Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Friday, September 7, 2018

On Death Kahlil Gibran

On Death
Kahlil Gibran
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond;
And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring.
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour.
Is the shepherd not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king?
Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is it to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

TAPS hym

Day is done, gone the sun,
From the lake, from the hills, from the sky;
All is well, safely rest, God is nigh.

Fading light, dims the sight,
And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright.
From afar, drawing nigh, falls the night.

Thanks and praise, for our days,
'Neath the sun, 'neath the stars, neath the sky;

As we go, this we know, God is nigh.

Sun has set, shadows come,
Time has fled, Scouts must go to their beds
Always true to the promise that they made.

While the light fades from sight,
And the stars gleaming rays softly send,
To thy hands we our souls, Lord, commend.

--------------------
Day is done, gone the sun From the lakes, from the hills, from the sky All is well, safely rest God is nigh. Thanks and praise for our days Neath the sun, neath the stars, neath the sky As we go, this we know God is nigh. Then goodnight, peaceful night; Till the light of the dawn shineth bright. God is near, do not fear, Friend, goodnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKhhg2CqcCQ
--------------------
Other lyrics include: Love, good night,      Must thou go,           When the day,               And the night,                      Need thee so?                             All is well.                                    Speedeth all,                                          To their rest. Go to sleep,      Peaceful sleep,           May God keep                 The soldier                      Or sailor,                            On the land                                    Or the deep,                                           Safe in sleep. Thanks and praise         For our days,              Neath the sun,                   Neath the stars,                        Neath the sky,                              As we go,                                    This we know,                                          God is nigh. Love, good night,      Must thou go,           When the day,               And the night,                      Need thee so?                             All is well.                                    Speedeth all,                                          To their rest. Fading light        Dims the sight             And a star                 Gems the sky,                        Gleaning bright,                            Fare thee well,                                    Day has gone,                                           Night is on. Here we stand,       Hand in hand,             Wishing peace,                  Freedom, joy                       To each man.                            When there’s love                                  In our hearts,                                         God is nigh.

imagine that all is well, the sentries are posted and it's safe for me to go to sleep because God is here with me.
.....................
A girl singing at her GrandBob's funeral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkm4imcJs7E

Thursday, January 4, 2018

A 22 year old modern Prayer

As we start 2018, let’s look back on a prayer given at the opening of the Kansas House of Representatives in January 1996, 22 years ago.

What has changed? Are we  more sincere?
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance.
We know your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we’ve done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism.
We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.
We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.
We have abused power and called it political savvy.
We have coveted our neighbors’ possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us O God and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by you, to govern this great state.
Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of your will. I ask it in the name of your son, the living savior, Jesus Christ.
Amen.
I wonder what other examples of Newspeak Pastor Joe Wright would add to this prayer if he was offered the opportunity at the 2018 opening?

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Compulsory charity creates a “demand” for poverty

Tithers and Beggars

http://www.garynorth.com/public/14680.cfm

Some snippets from this article to reflect on.

There is a scene in the movie, “Gandhi,” in which Gandhi is returning to India triumphantly from South Africa in 1915, where he had succeeded in gaining increased civil rights for Indians living in that nation. He is being driven in an open automobile through a poverty-stricken section of the city — the only scene of real poverty in the movie. Hands are outstretched to those in the automobile. The beggars have no idea who this man is, or what these rich people are doing. They just raise their hands up, trying to get a few coins.
Are beggars a national tragedy for India? No doubt, but not simply because there is poverty. The tragedy is that these people were (and are) professional beggars in a nation that is known for its professional beggars. It is a profession handed down from parents to children. In a nation devoid of God’s law, men beg for a few coins directly from the rich, and the rich, because they are not taught to tithe, do not develop professionally managed charities that might teach poor people the skills necessary to raise them out of poverty.
India is held captive by a philosophy of earthly despair, the rejection of material existence, and an acceptance of life-long caste barriers. There is no widespread belief in the possibility of an escape from poverty in a single lifetime. There is also little hope for one’s heirs, given the caste system. The only hope for a better life is another life which is higher on the scale of being, through reincarnation (karma). The ultimate goal is the attainment of nirvana, an escape from the bonds of the material realm into Absolute Nothingness.
Time is not linear for the Hindu; it is cyclical. Only as a result of the influence of western philosophy, which is future-oriented and which holds to a belief in linear time, has the thinking of a minority of Indians been altered. Where Eastern philosophy reigns, there is little possibility of material progress, in time and on earth, as a result of one’s own thrift and hard work So some men are taught to beg, including “holy men,” for that is their legitimate calling. In a world without long-term material hope, begging is an acceptable way to feed oneself.
In the secular, formerly Christian West, the rise of socialism has accompanied a decline of tithing. Voters have sensed that the lack of disciplined giving is a threat to the community. They have voted tor wealth redistribution programs which will be manned, it is hoped, by professional givers, and financed by compulsory taxation. But this has not worked to help the poor; the administrators of the compulsory social welfare programs have themselves become professional beggars rather than professional givers. Worse; they have become professional beggars in the name of the poor, while they have absorbed in administrative costs the funds supposedly designated for the poor. (Prof. Walter Williams has estimated that by taking the annual budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1976, and distributing it equally among the American Indians, each Indian family would have received a grant of about $30,000. Instead, they were kept in poverty under the “care” of the bureaucrats.) The compulsory nature of these programs has made it very difficult for those who finance them (taxpayers) to monitor them, restrict them, or abolish them.
Rich and middle-class voters have accepted this because they feel guilty. They know that charity must be systematic, but they have abandoned their responsibility to monitor the programs. They pass on this responsibility to politicians and bureaucratic administrators. They pay far more than a tithe to the State in exchange for hoped-for relief from the pangs of guilt. This is the politics of guilt and pity, to use Rushdoony’s felicitous phrase. But taxpayers can never pay enough; the poor keep multiplying — literally and figuratively — and the bureaucrats have an incentive to keep them multiplying, at least those under their administration.
Compulsory charity creates a “demand” for poverty, and the market responds by creating newly discovered (or newly defined) poor people. The poor get handouts, and a permanent economic incentive not to escape. If they work at low-paying jobs, they get taxed. But welfare benefits are tax-free. So they stay on welfare.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Christianity, religious, atheist, stat-ism, nilihism

, logical basis is that if I go around punching people in the head I increase my chances of getting punched in the head right back.

Non aggression Principle NaP
---------------
That's not a valid argument for the NAP. You're leaning on the statistical probability that eventually you'll be punched back as a reason to justify an absolute principle. 1) This fallaciously assumes targets of punches aren't pacifists. 2) It fallaciously assumes targets of punches are capable of harming the aggressor. 3) It fallaciously assumes that an aggressor punches people without forethought or planning. All this, among other problems. The fact is, when you take the absolute objective source of morality out of the equation, then any argument that can be made against a given act can be reciprocated for the opposite. Don't hit an old lady because why? Why not hit an old lady? If you hit her you'll feel bad. If you hit her you'll feel good. If you hit her, she may be hurt. Hurting her may be the desired result. If she is hurt she may not help you. If she gets hurt, you can take whatever wealth she has on her person. Etc. and so forth. A world without God is a world without morality. So it has been throughout all of human history. God is the source and maintainer of existence. Reality itself is subject to God. Reason and morality are reliant on God because the God is built into the fabric of reality. Rejection of God is a rejection of morality, reason, and ultimately reality. Religion is the system of beliefs that inform one's values. Philosophy is the reasoning between one's religious beliefs and one's values. Everyone has values. Everyone has a philosophy. Everyone has a religion, whether shared or unique. Even if it is unique to themselves, even if it is inconsistent and arbitrary as an atheist's religion must inherently be, everyone has a religion. The NAP was created as a way for atheists to give themselves an excuse for mimicking the moral principles of Christianity without crediting Christianity. Without God, values are inherently absolutely subjective, relativistic, and arbitrary. Atheists are compelled to attack and struggle to distance themselves from Christianity because if any acknowledgement of virtue is given to Christianity, it highlights the arbitrary nature of atheism. If Christianity has virtue, then what does it matter whether or not an atheist is a Christian or not? It is an existential Truth that if we acknowledge the existence of God, God understood to be the source and maintainer of existence, the arbiter of reality, all powerful, all knowing, ever present in all places in all times - If we acknowledge God as thus, then it is self evident that everything matters. Every thought and every act, everything that exists, it all matters and all has purpose. Without God, nothing matters. If all of existence is nothing more than material matter and energy with no will or purpose behind it, then every event is inevitable and predestined and there is no right or wrong, there is no better or worse, and there is no reason, morality, or rational purpose for values. This is why the conclusion of atheism is nihilism. This is why the conclusion of atheism is oblivion-ism. A Christian embraces existence as it is, doing their best to behave consistently with God's laws for moral behavior. God instructs us to do our best in all things. God instructs us to not be aggressors, but to treat others as we would want to be treated. To love God and love each other. The NAP has no foundation in rational thought aside from an ambiguous attempt to behave as God wills us to behave, without acknowledging God. For an atheist, the NAP only holds value from thought to thought. Adherence is arbitrary. One moment it holds value, then when the atheist decides otherwise, it doesn't. And no fundamental principle is violated when the NAP is broken as any number of other arbitrary values can take its place in the atheist mind. Survival of the fittest, hedonism, for the greater good, etc. etc. etc. For an atheist, morality is a pantomime at best, and an obstruction at worst. For a Christian morality is absolute, timeless, objective, and an existential Truth. Consider your position in existence. Is rejecting God worth whatever illusion of pride may be gained from doing so? Seek a better life. Embrace existence. Acknowledge and love God. Live righteously.

---------------------
BTW, "punching" and "punching back" doesn't have to be taken literally (i.e. retribution doesn't have to be direct).
------------------
I understand - about punching also being metaphorical. The objections to the example likewise work metaphorically. It doesn't matter what the method of aggression is. If the target is a pacifist, refuses to react to aggression, then the method of attack is irrelevant in that sense. If the target is incapable of causing notable harm to an attacker, the method of attack is irrelevant. If the attacker isn't using any forethought or planning, then the method of attack is irrelevant, in context. It still stands true that there is no inherent rational reason for adherence to the NAP without God. I'm not the one who incurs offense for your denial of God. What I am offended by are the constant attacks against Christians by atheists, and the undermining of our society. Atheists in general have caused a degenerate regression in the West and continue the assault regardless of how obviously harmful the effects of their actions are. This fight is becoming the motive for a Christian resurgence. Even as atheists lead the charge for every reprobate cause under the sun, Christianity is galvanizing for pushback. This conversation is a sample of that battlefield. 
---------------------------
he said that most atheists substitute religion with the state (i.e. big government). I know a few other atheists and that generalization seems pretty accurate.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Religious Authority or just Man's law?

SPC

Sure Fletch there are black men and white women who happily subordinate their world view to the inheritance of the Christian regime.
And those who do not are the ruin of that civilisation, due to their secular tolerance for immorality – end of enforcement of godly morality in law.
One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.

Fletch

One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.
I don’t think so. If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to? The law is already faith-based in a way (the law against murder is based on the sixth commandment). I once read an ex-atheist Christian challenging some people on an atheist forum, and an atheist questioned why murder should be wrong. The Christian replied that there really isn’t a reason, apart from God saying that it is wrong.
Here is the interesting exchange (Christian ex-atheist answers in bold) –
Can I ask a really silly question?
You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That’s fine, many other people have made this claim, too.
So, why do we need morals?
We don’t.
I’m completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than “God said so”?
No, I can’t.
The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing – but you also seem to think that the definition of “good” relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.
I never make the claim that a logical moral value system is a good thing. I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I’m not so much concerned with the definition of ‘good’ as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.
As an example, many people consider “thou shalt not kill” to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? “God said so” may be a valid reason why you should obey – at least assuming God is real – but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?
There is no other reason why this should be considered to be a good commandment. None. Zilch. Try to logical prove that killing is morally wrong. You will fail. Other than the reality of a god who declares killing to be morally wrong, there is no logically compelling reason for us to believe it is wrong.
Oddly, if you do answer this question, you’ll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you’ve claimed you can’t do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question – which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don’t know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you’re a better person than that.)
Oh my! No, you have certainly mistaken me for someone else. I really have no other reason to logically believe that murder is wrong. I could be honest and say that it emotionally upsets me, but I always choose reason over my emotions. If our lives have no inherent purpose or value, we are only kidding ourselves when we establish the facade of morality.
Go ahead. Logically prove to me that murder is wrong..
Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than “the Bible says so” or “God says so” ?
If we are designed and loved by a god, we have inherent purpose and value as opposed to self-assigned, imaginary purpose and value.

Griff

That is total crap .
We dont murder because we dont want to be murdered .
The golden rule and the basis for morality.
do unto others as you have them do unto you.
No that rule is not Christendoms possession it is found in many different cultures .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
[except there is one major religion that does not follow  the "golden rule"]

SPC

“If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to?”
No one, simply delineate personal morality from law – personal morality where there is consent, law where there is no consent. Where there is no consent then there is law.
Placing law into areas where there is consent is interference, imposed morality one on another.
What motivates personal morality, whether Godfaith code or mutual respect citizenship (in our dominion) is besides the point or should be.

Fletch

SPC, yes but what about if you run across a culture where killing is very much acceptable and their law allows it. Your personal morality accounts for nothing in that case. What is law, then, if not the legislation of moral opinions? Every time a law is made, it becomes an imposition of one group’s opinion upon another’s.
When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.


SPC

No one consents to being murdered or stolen from.
Your refusal to acknowledge the role of consent in modern state law making, is simply because of a preference to (and habit of apology for this) impose God morality in law, in that you apologise for those Jews and those Moslems who (would) do the same.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Heaven Hell versions and where is desire? Justice?

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967, there seem to a series of Dialogues
Written by Lucifer to his brother, Michael:

Certainly, in hell there is no free will, for the damned relinquished it on their worlds. This torment has been denied them by me. Therefore, they cannot will to climb to Heaven by self-denial, by contemplation, by worship, by dedication, by acts of faith and charity. These attributes shriveled in them during their lives, or were rejected scornfully by them in moods of risible sophistications. They can desire to possess them now, but I would keep them safe and warm, as Our Father never kept them so! So, they can will nothing. They can only accept the pleasures -and the pains – I bestow on them.

In Heaven, however, free will is fully released. The ability to reject, to deny, remains with archangels, angels and the souls of the saved. The gift of repudiation is still with them and the possibility of disobedience. Is that not most frightful? What insecurity! What danger! My damned remain with me in eternal slavery because in life they desired only safety, and lacked the fire of adventure, though, God knows, they protested enough on their worlds! But what did they protest? Inequality, which is the variety of God. Instability, which is the light of the universes. Uneasiness of mind, which is the soul of philosophy. Apparent injustices, which are the goad of the spirit. Vulnerability to life and other men, which is a charge to become invulnerable through Faith in God. The presence of suffering or misfortune – but these are a call for the soul to put on armor and serenity. They demanded of their rulers that they remain in constant cocoons, silky and guarded by earthly authority. They did not ask for wings to soar into the sunlight, and the ominous threats of full existence. They rejected freedom for hell. Certainly, they cried for freedom on their worlds, but it was freedom only to live happily without the freedom to be divinely unhappy.

I have satisfied all these lusts of men. Strange, is it not, that my hells, though the ultimate success of the dreams of men, are filled with weeping? And strange, is it not, that they still do not believe in the existence of God? But then, they never did; they believed only in me. They cannot will to believe in God. They see absolute reality about them now, which was their will in life. I will not pretend that I do not understand them, for was it not I who promised them all without work and without striving?

But lately I asked of a newly descended soul which had much acclaim on Terra: “What was your greatest desire on your world, you who were applauded by rulers and admired by your fellowmen?”

He replied, “Justice for all,” and put on a very righteous expression.

That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I? But I probed him. He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not. “They are men, so they are equal, and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.” I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess. Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered. He smiled about him joyfully. He said, “Here, justice is attained!”

Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean or lofty its features. He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habituation. He heard the cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment. He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest. He was no fool. He said, “Satiety.” True, I answered him, but satiety can only live in the presence of total equality. He pondered on this while I led him to the seat of thousands of philosophers, and he sat down among them. But, as there is no challenge in hell, and no mystery, there can be no philosophy. That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death. I struck him with my foot, and said, “O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat, drink, and be merry.”
He attempted to hang himself in the manner of Judas, and I laughed at his futility. I meditated that above all futility is the climate of hell.

He said to me, in tears, “Then, if you are, then God exists.”

“That does not follow,” I replied to him. “But, did you not deny Him on Terra? Did you not speak of supra-man and man-becoming, and the ultimate glorification of man on earth, without God?”

“I did not see God among men,” he said, wringing his hands.

“You did not look,” I said. “You were too dull in your human arrogance and too enamored of humanity. You never denounced your fellows for their lusts and their cruelties. You told them they were only ‘victims.’ You refused to look upon their nature, for you denied the infinite variety and capacities of nature. To you, one man was as good as any other man, and equally endowed, for the foolish reason that he had been born. You saw no saints, and no sinners. It was only a matter of environment, though the proof was all about you that environment is but a mere shading or tint on the soul, and is not destiny. You denied that men have gifts of the spirit, often above those of other men. In truth, you denigrated those gifts of striving and wonder. You denied free will. Everything evil that happened to a man was only the result of his fellowmen’s lack of justice. You denied the reality of good and evil, the ability to make a choice. In short, you denied life, itself.”

“Then God in truth does exist?” he asked, after a moment’s miserable thought.

“That you will never know,” I said. “But rejoice! All your dreams are fulfilled here. Delight yourself. Behold, there are beautiful female demons here, and banquets and sports and pleasures and soft beds and lovely scenes and all whom you had wished, in life, you had known. Converse with them.”

“There is no desire in me,” he said. “I want nothing.”

“You are surely in hell,” I replied, and I left him weeping.

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Egg the Trinity

The Egg and i -
A Simple Explanation of The Trinity
http://www.cafelogos.org/eggandi.html
There have been many attempts to explain the “Trinity’” the relationship between God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some have used examples such as water, watermelons and eggs; the principle behind those illustrations is that even though each thing is one, it is also three. Water can be ice and steam, yet they are the same element. The watermelon has a skin, pulp and seeds; the egg is shell, yolk and egg white.
     I don’t know how our majestic God feels about being compared to watermelons and eggs, but He is also a loving Father, and like any father, I believe God would seek to provide simple explanations so His little children can understand. I don’t believe that God wishes us to be confused about the “Three” that are so apparent throughout the Old and New Testaments.

     I think the illustration that represents the “Trinity” most accurately is the egg example.
     The yolk represents God’s “Person,” His Being, and His Holiness which generates Light that no man can approach (I Timothy 6:16).
     The egg white represents God’s Spirit. Because God’s Person is unapproachable, the Spirit “White” acts as insulation, for we know that it is through the Holy Spirit that God can communicate, speak through and interact with mankind. A good example would be an electrical cord. We can touch the cord, but not the power it is insulating.

     The egg shell is the image of the yolk and the white. Jesus’ Person is the image of God’s Person (Hebrews 1:3), and the Invisible Spirit of the Father that is in Him - “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19). This is why Jesus said, “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

     The white of an egg is the connection between the yolk and the shell. Jesus’ Person is joined to the Father by the Father’s Holy Spirit, because God’s Spirit is also Jesus’ Spirit - "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9). – “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30). In Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9)
     In humans, our spirits are designed to operate with and be united to the soul which is the person of anyone and so it is with our Egg. The Spirit white is connected to Jesus’ Person – “I will come to you” (John 14:18) and the Father’s Person, “We will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23).

     It is the Father’s desire to join His Spirit with all of us as well for He has said – “They shall be My sons and daughters” (II Corinthians 6:18). In order to accomplish this union with God and man, He allowed His Shell to be broken with the weight of our sins to cleanse our souls so His holiness can approach, for God cannot look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Through the brokenness of the Shell, His Son, the Spirit white pours out into our beings through our faith in what was done and believers are joined with the yolk, for it is by One Spirit we have access to God the Father (Ephesians 2:18).

     Now God can be in you by His Spirit! You are an egg! - well, sort of. But you cannot be broken when your faith is in Jesus, for the Spirit of the Son that lives in us and gives us the voice through which we cry “Abba, Father,” (Galatians 4:6,) this Spirit of the Father that dwells within you is there to strengthen, protect and guard your person. And when the time comes when death is allowed to crack your shell in its final hour and your believing soul is released; the Spirit of God that holds you will carry you in His arms to your heavenly home because –“ In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John14:2, 3).
     It is a miraculous invention, the egg. This little child cannot look at one without experiencing a profound sense of wonderment and awe.



Free ebook!- Understanding the Biblical Trinity from the Scriptures - It's all about God's Love for You
The Egg and I - Part Two
    When we look at the egg as an example of the Trinity, we must view it in its entirety. The word Trinity comes from the Latin word trinitas which means tri-unity. The Trinity is a tri-unity, a unity of Three, - God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. When we separate them we can fall into the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual deities as one.

     In Biblical Trinitarianism we can never have one without the other because they are one Spirit; each is the totality of the other which means we cannot have the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, “We will come” (into the believer through the Holy Spirit, John 14:23), and we cannot have the Son without The Father whose Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). Thus the Father is in Jesus –" I and My Father are One" (John 10:30), "The Father is in Me" (John 14:10) God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (II Corinthians 5:19). In Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). Likewise we cannot have the Father or His Spirit without the Son – “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me”- John 14:6.

     If we separate them we still may have God the Egg yolk, God the Holy Spirit Egg white and God the Son, the Egg shell/image, three individual parts of an Egg, but they cannot be a Trinity, or tri-unity unless they are unified and are seen as one Egg, so to speak.
     The egg example, while not perfect or complete by any means, will still give us a basic understanding of the primary principle of Biblical Trinitarianism.

     When we view the egg in its entirety we have the Biblical Trinity, One that is Three.
     When we separate them and view them as individual deities, that is the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual gods as one.
     When we see them as three individual spirits, (God is one Spirit (John 4:24), then that is the blasphemy of polytheism which is the worship of more than one God.
copyright 2009 by H.D. Shively
below the jump, from a comment I found

Saturday, September 26, 2015

The old approach to joint dialogue for RC

Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture: Pope Benedict XVI said this on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany: 
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.[then abrogated] But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[5]  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

An interesting contrast of the 2 popes, Is it shutting the door on a dark history? or is now covering even the modern happenings.under the guise of modernizing.

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013:
In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
From Pope Francis’ address to Congress, September 24, 2015:
Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.
It would seem the cardinals that voted for the Argentinian cardinal to be Pope wanted these modern changes., as they would have well known the politics
          A 2013 report from The Telegraph shows that Cardinal Bergoglio took precisely the wrong stand with regard to Pope Benedict’s 2005 famous lecture at Regensburg that caused worlwide Islamic rage:
Reacting within days to [Pope Benedict’s lecture], speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his “unhappiness” with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.


“Pope Benedict’s statement don’t reflect my own opinions”, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. “These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years”.

[Not only that, but at the time, the Papacy threatened Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) with punishment for his disobedience:]

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Universal Counselling: Value??

Warning on use of disaster counselling
Therapy may halt recovery, says expert
Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday 11 January 2004 16.56 GMT Last modified on Friday 7 May 2004 16.56 BST

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jan/11/disasterresponse.medicineandhealth

Counsellors who rush to help distressed people following disasters such as 11 September may do more harm than good. Ways of dealing with the emotional fallout of traumatic events should be urgently reassessed, a leading psychiatrist said yesterday.

Evidence is emerging from historical archives and more recent events that civilians are remarkably resilient during adversity, which tends to unite people, boost community morale and reduce the number of people committing suicide.

Simon Wessely, professor of psychological medicine at King's College London, wants a reappraisal of emergency responses to disasters. He called for resources such as psychotherapy to be directed towards people who become really ill and unable to work, rather than offered to everyone.


In a forthcoming editorial in an American journal, he will criticise the way hundreds of counsellors were brought in to help those who saw the planes crashing into the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

Early studies had suggested that 44 per cent of all Americans experienced 'substantial stress' following the 11 September 2001 atrocity. Their symptoms included difficulty getting to sleep or concentrating. But a paper measuring people's reactions two months later showed that the number had halved.

Another study, carried out solely among New Yorkers, showed that the rate of 'probable post-traumatic stress disorder' (PTSD) fell from an initial 7.5 per cent of the population to just 0.6 per cent six months later.

Wessely believes it is very difficult to take the symptoms commonly seen after disasters, such as upset, anxiety and difficulty sleeping, and conclude that they are the start of a psychiatric disorder.

'The problem we have with a lot of post-disaster interventions is that we tell people it is normal to feel upset when bad things happen, and then we also suggest a whole variety of therapeutic treatments. What we should be concerned with is the few people who don't recover, who find themselves unable to keep a job or look after their families, not the majority who will experience transient distress.'

Wessely insists he is not anti-therapy, and points to overwhelming evidence that some treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, applied to disorders such as PTSD, are highly effective. He wants a reassessment of the current vogue for 'debriefing', when a counsellor talks someone through their experience.

'The prevailing view is that talking about trauma has to be better than bottling it up,' he said. 'But there isn't any evidence, on the basis of studies carried out so far, that this is true for everyone.


'For some people, not talking may be better than talking to a stranger. This may actually impede the processes of recovery that use your own social networks, such as family, friends, priest or doctor.'

It was the 'father of sociology', Emile Durkheim, who first argued that, during periods of external threat, society would become more cohesive and suicide rates would decrease. There is preliminary evidence that in the UK the number of people taking their own lives fell after 11 September 2001. Suicide rates for that month were significantly lower than any other months that year, and lower than the numbers in any September over the previous 22 years. A similar decline was seen after Princess Diana's death in August 1997.

One who argues strongly against Wessely is Phillip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, which has 20,000 members. He says the view that much of the therapy offered is a waste of time is simply wrong.

'We remain a very puritanical society, assuming that everyone can be resilient and robust in the face of adversity,' Hodson said.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Does atheism function as a religion?

Shawn Herles (8,463 comments) says: 

“The whole “atheists just believe in one fewer gods than you do” thing isn’t very helpful.”
It’s also not really true. If we define atheism in an abstract dictionary way, then technically yes, it is supposed to be a lack of belief in God or gods.
But atheism does not actually function that way in real human beings. It functions as a belief, a religion, complete with it’s own set of myths.
Almost all religions have a very basic threefold narrative structure at their heart.
Chapter One: What went wrong with the world/human beings. Chapter Two: what sets things right. Chapter Three: The final act or consummation.
In Christianity these three chapters are called The Fall, The Incarnation, and The Second Coming.
In Buddhism they are Illusion/Maya, the coming of the Bhudda and personal enlightenment, and the final liberation of all sentient beings.
In atheism it goes like this. Chapter One, the world was in darkness and ignorance due to superstition and religion. Chapter Two, the Enlightenment dawns and the liberation of humanity begins. Chapter Three, the world will finally be saved when all people are atheists.
This narrative pattern is universal. It can be found everywhere. It is found in “religion” in the usual sense of that term, and it is found in many secular philosophies and ideologies, including atheism.
It is impossible to avoid, because it is hardwired into human nature. Whether by God, or evolution, or God working through evolution, does not really matter at this point.
So, in terms of how atheism functions in real people, it functions as a religion.
Now, just to be clear, as I am often misunderstood on this point, I am NOT saying this proves God exists. It simply proves, to me at least, that religion is universal and innate in all human beings. As to why that is, well that is a matter of opinion and the personal experiences that have defined us.

Griff (9,439 comments) says: 

But atheism does not actually function that way in real human beings. It functions as a belief, a religion, complete with it’s own set of myths.
No Shawn atheism is the lack of belief in gods
that is all.
nothing else is mandatory.
a good flow of commentary continues

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Finding the balance of where we are

GoD and DoG
by Wendy Francisco

GoD and DoG Store
GoD and DoG Thoughts
"I look up and I see GoD"
The one thing that bugged me about this line is that I don't really think of God as being "up" in a directional sense. But when you look "up" in your heart, you ultimately conclude God...at least I do.

"I look down and see my dog."
I hope that the first two lines of the song convey that people are in the middle, between two kinds of sincere devotion.

"Simple spelling G O D, Same word backwards, D O G."
In the English language, this is an amusing reality. It doesn't hold true for other languages, but is simply one of those linguistic coincidences that poets capitalize on. It just happens that the inverted spelling of these two words fits my song beautifully. I don't think there is any cosmic signifigance in this.

"They would stay with me all day."
The main reason I wrote God and Dog is that humans naturally seem to think of God as a Zeus-like judgemental guy - and that you have to walk on eggshells or he will pitch some lightening at you, and then turn in an offended huff and leave you. Then we form religions and present this wrong idea of God in an organized and seemingly well founded way. But God loves people, knows each of us deeply, and longs to be close to every one of us.

"I'm the one who walks away."
Everytime I leave my dog to go do something "important", he gives me a look that says, "I wish I could be with you". Many people think they have failed and that God has left them. So they leave God. Crazy, but quite common. But God loves us in spite of what we consider to be our failures.

"But both of them just wait for me and dance at my return with glee."
My dog has a party when I return even if I have been gone only 10 minutes. The prodigal son left home and squandered everything his father had given him. The father didn't follow his son and hurl judgements and insults. He just waited. When his son returned, the dad didn't say a thing about what his son had done. He was so thrilled to have him back that he threw a big party.

"Both love me no matter what, divine God and canine mutt. "
We know how loving our dogs are. Their relationship to us is not based on a scorecard. Well many people think that God talleys our mistakes like an accountant who tracks every penny. But, if this were true then it would be impossible to have an authentic friendship with God. We would all either be intolerably proud, or we'd be disfuctionally humiliated. This is why dead religion is made of intolerably proud people telling disfunctionally humiliated people what to do.

"I take it hard each time I fail but God forgives, Dog wags his tail".
If you don't believe that forgiveness is a huge aspect of who God is, you won't be able to forgive yourself... or anybody else either.

"God thought up and made the dog, dog reflects a part of God".
The order of creation in Genesis loosely reflects what science is telling us. This is fascinating. My favorite things to read are the Bible, and popular science books of all kinds. I think God expressed himself in the things we see around us.

"I've seen love from both sides now, it's everywhere, amen, bow wow."
When you force and control an animal, something deep inside it retreats and you miss out. Do that enough and your life becomes silent, lonely, and cold. It's the same with our relationships to each other. When people control people, something deep inside retreats and goes cold, intelligence is suppressed, physical health begins to decline, things unravel.

Some people think that God manipulates and controls, but to me it looks like beings have been made to flourish in the presence of love and freedom. This is the most tangible and direct evidence for the existence of God - that love brings health, wholeness, and vibrance. Love is the powerful force that nurtures life. And God is love.

"I look up and I see God, I look down and see my dog
And in my human frailty, I can't match their love for me."

GoD and DoG love me unwaveringly and I can't match it. But I am learning...

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Christian Islam Fascism Atheism; Influences

Atheism is a False Hope (a dialogue).

michelangelo-da-caravaggio-st-jerome-1606-e1276798377947
Dramatis Personae : A – a fictional interrogator: DTMW – Myself.
A: “Is there a God?”
DTMW: “Possibly.”
A: “The God of conventional religion?”
DTMW: “No.”
A: “So you’re an atheist in that regard?”
DTMW: “Not really. Atheism has become a positive concept. While once it was simply an absence of belief, it is now a very politicised label and suggests a specific worldview built around materialism, liberalism and a forced veneration of science. The New Atheists I find especially dangerous. They do not understand the function religion plays in the maintenance of a civil society, and what would necessarily occur were it removed.”
A: “Which is…”
DTMW: “It protects society from the full consequences of scientific truth. We’ve gotten too used to the idea that the ‘truth will set us free’ – that truth, being a positive value, can only have a positive effect. We forget that it can be beneficial or harmful only depending on its interpretation. Human beings are not naturally good, I’m afraid. Hobbes had this almost correct, except that religion and not government is the most effective Leviathan. Without it, the less evolved among the world population would feel they had no reason to stay within moral boundaries. Without the fear of hellfire, morality becomes a matter of consent. That’s all well and good for intelligent people with their evolved sense of empathy and social nuance. But most people are not intelligent.
And even among the intelligent, atheism allows for an icy, almost mathematical form of ethics that can be used to rationalise just about anything. Abortion, murder in all by name, can very easily be made logical by atheist thinking, but less so by the slightly fuzzy sentimentalism of the religious mind. That fuzzy sentimentalism, even if ridiculed by the petri dish and microscope, protects us from a lot of evil ‘common-sense’. The ‘New Atheists’ are greasing the wheels towards a very cold and dangerous void, the eventual filling of which they shan’t themselves be around to influence.
A: “Richard Dawkins says we can be good without God.”
DTMW: “As well he might. He is the product of a charmed life and first-class education. He belongs the upper-middle class and has never truly experienced hardship of the kind the poor must contend with. Solace of an earthly, material kind was at his side come what may. When the poor are faced with a reality that is horrid in every rational interpretation, they must look beyond reality for comfort. Peace between the classes depends in no small way on this function of religion. The concept of a human ‘equality’ before God; of a levelling after death; of a divine reward measured to match the hardship endured in life – all of these concepts prevent the fires of revolution bursting into life. There is a good reason that Communists went for the churches with as much venom as the banks and corporations.”
A: “What about Islam?”
DTMW: “Not all religions are equal. Some are more moral than others. It’s important to remember that a living religion is more than its foundational text. It is the product of elaborations and philosophies inspired by that text over hundreds of years. This is why Judaism and Christianity evolve and Islam doesn’t. The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, is a book that cannot be re-interpreted without fear of death.
A: “So you’d rather the Arabs and Persians and others converted to Christianity?”
DTMW: “I think that would be transformative. A Christianised Islamic world would solve so many of the worlds anxieties that it is difficult to describe how highly I favour the idea. I also expect the second generation growing up in a forcibly Christianised Pakistan (say) would be thankful to those who dominated and converted their elders. Islam makes life hell. Even Islamists are desperate to escape the fruits of their own labours. They are too proud to admit otherwise of course.”
A: “Are atheists evil?”
DTMW: “No. But many are certainly elitist. Elitism hides behind atheism rather well. You might say ‘No, I don’t hate poor White Americans; I just enjoy ridiculing their belief in Noah’s Ark. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that I went to University and they didn’t.’ I’m not convinced by that sort of thing I’m afraid.
As both Nietzsche and the Nazis understood, Christianity has always opposed elitism and made it politically impossible. This is the case today in America. The anti-intellectual instinct of Southern Baptism for example is something I sympathise with. The elite of America would love nothing more than to re-order society based on IQ or erudition. Christianity demands that other qualities are taken into account; unscientific qualities – like modesty, friendliness and warmth.
On a social level, mass atheism (as opposed to scattered, disorganised disbelief) would open Pandora’s Box. Many sleeping ideologies would awaken and moral values would be re-examined. It isn’t enough to say that ‘reason’ would take the place of religion. Whose reason? Can you not make a reasonable case for unreasonable things?
A: “Do you prefer Catholic or Protestant culture?”
DTMW: “My father is a retired C-of-E minister and so Protestantism is more familiar to me. I don’t like the hierarchicalism of the Catholic church, but I like the aesthetics of Catholic communion. Protestantism is more earthly. The West would fare well with either.
A: “Should children be raised with religion?”
DTMW: “I couldn’t be insincere in that regard, so instead I would make them understand that this is historically a Christian culture and that Islam, Hinduism and the like, are foreign to it. We reserve the right to uphold traditions and to maintain a unifying sense of identity. A religious core strengthens a nation by giving it a point of focus. It is terribly short-sighted to recommend the removal of religion from public life entirely.
D, LDN.
further good comments below the break