I just had to comment on the following OP-ED piece from the New York Times on Nov 26, 2009.

What I am amazed at is how people who do not know God try to ACT like they know Him. What they fail to realize is that God must be “revealed” to us (Paul calls it the ’spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him’ -Eph 1:17). He is not to be figured out by our tiny brains. Why do we even pretend to think we can figure Almighty God out? As Mr. Kristof illustrates, modern ’self-enlightened man’ thinks we have an ‘evolving’ view of God. As he concludes:

“I’m hoping that the latest crop of books marks an armistice in the religious wars, a move away from both religious intolerance and irreligious intolerance. That would be a sign that perhaps we, along with God, are evolving toward a higher moral order.”

Mr. Kristoff, if there is any evolution going on here, it is man evolving farther away from our Creator God. Yes, He is an ‘intolerant’ God. He says “You shall have no other god’s beside me“. Modern man as well as ancient ‘heathen’ man has had the same problem from the very beginning…we make ourselves and what WE think to be more important than God. We become our own ‘god’s’.

Paul brilliantly explained in Romans 1 that God and His invisible attributes (eternal power and divine nature) can be clearly perceived by even the most ignorant and backward man. The problem as Paul points out is that even though we can perceive this awesome God and what He has created, we refuse to honor Him as God and refuse to have a grateful heart toward Him. We become futile (I might add stupid) in our thinking and our foolish hearts become darkened. God opens the door to our hearts, but when we fail to honor Him, our hearts become darkened, and there is no ‘revelation’ from Him as to His amazing Grace and Love. He has been the same yesterday, today and forever. It is mankind who changes, becoming wiser and wiser in our own ‘conceits’.

Mr. Kristoff’s article is an excellent representation of just how foolish our thinking is becoming. I am placing his column here so that you can discern for your self. To see further examples of darkened hearts (this time ‘celebrities’) read my column “We don’t need no stinkin’ God, we’re Celebrities and Rock Stars!” One example of further ignorance is the comment by Angelina Jolie, who said this when asked if there is a God:

“Hmm… For some people, I hope so, for them. For the people who believe in it, I hope so. There doesn’t need to be a God for me. There’s something in people that’s spiritual, that’s godlike. I don’t feel like doing things just because people say things, but I also don’t really know if it’s better to just not believe in anything, either.”

If we can’t come to an agreement on who God is, maybe we should follow Angelina’s advice and ‘just not believe in anything, either.” The we won’t have ‘Religious Wars’. I might add that we won’t have Salvation either!

The Religious Wars By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

“Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts.

Traditionally, religious wars were fought with swords and sieges; today, they often are fought with books. And in literary circles, these battles have usually been fought at the extremes.

Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels, in which Jesus returns to Earth to battle the Anti-Christ (whose day job was secretary general of the United Nations). Meanwhile, devout atheists built mocking Web sites like www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com. [One profound statement from this site: "If God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional." Well mudpreacher contends that the delusion is all in the minds of those who refuse to honor God as God, and the delusion results from a darkened heart(-mp)] That site notes that although believers periodically credit prayer with curing cancer, God never seems to regrow lost limbs. It demands an end to divine discrimination against amputees.

This year is different, with a crop of books that are less combative and more thoughtful. One of these is “The Evolution of God,” by Robert Wright, who explores how religions have changed — improved — over the millennia. He notes that God, as perceived by humans, has mellowed from the capricious warlord sometimes depicted in the Old Testament who periodically orders genocides.

(In 1 Samuel 15:3, the Lord orders a mass slaughter of the Amalekite tribe: “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child.” These days, that would earn God an indictment before the International Criminal Court.) [Once again, man wants to exert authority over God-mp]

Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism emerged only gradually among Israelites, and that the God familiar to us may have resulted from a merger of a creator god, El, and a warrior god, Yahweh. Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism wasn’t firmly established until after the Babylonian exile, and he says that Moses’s point was that other gods shouldn’t be worshiped, not that they didn’t exist. For example, he notes the troubling references to a “divine council” and “gods” — plural — in Psalm 82.

In another revelation not usually found in Sunday School classes, Mr. Wright cites Biblical evidence that God (both El and Yahweh) had a sex life, rather like the Greek gods, and notes archaeological discoveries indicating that Yahweh may have had a wife, Asherah. (I find this statement as stupid as you can get. It brings our Creator God down to our level-maybe that makes Mr. Wright feel more at peace with his conscience. He will be in for a harsh awakening when he finally sees God as He is. But it will be too late).

As for Christianity, Mr. Wright argues that it was Saint Paul — more than Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet — who emphasized love and universalism and built Christian faith as it is known today. Saint Paul focused on these elements, he says, partly as a way to broaden the appeal of the church and convert Gentiles.

Mr. Wright detects an evolution toward an image of God as a more beneficient and universal deity, one whose moral compass favors compassion for humans of whatever race or tribe, one who is now firmly in the antigenocide camp. Mr. Wright’s focus is not on whether God exists, but he does suggest that changing perceptions of God reflect a moral direction to history — and that this in turn perhaps reflects some kind of spiritual force.

“To the extent that ‘god’ grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose,” Mr. Wright says.

Another best-seller this year, Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God,” likewise doesn’t posit a Grandpa-in-the-Sky; rather, she sees God in terms of an ineffable presence that can be neither proven nor disproven in any rational sense. To Ms. Armstrong, faith belongs to the realm of life’s mysteries, beyond the world of reason, and people on both sides of the “God gap” make the mistake of interpreting religious traditions too literally.

“Over the centuries people in all cultures discovered that by pushing their reasoning powers to the limit, stretching language to the end of its tether, and living as selflessly and compassionately as possible, they experienced a transcendence that enabled them to affirm their suffering with serenity and courage,” Ms. Armstrong writes. Her book suggests that religion is not meant to regrow lost limbs, but that it may help some amputees come to terms with their losses.

Whatever one’s take on God, there’s no doubt that religion remains one of the most powerful forces in the world. Today, millions of people will be giving thanks to Him — or Her or It.

Another new book, “The Faith Instinct,” by my Times colleague Nicholas Wade, suggests a reason for the durability of faith: humans may be programmed for religious belief, because faith conferred evolutionary advantages in primitive times. That doesn’t go to the question of whether God exists, but it suggests that religion in some form may be with us for eons to come.

I’m hoping that the latest crop of books marks an armistice in the religious wars, a move away from both religious intolerance and irreligious intolerance. That would be a sign that perhaps we, along with God, are evolving toward a higher moral order.”

Thank you Mr. Kristoff. I became so focused on thanking God for all He has done in my life and for my family and for my church that I forgot how much still needs to be done. I thank you for reminding me that America is joining the ranks of the rest of the nations that have forgotten who God really is. We have our work cut out for us, because America needs to rediscover who our awesome Creator God is!

Hope everyone takes time to thank God, the REVEALED God of His Word!

Count ‘em: four arch-bishops covered up and colluded with perverts to protect immorality.

The commission found that three archbishops of Dublin — John Charles McQuaid (1940-72), Dermot Ryan (1972-84) and Kevin McNamara (1985-87) — did not tell police about clerical abuse cases, instead opting to avoid public scandals by shuttling offenders from parish to parish.

It was not until 1995, seven years into his reign, that then archbishop Connell allowed police to see church files on 17 clerical abuse cases. The documents were kept in a secret, locked vault in the archbishop’s Dublin residence.

Full article is here.

What jolly good fellows, these arch-bishops, looking out to keep the stream open for the toddlers and youngsters to be fed to a bunch of pedophiles and child rapists. It takes a special kind of belief to do so much horrendous wrong against innocents, but the Catholic church seems particularly able to maintain a sustained attack against, what just about any atheist knows to be, common morality, namely, to look out for and do whatever is necessary to protect children from abuse.  But not these arch-bishops; the welfare of Mother Church to avoid scandal is more important to these dress-wearing, supposedly celibate, guys than the welfare of children within its congregations.

How any moral person can continue to support this thoroughly discredited institution and look up rather than down to it on its moral track record is indeed a mystery of biblical proportions. It requires faith to replace such stark evidence to the contrary, and willful moral blindness to maintain such faith in spite of such very real pain and suffering caused by the people in positions of authority within this institution. Yet people do maintain faith in the institution, do continue to grant wisdom to these same people in positions of authority within it, and do continue to support the institution that does continue to cause harm and suffering throughout the world.

And everyone is supposed to be tolerant of that misguided, misplaced, misapplied allegiance because it falls under the name of religion. In fact, we are supposed to respect that allegiance and, to add insult to injury, continue to assume in spite of all evidence to the contrary that morality itself can be found through its doors. But how can any self-respecting person with an ounce if intellectual integrity actually go along with this bullshit? Something is wrong in the thinking pattern of the RC supporter and this thinking deserves our collective criticism, ridicule, disdain, and intolerance to any meddling by any of its agents of this institution on questions of morality within the public domain.

Recently, I had posted a debate from the Unbelievable radio show, which is broadcast in the UK. The topic of the debate was whether India should pass an anti-conversion law to prevent Christians from trying to convert people to Christianity. Basically, many Hindus in India want Christians to adopt the Hindu notions of polytheism and religious pluralism. They want Christians to accept that Jesus is one incarnation of the divine among many, and they want to outlaw the Christian practice of using speech to convince people to become Christians.

You can listen to the debate here in my original post.

But I wanted to highlight another debate that occurred in the comments of this blog, between me and a Hindu reader, who challenged me for being intolerant because I said that Hinduism was false.

His initial comment is here.

Guys, all religions teach the same things. Its how each religion is interpreted that makes it different. If you follow any religion persistently, it will lead you to a peaceful and happy life.

[...]If one feels happy following Christian rituals, he may follow Christianity; if he feels happy following Hindu rituals, he is good to a Hindu. It all depends on what makes sense to the person. Enforcing or luring someone to another religion is wrong…It should be a personal choice. And no one should oppose a conversion made by personal choice.

[...]To say that someone’s God or method of worship is false or not real is absolute rubbish according to me.

[...]If one says that other’s God or religion is false, he/she is not tolerating the other’s beliefs. And its immoral. Such things lead to religious conflicts.

[...]I believe in Jesus and so in my religion which is Hinduism.

[...]Why convert when a human being’s main aim is to be happy? Every religion has scriptures that tell how to become happy and attain heaven/liberation.

[...]Everyone loves his/her religion. They would not want to hear anything bad about it.

And I replied:

Our view as Christians is that the purpose of religion is not to live a happy life and to be “good”. Our view is that we want to believe what is true and to know God as God really is. We believe that God is a person, with a real personality – likes and dislikes.

What you’re proposing is a Hindu approach to religion, except with Christian symbols and rituals. But Christians don’t care about symbols and rituals much. We are more interested in history, science and propositional logic. We treat religion like… any other area of knowledge. First we discover the truth, then we act on it.

Additionally, you have a Hindu approach to conversion, and you are trying to force that on Christians. You can keep your Hindu approach to yourself, and tolerate the fact that we have a different approach to conversion.

[...]You’re not in a position to know what Christianity teaches, or what Jesus believes, since you haven’t looked into these things at all. You know Hinduism. And you are projecting Hinduism onto other religions. But Hinduism is totally different than Christianity. They conflict in many areas, like cosmology and history. We believe that the universe had a beginning, you think it’s eternal. And science can arbitrate that claim. We are willing to change our beliefs to be in line with what we can test in the external world, using the laws of logic, and the study of science and history.

[...]You write “To say that someone’s God or method of worship is false or not real is absolute rubbish according to me.”, yet you think that Christianity is false, and not real. But I am actually not offended by that at all. You are welcome to think I am wrong. I don’t mind, this is the way that the game plays. Only one of us can be right, and if you were right, I would have to switch over to your view and that would be fine with me.

[...]You write “Everyone loves his/her religion. They would not want to hear anything bad about it.” No that’s your view. You identify Hindusim with India and patriotism and your people and culture. I don’t identify Christianity with anything except truth. I like it because it’s true. And that the only reason I like it.

[...]When I say that Hinduism is false, I am not “talking bad about your religion” any more than I am talking bad about the view that 2 + 2 = 5, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4. It’s not talking bad about an idea to say it is false.

And then he replied:

Do you believe that people who worship idols are devilish or all religions except Christianity are false? If yes then explain me with proper scientific reasoning and provide me a proof in the recent decades that logically explains the above two statements. You need to prove me that what you believe is experimented by scientists and proven by technology.

[...]I believe in all Gods no matter what religion because God is One. For me and this generation of educated Indians, we believe in tolerance and respect for all religions. We believe in co-operating with each other and not pointing flaws in others beliefs until its proven scientifically and attested by scientific authority. And we believe that people’s belief be respected!

Then I replied:

The current best theory of the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory. It states that all the matter, energy, as well as time and space and time, came into being from nothing. It is backed by experimental data from red-shift measurements, cosmic microwave background radiation measurements, and light element abundance measurements, etc. The theory states that the universe began 14.7 billion years ago. Additionally, the universe will not recollapse because measurements of mass density from Maxima and Boomerang show that the universe will expand forever.

The big 3 monotheistic religions agree with the universe coming into being from nothing. Unfortunately, other religions think that the universe is eternal, such as Mormonism and Hinduism. On that basis, I reject Hinduism, which requires that the universe be eternal.

“I believe in all Gods no matter what religion because God is One.” That view (pantheism/polytheism) is called Hinduism. You are a Hindu. Christianity (monotheism) is mutually exclusive with Hinduism, because the teachings are in conflict, (as with the example of cosmology). As a Hindu, you therefore think that Christianity is false. On your definition, you don’t “tolerate” Christianity – you think it’s false. You don’t “respect” Christianity, because you want to force your view (Hinduism) and your view of conversion (don’t tell other people their religion is false) on Christians.

[...]Note: I am ok with you saying that I am wrong and that Christianity is false.

And then we sort of wound things down from there.

Anyway, the point of this exchange is most people in most religions think that the point of religion is to be happy, to have a sense of community and to get along with everyone by never talking about whether religious claims about the external world are true or false. But that view of the purpose of religion is not the Christian view. On the Christian view, the goal is to seek the truth. And part of Christian practice is to defend Christianity in public, and trying to convince other people that Christianity is true.

So, I think that Christians need to be a bit tougher, and recognize when someone who is not a Christian is trying to get them to accept that the purpose of religion is not to seek the truth. That’s their view. That’s not our view. It doesn’t make any sense for someone to say that I am evil for thinking they are wrong, when they are thinking that I am wrong. I think a better way forward is to allow other people to disagree with you, but to keep the disagreement focused on arguments and evidence.

And just because you disagree with someone else, it doesn’t mean you have to be mean to them. In my office, I am friends with Hindus, Muslims, atheists and Jews. We try to outdo one another in good deeds to make our religions look good! And when we debate which religion is true, we use arguments and evidence to attack and defend. What I’ve found is that you get a much stronger friendship when you are comfortable being yourself. I keep telling my co-workers – it’s OK to disagree.

Related posts

• the problem of religious pluralism and religious truth claims
• the problem of postmodern skepticism
• the fate of the unevangelized (what about those who never heard of Jesus)
• the hiddenness of God (why isn’t there more evidence for God’s existence?)
• are all religions basically the same?
• what about the blind men and the elephant?
• isn’t faith is opposed to reason and evidence? (a debate between a Christian and a postmodern relativist)
• what makes Christianity different from other religions?

Mentoring

• the importance of being able to argue both sides of a question
• why does talking about religion make people uncomfortable?
• how to talk to your co-workers about your faith

Apologetics advocacy

• does the Bible teach that faith is opposed to logic and evidence?
• the six enemies of apologetic engagement
• why men flee the feminized church
• why won’t Christians defend their faith in public?

I have developed an affliction. Indeed I have developed a cruel affliction for someone who likes cooking and eating. No, I haven’t lost my tongue or been forced onto to a diet of shredded wheat and Pot Noodles. No, I haven’t been forced to cook on a ceramic hob at all times, been told to give up alcohol or – God forbid – lost my internet connection. Instead, I have discovered that I have an intolerance. Yep. Bad.

But…before you all shout back “I knew it all along,” and “that explains everything,” it’s not one of your new-aged diagnoses or intolerances, (where one pierces one’s elbow with a bee-sting, stands on a pebble for fifteen minutes and urinates the diagnosis onto rice paper before concluding that a wheat-free diet is in order). Rather boringly, I Googled it and found it straight away.

First, the symptoms (and they are grim, food lovers, believe me – although not in a toiletry way, so you can keep eating your lunch). After doing my friends at You Tuba a favour, by cooking for them at their recording session on Sunday, I noticed that my food began to taste funny. Not wanting to alarm the dozen or so people who had eaten my food, I kept it to myself. After no complaints from them I began to think that perhaps I’d burnt my tongue, or that my fillings were coming out. Indeed, the taste was pretty metallic and sour, as if I was slowly poisoning myself. Over the next few days this continued, and as I cooked and ate I checked that those cooking and eating with me weren’t experiencing the same thing. When it became clear that they weren’t I began to worry. Should I prepare myself for a massive toothache, go to the doctor, or maybe draw up a last will and testament? No, I decided. Google it was then…

The answer came pretty quickly, as it often does. Apparently, quite a few people have been getting this reaction, suffering a bitter taste when they eat or drink anything, even when they clean their teeth. According to various sources, this is getting more prevalent. Worryingly, it can last from between a few days and several weeks.

And the culprit? Pine nuts. Bloody pine nuts. Supposed to be good for you. Bah! I made and ate pesto on Thursday, and had a handful as a little graze on Friday. Damn it! They are off the menu!

Pine nuts = Pine Mouth. No thanks!

The reasons for this reaction, and it’s apparent growth in numbers worldwide, is unclear. It doesn’t seem to be an allergy and it might only come from certain batches (the Chinese have been implicated, but there is insufficient evidence). Needless to say, and especially with the festive season approaching, I’m pining for a return to normal…

Further reading on the great pine nut mystery!

• Why nuts leave a bitter taste
• The Great Pine Nut Mystery
• The Pine Nut Menace
• Taste disturbances after pine nut ingestion

The message that Jesus came to bring to the world has evolved into the loud and drowning voice of today’s religious culture that preaches a dogma drenched in the influences of society. It all makes me wonder if we’re on the right track with this whole Christianity thing, whether the church is headed in the right direction. So much of what is taking place today, all in the name of God and Jesus, seems offensive to me, actually. I’m uncomfortable. Secretly, I want less and less to be associated with the movement that has defined my life for so long. All the church services and bible studies and late night conversations about how the world is going to hell and the end is near – how is this helping me and the greater good of humanity? Overall, the church doesn’t seem to be bringing itself or the world any closer to God.

My objections to the way things have turned out aren’t as important to the discussion, though. The real question is whether God objects or not. I admit that He might not. Maybe this is exactly how  He intended, or at least expected things to turn out: a church that has said and done horrible atrocious things, and is becoming increasingly out of touch with the world in which it resides. If God wants me to call myself a Christian by today’s definition, then by God I am a Christian. I’ll play the church game once or twice a week and try not to apologize too much to my non-Christian friends for all the seemingly irrelevant and meaningless activities to which I’m devoting my life. In the end, I’m here to please God, not the world. And I do believe that in the last days, the church will exist more and more for itself and be less evangelistic, but are we witnessing prophecy fulfilled or fulfilling it by our own actions? Is God moving with us or against us?

Of course I think it’s possible to find answers to these questions. I have to admit that I find it a little hard to believe that God would allow His church to go in a direction that was completely separate from Him and His will. But if He did, He would certainly show us the way home. I think the answer is in Jesus and the message He came to bring to the world, of which the Bible has accurately recorded. The problem is that  society has always influenced the interpretation of scripture. Absolutely it does and it always has. It’s almost impossible for me to read the accounts of Jesus in the context of the culture in which they were written, and free from the Christian indoctrination I’ve received from people who were indoctrinated themselves. I don’t yet completely understand this concept of Jesus being the image of God, but I have to believe that the image that modern-day Christianity proclaims to the world was never the image that God wanted us to have of Himself.

Whenever I hear a Christian mention the name of Jesus in public, it makes me cringe a little. At best, Jesus has become a joke to many people. At worst, He is a symbol of religious hatred and intolerance. Most non-Christians don’t find anything associated with the name Jesus appealing, and I’m starting to agree with them. I wonder if we should have a Jesus moratorium until we can get a better understanding of His message; maybe that’s a bad idea but I wish some people would agree to it. Even if Jesus meant for his ministry to explode into the institution of the Catholic Church and the many divisive protestant denominations that can’t agree on much of anything, He would still want His image upheld and His basic message preserved through all the noise that has become Christianity.

Consecutive Days Riding: 46                             Consecutive Days Blogging: 47

Today’s Mileage:  11                                        Total Trip Mileage: 397

Holidays and Holy Days on November 25:

Beginning of Hajj – Islamic pilgrimage rites at Mecca. One of the five pillars of Islamic  faith states that all Muslims should try to make at least one Hajj pilgrimage during their lifetime.

_______________________________________

Danger or the Divine?

As I ride the bike today I think back over my last few postings. They’ve been positive and upbeat. I’ve stood in admiration of the beauty along my path, the healing power of water, the treasures and memories we find as we walk along our daily beach.  I am clearly an optimistic person.  I turn terrible storms into nature mystical experiences, I see in the leaf clutter and bare trees of fall the renewing cycles of life knowing that what follows will be winter’s blankets and then spring time with bursts of color and new life.  I make a choice to be an optimist, to find hope in the process of death and decay, in the pain and suffering of family, friends and strangers.  I make a choice to see in these difficult and tragic situations, not roadblocks but challenges and hurdles that can be overcome, that can lead to growth.

I have at times plodded along only to look up and see an imposing peak in my way. Why does it have to be so difficult, I ask?  I’ve learned not to give up, not to swear at the peak in anger but to take a deep breath and start the climb. Attending to my footing, I glance up often enough to recognize the less treacherous way. I will make it to that peak, tired but stronger with a new perspective.  I choose to leave markers at points on the path (artwork, poems, and Blog postings) for other travelers.  These markers might provide encouragement for others on the path. At times I might even toss out a rope or reach down with an out stretched hand to help others take those last few steps. We might share a sip of water, a hug or a meal before we part again, each on a personal journey, holding the other in our prayers. These travelers may be a stranger in a chance encounter at a book store or church, a student who is part of your life for a semester, a client you helped through a difficult time, or a faceless visitor to your blog who leaves no comment but carries away seeds to plant on their journey.

A lonely journey at times!

But I digress; being an optimist is not an easy choice!  It’s not easy to find a silver lining in a story about a five year old murdered rape victim sold by her mother to the abuser or when you speak with PTSD veterans and hear of the horrors visited upon them and that they inflicted upon others.  It’s not easy when you watch as friends and family members drink themselves to a speedy death, trying to avoid their pain or when you sit with a pedophile, hear their story and still see him as a human being. There is no silver lining in these tragic lives.  The valuable lesson is in the consequences of our small, bad decisions that build into tragedies that destroy lives.

Step back and take a new perspective!

Yesterday I interacted with a friend, someone whose religious (Islamic), cultural (Southwest Asian) and urban background is strikingly different from my own.  Someone whose opinions I value.  His views carry as much truth as those who are suspicious of him for his skin color, his faith, his nation of origin and his foreign sounding name. The difference between us in this time and place is not about our roots but about his anger. We can dwell on the injustice and intolerance of others when we find ourselves in the minority.  We can make ourselves angry, or we can step back and see the larger process. Dichotomous thinking like “us versus them” only begets such thinking in others.  If you believe that everyone has taken sides “for or against” you, you leave these “others” no choice but to take sides.  If you prepare for battle, so will they!  The error is in the process that we follow and fail to recognize as a choice.  Whether Christian, Muslim or Jew, when we create an outlook of “us and them”, saved and unsaved, infidel and believer we have become part of the problem and not the solution.

Peaceful center or conflicting opposites?

As I stressed to my friend, this optimistic process approach is not an easy choice to embrace and live.  I have been told that I am naïve, that I am a dreamer, that I have no beliefs, that I have no principles.  I disagree!  Let me use the Chinese symbol of the Yin and Yang as an illustration.  Does the balance we all strive for reside in the center of the light or the center of the dark?  Should we fight over who is in the position of right and wrong, of light and dark?  For both positions stand in stark opposition and both positions spin and twirl. Does the point of balance not reside in the very center of the symbol, at that place where you stand still as the world revolves about you, a point of centeredness and clarity? I choose to look for that middle ground, that point at which I stop spinning, when I close my eyes and feel the solid center of the divine under my feet. I choose to do it with a smile as I walk through flower gardens, as I float in peaceful waters, as I plant seeds in my students and sons, as I reach out to offer comfort to those in pain.  What do you choose?

A special thanks to the photographers associated with Panramio for the beautiful scenes from along the roadside. The information on holy days and sacred holidays comes from www.interfaithcalendar.org.

(Part I)

Part II:

Wethersfield Burying Ground, First Christ Church, Wethersfield, CT Samuel & Mary Boreman are buried here.

It is curious that my ancestors left England in part to escape the tyranny of a state religion—and upon arrival practiced the same tyranny of an official religion themselves.

They were wrought by fear of things they didn’t understand. They were superstitious. This resulted in the Salem Witch Trials, the most famous, but not the only witch trials in New England.

In the Connecticut Colony, beginning in 1639, estates were administered by the Particular Court also sometimes referred to as “Quarter Court” when it met quarterly, which also dealt with most other judicial actions. By September of 1662, Samuel Boreman was something of a mover & shaker in Wethersfield (today a really neat suburb of Hartford, CT), and was appointed as a juror on at least one such court:

At a Particular Court held at Hartford, December 30, 1662, Samuel served as a juror in the indictment of Nathaniel Greensmith and of Rebecca, his wife: “Nathaniel Greensmith thou art here indicted by the name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the fear of God before thine eyes, thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan, the grand enemy of God and mankind, and by his help hast acted things in a preternatural way beyond human abilities in a natural course , for which according to the law of God and the established law of this commonwealth thou deservest to die.”

The magistrates holding the court were Matthew Allyn, moderator, Samuel Wyllys, Richard Treat, Henry Wolcott, Daniel Clark, secretary, John Allyn. The jury were Edward Griswold, Walter Filer, Ensign Olmsted, Samuel Boardman, Gregory Winterton, John Cowles, Samuel Marshall, Samuel Hale, Nathaniel Willett, John Hart, John Wadsworth and Robert Webster.

Nathaniel Greensmith made no confession. Here is all that we know of the evidence given in against him:

Rebecca Greensmith testifieth in court January 8, 1662.

“1. ‘That my husband on Friday’ night last, when I came to prison, told me that now thou hast confest against thyself let me alone and say nothing of me and I will be good unto thy children.”

“2. ‘I do now testify that formerly when my husband hath told me of his great travail and labor, I wondered at it how he did it; this he did before I was married, and when I was married I asked him how he did it, and he answered me, he had help that I knew not of.”

“3. ‘About three years ago, as I think it, my husband and I were in the woods several miles from home, and were looking for a sow that we lost, and I saw a creature, a red creature, following my husband, and when I came to him I asked him what it was that was with him, and he told me it was.a fox.”

“4. ‘Another time when he and I drove our hogs into the woods beyond the pound that was to keep young cattle, several miles off, I went before the hogs to call them, and looking back I saw two creatures like dogs, one a little blacker than the other; they came after my husband pretty close to him, and one did seem to me to touch him. I asked him what they were, he told me he thought foxes. I was still afraid when I saw anything, because I heard so much of him before I rriarried him.”

“5. ‘I have seen logs that my husband hath brought home in his cart that I wondered at it that he could get them into the cart, being a man of little body and weak to my apprehension; and the logs were such that I thought two men such as he could not have done it.”

“I speak all of this out of love to my husband’s soul, and it is much against my will that I am now necessitate to speak against my husband. I desire that the Lord would open his heart to own and speak the truth.”

“‘I also testify, that I being in the woods at a meeting, there was with me goody Seager, goodwife Sanford and goodwife Ayres. And at another time there was a meeting under a tree in the green by our house, and there was there James Walkicy, Peter Grant’s wife, goodwife Ayres, and Henry Palmer’s wife, of Wethersfield, and goody Seager; and there we danced and had a bottle of sack. It was in the night and something like a cat called me out to the meeting, and I was in Mr. Varlet’s orchard with Mrs. Judith Varlet, and she told me that she was muth troubled with the marshal, Jonathan Gilbert, and cried; and she said if it lay in her power she would do him a mischief, or what hurt she could. Taken upon oath in court.’

“The jury return that they find the prisoner at the bar, Nathaniel Greensmith, guilty of the indictment.”

“Respecting Rebecca Greensmith, the prisoner at the bar, the jury find her guilty of the indictment.”

“The said Rebecca confesseth in open court, that she is guilty of the charge laid in against her.”

“This, with the concurrent evidence, brought the woman and her husband to their death as the devil’s familiars.” [Source: A CASE OF WITCHCRAFT IN HARTFORD, By Charles J. Hoadley, LL. D. Published in the Connecticut Magazine November, 1899]

The Greensmiths were executed a couple of weeks later:

“On [January 25,] 1663, [*Sometimes recorded as 1662 or 1662/3, since January 1 was not the legal beginning of the new year] a husband and wife were hanged for witchcraft in colonial Connecticut…”

“…The persecutions began with the deathbed ravings of an 8-year-old girl, who accused a certain Goodwife of the town, the latter preserving herself only by escaping detention and fleeing the colony with her husband…”

“…Nathaniel Greensmith did not “own and speak the truth,” but he shared his wife’s fate this day. They may have been executed with a third accused witch as well, but the documentary trail for Mary Barnes’ case seems less certain. Though she, and perhaps another woman, may have been hanged after the Greensmiths in this particular spasm of supernatural paranoia, the Hartford witch trials of 1662-63 would mark the last witchcraft executions in Connecticut.”

“The Greensmiths left behind 15- and 17-year-old daughters, a modest estate, and community lore of the miraculous post-execution recovery of the party they were supposed to have been afflicting.” [Source: Executed Today.com]

Thus ends the short chronicle of my immigrant ancestor, Samuel Boreman. I’m sure glad we no longer fall prey to irrational fears and superstitions…

…or do we?

The internet is a place in which information is free to float where it may.  Tweet it, facebook it, put it on myspace (but no one will read it there). Pour every meandering thought down into the white rectangle and watch as it affixes itself to cyberspace, to be viewed and judged accordingly by all that see it.

Add to this the fact that friend requests are generally sent out to a plethora of people, including not only your close friends but old classmates, co-workers and distant relatives.  If you belong to one of these sites go take a gander at your friend list…I’ll wait.  I’m going to wager that there are people on it you haven’t seen in years.  There may be some people you don’t even remember.  Look there’s that girl from high school, she sat behind you in Chemistry.  Remember how it took you emailing your friend to even recall who she is before you accepted the request?

Now consider this fact.  Every single status update you have posted since becoming this person’s ”friend” has been broadcast across their main page. 

For some of us, this is no big deal.  So what?  Mindy Whosawhitz knows I like Rilke’s poetry, I got a great deal on a sweater at Target and that I recently celebrated my Grandmother’s birthday….big whoop.  Most people I know update their status with what they are doing at that moment, quotes they like, song lyrics, thoughts on sporting events, movies and books.  From reading these kinds of updates I get to keep up with people I can’t find the time to routinely connect with via another avenue (phone/email/in person) and often I am pointed in the direction of something I would enjoy ( like this).

Other people however….

Today I un-friended someone because they said something hateful about a belief that is not their own.  It is also not a belief that I ascribe to, in the strictest sense, I do not label myself in that way.

It was a short two sentence statement, but dense with hate and misinformation.  In those two lines she managed to completely mischaracterize the religion she was referring to as well as equate its followers with lazy, greedy murders.

It was vile.  I shot her a short message with a correction to her mistake (Humanists do not ”worship” humans) and a brief description of my disgust - clicked the small “X” next to her name thus banishing her to the outside of my circle.

This person wrote something completely hateful as her status, signing her name in big bold letters next to it, her smiling face beaming from her profile picture alongside.

Why would anyone do this?

Perhaps because she thought everyone would agree.

She was wrong.

Self Portrait, 2008

the smell of money fills our lungs
our fields are filled with blood
dripping chambers for the death knell
the infidel swings from gallows
erected on our heavy tongues
here, we exile all angels to hell

i have made an aerie for the bodies of the damned
between my skull and womb
nestled in muscle and pulse
the lock is glued
the door is jammed
do not enter this tomb
or heaven will convulse.

Military academies lack minority nominees
November 22, 2009 by Brian Witte (hat tip to Education Watch International)

As the nation’s military academies try to recruit more minorities, they aren’t getting much help from members of Congress from big-city districts with large numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

From New York to Chicago to Los Angeles, lawmakers from heavily minority areas rank at or near the bottom in the number of students they have nominated for appointment to West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to an Associated Press review of records from the past five years.

High school students applying to the academies must be nominated by a member of Congress or another high-ranking federal official. Congressional nominations account for about 75 percent of all students at the academies.

Academy records obtained by the AP through the Freedom of Information Act show that lawmakers in roughly half of the 435 House districts nominated more than 100 students each during the five-year period.

But Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York City, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, nominated only four students, the lowest among House members who served the entire five-year period. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, whose New York City district includes Harlem, was second-lowest, with eight nominations. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco district is 29 percent Asian, was also near the bottom, with 19.

In fact, the bottom 20 House members were all from districts where whites make up less than a majority.

“It’s beyond my imagination how someone that has the ability to nominate doesn’t do it,” Craig Duchossois said in December at his final meeting as chairman of the Naval Academy’s Board of Visitors.

He noted what an academy appointment means: a free four-year education and a guaranteed job as an officer for at least five years after graduation.

Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Rangel and Mrs. Pelosi, all Democrats, would not comment or did not return calls.

Let’s not try to make this a racist issue, it’s an elitist anti-military issue

Figures. Obama Commie Czar Wants Hannity & Rightwing Websites Censured
November 24, 2009 by Gateway Pundit

One of the communist-supporters and kooks working with Obama in the White House wants Sean Hannity and rightwing websites muzzled.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wrote this in his latest book.
World Net Daily and FOX Nation reported:

Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

Has anyone asked Mr. Sunstein what would have happened to Dan Rather during the scandal about Bush’s National Guard records had these proposed laws been in effect?

Democrats, bias, bigotry, censorship, discrimination, elitism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, scandal, socialism

Palin Derangement Syndrome Hits Hard
November 23, 2009 by Michael Goodwin (hat tip to The Western Center for Journalism)

Let us have a moment of silence in honor of the late journalism standards of The Washington Post company. They died last week, a victim of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

First came Newsweek’s cover of Palin in running shorts, over a headline of “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” and a snide kicker that “she’s bad news for the GOP–and everybody else too.”

Beyond the obvious partisanship, many women, Palin included, found the cover sexist and an attempt to demean her with the bimbo treatment.

There might also be legal fallout. Newsweek, owned by The Post, had no right to use the photo, according to Runner’s World magazine, which commissioned it.

The company’s flagship paper also embarrassed itself. It published dueling reviews of Palin’s book “Going Rogue,” with snarky blogger Ana Marie Cox making an astounding confession in her review:

“I cannot claim to have completely read ‘Going Rogue’ — I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.”

My inquiry about how this could possibly be acceptable was answered by Rachel Shea, editor of the paper’s Book World. She said in a breezy e-mail: “We thought our reviewers each provided unique perspectives on the book, and Ana Marie Cox was up front about her examination of it.”
There you have it. The Post no longer requires reviewers to actually read the books they are reviewing, as long as they are “up front” about it.

It’s Sarah Palin’s fault.

bias, bigotry, discrimination, elitism, hypocrisy, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, opinion, pandering, propaganda, scandal, sexism

Tomorrow, 25 November, is the feast of St Catherine the Great Martyr of Alexandria (ἡ Ἁγία Αἰκατερίνη ἡ Μεγαλομάρτυς της Ἀλεξάνδρειας, hē Hagia Aikaterinē hē Megalomartys tēs Alexandreias). It is also the commemoration of Isaac Watts, famous hymnwriter, in the Church of England calendar (and surely those of other churches too).

13th-century icon of St Catherine from Mt Sinai

Popularly, Catherine is associated with her eponymous wheel that makes it gyratory appearance at fireworks displays, symbolising the first attempted means of her martyrdom. Her legend tells of a young virgin woman who contended in dialogue with the pagan Emperor Maximinus Daia (308–13), successfully converting to Christianity his wife and courtiers, countering their philosophical arguments. The frustrated emperor ordered her tortured to death on the breaking wheel, which broke when she touched it, and so she was beheaded. Angels carried her body to Mt Sinai, where her tomb now lies.

The Catherine legend is problematic for a number of reasons. Although that does not mean that there is no real woman behind the legend, almost none of legend seems to be substantial. Maximinus is a hate figure in Christian history, being ruler of Syria and Egypt and accused of restarting the persecutions against Christians after Galerius, his adoptive uncle, had put an end to Diocletian’s persecutions. Maximinus was also part of the post-Diocletianic struggle for power opposing the party of Constantine (considered the victor of Christendom). It makes sense to see the Catherine legend in this political atmosphere. Surely, there must have been martyrdoms in Alexandria in this period.

Poster for Alejandro Amenábar's 'Agora'

However, the legend seems to have accreted another similar, yet quite opposite, legend: the legend of Hypatia (Ὑπατία). Hypatia lived in Alexandria from the late fourth century, dying in 415. She was a brilliant philosopher of the Neoplatonic tradition, skilled in logic, maths and astronomy. She taught in Alexandria, numbering a future bishop as one of her students. Problematically for the Christian community of the city, she was a pagan. A power struggle for the city was taking place between its bishop Cyril and its prefect Orestes. A mob of monks from the Nitrian Desert had previously attacked Orestes, injuring him. Hypatia was believed to be using her influence as a highly respected professor in favour of Orestes. Believing this, the Nitrian monks, led by Peter the Reader, surrounded Hypatia’s carriage, pulled her out, stripped her and dragged her through the streets. Accounts of her death at the hands of the monks have been variously dramatised in disturbingly sadistic detail. Socrates Scholasticus, a Christian historian of the fifth century, has a sympathetic account of her brutal murder, clearly dismayed by the action of his coreligionists. The legend of Hypatia, however, became powerful anti-Christian propaganda in the hands of the dwindling old Graeco-Roman aristocracy and educated elite. She has remained an icon of reason against the assaults of intolerance and religious extremism. The end of the GW Bush regime in the United States was perhaps as good a time as any to revisit Hypatia, as done in film Ágora by Alejandro Amenábar, with Rachel Weisz as our 21st-century Hypatia.

I can understand the Catherine legend having much to do with guilt-fuelled counter-propaganda against the embarrassing Hypatia legend. It is certainly a disgusting blot on the church if we are guilty of rewriting history to turn our shame into a symbol of our suffering under persecution. Perhaps more sad is the daily severe discrimination met by today’s Christian community in Egypt, the Copts.

I don’t know if it counts for anything, but 25 November is also 29 Hathor in the Coptic calendar, and the height of the month named for the goddess Hathor.

Isaac Watts

The story of Isaac Watts is over a millennium away from the stories of Catherine and Hypatia. Born in another great port city, Southampton, in 1674, his father was twice imprisoned for holding to nonconformist religious practices: he was not a member of the state church, the Church of England. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 had put severe constraints on those who chose to worship in manner not in accordance with that of the state church. Although showing great academic promise, Watts was unable to study at Oxbridge due to his refusal to accept the rules of the state church. Instead he went to an academy in Stoke Newington, that was set up for the benefit of nonconformists. Many others would have submitted in name alone to the state religion in order to progress in life, but Isaac Watts was steadfast in the independence of his belief.

Watts became a dissenting minister in Stoke Newington. While there he wrote a hugely influential work on logic, which became the official text on the matter in the Oxbridge universities that had denied him on religious grounds. He opposed the imposition of trinitarian doctrine on dissenting ministers by the movement’s conservative wing, upholding their right of each to formulate their doctrine in accord with their reason. This has lead to thoughts that he was a unitarian, something that is not apparent from his writings. Shunned and opposed in life, Isaac Watts is the Father of English Hymnody. The hundreds of hymns he wrote are a unity of passionate faith commingled with doctrinal clarity, unsurprising for a great logician perhaps. However, few in the Church of England who gladly sing When I survey the wondrous Cross or Jesus shall reign where’er the sun realise the radical man behind those words and the intolerant hatred of him and those like him by our church.

So, tomorrow, let’s celebrate Catherine and Isaac, for there is plenty to celebrate. But let us also contemplate Hypatia and Watts the rejected dissenter, better to understand our place in the history of religious intolerance.

Okay, this is pissing me off, so I’m going to have to write about it.

Yes, Adam’s performance on the AMA’s was a little over the top, but it has nothing to do with what he actually DID. It has everything to do with who he IS.  It is the fact he is a gay male. Do people get this worked up when a new Britney Spears video comes out? Because it’s essentially just as shocking. Her latest video is “3″ which is about her getting double teamed by two guys. That’s all it is.  Her dancing around half- naked with poles and men.

But a gay man gets up on a stage and kisses another man and suddenly it is “disgusting”. Suddenly parents are telling their children to leave the room.  Even though we see women kissing women all the time. We see videos so close to porn that it is uncomfortable to watch. (I mean could you watch that Britney video with your parents and not squirm?)

There are several lessons here.  We are desensitized to the amount of sex on television. There are some things we just accept as risqué, and those things are seen as cool and sexy by the majority of society. Sex is marketable. But of course it has to be the “right” kind. Which usually comes in female pop star packages. Not in gay male packages. Because that is just too different. That makes us think about things we don’t want to think about.

There is a double standard between what is okay for heterosexuals and what is okay for homosexuals.  Straight people can kiss on TV, but gay people clearly can not.

Because listen America, you are a bigoted prude. You can’t accept anything or anyone that is different from you. You think anything that doesn’t fit into your cookie-cutter mold of what a family should be, MUST be some kind of abomination.

This is an actual comment from youtube regarding Adam’s display:

“Now we have to watch as gays permeate society with their crap and make us witness pitiful displays of filth like the one above as this becomes the norm.
Tell me, what good did the legalization of homosexuality provide for society exactly ?
And please don’t count bath-houses as a cesspool for AIDS as a good thing.”

People like THAT, disgust me. Not Adam Lambert. The blatant intolerance that people so freely share. It astounds me.  America, you are going to have to get over your fear of what you don’t understand.

I could care less about Adam’s music. But he is a performer, just like Britney. He is going to shock us just like the female pop stars do. You know the ones that wear hooker boots and see through bras, and that dance like strippers and sing about sex. The good wholesome girls that we are all so proud of, and that we let our daughters listen to so they can model their behavior. America, make sure you really get behind them and support them before throwing Adam to the wolves.

If I were him I would flip everyone off too.

Fuck you America. You should be ashamed.

DISTRACTION OF CONTEMPT

November 23rd.

DISTRACTION OF CONTEMPT
“Have mercy upon us, 0 Lord, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly piled with contempt.” Psalm 123:3

The thing of which we have to beware is not so much damage to our belief in God as damage to our Christian disposition or state of mind. “Therefore take heed to thy spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.” ( Malachi 2:16 ). Our state of mind is powerful in its effects, it is the enemy that penetrates right into the soul and distracts the mind from God. There are certain attitudes of mind in which we never dare indulge; if we do, we find they have distracted us from faith in God, and until we get back to the quiet mood before God, our faith in Him is of no value, and our confidence in the flesh and in human ingenuity is what rules our lives.
Beware of “the cares of this world,” because they are the things that produce a wrong attitudes of soul. It is extraordinary what an enormous power there is in simple things to distract our attention away from God. Refuse to be swamped with the cares of this life.

Another thing that distracts us is the lust of vindication. St. Augustine prayed – “O Lord, deliver me from this lust of always vindicating myself.” Such a need for constant vindication destroys our soul’s faith in God.Don’t say “I must explain myself; I must get people to understand.” Our Lord never explained anything; He left the misunderstandings or misconceptions of others to correct  themselves.
When we discern that people are not going on spiritually and allow that discernment to turn to criticism, we block our communion and fellowship with God. God never gives us discernment in order that we may criticize, but that we may intercede.

**************************************************

Wow what timing this devotional is from Oswald Chambers!
We have people who are Christian who have lost their way, the way of love, and peace, and faith in God to deal with ‘vindication’ and to deal with the issues our government are dealing with. People of God in Christ Jesus, Our God is in control! Really . Many radical minded folks are getting caught up in the rhetoric of their so called Godly leaders to pray prayers called  “imprecatory prayer”,asking their followers to pray for the deaths of the leaders of America.Using scriptures like evil spells against others,just like what is going around today with Psalms 109:8,” Let his days be few; and let another take his office” and verse 9 which reads:”Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow”.

People this is the Christian equivalent to malefic “black” magic (you’re basically asking God to kill, maim, or trouble some person) Folks what does this say about the Christian faith? What does this look like to the community of non believers? What a blow and terrible example you are showing the world. This  not only sounds like but is exactly like what the Radicals of Islam clerics are doing when they declare fatwa. One radical Southern Baptist is saying that he is “simply doing what God told me to do”. Really God told you to pray for our leaders to be killed? Are you out of your minds?
People of Faith in Jesus Christ , please get your minds off of Old Testament , Old Covenant ways, God has left the building! God has moved His/Her people onward to a different level , we as children of God must now grow up, this is not the age of the Law but the age of Grace, and God has never and will never force any one to follow Him/Her! Do you not understand Grace yet?
People of Faith, God is NOT and I repeat our God is NOT judging the people nor the nations who do not believe, in this age of Grace. God is only judging and correcting and guiding the true believers and those who have faith in Him through Christ, the body of Christ,no one else is under the holy fire of the Holy Spirit.

The apostle Peter, in his first epistle, writes: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17). In this passage Peter uses the definite article with judgment, better translated “the judgment” He is referring to the final judgment of God, which he states begins with God’s people — the church. This epistle of Peter is focused on the reasons for the suffering and persecution that his readers were enduring. He is telling them that one of the reasons for the trials, is that this is part of God’s judgment – His discipline and purification of the Church.

Much of the confusion stems from the so called leadership of radical churches that believe that God is going to rapture them away before any tribulation begins. We must not confuse God’s discipline with His wrath.

The Bible teaches that the church will enter the Seventieth Week of Daniel and, after the midpoint, the church will face persecution by Antichrist ( which is any one who is against Christ not just one man or leader!). This time, which Christ called the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21), will be Satan’s wrath against the church (Rev. 12:12), not God’s wrath. God’s wrath does not begin until after the sixth seal is opened (Rev. 6:12-17), the church has been raptured (Rev. 7:9-14), and the seventh seal is broken, initiating the trumpet judgments (Rev. 8:1-6).

Then and only then will the judgments begin for everyone else in the world! But folks we are not there yet, and it is the Church that God is trying to guide into maturity, and it is apparent that many radical extremist Christians that are not wanting to grow up!

“However, just as God granted Satan permission to afflict Job, so God will allow Satan to persecute the church. Why? As Robert Van Kampen wrote in The Sign: “… the church that goes into the last days will be primarily known for her compromise … God will permit this time of testing to purge, purify and refine her before she can be considered worthy to come into the presence of God, and to become the bride of Christ.” (p. 73).

We in this day just prior to, and entering into the end times are part of the churches of compromise and lukewarmness, and I dare say hatred and vindication.

“The Great Tribulation is the time when the wheat (true believers) will be separated from the tares (look-alike believers) (Matt. 13:30). This time period will be the HOLY ”fire” Peter speaks of when he says, “that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ…” (1 Peter 1:7).God will bring discipline upon the church in order to purge, purify, and refine it. We are promised in God’s Word that we will not face God’s wrath, but we are never promised exemption from suffering, persecution, or trials. Rather, we are promised that God will “discipline us for our good, that we may share His holiness.” (Hebrews 12:10). God will bring the church through the Great Tribulation so that we will be presented to Christ as His bride, “in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle…that she should be holy and blameless…” (Eph. 5:27), “… so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.” (1 John 2:28).

 The persecution that believers suffer today, and will suffer during the Great Tribulation, is a sign that we are part of the household of God. He, as a good father, is purifying His family for our good. We may not enjoy the experience, but we can rejoice that we are among those facing discipline now, being purified in preparation for heaven, rather than among those who will face the full force of divine judgment later.” http://www.solagroup.org/

People of God it is high time that you get your head on straight! Discern the times, and pray that God’s will be done in the earth as it is in heaven. Pray that you and your family, and your friends, your co workers, your neighbors who do not know the Lord Jesus , that they be awakened from their sleep and death in sin and that they will call on his name and believe and be saved from the wrath to come upon the earth. Pray that the church the true body of Christ, are able to stand firm in faith,love and hope, and endure unto the end.Let ALL your actions be by and through love. Let Christ be ruler of your minds and life, and do unto others as you would have them do to you. Remember that  we all have sinned and that the love of God in Christ has and will forgive us for we do not know what we do or why we do it , all the time.Those people you want to curse using the Scriptures represent YOU, and you must treat them as Christ has you by forgiving them, let God do the rest.
Shalom in Christ
blessed be

This country is headed down the drain?
Well there is lots of it out there but the posts following this article are stupendous, racist, intolerant and just plan rants!!
Proof!

Témoin de mémoire – Témoin de vie  (  source ici )

Auschwitz, Pologne, 13 novembre 2007

Auschwitz parle, Auschwitz se souvient. Voici le discours prononcé à Auschwitz par le Dr Rath à l’occasion de cette journée du souvenir.

Chers survivants du Camp de Concentration d’Auschwitz
Chers gardiens de la mémoire d’Auschwitz
Chers Dignitaires
Chers invités
Mesdames et Messieurs,

Au nom de notre Fondation, Je vous souhaite les bienvenus. Je voudrais remercier également August Kowalczyk, Helena Wisla et la Fondation Oswiecim Hospicjum pour l’énorme effort fourni pour la tenue de cette rencontre.

Il y a plus de quatre ans je fis connaissance avec August Kowalczyk pour la première fois à La Haye, c’était lors d’une conférence organisée par notre Fondation où il partagea son expérience d’Auschwitz.

Depuis nous nous sommes rencontré à plusieurs reprises et j’ai eu l’honneur de rencontrer d’autres survivants et gardiens de la mémoire d’Auschwitz. Aujourd’hui vous avez décidé de passer le relais de l’avenir le «relais de la vie» à la future génération.

Porter votre mémoire à la prochaine génération, vous survivants d’Auschwitz, est le plus grand honneur qu’une organisation peut recevoir.

Mais nous ne sommes pas seuls ici. Nous sommes avec la mémoire de millions de personnes brutalement martyrisés et tués dans les camps de concentration d’Auschwitz I, de Birkenau et dans celui d’IG Farben Monowitz.

Nous sommes avec la mémoire des Peuples Polonais, Tchèques, Belges, Anglais, Grec, Néerlandais, Yougoslaves et ceux de beaucoup d’autres pays.

Nous sommes avec le Peuple Juif, les peuples d’origine Slave et tous ceux qui ont été massacré juste parce qu’ils étaient une autre race ou d’autres nationalités.

Nous nous inclinons devant vous et nous sommes ici aujourd’hui pour célébrer cette mémoire.

C’est également un honneur particulier pour moi d’être ici parmi vous, les gardiens de la mémoire d’Auschwitz car je suis né en Allemagne. Avant d’aller plus loin je souhaiterai m’incliner devant vous et je vous demande pardon en raison des crimes commis par le peuple Allemand ici à Auschwitz et dans le monde entier.

Nous sommes ici aujourd’hui pour protéger la vie, la santé, la dignité, ces valeurs qui, par le passé, ont été les plus bafoués et par conséquent doivent être les premières à être protégées au bénéfice des générations à venir.

Cette conférence a lieu au moment ou le monde est à la croisée des chemins, un tournant historique. D’une part, vous, survivants d’Auschwitz avez décidé de passer le relais du souvenir, le «relais de la vie» à la génération à venir.

D’autre part l’humanité est arrivée à un point ou le risque d’éclatement de la Troisième Guerre Mondiale est ouvertement au centre des débats. Il n y’ a pas l’ombre d’un doute que cette guerre déclenchera un holocauste nucléaire qui plongera l’humanité entière dans l’abîme. Cette conférence exposera ces intérêts qui sont entrain de préparer ouvertement la Troisième Guerre Mondiale et a également comme but de lancer un message de paix qui sera entendu dans le monde entier.

Vous nous avez beaucoup appris, vous les gardiens de la mémoire d’Auschwitz, une information inestimable qui a besoin d’être sauvegardée et protégée pour les générations futures. Nous avons également découvert toute une mine d’informations et de faits historiques dans les rapports du Tribunal de Nuremberg sur les crimes de guerre et d’autres documents historiques. Nous, ainsi que les générations futures, ne serons capables d’éviter la répétition des crimes commis au cours de la 2^nde Guerre Mondiale ici à Auschwitz que si nous tirons les «les leçons de l’histoire».

En effet les intérêts corporatistes ont commencé à préparer la 2^nde Guerre Mondiale déjà dès 1925 lorsque Bayer, BASF et Hoechst et d’autres multinationales Allemandes formèrent le cartel de «IG Farben». L’objectif déclaré de ce cartel était d’exercer son contrôle sur le marché mondial dans les secteurs clé de la chimie, des produits pharmaceutiques et de la pétrochimie. Déjà en 1925 quand le cartel fut créé sa valeur dépassait les 11 milliards de Reichsmark avec plus de 80.000 employés.

L’un des secteurs stratégiques dans lequel IG Farben cherchera à exercer le contrôle fut le secteur de l’investissement pharmaceutique. Ils savaient d’avance que l’industrie pharmaceutique n’était pas fondamentalement une industrie pour la santé mais un investissement économique qui définit le corps humain comme un marché exploitable. Alors qu’il se présente comme une industrie pour la santé, la survie et l’existence de cette industrie ne sont basées que sur la perduration et l’expansion des maladies considérées comme source de milliards de dollars provenant des produits brevetés.

La condition préalable à cette réalisation d’un monopole mondial sur les médicaments brevetés est la tentative d’éliminer systématiquement du marché tous les produits thérapeutiques d’origine naturelle par définition non brevetables.

En 1993 IG Farben devint le principal pourvoyeur de fonds en vue de la montée en puissance des Nazis. Au cours des années qui ont suivi, ce cartel chimico-pharmaceutique allemand devint complice et prêta main forte aux préparatifs de la conquête militaire de l’Europe.

Les rapports du Tribunal de Nuremberg sur les crimes de guerre parlent d’un don de plus de 80 millions de Reichmark offert aux Nazis et aux organisations affiliées à Bayer, BASF et Hoechst. En retour de cet «investissement» IG Farben obtint le contrôle et la gestion de toutes les industries chimiques, pétrochimiques et pharmaceutiques des pays occupés pendant la 2^nde Guerre mondiale avec comme objectif final la création d’un vaste marché allant de Lisbonne à Sofia.

Selon les rapports du Tribunal de Nuremberg sur les crimes de guerre, Knieriem, directeur de l’IG Farben adressait le 20 Juillet 1940 une lettre au gouvernement Nazi – quelques temps après la victoire sur la France – dans laquelle il soulignait les instruments qu’IG Farben entendait utiliser afin d’asseoir son emprise en Europe. La lettre d’IG Farben évoquait l’existence d’une monnaie commune européenne, des lois communes et même un système juridique commun et tout cela sous le contrôle et la supervision de la coalition Nazi/IG Farben.

A Auschwitz, IG Farben y érigea le plus grand complexe industriel européen destiné à la production des produits chimiques et explosifs destines à être utilisés sur le front Est au cours de la 2^nde Guerre Mondiale. Ce complexe industriel de 24 km² de superficie – y compris son énorme camp de concentration, réservoir d’esclaves travailleurs – fut financé par les crédits d’environ 1 milliard de Reichsmark fourni par la Deutsche Bank.

Les milliers de prisonniers de ce camp furent utilisés par la section pharmaceutique de Bayer à de pseudo expériences médicales en testant les produits brevetés comme la «chimiothérapie».

Au cours des procès du Tribunal de Nuremberg sur les crimes de guerre 24 dirigeants de IG Farben ont été traduits en justice et beaucoup furent condamnés.

Voici comment le procureur américain Telford Taylor résuma le rôle joué par le cartel chimique au cours du procès du Nuremberg: «la seconde guerre mondiale n’aurait jamais été possible sans IG Farben».

Pendant plus de 6 décennies les rapports des procès du Tribunal de Nuremberg contre les dirigeants du cartel de IG Farben ont été tenu secrets au sein des archives de Nuremberg. En juillet de cette année (2007) notre fondation eut accès à ces archives et publia plus de 40.000 rapports sur Internet. Aujourd’hui tout le monde, les enfants aussi bien que les adultes peuvent avoir accès à ces archives quelque soit l’endroit où ils se trouvent au monde.

Avec le début de la Guerre Froide, quelques uns des dirigeants de IG Farben ayant été traduits en justice furent reconduits dans des postes de responsabilité dans l’industrie allemande.

Karl Wurster, président de Degesch – le fabricant du produit Cyclone B ayant servi dans les chambres à gaz d’Auschwitz – redevint le Directeur général de BASF.

Fritz ter Meer, le directeur de IG Farben et de Bayer coupable de génocide et de crimes d’esclavage commis ici à Auschwitz fut libéré de prison après seulement 4 mois. Dix ans après avoir été jugé coupable comme criminel de guerre à Nuremberg il devint à nouveau président du conseil de surveillance de Bayer.

Hans Globke fut coauteur de lois racistes de Nuremberg et fut également auteur des nouvelles lois sur la Grande Europe, le «Reich» dans les pays occupés par les Nazis pendant la seconde guerre mondiale.

Après la 2^nde Guerre Mondiale Globke devint ministre chancelier au sein du cabinet du Chancelier allemand Adenauer. En tant «qu’éminence grise» et en dehors de tout contrôle parlementaire, il eut la haute main essentiellement sur tous les aspects politiques de la période d’après guerre en Allemagne de l’Ouest, allant des services secrets jusqu à la poursuite des plans du cartel pharmaceutique et pétrolier en vue de la conquête de l’Europe et de la toute nouvelle Union Européenne fraîchement construite.

Walter Hallstein, un éminent professeur de droit à l’époque des Nazis disait en 1939: «l’une des principales lois dans (dans les pays conquis et occupés) sera la ‘loi de protection de l’honneur et du sang allemands’…».

En 1957 l’avocat de «l’honneur et du sang allemands» devint le personnage clé et l’architecte de la mouture de la future Union Européenne et le premier responsable de «la commission européenne», ce fut le premier responsable exécutif de l’Union Européenne désigné dès le début en dehors de tout contrôle démocratique.

En résumé, les Nazi et IG Farben nommèrent la commission Européenne comme «Politburo» du cartel pharmaceutique de l’après guerre pour diriger l’Europe.

Résultat de l’influence de ces intérêts, les décisions du parlement européen n’ont que peu de cas si aucune influence n’est exercée sur les lois, sur ce que l’on nomme «directives de l’union européenne» imposées par la «commission européenne» sur la vie de plus de 400 millions d’individus en Europe.

Au même moment les élections en vue de mettre en place le Parlement européen ne sont qu’une vaste mascarade, décevante et destinée à montrer l’Union Européenne comme une structure démocratique.

La base de toute démocratie est le pouvoir appartenant au peuple. Dès le moment ou le pouvoir exécutif n’est plus contrôlé par la volonté du peuple la démocratie n’est plus rien de plus qu’une dictature.

Aujourd’hui des silhouettes d’IG Farben subsistent toujours en Europe. Les objectifs des successeurs d’IG Farben sont rejoints par les multinationales pharmaceutiques et pétrolières européennes. Leurs objectifs ressemblent étrangement à ceux d’IG Farben pendant la seconde guerre mondiale :créer et mettre sous son contrôle un marché de produits pharmaceutiques brevetés et autres produits brevetés de haute technologie, un marché allant de «Lisbonne à Sofia».

L’énorme espace géographique que ces intérêts corporatistes veulent contrôler concerne tout le monde et tout habitant de ce continent. Ces intérêts concernent également les brevets sur les gênes – visant à exercer tout contrôle sur la vie et le système génétique des individus – les brevets sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés avec comme objectif de mettre sous contrôle quotidien notre système nutritionnel.

Le plus connu des ces industries cherchant à exercer un contrôle sur notre vie est «le commerce des maladies fait par le secteur pharmaceutique». Comme je l’ai précédemment mentionné, l’industrie pharmaceutique promet la santé mais toute son existence n’est basée que sur la promotion des maladies constituant ainsi une source de revenus. Nous savons aujourd’hui que les maladies cardiovasculaires, le cancer, les maladies immunodéficientes et d’autres maladies peuvent être évitées. La perpétuation délibérée des maladies par les intérêts corporatistes de l’industrie pharmaceutique est un crime.

Résultat de cette pratique industrielle pour le moins éthique :le nombre de victimes de ce commerce frauduleux a dépassé un milliard de personnes et déjà dépasse le nombre de victimes des guerres que l’humanité ait connu jusques là.

Sous le prétexte de lutte contre le terrorisme, la même Commission Européenne au sein de l’Union Européenne a émis une directive qui risque de transformer l’Europe en un «continent Orwelien»¹.Selon cette directive de l’UE désormais tous les appels téléphoniques que vous ferez, toutes les adresses emails que vous cherchez à contacter sont susceptibles d’être brouillés. Pas seulement pour vous mais également pour les 400 millions d’européens. Ce n’est pas difficile de comprendre ce que ces instruments veulent signifier une fois aux mains de ces intérêts corporatistes qui ont si souvent abusés de leur pouvoir par le passé. Notre rencontre a lieu à un moment historique, le monde est à croisée des chemins. Les responsables politiques des principaux pays leaders en matière de production et d’exportation des produits pharmaceutiques et pétrochimiques comme les Etats-Unis, le Royaume Uni, l’Allemagne ainsi que la France ont déjà publiquement parlé de la Troisième Guerre Mondiale et de leur volonté de faire usage de l’arme nucléaire.

A la suite d’un holocauste nucléaire et la proclamation d’une loi martiale à large échelle ces intérêts corporatistes qui soutenaient la seconde guerre mondiale pourraient abuser de leur puissance encore une fois.

Ces plans innommables ne peuvent être mis en pratique que s’ils restent secrets ou si nous n’en parlons pas et restons indifférents.

Si nous exposons ces projets au grand jour, alors ils n’auront plus de chance d’être exécuté. Dès aujourd’hui même, s’il advenait qu’une guerre aussi impensable quelle celle là puisse commencer elle ne pourrait jamais être gagnée car elle serait dénoncée par le monde entier.

Nous sommes réunis ici car Auschwitz a été un symbole pour un des crimes les plus abominables que l’humanité ait connu.

En nous associant au lancement du «relais pour la vie» nous vous promettons que nous ne nous lasserons pas tant qu’e Auschwitz ne devienne une «porte d’entrée dans l’avenir».

Si et seulement si nous dénonçons les intérêts corporatistes ayant contribué au déclenchement de la seconde guerre mondiale, nous ainsi que les générations à venir seront capables de garantir la paix à notre planète. Si et seulement si, nous parvenons à identifier le «commerce des maladies» fait de nos aliments, de l’énergie fossile comme le plus grand obstacle à la création d’un monde meilleur, nous serons alors capables d’édifier un monde sain, pacifique et un monde respectueux des droits fondamentaux de l’homme.

Comme première étape nous prendrons la constitution de «l’Europe pour le Peuple et par le Peuple» pour vous, survivants d’Auschwitz comme le meilleur gardien de la mémoire, le plus crédible de notre temps et l’utiliser pour construire une Europe du peuple et par le peuple.

Avec ce «relais pour l’avenir» que nous recevons de vous aujourd’hui, nous faisons un appel à tous de nous rejoindre, vieux et jeunes de l’Est et de l’Ouest, les peuples et les organisations.

Rejoignez nous afin de créer un «mouvement pour la vie» pour saisir «le relais de la vie» pour la mémoire d’Auschwitz et l’utiliser pour construire un monde sain pour une paix durable.

(Dr Matthias Rath)

¹ Dans son livre «1984» George Orwel s’inspirant de Staline dépeint la société totalitaire ultime. Dans une contre- utopie cinglante, Orwel propose une réflexion sur la ruine de l’homme par la confiscation de la pensée et la prolifération de la technocratie. Ce roman nous dévoile une société plongée dans «l’hypnose sociale»ou la perversion du langage prédomine: la paix c’est la guerre, l’amour, la haine…

Do Long Island Police Ignore Hate Crimes?
November 19, 2009 by Ari Shapiro of NPR

(County Executive Steve) Levy has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration, but he rejects efforts to connect those policy positions with acts of violence against Hispanics.

“It’s a real disservice to try to say these things only happen in those areas where there might be a debate over the issue of illegal immigration,” says Levy. “It’s dangerous, because it gives the impression that if you don’t have a debate over illegal immigration, Latinos are safe. That’s not necessarily true.”

Levy points out that even cities that welcome illegal immigrants struggle with crimes of racial hatred.

But Phil Ramos, who represents eastern Long Island in the New York State Assembly, says Levy does not appreciate that his words have violent consequences.

“If you say the word ‘illegal’ enough times as buzzwords in your speeches, these people cease to be human beings,” says Ramos. “And that’s what leads a group of six or seven young men to hunt an Ecuadorean man on the street like an animal, and just stab him and kill him.”

With all due respect to Mr. Ramos, you do not appreciate that your own words have violent consequences. You presume the use of the term “illegal” had anything what so ever to do with this egregious crime. When has racism ever needed political justification to act out violently? This rhetoric gives cover to racism by equating it with a legitimate desire to protect this nation from foreign threats. To suggest anyone using the term “illegal” to describe immigrants who thwarted our nation’s immigration laws (which certainly need an overhaul) should automatically be considered just as dangerous as this group of murderers breads enmity and further distrust among a population, which supposedly leads to violence. The Fort Hood massacre is a recent example of people too afraid of being called racist to deal with a legitimate threat, and that threat took the lives of 13 people.

There are LEGAL immigrants who also oppose illegal immigration. Many, many legal immigrants are outraged that they are often placed in a monolithic “immigration” category, especially when they subjected themselves to the horrors of incompetent bureaucracy and waste in the inner workings of the American immigration system. These outraged naturalized citizens appreciate the difference between legal and illegal. They followed the rules. If we disregard the necessity for this distinction why even bother with immigration laws? Oh, maybe because immigration laws help prevent a nuclear-armed terrorist from gaining free access to our homeland. That is now the most important reason for having and properly enforcing immigration laws. Unfortunately, this news report smacks of a willingness to politicize the issue at the expense of those who value the rule of law and any attempt to protect the United States from genuine threats. The desire for everyone to be equally subject to the law has nothing to do with this overtly racist murder. We are a nation of immigrants but we are also supposed to be a nation of laws. And we live in a world of weapons of mass destruction. We still need to be careful.

bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, criminal, discrimination, diversity, extremism, government, hate crime, ideology, immigration, indoctrination, intolerance, national security, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, racism, racist, scandal, security, terrorism, tragedy

From the Christian Science Monitor comes this article about a new ad campaign on tee shirts and teddy bears and bumper stickers:

“Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

How cute is that?

Know what it means?

“Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

The next verse says:

“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

Not so cute.

Where is the ‘moral’ outrage from patriotic Americans? Where are the christian evangelical leaders denouncing this invitation for god or some mortal whack job to off the sitting president? Oh sure, you’ll hear apologists saying that this little diddy means that the praying bearers only want Obama to have one term. Yeah, right. And sales for Left Behind represent the moral decay of secularists.

Isn’t this a fine example of how christianity is all about love?