ESSAY: 9/11 brought us together, but was it unity? (by Liz Sidoti, AP Political Editor, Associated Press, Sep 06, 2011).
Elation over bin Laden’s death gives way to reflection – USATODAY.com
For a nation frustrated by three wars, divided by domestic politics and dogged by hard economic times and $4-a-gallon gas, it was time to cheer: “USA! USA!” [...] …bin Laden’s demise will not end al-Qaeda or Islamic terrorism any more than Hussein’s ended the war in Iraq. [...] Two historians, one liberal (Bard’s Lytle) and one conservative (Dayton’s Schweikart) agreed that for all the glee, bin Laden’s demise probably seems more important now than it will in retrospect. “This is sweet revenge, but it won’t change much,” Lytle said. On 9/11, in contrast, “when those buildings were hit, an age of innocence ended,” Schweikart said. (via Elation over bin Laden’s death gives way to reflection – USATODAY.com.)
Yesterday the news feeds I follow were dominated with headlines of victory, comfort, joy, relief, satisfaction &c at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden. The headlines today are more sober – and more disturbing.
It is one thing that “a nation frustrated by three wars, divided by domestic politics and dogged by hard economic times and $4-a-gallon gas” (as if these were the greatest of the nations problems) can cheer about anything. But that it cheers at the elimination of the embodiment of the same evil of which they are the embodiment should be a disturbing revelation.
The ideas that revenge is sweet, and that an age of innocence ended on 9/11 are shocking. even to one delivered from an evil way of thinking. Since when was revenge sweet? And who expected bitter revenge to change anything for the better? And what innocent planet or place was anyone on prior to 9/11? Innocence is not an adjective that even comes close to describing myself or anyone else occupying this planet in the almost 50 years I had lived here piror to 9/11. Am I supposed to believe that the events of 9/11 ended innocence? By what twisted reason does evil rob evil of innocence? “News” outlets would do a greater service to publish nothing but cartoons than to publish the non-sense of the thoughtless.
Someone might argue that it is good that elation has given way to reflection. To which I respond that it would be good if the reflection was on the real problem and the real solution, both of which are spiritual. The real problem is the conflict which is the effect of spirits having different points of view. And the only solution is a single point of view. Are God and peace with him the object and objective of the nation’s reflection? If not, the reflection is more of the evil that is the problem.
The truth is that bin Laden was the incarnation of lies. He did no harm to those who are the incarnation of truth, and no harm to those who, like him, are the incarnation of lies. Neither the U.S. nor any other earthly kingdom, has ever been, is, or ever will be a nation of truth incarnate. The elation and reflection of the evil is evil; the elation and reflection of the good is good. Osama bin Laden changed nothing of any eternal, spiritual significance, and like all created things and beings, serves God’s purpose of identifying his children.
All people are like grass, and all their beauty is like a flower of the field. The grass dries up and the flower drops off, but the word of the Lord lasts forever. (1 Peter 1.24-25a, God’s Word)
May 2, 2011 – Interesting Headlines
The following are headlines and articles, each expressing a point of view which got my attention this morning. I’ll likely have more to say on some of the articles later, but for the moment I’m merely interested in this snapshot of the world’s way of thinking.
- FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REMARKS ON OSAMA BIN LADEN, 12:33 AM, May 2, 2011, BY Daniel Halper, The Weekly Standard
- May. 2, 2011 4:21 AM ET, INSIDE THE RAID THAT KILLED BIN LADEN, Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press
- May. 2, 2011 4:55 AM ET, JOYOUS AMERICANS GATHER TO MARK BIN LADEN DEATH, Cristian Salazar, Associated Press
- May. 2, 2011 4:02 AM ET, STORM SURVIVORS TURN TO FAITH, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Christopher Hawley, Associated Press, John Christoffersen, Associated Press
- May. 2, 2011 5:12 AM ET, WILL KILLING OSAMA KILL THE MOVEMENT HE INSPIRED?, Adam Goldman, Associated Press, Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press
- JOY ERUPTS ON U.S. STREETS WITH KILLING OF BIN LADEN, By JoAnne Allen and Basil Katz, Washington/New York | Mon May 2, 2011 6:33am EDT, Reuters
- MAYOR BLOOMBERG HOPES BIN LADEN DEATH COMFORTS VICTIMS, New York | Mon May 2, 2011 12:59am EDT, Reuters
- JUSTICE, 12:06 AM, May 2, 2011, William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
- CHURCH STEEPLES, AGING OUT OF FASHION, MEET THEIR MAKER, By Cathy Lynn Grossman, May 1, 2011, USA TODAY
- PROFESSORS GONE WILD, By Stuart Schwartz, May 02, 2011, American Thinker
Right Question, Wrong Answer
Integration and Diversity — Mutually Exclusive Concepts? (April 30, 2011 | American Thinker)
Everyone has an opinion on multiculturalism and integration… however, it’s hard to escape the fact that they are, practically speaking and by definition, incompatible.
[H]ow cohesive is a society that is divided into many different groups with different interests and priorities?
And isn’t practicing diversity just a politically correct way of permitting separate-but-equal racism?
We often hear the U.S. referred to as a “melting pot” of different races and cultures. When the Italians and Irish came here, they aspired to be Americans… [T]hese people all came to America because they wanted to be Americans. They were proud to become Americans. They melted in.
[The path of Black's] to North America was considerably different from the path taken by European immigrants… Nevertheless, they speak English and (for the most part) adopted Christianity, and they are a big part of the American culture.
We are morphing into a country of segmented groups with different values and beliefs — quite different from a society made up of individuals with different beliefs.
So here it is: supporters of multiculturalism would have us believe that we can all live separately in our own little groups and communities, and then come together during the day functioning in harmonious fashion in public, the workplace, and in politics. This sounds like “separate but equal” racism, and whether we can move forward as a collection of dissimilar groups speaking different languages, celebrating different holidays, and adhering to different laws isn’t clear. I have my doubts. France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are finding it difficult, and they are accordingly beginning to change course. The task is daunting; if it is even remotely possible, it will require an incredibly educated and, in my mind, an impossibly enlightened citizenry.
Diversity as a descriptor of a cohesive American society is a plus. Diversity as the goal is not.
Though he completely misses the point that differences separate individuals into groups, and clearly does not see that disapproval is inherent in differences (whether the disapproval is acknowledged or not), at least the author has raised an issue more important than what occupies the minds of the clueless (which is all occupants of earth who are not following Jesus Christ in order to learn and share God’s point of view).
Reason Run Amuck
Former Obama Adviser Van Jones Helping to Push ‘Human’ Rights for Mother Nature (Published April 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com)
Van Jones, the Obama administration’s controversial former “green jobs czar,” has found a new calling: helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans.
The [Pachamama Alliance] foundation says its main purpose is to “promote an alternative and innovative model of development, based in good living and with an emphasis on recognition and respect for human rights and the rights of Nature.”
Killer twisters likely among largest, strongest (Apr. 28, 2011 | AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of the killer tornadoes that ripped across the South may have been among the largest and most powerful ever recorded, experts suggested, leaving a death toll that is approaching that of a tragic “super outbreak” of storms almost 40 years ago.
The death toll from Wednesday has surpassed 250 and is rising.
If I believed that nature was my mother, I’d be asking why she’s so angry with her children. What is she thinking? One thing is for sure: she is not acting much like a weak, old woman who needs or is pleased with her children’s concern for her rights.
There is so much wrong here that I don’t know where to begin. I had to check every thing twice to be sure I wasn’t reading some of The Onion’s satire! I wrestled a bit with validating this foolishness by speaking to it, but concluded that declaring my objection to the concept of “mother nature” and this non-sense that follows it, pleases my Father.
The whole idea of humans, let alone spiritual beings, deriving their nature from nature is fraught with difficulties for me. Like the rest of mankind, I believe what my Creator has enabled me to believe, and if I did not have a problem with the child giving the parent equal rights, I have a problem with believing that I’m the child of nature. I’m familiar with God communicating truth about himself through all of creation, but I’ve never communed with nature. In other words, I can easier live by the faith that I’m like God than that I’m like nature. Those who believe that nature is their mother take a leap of faith I can not make. In addition, I’ve got very different ideas about “human rights” than those who do not share God’s point of view; and those who see nature as their mother do not share God’s point of view.
All things considered, if the concept of “mother nature” and “human rights” were not difficult enough, the thought of giving nature human rights, whatever the rationale, is quite simply, reason run amuck. It is indicative of the creature’s worship of the creature rather than the Creator, which characterizes all who are on the broad road to destruction. (And I’ll give you odds that some of the “mother nature”, equal rights for mother culture claim to be God’s children; and that most who make the same claim, but who differ with them, will not call them out on the claim.)
Easter: the Mockery of Christ’s Resurrection
Either Jesus Christ
- is alive and functioning on earth as he did while in human form,
- he has changed (which is the same as to say that he is not alive as the person he was),
- or he is dead (or never existed).
Jesus Christ was crucified by those who differed with his point of view. Even if they believed in the resurrection of the dead, those who crucified him certainly did not celebrate his resurrection. Jesus Christ himself called them children of the father of lies, liars, hypocrites, self-righteous, and a number of other things which offended them.
Those who pose as his followers and celebrate the Lord’s resurrection though they do not share his point of view, or who do not share the same point of view as other of his followers, make a mockery of him. They celebrate his life though they are exactly like those who crucified him.
If those who crucified Jesus Christ were liars and hypocrites, then what are those who celebrate the life of one of whom they do not approve?
The Religion of a Relationship
Pope warns of falling belief in West | Reuters
VATICAN CITY | Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:45am EDT
(Reuters) – Pope Benedict lamented the widespread abandonment of religion in Western countries in a Holy Thursday homily, saying the heartlands of Christianity were turning away from their faith.
This put me in mind of an article of which I made note back in March of this year:
Study Finds Religion May Be Heading for Extinction in Parts of World, March 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com.
Excerpts from the article:
The study, conducted by the American Physical Society, finds that religion is dying out in nine countries.
The findings unveiled at an APS meeting in Dallas show that religion may become extinct in Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
“In a large number of modern secular democracies, there’s been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40 percent, and the highest number was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60 percent.”
The study also found that “Americans without affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states.”
“In 2008 those claiming no religion rose to 15 percent nationwide, with a maximum in Vermont at 34 percent,” the study says.
The reason that the first article caught my attention and reminded me of the second is that the Pope and secular statisticians see the same trend.
As one who shares God’s point of view that all who do not share his point of view have an inaccurate and foolish point of view, I put no stock in “trends”, and in the findings of the foolish – which includes the Pope, those who conducted the APS study, and those who are motivated by the conclusions to counter the alleged decline. Though the conclusions are not authoritative, I find them neither alarming nor disappointing.
My indoctrination in the predominant religion of Americans, which is widely identified as christianity, has been the single most significant obstacle to my own salvation. (In my childhood, Catholocism was not included under the umbrella of christianity. There was protestant and catholic, and christianity was protestant, not catholic. And christianity’s umbrella certainly did not cover Mormonism and other non-protestant beliefs which were regarded as cults, or the offspring of cults.) By his good intentions and kindness toward me, and through the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, God accomplished my salvation by liberating me from religion in the knowledge of The Truth; and in particular the religion of lies known as christianity.
Religion is man’s acknowledgment of his differences with God. People speak of no other relationship to a living being of their own kind as religion. Eternal life – God’s life will not be found in any religion. Salvation from spiritual death is in knowing the living God as he has revealed himself in his firstborn son, Jesus Christ.
So as in my case, the decline of religion might result in an incline in the salvation of souls caught in the death trap – the tangled web of lies spun by the self-righteous in their religions.
Religion: The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers. [1913 Webster] — From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
God’s children will concede to the concept of religion only if it is viewed as their devotion to their relationship to God.
Bible readers prefer King James version – USATODAY.com
Of the 89% of U.S. adults who own at least one Bible, 67% own a King James, which marks its 400th anniversary this year, according to LifeWay Research, a Nashville-based Christian research agency.
Although there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, the King James Version reigns even more supreme among those who actually read their Bibles: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.
“Christians believe that God’s Word is truth and that truth is conveyed through language — thus translations have always been integral to the spread of Christianity,” said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. “It is hard to overstate the influence of the KJV,” he said. (via Bible readers prefer King James version – USATODAY.com.)
Who doesn’t know that in the beginning God spoke Hebrew, then he switched to Greek, and finally to the king’s English? The Day of Pentecost being the exception to the rule, God has always had trouble communicating in terms mankind can understand! It’s nothing short of amazing that the first believers in Jesus Christ had a clue as to the new way of thinking to which God introduced them through the Lord.
This article reveals the traditional, thoughtless, ill-defined, broad and loose use of the term “Christian”. If “Bible readers” and “Christian” were synonymous, then this line of reasoning could possibly be followed. But to Jesus Christ and his Father, who along with all of God’s children share the same point of view, “Bible readers” and “Christian” are not synonymous. If nothing else, the theologians and scholars of Christ’s days on earth prove that those who are experts in the scriptures do not necessarily know God.
And neither Jesus Christ nor his followers have anything to do with the hollow, deceptive, philosophy known as christianity, which originates in hell. It is so ill-defined and broad that no single, sane individual could possibly believe all that it represents, much of it contradicting itself.
In fact, christianity is anti-Christ, because through it Satan deceptively portrays the living God as a mere set of incomprehensible ideas with which men can do whatever they please in what they perceive to be the absence of the person. Christianity does what no one would tolerate if the author were alive, which is take the book from its author and use the author’s own words to convey thoughts which the author does not have.
Why don’t you understand the language I use? Is it because you can’t understand the words I use? (Jesus Christ, John 8.43, GW)
In the words of Jesus Christ, language is not the barrier between God and men.
God commands a universe of unintelligent objects to which he did not give the capacity to understand him. The idea that he can not effectively communicate his thoughts in whatever language people speak (and that according to his will) is an idea that should be rejected, even by the blind.
The controversy over the translation or version of the Bible God uses to share his point of view with his children rages only among those who are not God’s children.
The children of God know the difference between a book and it’s author; they know that the Bible is not their Father and Lord. Christianity is not their cause, and they certainly do not see a book as being an integral part of the spread of God’s cause, which is that his children know him. God’s cause has no parts. He is the whole of his own cause from beginning to end.
This much I know for certain: God has never spoken to me in a language I can not understand. What earthly parent has ever attempted to train their children using a language foreign to the children? God speaks to his children so that they get what he means. And all of his children share his point of view. He is the prince of peace, not of controversy over the translation of a book which he uses, along with everything else that exists and belongs to him, to train his children in The Truth he is.
