Temptations of Jesus

Jesus after his sojourn in the wilderness and fasting for forty days was met by the Devil and Tempted. The first temptation was the Devil asked Jesus to cast the stones into bread and Jesus replied that man should live by the word of God and not by food. The second temptation was he was taken to a high place and told by the Devil to throw himself down as the Angels of God will protect him. Jesus’ reply was that we should not test God. The third temptation was: the Devil showed him all the kingdoms of the World and said it is yours if you worship me. Jesus replied that we should worship God alone. Thus Jesus was successful in overcoming all temptations.

Temptations of Jesus as an idiom would mean a person who does not compromise on moral and ethical principles in spite getting a favorable stance if done so.

Example: The Old Testament Joseph adopted the Temptations of Jesus when he was enticed by Potiphar’s wife.

Bill Clinton failed the temptations of Jesus when he had an affair with Monika Lewinsky.
Post modern philosophy compromises with the Temptations of Jesus.

Post modern philosophy compromises with the Temptations of Jesus.


From the Fish Mouth

From the Fish Mouth is taken from the New Testament Gospels where Jesus asks his disciple to take a coin from the fish mouth and pay taxes. As an idiom it means getting a large of money by luck, perhaps a windfall.

Example: It was his lucky day as he got it from the fish mouth.

When will a fish mouth occur in my life?


She came to my office for getting a favor done. She is a teacher in a government school and will lose her job as there are fewer students. She asked me to give three Transfer Certificates which she said will be returned back. I felt like asking her to sleep with me for the favor. I would have done so but the Chief Administrator above me refused her request. I would have willingly obliged. Yes, I am very morally weak and get drawn easily to women. It’s something sinful, I know. I ask God for repentance. But I really can’t help it.

Rethinking History

I was reading a book on Rethinking History by the post-modern Historian Jenkins. The book brings out Philosophical perspectives on the writing of History that is Historiography.

In the first part of the book he faithfully tries to define what History is and his definition is that History is a discourse. Then proceeds to break down History into an ideology, methodology and epistemology. He laments that History taught in schools does not incorporate post modern History and its multiple perspectives.

First of all I would like to say that the term History is a misnomer and should be a discipline that embodies Histories. The term History if used would be logo-centric and rooted in a Western Historical paradigm. There are many Histories circulating today such as black History, Counter Culture, and Feminist History and so on.

The writing of History can never be objective. Facts are interpreted by Historians as ideological sutures. Old facts can be presented in new-light as the Historiography of writing. For example there are very little studies on the plight of the feminine gender in Nazi Germany. The harsh treatment of Germany after the defeat of World War One can be seen empathically as a cause for the rise of Nazi fanaticism. A Marxian would treat Histories as class struggle. Ideological positions have to be deconstructed. For example Marxism as a grand narrative when put into application in Soviet Russia failed bitterly. Queer history deconstructs the ideology of gender and relationships to sex. Historical text books should include multiple narratives. For example: a soldier’s diary entry. The narratives made by a Nazi mother are some examples. History taught in schools is one dimensional. The school text books should incorporate multiple narratives.
When encountering the methodology of one can’t be typically objective, neutral and scientific. How can we narrate a black mother being raped by a white? If she writes a poem about it, is it not a part of a Black culture that’s repressed. For example if we look at present day Hong Kong we see a positive impact of it as British Colonization. The British colonizers worked hard with merit to make Hong Kong now under China as prosperous nation. The poverty of India after Independence has been worse than it was during the British regime.

Now what is History as a discourse? A discourse is a narrative, an extended explanation of something. In a Historical discourse the past is explored and evidence collected and put into interpretations. For example Hitler’s Mein Kamp and Diary of Annie Frank are both discourses, one which promotes the racial pride and superiority of the race and the other the struggles encountered by a girl during the second world war. The ontology of political consciousness becomes a discourse where people represent History with multiple points of view.

History as an epistemology should encompass multiple narratives into its literary mold. For example I would have to read Toni Morrison, if I am writing a historiography of Black Women. Epistemology has to place its roots in the ontological structure of consciousness. Re-interpreting History should have the ontological structure of poetry, a fiction.