarang.

Dan anehnya, justru lagu-lagu Kangen Band itu malah ‘populer’ di kalangan non-alay, dengan maksud lucu-lucuan dengan teman-teman atau karaoke dengan maksud joke dengan pura-pura menjadi alay (dengan maksud lucu-lucuan juga, bukan dalam artian menyukai lohh).

Justru alay-alay yang seringkali ditemukan itu ‘menyukai’ lagu-lagu yang istilahnya ‘cenderung terbawa mode’ atau menurut mereka ‘keren/gokil/gaul’, padahal mereka hanya sekedar ikut-ikutan biar dibilang keren. Bukan karena musikalitas. Biasanya beraliran rock, punk, atau metal.

Contohnya bisa dari dalam negeri seperti PeeWee Gaskins, atau dari luar seperti Secondhand Serenade, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Avenged Sevenfold, bahkan hingga blink-182 dan Metallica!

Dengan menjadi ‘penggemar’ musik-musik mereka, kemudian mereka mencaci dan menganggap rendah musik-musik/musisi-musisi tertentu; biasanya musik-musik yang diluar ’selera’ mereka (yang menjadi korban biasanya musik-musik yang lebih slow/ngepop), dengan mengatakan ‘musik banci’, ‘lagu bencong berkuntul’, dsb. Mereka mengaku-ngaku membenci lagu-lagu seperti itu padahal aslinya malah lebih menyukainya (lihat paragraf selanjutnya).

Kalaupun yang ‘pop’, biasanya lagu-lagu mainstream standar acara-acara musik di televisi-televisi swasta seperti Inbox, Dahsyat, dll; atau menjadi soundtrack sinetron-sinetron. Biasanya grup musik/penyanyi yang cenderung mengikuti pasar. (untuk saat ini musimnya pop melayu)

Contohnya The Virgin, ST12, Ungu, Derby, Hello, Ridho Rhoma, Lyla, Five Minutes, D’Masiv, dsb.

Aslinya, mereka justru lebih menyukai lagu-lagu semacam ini ketimbang lagu-lagu yang mereka anggap ‘keren’ tersebut.

Hanya saja mereka ‘jaim’ sehingga mereka menikmati lagu ini secara sembunyi-sembunyi atau menyelipnya di ‘tumpukan’ lagu-lagu yang mereka anggap ‘keren/gaul’ di playlist mereka.Maksudnya biar tidak ketahuan bahwa mereka menyukai lagu seperti itu.

2. Orang alay biasanya menyukai grup musik yang penampilan personilnya (maaf) ‘kampung’ atau ‘menengah ke bawah’. (penampilan fisik, bukan performance di atas panggung).

Kenyataannya:
Justru sebaliknya!

Alay justru malah melihat suatu grup musik/musisi dari bentuk fisik personilnya.
FYI, selera musik mereka juga mencakup aktor/aktris yang terjun ke dunia musik, meskipun kualitas musiknya pas-pasan sekalipun!

Contoh: Lyla (katanya vokalisnya ganteng), The Titans (katanya vokalisnya ganteng juga), The Adlys (mentang-mentang ada Adly Fairuz), Irwansyah, The Sisters (mentang-mentang ada Shireen Sungkar), Derby, dsb.

Mereka seringkali ‘judge a book by its cover’, kalau vokalisnya jelek atau ‘muka melas’, menurut mereka sudah pasti musiknya ‘melas’ juga, kalau vokalisnya gendut musiknya ‘nyesekin’, dsb.

Ingat, sama sekali tidak ada hubungan antara tampang dengan musikalitas!
Musikalitas itu lebih dekat dengan suara dan kemampuan memainkan alat musik dengan alat-alat tubuh tertentu. Musik itu bukan seni peran yang lebih mengedepankan tampang dan akting.

Di luar sana, banyak sekali musisi meskipun dengan penampilan fisik yang (maaf) menengah ke bawah namun mampu menghasilkan musik yang jauh lebih berkualitas ketimbang grup-grup musik/musisi-musisi yang mengandalkan tampang, tetapi musikalitasnya cenderung mengikuti pasar.

3. Orang alay identik dengan ekonomi (maaf) menengah ke bawah.

Kenyataannya:
Tidak semuanya kok.

Memang sifat alay itu karena pengaruh lingkungan, dan lingkungan yang identik dengan ke-alay-an itu memang tidak dapat dipungkiri, didominasi oleh kalangan menengah ke bawah.

Tetapi banyak juga alay yang berasal dari kalangan menengah ke atas.

Biasanya OKB (orang kaya baru), tetapi OKL (orang kaya lama) juga banyak.
Mungkin karena pengaruh lingkungan yang mendidik mereka untuk mempunyai sikap alay.

Mencakup orang-orang yang sok keren, tukang pamer, dan yang suka menganggap rendah orang-orang yang berada di bawahnya.

Contohnya seseorang yang mempunyai BlackBerry, lalu menganggap rendah orang-orang di sekitarnya yang mempunyai ponsel yang hanya mempunyai fitur sms dan telepon, dengan menganggap mereka *ucup*, tidak gaul, atau miskin. Padahal BlackBerry hasil merengek atau bahkan mengancam orang tuanya; bahkan dia sendiri kurang mengetahui fitur-fitur BlackBerry.

4. Orang alay biasanya ditemukan di perkampungan/pedesaan atau di pelosok.

Kenyataannya:
Kata siapa? Justru di pelosok/perkampungan/pedesaan lebih banyak orang yang tahu diri dan lebih mengerti akan arti kebersamaan dan perdamaian, serta rendah hati.

Kalau Anda suka menonton acara-acara yang berbau petualangan/menjelajah daerah-daerah tertentu, justru orang-orang yang tinggal di wilayah seperti itu lebih suka bermain dengan permainan-permainan turun-temurun dengan atau membantu orang tuanya untuk menghidupi keluarga, misalnya menangkap ikan atau mencari kayu bakar.

Orang alay banyak juga yang ditemukan di wilayah perkotaan bahkan di kota-kota besar seperti Jakarta dan Bandung. Mungkin yang orang tuanya mengadu nasib di sana.

Tetapi lebih dominan di kota-kota kecil atau masih bersifat kedaerahan seperti Serang, Cilegon, Sukabumi, Cirebon, dll.

Kita tahu sendiri, kasus-kasus kriminal seperti tawuran atau melibatkan geng-geng yang umumnya melibatkan anak-anak ABG (biasanya SMP atau SMA awal bahkan SD akhir) lebih banyak terjadi di mana?

Kenakalan remaja seperti tawuran dan merusak fasilitas umum merupakan imbas dari budaya alay yang ’selalu ingin dibilang keren/gaul’.

5. Orang alay berpendidikan/berpengetahuan rendah.

Kenyataannya:
Tidak semua kok.

Ada juga orang yang pengetahuannya tinggi, dan dia menggunakan pengetahuannya itu untuk pamer, untuk menjatuhkan orang lain, serta untuk mencaci/menghina orang lain yang tidak sependapat dengannya.

Intinya, kembali lagi ke pandangan hidup alay: dibilang ‘keren’ atau ‘gaul’!

Contohnya orang yang serba tahu tentang musik metal, lalu menghina musik genre lain; maksudnya biar dibilang keren/gaul, merasa diri paling keren dan cool.

Seharusnya orang semakin tinggi pengetahuannya/pendidikannya itu semakin rendah hati, seperti ilmu padi makin berisi makin merunduk.

6. Orang alay kLo cHaT pa5t1 tuLi5aNnY4 g3d3 k3ciLzZzZ, p’koQnY kY 9iNi Lh, 9auLzZz meNzZz!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kenyataannya:
Benar, meskipun belakangan sudah mulai jarang…

Tulisan s’pRt1 ni3 memang ‘warisan’ dari jaman Friendster, jaman *piip* Online, jaman Nokia N Series masih sangat booming juga, sekitar pertengahan 2004 hingga awal 2008.

Jaman-jaman segitu mungkin masih dibilang unik, bahkan imut. Tetapi jaman sudah berubah, seiring cara pandang orang-orang jaman sekarang. Tulisan seperti itu dianggap ‘merusak mata’ dan bahkan ‘memutar otak’ untuk membacanya.

Tetapi sekarang para alay sudah mulai ’sadar’. Sudah jarang tulisan 9de kciLz ditemukan.
Hanya saja, penyingkatan hingga tulisan sulit untuk dibaca, sok imut, serta pe-lebay-an kata masih bisa dirasakan.

Contoh:
Aku —> aq, aky (aki mobil kali… atau aki-aki?)
Saya —> sy (sy maknanya juga bisa berarti ’say’)
Gw —> w, g, ge, guw (g maknanya juga bisa berarti ‘gak’)
Dia —> dya (apa salahnya sih menggunakan ‘dia’? jumlah hurufnya sama ini)
Mereka —> mrk (merek?)
Kita —> qta, qt (qta? qta qutawa?)
Kalian —> kly, kln, klyn (klien?)
Gak Tahu —> gtw, gaq tw

7. Orang alay biasanya ponselnya dibawah 1 juta, atau kameranya masih VGA, atau ponsel bundling operator, atau ponsel second, atau ponsel china/merek lokal tidak jelas.

Kenyataannya:
Tidak ada hubungan antara ke-alay-an dengan kepemilikan ponsel/telepon genggam.

Setiap orang mempunyai taraf hidupnya masing-masing.

Tetapi banyak juga kok alay yang ponselnya 2 juta keatas, tetapi casingnya ditempelkan stiker-stiker khas alay sok keren seperti gambar tengkorak, ganja, atau jari tengah.

Isinya?
Pictures —> foto narsisan up to 300 or more images, dari mulai pose nungging hingga memakai kacamata hitam sambil mengacungkan jari tengah (padahal cengdem); ataukah foto narsis yang diedit dengan menambahkan tulisan ‘pRiNceSz’ dan ditambahkan mahkota tidak jelas (diedit sendiri dengan menggunakan Microsoft Paint, bahkan minta di-edit orang lain)?
Untuk foto di Friendster/Facebook tentunya!

Music —> lagu-lagu khas abg alay sok keren, biar dibilang keren, gaul, rock, metal, emo, romantis, whatever serta ‘dalem’, dari mulai PeeWee Gaskins hingga The Virgin; paling-paling hasil minta dari teman via bluetooth/minta dari operator warnet terdekat.

Video —> video lagu-lagu cengeng atau khas abg alay yang pengen dibilang keren; padahal juga hasil minta via bluetooth.

Notes —> puisi cintod bikinan sendiri, biar dibilang romantis atau ‘daleeeem’. Mungkin buat di bulletin di Friendster/notes di Facebook. Entahlah murni hasil bikinan sendiri atau ada unsur copy paste ‘terinspirasi’ ataukah juga menggunakan bahasa-bahasa sok imut dan lebay?

Kamera 2-5 mpix hanya untuk narsis?

Baru-baru ini, kabarnya para alay sudah mulai menyentuh BlackBerry dan iPhone.
*hanya ‘menyentuh’ ataukah ‘tersentuh’ ingin membeli BlackBerry dan iPhone, dan sedang memikirkan bagaimana caranya memeras orang tua?*

Justru ponsel-ponsel yang fiturnya hanya SMS dan telepon itu kebanyakan dimiliki oleh orang-orang yang lebih mengetahui fungsi ponsel yang asli; yaitu SMS dan telepon.

8. [No SARA] Alay biasanya berasal dari kalangan agama tertentu.

Kenyataannya:
Kebanyakan alay bersikap seperti orang tidak mengerti agama dan agnostik (masih ragu-ragu tentang keberadaan Tuhan dan kebenaran-Nya)

Banyak alay yang kerjaannya hangout, nongkrong, hingga lupa waktu bahkan lupa ibadah.

Alay juga isi otaknya harta dan seks.

Pengutil di toko-toko, tukang peras, preman, dan perampok kebanyakan dari kalangan alay.

Mereka yang seks di luar nikah juga kebanyakan dari kalangan alay yang masih kurang mengerti agama.

Bahkan sebagian kalangan alay malah menganggap keren seni-seni yang mengarah ke pemujaan setan, penodaan unsur-unsur agama, serta atheisme!

9. Alay nongkrong di mall.

Kenyataannya:
Tergantung mallnya.

Ciri-ciri mencolok mall yang banyak alaynya: banyak counter ponsel/pulsa dan penjual cd/dvd bajakan; biasanya mall yang sasaran pengunjungnya kalangan dari kelas menengah ke bawah.

Tetapi kalau menurut pengalaman pribadi, sepertinya alay sudah mulai ‘mengenal kemajuan teknologi’ seperti internet dan LAN, dimana mereka lebih sering ditemukan di warnet-warnet.

Kalau warnet game, biasanya bermain Audition AyoDance (game online yang paling dikenal di kalangan alay, sebab banyak lagu pop melayunya) *maaf buat para AyoDancer, tetapi memang kenyataannya seperti itu*
Ketika bermain, menekan tombol keyboard dengan keras/tanpa perasaan/merusak, seenaknya.

Kalau warnet browsing, biasanya sekitar mengakses situs-situs jejaring sosial seperti Friendster atau Facebook, dan melakukan aksi alay mereka. Atau download konten-konten dari internet yang mengarah ke alay atau sok keren. Atau juga chatting dengan bahasa dan tulisan gaya alay dan topik yang mengalay.

Bahkan penulis pernah menemukan salah satu warnet di Serang, dimana terdapat beberapa pelanggan (sepertinya alay) yang tertangkap sedang berduaan (tiap komputer ditutupi semacam penghalang) dan sepertinya sedang berbuat mesum!

Beberapa ciri warnet yang banyak alaynya diantaranya adalah tombol keyboardnya banyak yang lepas/rusak, spasinya jungkat-jungkit, serta penat dan bau rokok.

10. Kebanyakan alay memakai baju-baju distro abal-abal (biasanya Diery)

Kenyataannya:
Alay sepertinya lebih identik dengan kaos-kaos band-band metal/hardcore/rock, padahal ditanya sejarahnya atau lagu-lagunya tidak tahu. Hanya suka gambarnya saja dan karena ingin dibilang gaul/keren. (kecuali kaos hasil sumbangan atau tidak ada kaos yang lain lagi)

Alay juga lebih identik dengan kaos-kaos dengan gambar-gambar khas alay sok keren seperti tengkorak, ganja, atau jari tengah tidak jelas.

Alay juga identik dengan kaos-kaos dengan tulisan-tulisan Bahasa Indonesia sok keren, termasuk tulisan-tulisan sok Bahasa Inggris padahal penulisannya dan grammarnya salah atau maknanya tidak jelas. Misalnya kaos-kaos dengan tulisan ‘p4niti4 h4ri ki4m4t’ atau ‘perset*n loe semua’, atau untuk versi sok Bahasa Inggris misalnya kaos bertuliskan ‘I LAVE YOU FOREVER MY LAVE’. (jangankan tulisannya yang salah, maknanya kalimatnya saja basi abis)

Credits to: Haekel-n-Girls!

London, Metode penurunan berat badan ala ’superdiet’ yang terlalu berlebihan minum jus jeruk dalam jumlah besar atau makan sayuran mentah saja ternyata hanya membuat seseorang menjadi korban dari mitos makanan belaka.

Profesor Chris Hawkey, presiden dari British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) mengungkapkan beberapa orang mengembangkan program diet seolah-olah berdasarkan ajaran agamanya dengan melihat apa yang terbaik untuk dimakan, tanpa didasari hanya sedikit atau tidak ada bukti ilmiah sama sekali.

Profesor Hawkey menyoroti lebih dari selusin program diet termasuk diet mengonsumsi makanan mentah yang menganggap memasak membuat makanan kurang bergizi. Selain itu ada juga diet buah jeruk yang didasarkan pada ide bahwa enzim dalam buah tersebut bisa membantu memecah lemak, serta diet alkali yang berusaha mempertahankan sedikit sifat alkali darah dengan hanya mengonsumsi beberapa makanan tertentu.

“Diet makanan-makanan ini telah diselimuti oleh mitos dan dongeng-dongeng sejak zaman dulu kala,” ujar Profesor Hawkey dalam acara konferensi Gastro 2009, seperti dikutip dari Telegraph, Senin (23/11/2009).

Profesor Hawkey menuturkan hal yang penting untuk diketahui adalah meskipun model diet ini populer tapi cara ini sangat tidak efektif untuk melawan obesitas ataupun mengurangi berat badan. Diet buah jeruk seperti yang pernah dilakukan penyanyi top Kylie Minouge hanya kemungkinan kecil memiliki enzim yang dapat memecah lemak dalam usus sebelum menjadi lemak dalam tubuh.

Selain itu efek buruk dari diet seperti ini adalah mengurangi kegiatan mengunyah. Padahal pada abad 19 lalu manusia dianjurkan untuk mengunyah makanan sebanyak 32 kali agar bisa membantu proses pencernaannya. Karena enzim yang terdapat dalam air liur juga turut membantu pencernaan suatu makanan.

“Diet Atkins konvensional yang mengharuskan orang menghindari protein dan karbohidrat juga tidak akan membuat orang menjadi sehat. Karena memungkinkan orang untuk memiliki banyak lemak dalam tubuhnya akan semakin besar,” ungkap Hawkey.

Untuk itu pintar-pintarlah dalam memilih program diet, jangan langsung percaya dengan mitos yang ada karena sebagian besar tidak dilengkapi dengan bukti ilmiah dan akan memberikan hasil yang tidak maksimal bagi orang tersebut.
Sumber: detikHealth

La exposición “Heroes and Villains: The Battle for Good in India’s Comics” puede verse en Los Angeles County Museum of Art hasta el próximo 7 de Febrero. A través de un recorrido por sus cómics, la exposición desvela la influencia de las divinidades indias en la cultura surasiática. Según la reseña del LACMA, “los superhéroes indios y sus archienemigos son visualizados a través de antiguos arquetipos que han estado presentes tradicionalmente en la pintura o la escultura y que están profundamente arraigados en el imaginario histórico de India“. No parece extraño que mitología y superhéroes se den la mano y de hecho, sería de lo más interesante ver una propuesta similar buceando en el inconsciente colectivo de nuestros mitos occidentales. Toma nota, Reina Sofía.

Aprovechando el momento hindú, os dejo un link a la presentación de Devdutt Pattanaik, autor, ilustrador y gurú en general, quien contrapone en TED los mitos occidentales a los indios, dando lugar a perlas tan curiosas como: por qué los matemáticos indios crearon el número 0, por qué Alejandro Magno aspiraba a ser único mientras los gimnosofistas soñaban con el infinito o, poniéndonos pragmáticos, cómo abrir un negocio en la India.

Para descubrirlo, clicke aquí.

En fin, Los Ángeles me pilla un poco lejos, pero desde luego, ¡si tuviera ocasión me escapaba!

[...]Todos tenemos la experiencia que más atrás relataba, existen dos maneras de oir algo: una es a través de los filtros del pensamiento y otra la mirada ingenua de un niño que aun no ha codificado la realidad y carece por tanto de una estructura que haga de dique entre su percepcion y la misma. El resultado de esta forma de mirar (o de escuchar) es el asombro, a veces, la perplejidad en otras. ¿No es precisamente eso lo que les sucede a los esquizofrénicos? Ellos oyen sus propios pensamientos, o les rebotan en forma de eco, o los sienten como impuestos o que alguien se los está robando, es como si todo en ellos careciera de esa conciencia que ilumina, ese trasfondo que engloba y encuadra toda percepción, es como si ellos solo fueran cuerpo. Un cuerpo sin horizontes, sin trasfondo …

Es por eso que existen profesionales de la escucha pues no todo el mundo tiene adiestrada esta facultad, la mayor parte de la gente solo quiere hablar (aunque no tengan nada que decir) y muy pocos son los que prefieren escuchar a hablar, pero aun en esta franca minoria de personas hay pocos que sepan escuchar en su dimensión mas dura: pues escuchar en realidad es oir sin pensar y sobre todo oir desde la ingenuidad no desde un sistema de creencias en donde encajar lo que el interlocutor nos dice. Es eso precisamente lo que hacen muchos profesionales sin seguir aquella máxima inventada por Freud y reformulada por Bion, en aquella famosa (y hermosa) frase de “escuchar sin tiempo y sin deseo”.

Todos operamos asi en nuestra vida privada, es decir oímos a nuestro interlocutor pero no le escuchamos. Si lo hiciéramos caeríamos en la cuenta de que nuestros pensamientos, nuestras hipótesis, nuestra formación o nuestros condicionamientos nos impiden escuchar realmente al otro y caeríamos además en la cuenta de que nuestra conciencia se encuentra permanentemente atravesada por nubarrones de todo tipo, es muy difícil despejar todos esos intrusos que pueblan nuestra mente, hace falta un entrenamiento que conocemos con el nombre de “presencia plena” o mindfulness.

Con este entrenamiento somos capaces de -al profundizar en su práctica- controlar el flujo de los subproductos de nuestra mente, y lo hacemos a través de nuestra propia mente, de su recursividad. Precisamente porque nuestra mente es recursiva (puede referirse a sí misma y puede autoobservarse) podemos planear en ese cielo despejando pensamientos y nubes. En realidad todos estos subproductos de la mente sólo aparecen porque somos muy distraídos por naturaleza y tenemos un enorme tendencia a distraernos mirando el panorama. De lo que se trata es de impedir de que los árboles no nos dejen ver el bosque.

Pero el bosque y los árboles son la misma cosa o al menos se encuentran acoplados del mismo modo que las abejas y las flores lo están tal y como comenté en este post. Es verdad que el bosque no es sólo una población de árboles sino algo más con su propio microclima, su fauna y su flora, su humedad y sus constantes biológicas, el bosque es un nicho ecológico, una emergencia de los árboles que ni existe ni no existe, es como la mente de los árboles. El bosque no podría existir sin los árboles pero los árboles pueden existir sin ser bosque.

Eso les sucede a los pensamientos de los esquizofrénicos, son como árboles sin bosque y esa es la idea que quiero reiterar aqui, no necesitamos creer que existe una trascendencia del bosque o una conciencia cósmica de los bosques para explicar su existencia real, porque el bosque es algo más que una idea sin dejar de ser una abstracción, una palabra de seis letras que no podemos despejar diciendo que no existe (pues todos tenemos una representación mental de qué cosa es un bosque) sin embargo el bosque no existe del mismo modo que el árbol, se trata de dos planos diferentes de la palabra “existir”.

Neurociencia y neurocultura.

Verano de 1985. Después de comer me tragaba “El Halcón Callejero” y luego salía emocionao con la bici a buscar a los amiguetes…

La serie duró sólo una temporada.Trataba de las aventuras de un policía, Jesse March, que es escogido para probar un projecto gubernamental altamente secreto llamado Halcón Callejero, y que no consistía ni más ni menos que en una versión sobre dos ruedas de El Coche Fantástico. El diseñador de la moto, Norman Tuttle, se convierte en su pareja en la lucha contra el crimen en las calles de Los Angeles. De este modo, Jesse recorrería las calles mientras Norman guiaba al policía desde el centro de de vigilancia.

El Halcón Callejero pillaba los 320km/h y si le metía el turbo casillegaba a los 500km/h, contaba con cañon lasser, ametralladoras, lanzamisiles, cámara de infrarojos… Sinembargo la XL500 es sólo un hierro duro con un motor monocilíndrico que daba 27 HP, con un peso de 152kg y una velocidad máxima de 137km/h

Por: La Bisagra

En el camino hacia el descubrimiento sexual de hombres y mujeres, al dar los primeros pasos, los nombres de Manuela y Dedóstenes, respectivamente, aparecen en mi memoria como sus protagonistas y grandes grupos contemporáneos tales como Soda Stereo (El temblor) o Ghandi (El invisible) le han dedicado disimuladamente letras de alguna canción.

Sí, estoy hablando de esa práctica que ha sido tan satanizada a lo largo de nuestra historia, conocida comúnmente como masturbación y de manera más formal como onanismo o autogratificación.

Los mitos albergados alrededor de ella son muchos y muy negativos, sobre todo aquellos que disfrazados de razones absurdas (como que masturbarse produce ceguera, crecimiento de pelos en la mano cómplice, pérdida de memoria o embrutecimiento) están dirigidos a provocar miedo y remordimiento, cuando la realidad es que casi TODO con respecto a la masturbación representa una ganancia para sus practicantes.

Primero, constituye la práctica sexual más segura que existe (y que nadie me salga con el cuento de que la abstinencia es más segura porque para empezar ni tiene nada de práctica ni es sexual); no hay riesgo de embarazos no deseados ni de contraer enfermedades venéreas. El único requisito es limpieza en las manos y/o accesorios complementarios.

Segundo, la práctica hace al maestro. Desde el punto de vista femenino, yo siempre me he preguntado ¿cómo puede una mujer pretender que su pareja le conozca el cuerpo de manera que le pueda dar placer si ella misma no lo conoce antes? Es cuestión de lógica básica: yo sé lo que me gusta, esto me califica para pedir e incluso instruir al respecto, si fuera el caso. Por el lado masculino, practicar a solas antes de una cita importante o de un encuentro muy esperado es una estrategia de audacia indiscutible: conlleva grandes beneficios en términos de administrar con eficiencia los niveles de ansiedad que, de no manejarse bien, podrían resultar en finales prematuros y embarazosos.

Tercero, no hay responsabilidades ante terceros. En esto quedas en solitario, por lo menos, físicamente hablando, puesto que la imaginación es un recurso indispensable. Sin embargo, como la contraparte es mental, no hay bronca si tu desempeño no es el esperado; se vale volver a empezar de cero y no hay porqué ni ante quién avergonzarse. Nadie te va a reclamar que no te esforzaste lo suficiente porque vos sabes que diste lo mejor de vos y usaste todo lo que estaba en tus manos, literalmente.

Cuarto, no hay peligro de enamorarse porque el amor ya va implícito. Estás a solas con la persona que más te quiere en el mundo: vos. ¿Quién te quiere más que vos? Nadie (bueno, talvez tu mamá, pero habría que ver…). Yo, por ejemplo, me amo demasiado y me lo repito y me lo demuestro constantemente. No me da vergüenza decirlo y pienso que a nadie debería de darle.

Quinto, es un excelente quita estrés. Como es bien sabido (y fundamentado con estudios científicos) el sexo libera tensiones y mejora el humor de quien lo practica. En este sentido, la condición de independencia que nos otorga el onanismo es un valor agregado cuando las circunstancias no se prestan para algo más interactivo. El fin justifica los medios.

Podría seguir con la lista, pero me haría falta mucho espacio. El caso es que, aunque casi todas las personas lo nieguen (en especial las mujeres y acerca de este tema prometo ahondar en el futuro) estamos hablando de algo que se practica mucho más que el mismo acto sexual, algo más libre y más propio del ser individual; algo cuyo control está completa y exclusivamente en nuestras manos. Es tener el placer al alcance de los dedos, ¿qué más se puede pedir?

Di era yang sudah serba canggih sekarang ini, hal-hal mitos seputar kecantikan yang sudah ada sejak berabad-abad silam, masih saja menjadi sebuah topik pembicaraan yang menarik untuk diperbincangkan di kalangan wanita.

Kekuatan sebuah mitos yang sudah diperkenalkan oleh para leluhur kita sejak dahulu kala pun, tak ayal membuat sebagian wanita mempercayainya sebagai sebuah “pedoman” jitu, demi mendapatkan sebuah kecantikan yang bisa membuatnya tampil sempurna.

Namun, tidak sedikit juga yang menganggap mitos-mitos tersebut, sebagai bualan belaka, karena ada juga beberapa mitos yang justru tidak bisa dipertanggung jawabkan kebenarannya.

Lalu seberapa menjanjikan kebenaran atas mitos-mitos kecantikan yang sudah menjadi bagian dalam kehidupan sehari-hari kita saat ini?

Benarkah kondisioner bisa memperbaiki rambut pecah-pecah?

Menurut ahli kecantikan rambut bahwa sebenarnya untuk mengatasi rambut pecah-pecah hanya satu jalan keluarnya yakni memotong ujung-ujung rambut yang mengalami kerusakan. Jadi tentu ada sudah tahu bukan jawaban dari pertanyaan ini? Benar sekali! Ternyata hanya MITOS!

Apakah Rambut akan menjadi rontok, jika dicuci setiap hari?

Kalau dulu, ada mitos yang mengatakan bahwa mencuci rambut paling baik yaitu seminggu sekali, nampaknya mitos tersebut sangat salah alamat jika diberlakukan saat ini.

Dengan kondisi lingkungan saat ini, dimana tingkat polusi di kota-kota besar sudah sangat memprihatinkan, jika rambut dibiarkan tanpa dicuci selama seminggu, justru akan membuat rambut semakin terlihat kusam dan rusak.

Jadi, asalkan sampo yang digunakan cocok dengan rambut Anda, maka mencuci rambut setiap hari, tentunya baik untuk menjaga keindahan mahkota (rambut) Anda. So, jawabannya dari pertanyaan poin kedua ini, adalah MITOS!

Apakah benar, coklat adalah salah satu penyebab timbulnya jerawat?

Kalau Anda berpikir cokelat bisa mendongrak mood yang jelek menjadi ceria kembali, barangkali ada benarnya juga. Tapi kalau statement yang menganggap kalau cokelat bukanlah penyebab timbulnya jerawat, Sepertinya anggapan tersebut harus dikaji ulang.

Menurut ahli kecantikan dari Clarins, kandungan didalam coklat dapat merangsang keluarnya kelenjar minyak, yang bisa memicu timbulnya jerawat. Dan juga coklat dapat menyebabkan timbulnya noda-noda pada kulit wajah.

Hmmm…sudah pasti ini adalah FAKTA. Dan bagi Anda, chocolate lover, yang juga memiliki masalah dengan kulit wajah yang berjerawat, sepertinya Anda harus lebih bijak lagi dalam mengontrol keinginan Anda, melahap cemilan creamy nan lezat yang satu ini.

Uap air bunga mawar bisa mengencangkan kulit?

Menggunakan uap dari semangkuk air panas yang diisi bunga mawar, untuk mengencangkan kulit wajah dan juga melembabkan pori-pori, barangkali hanya dianggap oleh sebagian orang, sebagai mitos kuno yang merepotkan.

Justru sebaliknya, ini adalah FAKTA! Hanya dengan bermodalkan satu atau dua bunga mawar dan semangkuk air panas, Anda sudah bisa merasakan khasiat dari ‘sauna’ wajah yang sangat bermanfaat bagi kulit wajah Anda – terutama bagi Anda yang memiliki kulit sensitif atau kulit wajah yang kering.

Benarkah teh dan mentimun bisa membesarkan mata?

Memiliki bentuk mata yang bulat, ditambah dengan bulu mata yang lentik bagi sebagian orang adalah sebuah anugerah. Dan mereka yang tidak seberuntung si pemiliki mata indah tersebut, bahkan ada yang rela merogoh kocek dalam-dalam demi mendapatkan bentuk mata seperti itu, yakni melalui jalan operasi.

Namun, tahukah Anda, jika dengan hanya menggunakan teh dan mentimun yang diletakkan di atas kelopak mata yang terpejam, bisa membuat mata Anda terlihat lebih besar? Hmm… ini benar-benar FAKTA!

Kandungan kafein yang terdapat di dalam sekantung teh celup bekas pakai plus mentimun, ternyata bisa merangsang seluruh area mata Anda. Sehingga mata tidak hanya mendapatkan kesegaran, tapi juga akan terlihat lebih besar. (Dee)

Sumber: hanyawanita.com

Investigar no demanda ni tiempo ni dinero

Todo es cuestión de ingenio, de voluntad. Si tuviéramos esas pequeñas dosis entonces nuestros medios de comunicación mostrarían otras ofertas informativas.

Ángel Páez realiza periodismo de investigación. Es peruano, trabaja en La República. Brevemente (característica del medio radiofónico) nos dice cuáles son los mitos que se construyen cuando se habla de periodismo de investigación.

Vea y escuche.

Sin muchas presentaciones ni ceremonias, dos película de Terence Fisher, uno de los mejores directores de la historia del cine, así como suena, perteneciente a su esplendorosa saga sobre el infame Barón Frankenstein. Ambas son, en principio, cuerpos extraños dentro del ciclo, en una el personaje es casi un secundario y en apariencia y solo en apariencia es un título menor “Frankenstein created the woman”. La otra es la última y fue “la última”, parece fea y lo es, parece destartalada y lo está pero entre las paredes mohosas de manicomio sórdido encierra y nunca mejor dicho toda una reflexión/recapitulación demoledora sobre el personaje e incluso sobre el devenir de “la casa del terror”, “Frankenstein and the monster from hell”, a la vez parodia y espejo.

“Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I don´t know…”

Frankenstein created the woman

Año: 1967

País: Gran Bretaña

86 min.

Fotografía: Arthur Grant

Música: James Bernard

Guión: Anthony Hinds

Reparto: Peter Cushing, Susan Denberg, Thorley Walters, Robert Morris

Terence Fisher retoma el personaje casi diez años después de “La venganza de Frankenstein” y con el interludio de “The evil of Frankenstein” facturada por el magistral operador de fotografía y apreciable director Freddie Francis en 1964, en esta extraña realización, mucho más densa de lo que el aspecto levemente “kitsch” de su desaforado romanticismo pueda aparentar.

En esta ocasión el progresivamente enloquecido Barón ocupa una posición secundaria ejerciendo como el elemento necesario para una (doble) venganza de ultratumba, la de una muchacha deforme, coja y con medio rostro desfigurado, víctima de las burlas y vejaciones de los mozos del pueblo a la que el doctor reconvertirá en una belleza despampanante y la del novio de esta (y ayudante de Frankenstein en su nuevo laboratorio), falsamente acusado de asesinato y por ello ajusticiado, tal y como lo había sido su padre. Un fatalismo que Fisher inmortaliza con la presencia obsesiva de una solitaria y descomunal guillotina que amenaza ominosa el plano cada vez que puede. Todo ello en el marco de esa historia de amor entre desesperados que acabará retorciéndose entre todo tipo de sugerencias pringosas y/o luctuosas. El Doctor Frankenstein aprovechará tan dramáticas circunstancias para poner en práctica sus nuevas técnicas de transmigración y sus teorías sobre conservación, es decir queda claro que nuevamente es ajeno a la tragedia y a las personas que le rodean a las que no contempla más que como probetas y sujetos experimentales, un desapego emocional y una frialdad indiferente a la que nuevamente Cushing presta su ensimismada energia y su magnético carisma.

De tal modo el “alma” o la “identidad” conservada en la cabeza decapitada del muchacho será trasportada (¿mesmerizada?) al (arreglado) cuerpo de la chica. A partir de aquí la atmósfera perversa y trágica que Fisher crea resulta tan pegajosa como audaz, de una profundidad conceptual y de huna turbiedad sexual asombrosas: la mente escindida de la chica es dominada alternativamente por uno de los dos ocupantes. El deseo de venganza provoca que la aparte masculina prevalezca y entonces nos encontramos con que el descabezado novio utiliza a “la criatura”, al nuevo (y espléndido) cuerpo de su amada y el deseo que esta lustrosa apariencia provoca, como cebo sobre sus antiguos acosadores a los que irá ejecutando, es decir usa sexualmente a el objeto de su amor, a la que defendió hasta la muerte para satisfacer una vendetta personal. Pero más aún, tenemos una mente masculina usando un cuerpo de mujer para satisfacer apetitos ocultos de la mente femenina y de la misma masculina, recordar que también el era rechazado y así es aceptado….y deseado lo que incluso desliza una extraña pulsión homoerótica. Y viceversa claro, la parte femenina también reclama su ración de atenciones eróticas que no había tenido antes y además saca a la bestia castradora a pasear, exhibiendo con orgullo lo que antes había sido rechazado y negándolo en el último momento. En fin…increíble, que cada cual elucubre su combinación, son tan inagotables como retorcidas. En cualquiera de los casos una idea magistral en su subversivo tratamiento de la dualidad sexual y el descubrimiento del poder erótico como arma. Todo en 86 apretados minutos y sin salirse del género.Formalmente resulta ser una (otra) película tremendamente brillante merced a la elegancia habitual del director, a ese intransferible sentido de la puesta en escena y a l adinámica interna del plano, una mezcla de precisión en el encuadre y movimiento constante en el interior del mismo. Peter Cushing tan bien como suele, dando aquí una imagen más distendida del Barón (sobre todo en comparación a la siguiente y magnífica “El cerebro de Frankenstein” donde descenderá a simas de abyección nunca vistas) que incluso y dada la magnitud de la tragedia acabará por verse conmovido y la más que saludable Susan Denberg antológica en su (doble) papel como pobrecita desvalida y mantis depredadora sexual.

“..y podeis moriros todos de risa porque la llevo con orgullo”, Elvis Costello

Frankenstein and the monster from hell

Año: 1974

País: Gran Bretaña

99 min.

Fotografía: Brian Probyn

Música: James Bernard

Guión: Anthony Hinds

Reparto: Peter Cushing, Shane Briant, Madeline Smith, David Prowse

Un título bastante superior a lo que se le suele conceder que supone un cierre divertidamente sardónico para el glorioso ciclo “frankensteiniano” pero que aún así resulta una triste despedida para el gran Terence Fisher además de una película desmañada y carente casi por completo, aunque refulja por instantes, de la elegancia del maestro, claramente incómodo con las modas hacia las que la “Hammer” viró en los años 70 y que en gran medida precipitaron el adiós de un director que había sido viga maestra en su crecimiento y evolución conceptual y estética.

Ofrece una relectura crepuscular cuyo punto de partida absolutamente genial ya sienta las bases de la ironía cruel que preside toda la función, de tal modo que reencontramos al inefable Barón en un manicomio ¡pero como director!, siendo así el regente el más loco de todos los internos, una inmersión a lo bruto en la demencia y el sinsentido, un mundo bocabajo regido por la lógica extraviada de un personaje convertido en parodia. El atildado “look” de Cushing y el aire ensimismado e incongruentemente risueño que otorga a su interpretación o el aberrante aspecto de la criatura no hacen más que subrayarlo. El antaño imparable Doctor Frankenstein ni siquiera parece darse cuenta de la chapuza que está perpetrando en la creación de ese  recosido grotesco compuesto por abollados restos de serie, en cierto modo tanto como lo está el mismo a esta alturas.

Frankenstein atraerá con malas artes (será condenado por sus experimentos a una temporada en el sanatorio) a un prometedor y revolucionario médico al que forzará a colaborar en una lucha eterna que a estas alturas ya ha adquirido un carácter mitológico y patético a partes iguales. El nuevo discípulo necesario (recordemos que, aparte del carácter vanidoso y arrogante del Barón, este necesita unas manos que hagan la faena desde que el se las quemase en la tercera parte de la serie) está interpretado por el inquietante lampiño Shane Briant, uno de los actores que la “Hammer” intentó lanzar como herederos de los clásicos con bien poca fortuna, a excepción del gran Ralph Bates, claro.El resto es más o menos lo de siempre (el doctor recolectando las piezas de entre la quincalla que ofrecen su enfermos, el jovenzuelo engreído dándose cuenta del camino que toma, la damisela en apuros, aquí la sexy Madeline Smith,  irresistible “Hammer girl” a la que Ingrid Pitt vampirizaba a base de bien en la simpática “The vampire lovers”, etc …) pero todo visto a través de una óptica de frenopático, que acentúa despiadadamente lo inútil del intento y exhibe sin pudor la eterna repetición a la que esta condenado el protagonista. Fisher desnuda a su personaje y lo despoja de cualquier grandeza para dejarlo convertido en un guiñapo terrorífico, un espantajo que barre el suelo de su último fracaso con la ilusión  de comenzar el próximo mientras la cámara se aleja de semejante mundo dejando a los personajes encerrados en una habitación mientras el espectador se va de allí espantado, y con Terence Fisher de la mano.

Los días y las noches. En el tonalpohualli se llevaba la cuenta de los días pero en la antigüedad los días se componían de momentos diurnos y momentos nocturnos. En este almanaque o calendario se tomaba en cuenta los momentos de 24 hrs. Veinte eran sus símbolos. Sin embargo existían series de 13 días para los momentos diurnos y series de 9 días de momentos nocturnos. Los trece días eran simbolizados por animales alados y los nueve días por personajes llamados caminantes estelares, probablemente asociado a ciertos astros y planetas. La serie de trece días tiene a la mariposa como el animal alado central y la serie novenaria tiene a la muerte como la imagen central. Mariposa y muerte representan una dualidad simbólica asociada a la muerte y a la resurrección. Nuestros antepasados decían que los guerreros muertos retornaban a la tierra en forma de mariposas. Hoy en día esto sigue vigente en la tradición mesoamericana a través del culto a la mariposa monarca. Se dice que las mariposillas son las almas de los difuntos que regresan a la tierra. Las series de trece días se ajustan a los 260 días y se necesitan 20 de estas series para completar un tonalpohualli. La serie de los nueve días no se ajusta a los 260 días, pero esta se usaba para el calendario agrícola de 360 días. 40 veces 9 días hacen 360 días. En la serie novenaria solo faltan 5 días para completar el año civil, son los llamados días nemontemi o uayeb para los mayas.

A vida do presidente Lula é mesmo uma história.

O presidente Lula, todos sabem, passou por muitas dificuldades na vida, e sua vitória demonstra a capacidade que a sociedade brasileira tem de propiciar que, pela capacidade e dedicação, muitos se destaquem.

Muitas pessoas tem histórias assim em nosso país e aqui mesmo no Espírito Santo. O presidente, claro, se destaca por ocupar o principal cargo político da nação.

Tudo isso é bastante meritório e merece ser reconhecido. Negar a história não é um bom caminho para quem está na política como eu, mesmo que apenas de um ponto de vista de análise crítica aqui no Blog. Nunca fiz isso, não será agora, com a minha idade, que o farei.

O presidente, no entanto, com todo o sucesso que faz, parece querer construir, em torno de si, muito mais que apenas uma história de superação e sucesso, quer se transformar num mito, não se sabendo, ainda, com que objetivos.

Para isso usa, como muitos personagens históricos nada recomendáveis, de várias táticas.

Uma das que mais tem sido utilizadas pelo seu governo é o de querer reconstruir a história do Brasil. Tudo o que aconteceu no país, quer fazer parecer o governo Lula, foi resultado de seu governo, nada foi realizado nos anos anteriores de nossa história.

A outra, que tem como ápice o filme “Lula, o filho do Brasil”, é querer construir a história do nosso presidente como algo, ao mesmo tempo, que faz parte da trajetória dos brasileiros, mas é, também, superior a tudo e todos no país. Estratégia interessante do ponto de vista do marketing, mas muito perigosa do ponto de vista da democracia.

Assim se constroem mitos, no mais das vezes falsos. Assim se construiram ditadores que infelicitaram povos e nações ao longo da história.

Por fim, fica claro a intenção eleitoral de lançar o filme, com uma estrutura hollywoodiana de distribuição e exibição, no ano de 2010. Isso, no entanto, como a questão do financiamento do filme, deixarei para um próximo post.

Para usar expressão que citei ontem no Blog: um novo ovo da serpente está nascendo.

Muito cuidado com a nossa República e a nossa Democracia temos que ter.

El míto de la Ayahuasca. Ilustración para la revista Cañamo (2004).

Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) tidak mengharamkan bagi masyarakat yang menonton Film 2012 tentang Hari Kiamat.

Hanya MUI menghimbau agar masyarakat memandang film 2012 tentang hari kiamat tersebut hanya sebatas imajinasi saja.

Ketua Majelis ulama Indonesia (MUI) KH.Ma’ruf Amin mengatakan bahwa film 2012 yang menceritakan soal ramalan suku Maya bahwa akan tiba hari Kiamat pada 21 Desember 2012 jangan sampai menyesatkan pandangan orang terhadap hari Kiamat.

Menurut KH.Ma’ruf Amin, umat Islam tidak akan tersesatkan jika telah mengetahui ajaran Islam dengan baik mengenai Hari Kiamat.

“Film tersebut kan hanya imajinasi saja, seolah-olah itulah gambaran Hari Kiamat dan ditahun itulah akan terjadi. Tapi kan tidak ada yang tahu dengan pasti kapan Hari Kiamat akan datang,” kata Ketua MUI kemarin (17/11)

Dikatakan juga, “saya tidak melihat ada sesuatu yang bisa menyesatkan masyarakat, selama dipandang sebatas imajinasi dari pembuat film yang mencoba menggambarkan Kiamat terjadi pada 2012. Jadi silahkan saja menonton film 2012.”

Dalam ajaran Islam dijelaskan oleh KH.Ma’ruf Amin bahwa sudah jelas terjadinya ari Kiamat diawali dengan tanda-tanda dan peristiwa-peristiwa sebelumnya. “Jadi bila umat Islam sudah mengerti mengenai ajarannya maka tidak akan sesat karena yang di film itu tidak cocok,” ujarnya.

Dijelaskan bahwa Hari Kiamat tidak ada yang dapat meramal kapan datangnya.

” Jangankan meramal kiamat, manusia bahkan tidak bisa mengetahui apa yang terjadi hari esok. Yang mengetahui hanya Allah SWT.”

Weleh…Weleh…Ngak Haram Kog ?

Ada Ada Saja

Tulisan Yang Berhubungan :

• Hari Kiamat Tahun 2012 Ternyata Hanya Mitos Dan Dongeng Film

Ini saya kutipkan tulisan yang aslinya berjudul “Do You Have to Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?” dari http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Walau bahasa inggris saya biasa-biasa saja, saya akan mencoba menterjemahkannya namun dengan cara mencicil Kalau ada yang mau membantu, silahkan kirimkan terjemahannya ke yesusmanusia@gmail.com

Berikut tulisannya:

According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. [1] Is that the truth? Not from the evidence in the Bible. In fact, the evidence in Scripture is that a person can be saved without even knowing about the Trinity. Before we discuss the issue further, however, we need to know the definition of the Trinity according to orthodox theologians. This is important because some Christians think they are Trinitarians simply because they believe in the Father, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.” But that is not the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together these “three Persons” make one God; and these three are co-equal and co-eternal, the Son having been “eternally begotten” of the Father, and Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% man.

Menurut doktrin ortodox trinitas, jika seseorang mengaku kristen tetapi tidak percaya trinitas, dia tidak diselamatkan. Apakah hal itu benar ? Tidak, kalau melihat bukti yang ada didalam Bible. Faktanya, bukti di dalam kitab suci adalah bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan bahkan tanpa mengetahui tentang trinitas.

Sebelum kita mendiskusikan hal ini lebih lanjut, bagaimanapun juga, kita perlu tahu definisi trinitas menurut teologis ortodox. Hal ini penting karena sebagian kristiani berfikir bahwa mereka adalah trinitarian hanya karena mereka percaya Bapak, Anak, dan Roh Suci. Tapi itu bukan konsep trinitas.

Doktrin trinitas adalah bahwa Bapak adalah Tuhan, Anak adalah Tuhan dan Roh Suci adalah Tuhan, dan bersama-sama ketiga unsur tersebut membentuk satu Tuhan; dan ketiganya adalah sederajat dan sama-sama abadi, sang anak menjadi abadi dari Bapak, dan Yesus secara bersamaan adalah 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia.

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered Trinitarians who say that a person will be saved if he believes that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, even if he does not believe the full doctrine of the Trinity. First, that is not the doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church, and second, the Bible never says that believing Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man is necessary for salvation. Non-Trinitarians assert that a person can be saved without believing in the Trinity, and demand, as did Martin Luther during the Reformation, that we be convinced from Scripture that what Trinitarians teach is true. Perhaps a good question to begin this study is, “When did God start requiring that a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?”

Kami dari Spirit & Truth Fellowship International sudah berhadapan dengan Trinitarian yang mengatakan bahwa seseorang akan diselamatkan jika percaya bahwa Yesus itu 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia, sekalipun jika dia tidak percaya secara penuh, doktrin trinitas.

Pertama, bahwa itu bukan posisi doktrin Gereja Ortodoks, dan kedua, Bible tidak pernah mengatakan bahwa meyakini Yesus adalah 100% Tuhan dan sekaligus 100% manusia itu diperlukan untuk penyelamatan.

Non trinitarian menegaskan bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan tanpa meyakini trinitas dan menuntut, seperti yang dituntut Martin Luther selama Reformasi, bahwa kita diyakinkan dari kitab suci bahwa apa yang diajarkan trinitarian adalah benar.

Mungkin pertanyaan yang pas untuk memulai studi ini adalah : “Kapan Tuhan mengatur bahwa orang yang percaya pada trinitas akan diselamatkan ?

The Old Testament

The Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, or even set forth clearly that the Messiah would be God. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that someone back then had to believe it to be saved. [2] There is no evidence of anyone knowing about, or believing in, the Trinity in all the Jewish literature before Christ, including the Old Testament, the Jewish targums and commentaries, the Apocrypha or other apocryphal literature, or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is well known that the foundational tenet of the Old Testament faith was, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4 – KJV), and the Jews fiercely defended that faith against polytheism of all kinds. There are some singular verses that Trinitarians today say point to the doctrine of the Trinity underlying the revelation of the Old Testament, but none expound it clearly enough that anyone would have formulated the doctrine of a Triune God from them, and there is no historical record that anyone did (which is good evidence for the validity of our point that all those verses have a non-Trinitarian explanation).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Trinitarian scholars are aware of the fact that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity. The distinguished Trinitarian scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes:

“…contemporary exegetes [Bible teachers] affirm unanimously that the Old Testament did not bring to the Jewish people a clear and distinct Revelation of the existence of a plurality of persons in God. In this they agree with the clear and frequent affirmation of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hilary, and Gregory of Nazianzus: that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed only in the New Testament.” [3]

So Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament, and thus both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that before Jesus’ ministry a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Four Gospels

We have seen that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that a person living during the Old Testament did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved because there was no presentation of the Trinity in the Old Testament for them to believe. However, Trinitarians hold that during the ministry of Jesus, and afterward, a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. This means that if Jesus or the Apostles wanted anyone to be saved, they had to teach the person more than was in the Old Testament. If Trinitarians are correct, we should see a clear presentation of the Trinity in Scripture, but we do not, nor is there any record that Jesus, or anyone else, ever taught the doctrine of the Trinity to anyone in order to get him saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

To know what people during the time of Jesus had to do to be saved, all we have to do is read the Gospels. Before we go any further, however, we should understand what the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting in a Messiah. The Messiah the Old Testament portrayed was a human empowered by God. He would be from the line of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:12 and 13), a Lord under Yahweh, the God of Israel (Ps. 110:1), [4] and he was to be one of their own people: “Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them…” (Jer. 30:21). Although they did understand these things about their Messiah, the first-century Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be born of a virgin, which is why the angel had to instruct Mary about it (Luke 1:34 and 35). Nor did they expect him to die (Matt. 16:21 and 22; John 12:32-34). They were correct, however, in that they were not expecting a God-man, a “Person” of the Godhead, a part of a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it came to the first century Jews not expecting the Messiah to die, Jesus worked very hard to correct that misunderstanding, teaching over and over that he must die (Matt. 16:21, 17:9, 20:19 and 28, 26:2, 12 and 27-32). But there is not one single account of Jesus correcting anyone’s belief that he was a fully human Messiah. Never did he say he was part of the Trinity, or that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. Furthermore, the first century Jews believed that “the Spirit of God” or “the Holy Spirit” was not a separate Person in the Trinity, but was another name for God, just as Yahweh, Elohim, or El Shaddai, were other names for the one true God. When Genesis 1:2 mentions “the Spirit of God,” Jews correctly believed it was another name for God or a reference to His invisible power at work. Yet there is no record of Jesus ever trying to “correct” them and show that the Holy Spirit was a third Person in the Trinity. That is very solid evidence that they did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If Jesus had taught that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, the perfect time for him to have done so would have been when a young man came to him and asked, “…Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16). If this young man had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, this was the time to say so. Instead, Jesus said, “…If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). Jesus further instructed the man that if he wanted to be “perfect” (which Mark 10:21 equates as having treasure in heaven) he should sell his worldly possessions and follow him (Matt. 19:21). Jesus never said to the man that belief in any aspect of the Trinity was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another time Jesus could have easily taught the Trinity, or even that he was God, was when he traveled through Samaria, the district north of Jerusalem and south of Galilee. The Samaritans were not Jews, but foreigners who had been brought into the area and had adopted some parts of the Jewish religion. The Jews regarded them as horrible pagans and pretenders, and had nothing to do with them. When Jesus met the woman at the well in Samaria, she said she knew the Messiah was coming (John 4:25). However, her understanding of the Messiah would have come from the Old Testament and what her tradition taught, so when Jesus said, “…I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26), she never would have concluded that he was somehow God, or part of a Triune God. If she needed to believe that to be saved, Jesus would have taught it to her, as well as to the people from Samaria who came to meet him after the woman told them about him (John 4:41). However, there is no hint in Scripture he ever mentioned the Trinity. Did he ignore their need for salvation? Of course not. What is evident from this record is that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another example of a person being saved without believing in the Trinity is the immoral woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with her tears while he was eating. All Jesus said to her was, “…Your sins are forgiven” and “…Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:48 and 50). Are we to believe that somehow this Galilean Jewess knew that Jesus was part of a Triune God, and by knowing that she gained salvation? Such an assumption would be to stretch the record beyond credible limits. The woman was a sinner, not a theologian, and if she went to synagogue at all, which is questionable, she would have known about the Messiah only from what the Old Testament taught. There is no reason to believe that she somehow pasted together statements Jesus had made to build a case for the Trinity, and then believed it. She, like millions of Old Testament believers before her, was saved without believing in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Theologians build the doctrine of the Trinity with verses pulled from all over the Bible, but only a few actually spoken by Jesus can even be used to support it, and none of those mention “the Holy Spirit” in any decisive sense as being a distinct “Person.” [5] Furthermore, each statement Jesus made that modern Trinitarians use to paste together their case for a Trinity has an alternative, non-Trinitarian explanation. This is important, because although a person who already believes in the Trinity might think that what Jesus said supported the doctrine of the Trinity, someone who never heard of the Trinity would understand what Jesus said in a totally different way.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

A good example of this was when Jesus said, “…if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). Some Trinitarians see this statement as supporting the Trinity, but someone who did not know that doctrine would understand the statement in light of what he knew and believed, especially if what Jesus said made sense in terms of the beliefs he already held. In the case of John 8:24, the Jews he was speaking to were expecting a human Messiah and that people who rejected him would die in their sins. What Jesus said fit their understanding perfectly. Jesus had to have known that, so if he was trying to say that anyone who did not believe in the Trinity was unsaved, he did a poor job of making his point. He certainly never stated that if someone does not believe in the Trinity, he would die in his sins.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person did need to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect that Jesus would have been at least as aggressive in teaching that as he was about correcting other erroneous beliefs of his day. For example, we mentioned earlier that Jesus plainly taught his disciples that he had to die, even though they were not expecting it. He also corrected the Sadducees concerning the resurrection very plainly, telling them, “You are in error” (Matt. 22:29). Time after time he openly corrected the errors believed by the people around him. In the Sermon on the Mount he corrected many erroneous teachings, including the people’s misunderstanding about love, revenge, adultery, divorce, and anger, often saying, “You have heard that it was said…But I tell you…” (Matt. 5:21-44). But never in that important teaching that spans three entire chapters in Matthew does he correct their ideas about him being a real human being, or teach them about the Trinity, which he would have were it necessary to believe that to be saved. After all, which is the more important theological mistake, being wrong about anger, or taking an oath, or praying in public, or being wrong about the true nature of God?

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If the Trinity were a true doctrine, and especially if a person has to believe it to be saved, we would have expected Jesus to say something in the Sermon on the Mount such as this:

“You have heard that it was said” that God is One, “but I tell you” that God is a Trinity, one God made of three distinct Persons. [6] “You have heard that it was said” that the Messiah will be one from among you, “but I tell you” he will be more than that, he will be God incarnated in human flesh. “You have heard that it was said” that the holy spirit is the invisible spirit power of God, “but I tell you” that Holy Spirit is much more than that, he is the third Person in a Triune Godhead.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Are we to believe that Jesus openly and plainly corrected errors in people’s understanding about many different issues while never correcting people’s erroneous thinking that he was the human Messiah they expected, and not a “Person” in a Triune God, especially if their error meant they were not saved? That makes no sense. He did not even correct his closest disciples about the Trinity. When Jesus asked Peter, “…Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15), …Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). Peter believed Jesus was the Christ he had been taught about in synagogue and was expecting, not God in the flesh who was part of the Trinity. Yet Jesus did not correct Peter, but instead complimented him on his insight, saying he was “Blessed” (Matt. 16:17).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity or told anyone he had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, he never corrected anyone’s belief that he was the human Messiah they expected and not part of a Triune God. When he taught about himself from the Old Testament, as he did in Nazareth when he quoted from Isaiah (Luke 4:18 and 19), he never even hinted that there was more to believe about him than the Old Testament scriptures taught. Nor did he ever correct anyone’s understanding about the Holy Spirit. All this is conclusive evidence that Jesus did not teach that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Book of Acts

The book of Acts records the teachings of the Apostles and disciples as they spread the good news of Jesus. It is reasonable that if the doctrine of the Trinity were a truth not revealed in the Old Testament but necessary for Christian salvation, it should be clearly taught in Acts. After all, many Trinitarians believe that for an unbelieving Jew or pagan Gentile to be saved, he must believe in the Trinity. The book of Acts, then, is a proving ground for what unbelievers need to know in order to be saved. So what do we see in Acts? In all the sermons in the book of Acts there is not one presentation of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What Acts does record very clearly is that Jesus was a man, the servant of God, who was God’s anointed (“Messiah” in Hebrew, “Christ” in Greek), who died, whom God raised from the dead and exalted, and who will be the future King and Judge of all mankind. Furthermore, those who hear and believe that message get saved without hearing anything about the Trinity. Time after time Paul and others went into Jewish Synagogues and taught from the Old Testament about the Messiah, explaining that Jesus was the Messiah the Old Testament spoke of, and that teaching was enough to get people saved. There is not one record of Paul or others saying that what the Old Testament taught about the Messiah was not enough for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What follows are summations of teachings in the book of Acts when believers preached the Word of God in order to get people saved. Almost every record listed below includes something that a speaker actually said to convince the audience about Jesus. If a record in Acts simply notes that someone such as Paul taught, but it does not record what he said, or if the purpose of the conversation was not about getting someone saved, the record is not included in the list below. Each will show that there was no presentation of the Trinity, or that believing it was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 2:14-36. Peter spoke to the crowd of unsaved Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus was crucified. These Jews did not live in Israel, but had come to Jerusalem from the far reaches of the Roman Empire, including Parthia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, Arabia, and parts of what today is the nation of Turkey (Acts 2:9-11). They had not heard Jesus or the Apostles teach. All they knew about the Messiah was from the Old Testament and traditions about him, none of which included the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus being God. Thus it is fair to conclude that if they needed to believe in the Trinity to be saved, someone would have to teach them about it. On Pentecost, however, Peter presented Jesus as a “man approved of God” who was crucified and whom God raised from the dead, much of which he backed up by quoting the Old Testament. Peter never mentioned the Trinity or Jesus being God, yet about three thousand people got saved that day. This is conclusive evidence that on the Day of Pentecost, the start of the Christian Church, a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 3:12-26. Peter spoke to a crowd that had gathered in the Temple because a lame man had been miraculously healed. This crowd gathered inside the Temple, so they would have been Jews or interested Gentiles who were not saved. That means that they had either not heard, or had rejected, earlier presentations about Jesus being the Messiah, including the one taught close to the very spot where they were standing on the Day of Pentecost. [7] Peter taught these unsaved men and women that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob glorified “His servant Jesus.” He further taught that Jesus had died and God had raised him from the dead. He also quoted Deuteronomy 18:15, that Christ was to be “a prophet like me [Moses].” There was nothing in Peter’s teaching about the Trinity or Jesus being God, and yet so many people were saved that the number of Christians in Jerusalem grew to 5,000 men, not counting the women and children (Acts 4:4).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 4:8-12. Peter spoke to the Jewish rulers and elders, and taught that although they had crucified Jesus of Nazareth, God raised Him from the dead. He did not make any presentation of the Trinity or Jesus being God. These were mostly the same men who were at Jesus’ trials, and there is no record in Scripture that any of them believed what Peter said and got saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 5:29-32. Peter and the Apostles were again brought before the Jewish rulers, and Peter again presented to them that although the Jews had killed Jesus, God had raised Him from the dead and set him at his right hand as “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). Nothing Peter said referred to a Trinity of co-equal, co-eternal beings in a Godhead. The vocabulary of “God” raising up Jesus and setting him at His right hand fit exactly with what these leaders already believed about the Messiah from the Old Testament, because Peter spoke of two separate beings, a ruler (God) and His “right hand man” (Jesus), not one Being in three persons. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus is then referred to as the “Prince,” not “God.” As when Peter was before the rulers earlier, there is no record that any of them got saved, but if they had believed Peter, they would have been saved without knowing anything of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 7:2-53. Stephen made a presentation to the Jewish rulers, and gave a history of Israel. Like Peter had done (Acts 3:22), he quoted Deuteronomy 18:15 that the Messiah would be a prophet from among the people. He asserted that they had killed the “Righteous One,” and then spoke about the vision he had that Jesus was at the right hand of God, something the Jews would have clearly understood to mean that Jesus was now God’s second in command. Stephen was trying to win the Jews to the Christian faith, and he did so without mentioning the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Furthermore, no one in his audience would have ever thought that Jesus was “co-equal” to the Father when Stephen spoke of him being raised by God and now at God’s right hand.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 8:30-39. Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to meet, and speak with, a eunuch from Ethiopia, which he did. The Ethiopian was reading from the book of Isaiah, and Philip began there and told him the Good News about Jesus. The eunuch believed and was baptized with no hint that Philip tried to teach him about the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Actually, if you think about it, how could Philip have presented the Trinity? All the Ethiopian had were scriptures from the Old Testament. How would he have reacted if Philip had said, “Well, we know the Hebrew Scriptures present Jesus as a Messiah from the line of David, but actually he was God incarnate, 100% man and 100% God, and you have to believe that to be saved”? Because the Old Testament never said the Messiah would be a God-man, the eunuch would have dismissed Philip as being very misguided in contradicting the Scriptures. What we learn from the record of Philip and the eunuch is that the eunuch got saved without ever knowing about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 9:3-6, 17 and 20. The Apostle Paul became a Christian when the Lord Jesus himself appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul was a trained Rabbi and was expecting the Messiah, but he had resisted the Christian teaching that Jesus was that Messiah. Meeting Jesus proved that Jesus was the Messiah he had been expecting, but there is nothing Jesus, or Ananias who prayed for Saul, said about the Trinity or Jesus being God, so there is no reason to believe Saul had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, immediately after being saved, Paul went into the Synagogue and taught. Like all new converts, Saul would have been very enthusiastic about his new beliefs, but there is no mention that he mentioned the Trinity. Instead, he taught what he himself had just come to know, that Jesus was “the Son of God.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 10:34-43. At the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter taught the Gentiles gathered there that Jesus died, but God raised him from the dead. He taught how God had anointed Jesus with holy spirit (there is no article “the” in the Greek text), made him Lord, and appointed him as Judge. He did not mention the Trinity or say that Jesus was God, but the Gentiles who listened to Peter were saved and filled with the power of holy spirit right in the middle of his teaching.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 13:16-41. Paul spoke in a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a Roman province in what today is the country of Turkey. He addressed the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who were gathered there, and taught a very effective salvation message. He gave a short history of the Jews, showing that Jesus, a descendant of David, was the Savior, crucified by the Jews, raised from the dead by God, and that he showed himself alive to many of his disciples who testify about him. He further taught that God now offers forgiveness of sins through him. Many people were saved. There is no mention that Paul taught any of the concepts of the modern Trinity, such as that Jesus was God, or incarnated, or co-equal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 15:1-29. In this record, a dispute arose between Paul and members of the Pharisees who claimed circumcision and observance of the Law was necessary for salvation. A council at Jerusalem was convened specifically for the purpose of discussing what was necessary for the Gentiles to be saved—Gentiles whose belief system had no conception of a Trinity. The decision of the council was to “…not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19) and “…not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (15:28), which were to abstain from food offered to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality. Neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ was mentioned as necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 16:30 and 31. Paul and Silas were put in jail in Philippi and were miraculously released when an earthquake hit the area. The jailor asked, “…Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” This is a very important question for this study, because if someone must believe in the Trinity to be saved, Paul should have said something about it. Instead, Paul responded, “…Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:1-4. In this record, Paul arrived in Thessalonica, went into the synagogue, and “…reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ…’” (Acts 17:2-4). Paul taught from the Scriptures, which in a synagogue at that time were only the Old Testament. Thus, Paul could not have mentioned anything about the Trinity, which, as we have seen, was not in the Old Testament. Instead, Paul showed that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, all easily shown from the Old Testament, and then he made the case that Jesus was the Messiah. The result was that some of the Jews were won to the faith, along with a “large number” of Gentiles, including a number of the prominent women of the city. There was no mention of the Trinity, yet many were saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:10-13. Paul and Silas traveled from Thessalonica to Berea, went into the Synagogue, and spoke to the Jews. This is a very important record for our study because it specifically states that the Jews of Berea were more noble than the Jews of Thessalonica because they searched their Scriptures, the Old Testament, to see if what Paul and Silas were saying was true. However, we have already seen that the Trinity is not in the Old Testament, so what the people of Berea would have seen was that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, believed he was the Messiah, and gotten saved. They would not have seen that Jesus was one Person in a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:22-31. Paul went to Athens and spoke to the Greeks. He taught the resurrection and lordship of Christ and said: “For he [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed….” Paul said God proved His point by raising Christ from the dead. Paul’s short message was effective, because there were a few men who believed. They got saved without ever hearing anything about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:1-5. Paul went to Corinth, and as in many other cities, went into the synagogue to speak about the Lord Jesus. Scripture is clear that Paul was “…testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:5), and there is no mention that he taught the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:24-28. Apollos was an eloquent man who knew the Scriptures. He also had been given instruction by Aquila and Priscilla, who themselves had been personally taught by Paul. He helped the believers by publicly showing from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, something he would have shown from the Old Testament. There is no mention of any aspect of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 22:3-21. Paul spoke to a crowd at the Temple in Jerusalem. His testimony was cut short, but nothing he said even hinted at the doctrine of the Trinity. He spoke of “God” (not “the Father”) and the Righteous One (the Messiah), which would have agreed with what the Jews believed from the Old Testament, that there was one God, and His Messiah, not that the Messiah was somehow also God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 25:13-21. Governor Festus was speaking with King Agrippa. This is a very important record for our study, because neither of the two men was saved. Festus was relating to Agrippa what Paul had said to him, and why the Jews were angry at Paul. Festus says that Paul is disputing with the Jews about “…a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.” Festus did not believe what Paul said, but he understood that Paul was saying Jesus had been raised from the dead. This record conforms completely to the other places in Acts that record what Paul taught about Jesus, which was that he died on the Cross, but God raised him from the dead. The evidence from this record is clearly that Paul was not teaching the Trinity, which would have been so different from what Festus had ever heard that he surely would have mentioned it to King Agrippa.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 26:2-23. Paul told King Agrippa that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and proclaimed as a light to “…his own people and to the Gentiles.” Paul was trying to get King Agrippa saved, and pressed him to believe, saying, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do” (Acts 26:27). Agrippa realized Paul was trying to get him to be a Christian, and responded, “…Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). Agrippa could have become a Christian that very day had he believed Paul’s message, yet Paul never mentioned the Trinity, a pre-existent Christ, or that Jesus was God. Anything foreign to the Old Testament such as that would only have confused King Agrippa. Paul’s message of salvation came from “the prophets,” who did not mention the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 28:23. In this short but powerful record that closes the book of Acts, Paul is trying to convince the Jews of Rome “about Jesus” from the Law and the Prophets, which we know do not present the Trinity. Had Paul tried to convince those Jews that Jesus was both man and God using the Old Testament, they would have considered him out of his mind. What we need to pay close attention to is that a person could be saved by believing only that Jesus of Nazareth was the one who fulfilled those things that the Old Testament clearly taught about the Messiah: that he would suffer and die, be raised from the dead and be exalted to second in command under God Himself.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Paul and the Jews in Acts

There is another way that Acts reveals Paul was not teaching the Trinity: The Jews and even some Jewish Christians who still followed the Mosaic Law constantly harassed the Apostle Paul. In some cases they even followed him from city to city and stirred up the people against him (Acts 17:13). When Paul was in Jerusalem, James told him about all the Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20), and when Paul was in the Temple, Jews who knew him shouted, “…Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place…” (Acts 21:28). The Jews accosted Paul about all kinds of issues, including differences about the Law, circumcision, and Jesus being the Messiah, but they never once accused him of going against their monotheistic teaching and speaking about a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Anyone who has studied the history of the Jewish nation under Greek and Roman domination knows that the Jews were so fiercely monotheistic that there had been riots and rebellions over the issue of idols, and even the Roman eagle, in Israel. Had Paul been teaching that their God was not one God, but a part of a Trinity, that surely would have aroused their anger and come up as an issue in the book of Acts. After all, it would have been at least as important as circumcision, which comes up in both Acts and the Epistles. The fact that at no time in Acts or the Epistles is there any Jewish opposition to the Trinity is very good evidence that it was not being taught by early Christians and was not essential to salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion from Acts

After reading and studying the entire book of Acts and looking for evidence about how a person gets saved, we must conclude that no one had to believe in the Trinity. Furthermore, Acts is the record of the rise and expansion of the Christian Church, so what holds true in Acts should be true for the entire Church Age.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans through Revelation: The Rest of the New Testament

We have now seen that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved during the Old Testament times, and we have also seen from the Four Gospels and Acts that people got saved without believing in the Trinity or even that Jesus was both God and man. In studying the Epistles we see more of the same; that there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity from Romans through Revelation, and no evidence anyone had to believe it to be saved. God’s plan of salvation through faith in Christ is presented many times without a single verse saying a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Scholars freely admit that the Trinity is never presented as a complete doctrine in the New Testament, but rather is built from scattered verses. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, “In the NT there is no explicit statement of the doctrine….” [8] The New Bible Dictionary says: “…it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible….” [9] The Holman Bible Dictionary is very clear: “The New Testament does not present a systematic presentation of the Trinity. The scattered segments from various writers that appear throughout the New Testament reflect a seemingly accepted understanding that exists without a full-length discussion.” [10] Theologians admit that the New Testament does not state what the Trinity is, i.e., that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal “Persons,” together making one God, and that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man. Furthermore, there is no clear teaching that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect to find that clearly stated in the book of Romans. Theologians commonly teach that the theme of Romans is God’s plan of salvation. Some assert that the theme is justification by faith, and that certainly is a major aspect of the Epistle, but the NIV Study Bible well states what is generally thought of as the major theme of Romans: “…Paul’s primary theme in Romans is the basic gospel, God’s plan of salvation, and righteousness for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike (1:16 and 17).” [11]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We agree with orthodox theologians that the plan of salvation and righteousness for all mankind is the theme of Romans, but it never presents the doctrine of the Trinity or states that a person has to believe Jesus is God to be saved. Could it be that the one book in the New Testament whose theme is salvation never clearly teaches how to get saved? The answer to that question is an obvious “No.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans 10:9 is perhaps the clearest presentation of how to get saved in the Epistles:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This instruction does not require one to even know about, much less believe, the Trinity in order to get saved. However, according to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, simply obeying the above verse will not get a person saved, because to be saved he must believe that Jesus is not just “Lord,” but “God,” 100% man and 100% God, and co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is safe to say that Paul penned the book of Romans to the people in Rome in the confidence that if they believed and acted on what they read, especially Romans 10:9, they would be saved. It is also safe to say that Paul knew that Rome was filled with Jews who had only the Old Testament and traditions about the Messiah to rely on, and Gentiles who knew nothing about the Jewish Messiah at all. It is also important for us to remember that the first century Jews and Gentiles would have thought about Jesus being “Lord” in terms of their culture. Although modern Trinitarians assert that in the context of Romans, “Lord,” means “God,” no Roman Jew or Gentile in the first century would have believed that. “Lord” was a term for boss, owner, husband, or ruler. The Romans had many “lords,” and they were not “God.” Without clearer instruction on the matter, no Roman would have read “Lord” and thought it meant “God, the creator,” especially since Romans 10:9 also says “God” raised this “Lord” from the dead. A simple and straightforward reading of the verse presents two beings: God and the Lord Jesus, whom God raised from the dead. There is no Trinity, and no mention that the God and the Lord in the verse are both parts of the same Triune God, and that a third “Person” in the Trinity is missing from the verse.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Could it truly be that a non-Christian could read the book of Romans, believe its message, and not be saved? We say, “No.” The book of Romans clearly shows that Jesus was the Messiah, that he died for the sins of mankind, and that God raised him from the dead, and anyone who believes it is saved. There is just no logical way to read Romans, knowing that it was addressed to the first century people in Rome to get them saved, and say that they would have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Perhaps the next best book after Romans to study to see if a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved is Hebrews. The content of Hebrews tells us that it was addressed to Jews (or Jewish Christians) who were intimately familiar with the Old Testament. Every chapter is packed with Old Testament references, and there is much discussion about the Law. Hebrews teaches that obeying the Law will not get people saved, but what will is faith in Jesus, the one who died for our sins and is now our living High Priest, elevated even higher than angels.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Jews fiercely held to the Law, which was given by Moses. To persuade them to let it go and move on to something else, God would have to offer something “better,” and that is a major theme in Hebrews. [12] Hebrews teaches that God has done something in Jesus that is “better” than what He had done in the Law. [13] Jesus is specifically said to be better than angels (1:4); he brings a better hope (7:19); guarantees and mediates a better covenant that is founded on better promises (7:22, 8:6); is a better sacrifice than those offered under the Law (9:23); reminds people of better possessions in the future, including a better future country (10:34, 11:16); offers a better resurrection (11:35), brings something better for us than the Old Testament believers had (11:40); and his blood speaks better than the blood of Abel’s sacrifice (12:24). Hebrews also shows (without specifically using the word “better”) that Jesus was a greater High Priest than Aaron (4:14-5:10) and ministers in a better sanctuary (9:11-14).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Clearly, the book of Hebrews is trying to get people saved or to understand their salvation, and change their attitude toward the Law. It follows the pattern for salvation that we see in Acts and Romans in that it shows that Jesus died for the sins of the people, was raised by God, and is Lord. It never says that believing the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah is not enough to get someone saved, never says the prophecies about the Messiah were telling only a part-truth about God and the Messiah, never presents the doctrine of the Trinity, and certainly never states that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. [14]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

In conclusion, without addressing each epistle in the New Testament, it is enough to say that they set forth the same plan of salvation as Acts, and never teach that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. If the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles, the very foundation of the Christian Church, do not say that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, then Christians should take that as the true doctrine of the Church and not insist that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Creeds of Christendom: The Doctrine Develops

We can see the developing and increasing influence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the increasing complexity of the creeds of Christendom, and the clarity with which they promote the Trinity. A creed is a formal and fundamental statement that clarifies a position, and determines who is “in” and who is “out” of the community defined by the creed. It is a type of statement of beliefs. The creeds are important because their content reveals what issues were being debated at the time the creed was written. For example, if a creed mentions baptism, that was important to the group. If it does not, then likely baptism was a non-issue, either because everyone agreed about it without debate, or because it was not important to the group.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

One of the earliest creeds in Christendom is the well-known Apostles’ Creed. Its date is not known, but we assume from its simple structure and content that it pre-dated the theological debates that raged in the fourth century. The later creeds are much more complex and specifically address the issues of their time. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention the Trinity or any fundamental part of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Jesus or the Holy Spirit being God. Christians who confess the Apostles’ Creed believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, who died and whom God raised from the dead, much like the teachings we find in the book of Acts. It seems conclusive that the authors of the Apostles’ Creed did not consider belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Nicene Creed was developed in the fourth century, likely in 381 by the Council of Constantinople, and by that time much of the Trinitarian doctrine was more clearly developed. It states that the Son was “eternally begotten” and one Being with the Father. It also mentions that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be worshipped and glorified. Despite the clear Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene Creed, it does not state that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. This makes sense in light of the time period in which it was written. At that time many people in the church believed in the Trinity, but many did not. Although many Christians have heard of Emperor Constantine, who presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was a Trinitarian, most people are not aware that his son Constantius, who was the Roman emperor after him (337 to 361), was not a Trinitarian, and actually was known to persecute Trinitarian bishops. The point is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not settled in the Church yet, so it makes sense that a creed published in the late 300s would include the doctrine of the Trinity but not demand that one had to believe it to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

By the time the Athanasian Creed was written, likely in the late fifth or early sixth century, more than a hundred years after the Nicene Creed, the situation in Christendom had changed. Trinitarians had become firmly in control of the Church, and non-Trinitarians were routinely persecuted, which is why, looking backward through history, there seemed to be so few of them during the Middle Ages. In contrast to the earlier creeds, the Athanasian Creed plainly states that a person had to be a Trinitarian to be saved. It was written in Latin, so English translations of it differ slightly, but it clearly reflects the conflict going on in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries about the formulation of, and belief in, the Trinity. We know that because the one subject it covers in great detail is the Trinity, and how its members relate to each other. The Athanasian Creed clearly states that a person who does not believe in the Trinity, or the incarnation of Jesus, or that Jesus is both God and man, is not saved, and this man-made document expressed what became the uncompromising teaching of the Orthodox Church.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Athanasian Creed, and pronouncements similar to it, proliferated through the Middle Ages and were maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, and then by the Protestant Church. Although there was a great resurgence of non-Trinitarian believers at the time of the Reformation, they were persecuted and even put to death by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Many of their writings were burned, but thankfully a few survived and are available today, giving us a window into non-Trinitarian thought during the Reformation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The constant persecution of non-Trinitarians resulted in their becoming a miniscule minority through the Middle Ages and Reformation, and in the modern church, something that most churchgoers greatly misinterpret. Most people believe there are so few non-Trinitarian believers because their doctrinal position is weak, but that is drawing the wrong conclusion. The truth is that most who openly shared their faith were killed or persecuted, or were told the Trinity was a mystery they could not understand, and so the vast majority of them learned to be quiet about what they believed. The persecution of non-Trinitarians continues today, and the vast majority of them keep their beliefs to themselves so they will not be ejected from Christian meetings, called “unsaved” (or worse), and rejected by other Christians they have befriended.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Modern Church

The Sinner’s Prayer

Like the Medieval Church doctrine, the modern Orthodox Church doctrine is that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, but on a practical level there is some serious double-mindedness going on in the Church. This is true, first when it comes to evangelism and winning new converts, and second, in assuring that long-time Christians believe in the Trinity and are actually saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it comes to evangelism, Trinitarian evangelists and pastors teach the salvation message in a simple way, just as was done in Acts, and believe their teaching saves people. For example, Trinitarians all over the world say they get people saved by having them pray what is referred to as “the sinner’s prayer.” Although it varies somewhat from church to church, it goes something like this:

“Heavenly Father: I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, and that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my sins and will Worship you all the day’s of my Life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus’ Name, Amen.” [15]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

This prayer clearly shows the double-mindedness of Trinitarians because thousands of them use it to get people saved in their churches, while at the same time their doctrine says it will not get someone saved because it does not teach the Trinity. We non-Trinitarians say that based on the teaching of the New Testament, anyone who prayed and believed the above prayer is saved. We say that this practice of the Trinitarians is correct, and it is their doctrine that is in error.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The second evidence for double-mindedness among Trinitarians concerns long-time members of the Church who do not believe the Trinity because they either do not know what it is, or they do not understand it and thus do not really “believe it,” they just more or less ignore the whole doctrinal position. Spirit & Truth Fellowship International is openly non-Trinitarian, and we have been in many discussions and debates with Trinitarians since our inception in 1989. Our experience is that a significant percentage of those who attend Trinitarian churches openly confess that they do not know what the Trinity is, or when questioned, cannot define it accurately. In our experience, many churchgoers think the Trinity is simply that there are three beings, the Father God, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Many of the supposed Trinitarians we have encountered do not even believe that Jesus is God, much less that he is one of three Persons in the Trinity, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal and who together make up the One God of Christian orthodoxy. If orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, imagine the sad plight of these churchgoers on the Day of Judgment. They would stand before the Judgment Seat, expecting to live forever with Jesus because they believe God raised him from the dead and have confessed him as Lord. But instead of being granted everlasting life, the Righteous Judge condemns them to everlasting death, saying they were not really saved because they did not believe in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We assert that if the pastors of local churches really believed that a person had to believe in the Trinity to have everlasting life, they would teach it in great detail; regularly have sermons, classes and seminars on it; make sure that all the elders and deacons were well versed about it; and sit with new converts and any new members of their church to confirm that the person was actually saved. The actions of Trinitarian churches around the globe are speaking louder than their manual of doctrine. It seems clear that, in reality, leaders in the modern church do not really think a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered a number of people in the Church today, including pastors, who believe that the Trinity is true but admit that it is not clearly presented in the Bible, and thus say that one need not believe it to be saved. These Trinitarian Christians have seen that there is no command to believe in the Trinity, and admit non-Trinitarian believers into their churches and fellowships as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Manifestations (or “Gifts”) of the Spirit and Salvation

The modern Church is waking up to the spiritual power Christians have, and many in different denominations are manifesting the power of God by speaking in tongues, prophecy, words [messages] of knowledge and wisdom, and healing. More and more Christians are seeing that the verse, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues…” (1 Cor. 14:5), is for all Christians. Although speaking in tongues used to be considered something done only by Pentecostals and Charismatics, now people from very diverse denominations and groups are speaking in tongues, even in the Roman Catholic Church (these are referred to as “Charismatic Catholics”).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is widely admitted that the power to speak in tongues comes from God to those who are saved. Speaking in tongues, then, should be one of the great proofs of who is, and who is not saved, and if non-Trinitarians are not saved, they should not be able to speak in tongues. But many non-Trinitarian groups have members who do speak in tongues. In fact, Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian groups are similar when it comes to speaking in tongues, because some do and some do not. However, if speaking in tongues is an evidence of the presence of the spirit, and thus salvation, which we assert that it is, the fact that people who have accepted Jesus as their Lord, but who are non-Trinitarians speak in tongues is very solid evidence they are saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion

Most Christians assert that the Bible teaches the way of salvation. However, if orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, the Bible does not clearly teach how to be saved because it never clearly teaches the Trinity. Could it be that we have to teach a “more complete” message to get people saved than did Jesus, Peter, or Paul? Could it really be the case that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though there is not one clear presentation of it in the entire New Testament? Certainly not. We assert that the message of Peter, Paul, and others was enough to get their audiences saved and there is no evidence that God, after the book of Acts, somehow changed the rules so that now a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The book of Acts makes it clear that when the early Christians presented Jesus Christ to the unsaved, they taught that he was a “man approved of God” who was crucified but whom God raised from the dead and who now is our Lord. This simple message has been getting people saved for some 2000 years now, and there is no evidence in Scripture or in the practices of churches around the world that one has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. We reject the decision made by men in the Church, somewhere around 500 A.D., that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though that decision and belief has been supported by Church tradition for centuries now. It is the Word of God, not tradition, that lives and abides forever.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Like the great reformers of the Protestant Reformation, who demanded to be convinced from Scripture that a doctrine is true, we demand that Trinitarians show us from Scripture that a person needs to believe in the Trinity to be saved. If they cannot do so, we respectfully submit that they retract this doctrine. Christians will never be able to achieve what our God wishes, that “…we all reach unity in the faith…” (Eph. 4:13), until Trinitarians stop demanding that to be considered Christian a person must believe something that cannot be proven from the Bible. It would be a wonderful thing if Trinitarians would draw their doctrine as well as their practice from the Word of God and welcome non-Trinitarian Christians as part of the family of God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Epilogue

In the above study we have shown from Scripture that a person does not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved. However, there is another point we feel compelled to make. If the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, if Jesus never taught it, if no one in the book of Acts ever taught it, and if the Epistles do not clearly set it forth, can it really be that the Trinity is right doctrine? Can it be that the very foundation of the Christian faith is a doctrine that is never once set forth clearly in Scripture, but is gathered from isolated texts? God very clearly sets forth the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, including salvation, redemption, righteousness, the character of God (that He is love, light, merciful, etc.), the fallen nature of man and the need for a Savior, and the work of the Messiah. Which makes more sense, that God is clear about the foundational tenets of the Christian faith except the most important one, the Trinity, which must be gathered from isolated texts, or that the Trinity is actually a man-made doctrine, built from verses that can each be explained in a non-Trinitarian way? To us, the answer to that question is clear.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Going strictly by the evidence in Scripture, the correct biblical doctrine is the one that can be clearly seen in the Old Testament and was confirmed again and again in the New Testament. There is one God. He is spirit, so His invisible power and nature are known as the holy spirit (or the Holy Spirit). God had a Son, the Messiah, who we know as the Lord Jesus Christ, who was of the lineage of Abraham and David, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of God. All of this was taught in the Old Testament and confirmed many times in the New Testament without once being corrected to include the idea of a Triune God. There is no reason not to believe that simple message is the correct biblical doctrine.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

[For further study, please read our article titled What About John 1:1?, and our explanation of verses commonly used to try to support the Trinity.]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Origen histórico de la filosofía

La filosofía nace en el siglo VI a.C. en Grecia (Asia Menor) como un intento racional de explicar los fenómenos que acontecen en la naturaleza, al promocionar las propias capacidades humanas y al alejarse de las explicaciones míticas que hasta entonces predominaban en esa cultura. El origen en la filosofía occidental aparece ligado a la civilización griega, en concreto a su primer pensador, Tales de Mileto (siglo VII-VI a.C.). Frente a las explicaciones de la realidad de carácter mítico y religioso, este filósofo nos ofrece por primera vez una explicación basada en la razón.

La filosofía oriental surgió en la misma época que la occidental, tanto en China como en la India. En China apareció durante la época de las Primaveras y los Otoños (722-481 a.C) y el título del primer filósofo se le atribuye a Confucio, que tuvo más de trescientos seguidores y fundó la Escuela de los letrados. En la India las Upaninshads son las primeras composiciones filosóficas, anteriores a los principios de la filosofía griega.

Existen semejanzas entre los mitos griegos y orientales, en cuanto que ambas culturas disponen de una mitología y de unas creencias que intentan explicar la solución de un problema, el origen del mundo, etc… Recurriendo a fuerzas sobrenaturales. También existen algunas similitudes en la temática que tratan las filosofías orientales y occidentales, sobre todo en aspectos relacionados con la antropología y con la ética.

Según los autores contemporáneos, las principales causas de la aparición de la filosofía en Grecia son las siguientes:

• La evolución desde un pensamiento mítico a un pensamiento racional. La filosofía toma algunos conceptos propios del mito, pero los dota de un nuevo significado. De esta forma, los diversos términos que ya existen en los mitos, se utilizan después en las propias teorías de los pensadores, como por ejemplo la justicia, la ley, la naturaleza, dios, el alma, el cuerpo, etcétera.

• Importantes elementos derivados del contexto sociocultural, político y económico de la época. La existencia de las polis, el floreciente comercio marítimo, la figura del sabio, un ambiente de libertad individual, el debate público… Son algunos de los factores que favorecen la aparición del pensamiento racional.

Origen psicológico de la filosofía

Se  encuentra en nuestra capacidad innata de asombrarnos frente a lo desconocido, que nos desorienta. Esta misma capacidad evidencia nuestra ignorancia ante un mundo lleno de enigmas que nos interroga con sus problemas y contradicciones. Se da mucha importancia al asombro, bella palabra que se ha hecho clásica y es un lugar común tradicional para explicar el origen de la filosofía.

El entusiasmo supone un despertar de la conciencia, un intento de conocer lo que es uno mismo. El ser humano, en los orígenes de la cultura, aparece como protagonista en cuentos, fábulas y mitos que muestran su capacidad para maravillarse. No obstante, la filosofía no se detiene en el asombro, sino que también va más allá en el reconocimiento de la propia ignorancia: esa conciencia de la propia ignorancia es, para aquel que se entusiasma, un deseo de saber y un camino hacia la ciencia.

Cualquier persona posee la capacidad natural de observar, pensar y preguntarse sobre los fundamentos de la existencia o sobre aquello que aparece bajo forma de enigma y de misterio. El ser humano puede cuestionarse las circunstancias que rodean a cada individuo. Con ello, hacemos uso de nuestras aptitudes intelectuales.

Resumiendo, el origen psicológico de la filosofía se basa, en definitiva, en una fecunda actitud mental, en un deseo innato que tiene el ser humano y que le lleva a cuestionar todo lo existente de una manera respetuosa, pero crítica. Para realizar todo esto, se sirve de sus capacidades racionales, que lo acercan al conocimiento de la realidad a través de mecanismos psicológicos como la atención, la percepción, la memoria, el pensamiento y el lenguaje.

——————–

La admiración es el detonante, según Platón y Aristóteles, que hace que el ser humano comience a filosofar. En un principio, las cuestiones que se plantea el hombre están relacionadas con su entorno más inmediato. Después, las preguntas son más complejas.

Ayer mi esposa y yo vimos la nueva película llamada “2012” basada en las profecías Mayas, sobre su prediccion del fin del mundo que, aunque esta obviamente muy exagerada, me gustaron las impresionantes escenas que al fin de cuentas, recomiendo que vean.

Bueno este post no es para criticar la película sino pensar en la posibilidad de que algo pudiera pasar en 2012, como los Mayas lo predijeron, el supuesto fin del mundo. Aun cuando no se hablaba de calamidades, los Mayas describen el 21 de Diciembre del 2012 como el momento exacto en el que ocurrirá una transformación en la vida de todos los seres humanos. El nuevo ciclo estará lleno de armonía y será libre de materialismos.

Ahora de acuerdo al Dr. David Morrison, especialista de la NASA, estas profecías no se cumplirán y que el planeta no sufrirá ninguna especie de caos. La agencia Espacial creó un sitio web llamado “Pregúntale a un astrobiólogo”, donde especialistas contestan diferentes tipos de dudas relacionadas al supuesto fin del mundo en el 2012.

La nasa publicó estos reportes e informes donde sustenta su información. Además, afirma que no existen datos científicos que puedan decir con seguridad que el fin del mundo es un hecho real.

Uff que alivio compa!! Pero… crees en la NASA?

Platícanos que piensas de este tema?

Por lo pronto te dejo con el trailer de la pelicula “2012”. Esta chido.

(Source: de10.com.mx)

Habita entre la maraña espesa de la selva virgen, en las cumbres de la llanura. Con la única pata que tiene avanza con rapidez asombrosa. Es el endriago más temido por colonos, mineros, cazadores, caminantes, agricultores y leñadores.

Algunos aventureros dicen que es una mujer bellísima que los llama y los atrae para enamorarlos, pero avanza hacía la oscuridad del bosque a donde los va conduciendo con sus miradas lascivas, hasta transformarse en una mujer horrible con ojos de fuego, boca desproporcionada de donde asoman unos dientes de felino y una cabellera corta y despeinada que cae sobre el rostro para ocultar su fealdad.

En otras ocasiones, oyen los lamentos de una mujer extraviada; la gritan para auxiliarla, pero los quejidos van tornándose más lastimeros a medida que avanza hacia la víctima y cuando ya está muy cerca, se convierte en una fiera que se lanza sobre la persona, le chupa la sangre y termina triturándola con sus agudos colmillos.

La defensa de cualquier persona que la vea, consiste en rodearse de animales domésticos, aunque advierten que le superan los perros, calificándolos a todos como animales “benditos”.

Se dice que este personaje fue inventado por los hombres celosos para asustar a sus esposas infieles, infundirles terror y al mismo tiempo, reconocer las bondades de la selva. Cuentan que en cierta región del Tolima Grande, un arrendatario tenía como esposa una mujer muy linda y en ella tuvo tres hijos.

El dueño de la hacienda deseaba conseguirse una consorte y llamó a uno de los vaqueros de más confianza para decirle: “…vete a la quebrada y escoje entre las lavanderas la mejor; luego me dices quién es y cómo es…”. El hombre se fue, las observó a todas detenidamente, al instante distinguió a la esposa de un vaquero compañero y amigo, que fuera de ser la más joven, era la más hermosa. El vaquero regresó a darle al patrón la filiación y demás datos sobre la mejor.

Cuando llegó el tiempo de las “vaquerías”, el esposo de la bella relató al vaquero emisario sus tristezas, se quejó de su esposa, pues la notaba fría, menos cariñosa y ya no le arreglaba la ropa con la misma asiduidad de antes; vivía de mal genio, era déspota desde hacía algunos días hasta la fecha. Le confesó que le provocaba irse lejos, pero le daba pesar con sus hijitos.

El vaquero sabedor del secreto, compadecido de la situación de su amigo, le contó lo del patrón, advirtiendo no tener él ninguna culpabilidad.

El entristecido y traicionado esposo le dio las gracias a su compañero por su franqueza y se fue a cavilar a solas sobre el asunto y se decía: “…si yo pudiera convencerme de que mi mujer me engaña con el patrón, que me perdone Dios, porque no respondo de lo que suceda…”. Luego planeó una prueba y se dirigió a su vivienda. Allí le contó a su esposa que se iba para el pueblo porque su patrón lo mandaba por la correspondencia; que no regresaba esa noche. Se despidió de beso y acarició a sus hijos. A galope tendido salió por diversos lugares para matar el tiempo. Llegó a la cantina y apuró unos tragos de aguardiente. A eso de las nueve de la noche se fue a pie por entre el monte y los deshechos a espiar a su mujer.

Serían ya como las diez de la noche, cuando la mujer, viendo que el marido no llegaba, se fue para la hacienda en busca de su patrón. El marido, cuando vio que la mujer se dirigía por el camino que va al hato, salió del escondite, llegó a la casa, encontró a los niños dormidos y se acostó. Como a la madrugada llegó la infiel muy tranquila y serena. El esposo le dijo: De donde vienes?. Ella con desenfado le contestó: de lavar unas ropitas. De noche???, corto el marido.

A los pocos días, el burlado esposo inventó un nuevo viaje. Montó en su caballo, dio varias vueltas por un potrero y luego lo guardó en una pesebrera vecina. Ya de noche, se vino a pie para esconderse en la platanera que quedaba frente a su rancho. Esa noche la mujer no salió pero llegó el patrón a visitarla. Cuando el rico hacendado llegó a la puerta, la mujer salió a recibirlo y se arrojó en sus brazos besándolo y acariciándolo.

El enfurecido esposo que estaba viendo todo, brincó con la peinilla en alto y sin dar tiempo al enamorado de librarse del lance, le cortó la cabeza de un solo machetazo. La mujer, entre sorprendida y horrorizada quiso salir huyendo, pero el energúmeno marido le asestó tremendo peinillazo al cuadril que le bajo la pierna como si fuera la rama de un árbol. Ambos murieron casi a la misma hora.Al vaquero le sentenciaron a cárcel, pero cuando salió al poco tiempo, volvió por los tres muchachitos y le prendió fuego a la casa.

Las personas aseguran haberla visto saltando en una sola pata, por sierras, cañadas y caminos, destilando sangre y lanzando gritos lastimeros. Es el alma en pena de la mujer infiel que vaga por montes, valles y llanuras, que deshonró a sus hijos y no supo respetar a su esposo.