Piers Morgan, Michelle Bachman, Kirk Cameron and being Gay

While on an out of town training course, I was having dinner in my hotel room when I happened to flip through an interview on Piers Morgan’s show. I’d watched him a few times before and not much since then. I guess I was just thinking he seemed normal and pleasant enough, but nothing to write home about. He was interviewing Joel Osteen at the time along with his wife. This time around he was going after Michelle Bachman.

What prompted me to put fingers to keyboard was what appears as an inconsistency on Piers part and also, an across the board weak ass response to his questioning.

The topic on the screen was Michelle’s views of homosexuality, sin or not sin. She did everything she could to circumvent the question and saying “I am not judgmental.” Piers would have none of it and provided an on screen quote that conclusively showed she had some pretty clear and conclusive judgments on the matter. Again she refused and avoided answering the question. Her repeated response was that she believed marriage is between a man and a woman.

Piers had thrown at her Rush Limbaugh’s recent statement calling Sandra Fluke a slut as well as Kirk Cameron’s statement that a gay lifestyle is unnatural, detrimental and destructive. Michelle wouldn’t take the bait and stumbled around the questions with the elegance of an elephant in a pottery barn. It was transparent she wanted nothing to do with this line of questioning, repeatedly calling Piers rude.

Following Cameron's more straightforward remarks, he was relentless attacked through out the media so much so that Piers himself defended his right to have these views and brave for being honest about them; simply calling the view antiquated.

The same is going on for Rush. As Laura Ingram pointed out, Obama never called her after Ed Shultz called her a slut. But Obama couldn’t wait to voice his support for Sandra. These people are like vampires who smell blood. They will fight to drain every drop even if they can’t kill the victim. Not that calling her a slut was a smart move. But I think his point was $3,000/yr for contraceptives? If you calculate it by condoms (not everyone’s choice grant you) at $0.50 to $0.75 we’re talking around 4,000 condoms divided by 365 days = 11 times a day. His point is also what has this to do with health care. Yeah the odd case might be medically related but not worthy of this nationwide news media flooding.

It looks like there’s lots going on here but actually there’s not. The world is trying to find any issue and make it a watershed. Frankly, the way it’s stacking up I will place my bets on homosexuality. If you’re opposed, then it’s a hate crime; in the end with legal consequences. To say you disagree offends all of them so you shouldn’t be allowed to say such things. They may succeed. This is nothing new in the left wings tactics to demonize the right. If they can’t shut them up there, next in line is abortion (‘women’s right to health care’) which is directly tied to your views on creation/evolution and contraception. Get used to it because it won’t be ending until he returns.

What I did find strange was that Piers didn’t take Osteen to task when he answered in the affirmative, that homosexuality is a sin. It was a rather limp response claiming he had no choice because the bible said it was, nevertheless Piers had no comeback. Along the same lines he gave some support to Cameron. Perhaps Piers hasn’t quite shed his Catholic upbringing and if you’re coming from a religious perspective, as both Joel and Kirk were, Piers cuts some form of ‘tax exempt’ status. Bachman, on the other hand, was in the political arena so the gloves were off, also she wasn’t showing her true colors which probably annoyed him.

What I don’t like is the weak way it’s being handled. We need to face up to the fact that the world does, and will continue to hate Christians for their beliefs. We are the salt of the earth. Don’t lose our saltness. The bible does say homosexuality is a sin. For most Christians that would mean, not a good thing. And if you don’t already realize it, the world doesn’t give a shit about what Christians think is or is not a sin. They don’t believe in it period; no such thing in their world view.

When Sandra says she was ‘hurt’ by Rush’s comments I would highly doubt it. You don’t get hurt by people you don’t have any respect for. (On the other hand the liberal mentality is that everyone has to love you so maybe she was a little hurt.) Like Piers, when he asks Bachman if it’s a sin, her response should be, “I don’t know Piers, how would you define sin.” Don’t let them hang you with your own tools, especially when for them, they are meaningless. These people want to destroy any and all remnants of Christianity. They are on a seek and destroy mission. We should be doing the same. Yes, it’s a friggin sin, but what do you care? There is no common ground, don’t pretend you can walk on it.

China - J.Goldberg

I regularly read Jonah Goldberg who writes for National Review Online. He wrote something this week that I have linked to the title below. I have been waiting for something like this since the evidence clearly points in that direction. Mr. Goldberg says it like no one else can:

Why We Need Not Envy China 
Would we honestly trade our problems for theirs?

Immanuel Velikovsky

While attending Wycliffe Theological College in Toronto, Ontario my pastor mentioned the name Velikovsky in passing. I hadn’t heard of him before so began a bit of an investigation into what he’s about. In the end I purchased a number of his works (Ages in Chaos, Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval) and read them front to back. If the work had not been of interest I wouldn’t have got past the first few pages. I won’t usually read anything that is clearly flawed unless it was necessary to a part of my formal education.

What Velikovsky proposed didn’t seem to be that big of a deal to me. Of course I had grown up with little vested interest in history per se or much concern for the movement of the planets (outside their normal orbits) as I held most of this to be speculation. The work of Clark Pinnock in Set Forth Your Case gave me a swift kick to the side of the head as well as the heart which caused history to begin to matter. I was still in the early stages of integrating this reality (although I’m pretty quick about these things) when Velikovsky’s reordered chronologies entered my thinking.

Basically Velikovsky believed that there were catastrophic events on earth from near misses by Venus and Mars which would not have the orbits they currently enjoy. Venus was a recent planet that was an offshoot from Jupiter. It’s near passing of earth was related to the events accounted for in the plagues prior to the exodus. He had gathered a number of records from ancient cultures around the globe that describe in a somewhat similar fashion what they saw and experience from the heavens. Based on this he realigned history to have this major catastrophic event be the lynch pin linking the historic timeline together.

In most cases does this really matter or better put, who cares? Well one of the key realignments was between Israel and Egypt. There were stories in Egyptian history that referenced similar events as described by the Old Testament during the plagues. When these are aligned the matching time period in Egyptian history is not the universally accepted 1250 BC but rather 1650 BC. On a bit of a lark I pulled out my course text book on Egypt called The Culture of Ancient Egypt by John A. Wilson. I flipped though until I found the time period under discussion. In the opening paragraph it was discussing the fall of the middle kingdom and the fact that it was virtually unknown how this occurred. Now this was the greatest era in one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man (gave us the pyramids), yet there was no evidence to determine how it came to an abrupt end????

Perhaps I read more into this than I should but I was blown away. This made way more sense than trying to jam it into 1250 BC where the Pharaohs don’t really line up or fit Israel’s timeline. Also, I had read this before while I was taking the class and this never stood out. Now it looked like the proverbial sore thumb. For the first time I was actually interested in history. I mean if these chronologies were lined up properly then there should be a serious windfall of matching corroborative evidence for both cultures including the Old Testament. Well that’s what Velikovsky did. He basically took some of the key events in the Old Testament and matched them to the same occurrences in Ancient Egypt. This read like a real history book. Not what I was used to which was basically a story with no evidence to support it. There were constant references back to this or that document. I especially remember the information on who was the Queen of Sheba. A comparison followed between the offering she brought to Solomon and a very similar listing from Egyptian documents of what was loaded onto a barge for the same purposes.

I also had to do a paper called “Who destroyed Shilo?” This was for a different course in a different college. Well I just added the 400 years and went back to Wilson’s Culture and low and behold found there were campaigns of plundering by the Egyptians into Mesopotamia at the time and Shilo was one of the cities that were listed by name. This was a bit freaky since these books had nothing to do with one another.

So I was pretty excited thinking this would open the door to endless corroboration of the Old Testament. It seemed to me there were relatively scant evidence and a whole lot of criticism. In my zeal I went to my Old Testament Professor to see if he’d heard of Velikovsky and the potential goldmine he’d unearthed. My meeting with R.K. Harrison was brief. He had taught at Richmond College when I was there and I had him again at Wycliffe. He was renowned for his tomb Introduction to the Old Testament which was a standard for anyone going through these doors. Sure enough Mr. Harrison had heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but gave zero credence to his postulations. The conversation did not last long and I left a little disheartened. I didn’t know why he was so convinced that Velikovsky was wrong but I sure knew that’s what he thought.

Only later did I discover that this was merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The entire scientific community was up in arms at Velikovsky’s suggested theories, to the point of extreme absurdity. Of course the bulk of Mr. Harrison’s work would require complete revision if he were to be correct.

I continue to ponder the Exodus. It made so much sense, if the Old Testament were accurate. At one point Pharaoh was concerned with how many Jews there were because they outnumbered their own people. They were slaves so clearly an enormous workforce. And you’d need a very large army to keep them in check. Also, they’d been at it for 400 years. It makes sense why Pharaoh would not want to let them go because the entire infrastructure of Egypt lay in the balance. Even after he agrees to release them he comes to his senses and goes after them. In the end Pharaoh and all his army are destroyed in the collapse of the Red Sea (Harrison called this the “Reed” sea) and over half the population of Egypt (the work force) is gone. This makes perfect sense as to why Middle Kingdom fell. Also, it is logical to assume the Jews actually built the pyramids which remain a wonder of the world.

Velikovsky’s work created an enormous divide in the scientific community. The majority opposed but some were open to new ideas and scientific query into the truth of the matter. I noted the unbridled vitriolic displayed by many (Shapely, Sagan) which are the sure signs of children with their toys removed from their possession. These men were supposed to be scientists not Hollywood rags working by slander and innuendo. The fact that such a nerve was touch pointed more to the potential validity of the theory rather than against it.

As one pro-Velikovskian person put it so many years later:

I mean that should one reasonably and incredulously ask: ‘Is there nowhere an anti-Velikovsky treatise of serious consequence?’ the answer, regrettably, is still ‘no.’ Not in general nor even in a special discipline such as astrophysics or archaeology. Thousands of scientists and scholars have impugned his work. A few have stepped up to bat against him or one of his team: they put on airs; they dance about; they come up unprepared; they take blundering swipes at the ball; they strike out. When all is done, they say that it was not a real professional ballgame.- Alfred de Grazia The Velikovsky Affair

The Religion of Islam

Nothing, that is not readily available in a Google search, will be said here. I’m joining a number of voices that have gone before, albeit with my own thrust on things. The issue of angst is the constant barrage that anything that is socially unpalatable, that is associated to Islam, is immediately qualified as not Islam. I read only yesterday that 99% of all Muslims would not consider Osama Bin Laden a Muslim. I’m sure he would beg to differ but that discussion can no longer take place.
Muslims who are involved in murder and violence are “extremists” and don’t represent the moderate, more prevalent, more properly ‘Muslim’, believers. A great example was Whoopi Goldberg’s meltdown on the View when Bill O’Reilly didn’t qualify the perpetrators of 9/11 as extremists, just Muslims. You’d think he shot her mother. Both her an Joy Behar walked off the show rather than discuss the issue.
Yet, a Muslim in Tulsa was kicked out of his Mosque for “criticizing Islam in front of non-believers”. He received numerous violent advances and had to take out a restraining order to deal with death threats. Basically the moderates are not allowed to criticize the extremists. Why? I recently watched Dennis Miller rant about the same thing. If these ‘extremists’ aren’t representing Islam, then why the huge silence? Moderates need to kick these guys out or straighten them out, but they’re not doing either. (that was Miller’s point)

While that’s not really what I’m here to address it is an evidentiary offshoot. Anders Nygren once said there are no contradictions. If you think there are then you simply haven’t dug deep enough. Love that.
My point is that I think the so called extremists are accurately representing the religion of Islam. Where do I get such a preposterous concept? Well from the Qur’an and the spiritual logic that follows. Believe me, it isn’t a stretch. My real rant in this whole dog fight is the gross ignorance of the implications of what is recorded in the Qur’an. And this isn’t just a gospel or a letter written by an apostle, these are the very words of God.
There are many but I only need site a few.

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. 5:72 (Yusufali)
...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"... 4:171 (Yusufali)
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 4:157-56 (Yusufali)
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. Sura 5:51 (Yusufali)
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. Sura 4:89 (Shakir)


According to Muslim’s these are the very words of God. I don’t make a distinction here between extremists, moderates or whatever other political types there might be. That the Qur’an is God’s direct words to Mohammed is the fundamental defining feature of the religion of Islam. If someone classifies themselves as a Muslim, it means they accept the Qur’an as the unimpeachable source of God’s directions in all their doings.
From the 5 direct Qur’an quotes above what can we take to be God’s true view of reality?

1) It is blaspheme to consider Christ the son of Mary as God. If you do so, you will end up in Hell.
2) Jesus Christ was a messenger of God, but not God. Therefore don’t use the word Trinity.
3) Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. It was all staged. For sure, he was never killed.
4) Don’t be friends with Jews or Christians.
5) Killing them is a good idea. (Jews/Christians)


If you’d like further evidence of the views Muslims must conform to, feel free to read the Qur’an and you will only be further convinced. The level of violence towards infidels is bottomless. I’m not a big linker but this site is focused on the Qur’an and what it says and means regarding Islamic behavior. www.religionofpeace.com 
So what’s my point? Just this: So called Muslim extremists are actually the norm. They are carrying out the directives that God has laid before them. The moderates are the anomalies and will have their heads handed to them if they don’t watch out. Their most holy of books makes this crystal clear. Thus when innocents (infidels) are slaughtered by the thousands (women/children, doesn’t matter) nothing is denounced or even mentioned. But the most (relatively) minor things they find irrationally offensive, book burning or cartoon drawing, the prescription is death to any and all, whether they’re related to the actual offenders or not.

Most of the civilized world is still protecting this seething evil as it spreads its shadow around the globe. They all scream that this is not a representation of a true Muslim. All the while the core message of the Qur’an is not mentioned or brought into the conversation. The first question to a moderate is “Do you hold that the Qur’an, in its entirety, is God’s word to man”? Then the relevant passages that support, encourage and demand the murderous activity should be quoted. This simply doesn’t happen. No one wants a clear definition of the religion of Islam because the “world community” would have to agree that it is no religion at all, let alone the true religion.
And what should Christian believer’s view of this alternate belief system be. The view of Islam is that Christianity is a lie and a sham. They pander to us by stating Jesus was a prophet but deny the heart of reality that he is God become man and was crucified and resurrected for us. As to him being a prophet this makes no sense at all. Do prophets go around claiming to be God? What’s the evidence that he did not die? There is none, just something made up 600 yrs later with no eye witness accounts to refute the primary evidence.
C.S. Lewis answers this feigned respect for Christ to which I’ve never heard a rebuttal:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.”
It’s even worse to call him a prophet as any prophet would clearly know the distinction between himself and the God that he is prophesying about. But rather than draw conclusions from the historical evidence that has been left behind, the Qur’an has its own story that everything must align with. And since there’s no real evidence to support their view it turns into blind fanaticism. It’s not about apologetics or logic or reason; there is no room left for dialogue. Those who pander to these wolves in sheep clothing need to have a hard look at the Qur’an then check the premises of their beliefs. This truly is a jihad (holy war) and it’s always the same two sides. The enemy’s best weapon is to blur the differences.

True Grit

I was watching a little Joel Osteen on the weekend. I don’t particularly like his overall spiel but he’s better than many. He’s very positive and upbeat and reminds me of a number of preachers I’ve heard. After a few times though my teeth start to ache because of the sweetness. I haven’t thought much about the doctrinal differences that would cause such a variance probably because I don’t see any necessity. But what did perk me up during my most recent listening adventure was the supposedly endless and bottomless forgiveness of God.

I think that is part of the sweetness that shortly wears thin to my taste. It paints Jesus as sort of a Candy man although I’m sure Joel would disagree with that interpretation. Nevertheless, he continually talks about forgiving one another, loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you and how can you argue this, it’s the heart of the gospel; well apparently I can.

Fundamentally I don’t think God forgives. He can’t. It’s not in his nature to mix evil with good. Thus if your children are continually disobedient you take them out of the village and have them stoned to death. I don’t need to go through all of Leviticus to remind one of the many activities that are met with the death prescription. Not that different from the Flood which killed everyone save Noah or marching the Israelites around the desert for 40 years until everyone who left Egypt died (save Joshua and Moses?). What about Ananias and Sapphira or the rift between Paul and Barnabas or Paul and Peter? Why can’t we all just “forgive” and “get along”, as we hear so often in the current media, and “love one another”.

First, the world has no place in advising Christians on anything about love. When John Lennon says “all you need is love” it’s in a context that has nothing to do with Christianity. And if Christianity isn’t the heart of it, then it isn’t love. God is love. Jesus is God. And I don’t mean this like an axiomatic formula. I mean that if you want to find out what love really is, look to Jesus and therefore the Gospels. (ie. whatever the Holy Spirit has written on your heart as to who Jesus is, which should be consistent with the New Testament)

So are we really forgiven? Yes, but not without sacrifice. There is no carte blanche forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22 ‘without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness’) There was a trade involved. This is consistent with the Old Testament priestly rituals. Animals were killed and their life blood was offered in place of the penalties for sin. (which is also death) So they died in the place of those who received the ‘forgiveness’. And while I’m sure Mr. Osteen is well versed in this scenario he doesn’t transfer this well to the Christian walk. It’s like we should dole out forgiveness as though it’s water from Niagara. Really? Is that what Jesus did? Is that what he wants us to do?

I’ve read some commentary regarding Jesus’ statement to his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23) The response by most is a frantic rush to inform us that this doesn’t mean what one would plainly take it to mean. On the other hand the Roman Catholics take this to mean their priests have the power to determine the length of your stay in purgatory and you better hook up with one before you kick because you need him to administer your final forgiveness. Two divergently opposite views and neither of which I adhere to. The Catholic view is plainly contrary to some fundamental information from Jesus and the disciples. Not really even worthy of challenge. The other view is a little more interesting and highlights my primary variance to Joel. How much of Christ’s mantle should we aspire to or make our own. If Paul’s words are to be taken at face value and/or John’s then it’s pretty much 100%. We become the righteousness of God through Christ’s work on the cross. We are the salt of this earth and we should be able to judge rightly since we will judge the angels. Are everyone’s sins forgiven? Clearly not. It would be better if Judas had not been born. And the Pharisees weren’t looking too good during the confrontations with God. Jesus told them they would die in their sins.

Now the forgiveness is available, but on the condition you accept the terms. The terms are agreeing that the blood of Christ is the means by which you are forgiven. If you don’t buy into Christ then you don’t buy into his sacrifice then you shouldn’t be talking about forgiveness in any, way, shape or form. Again, the world uses the word forgiveness but they’ve simply borrowed it from Christianity and it has no real meaning in their world of sin.

As Jesus has said they will treat you like they treated him. So if you’re representing Christ in your life and you are hated for it, that should be the norm. Are sins not being forgiven as a result? Absolutely. Those who hate you hate Jesus. When you’re in a confrontation in that context, your opponents are unknowingly opposing Jesus. There is judgment going on. Do you forgive those who do such things? Maybe, but what does that really mean? Do you pretend that they don’t hate you? That they’ll do whatever they can to thwart your progress? Sin doesn’t just pussy foot around. It’s a war, spirit lusting against sin and sin lusting against spirit. The world and the kingdom are at severe odds. And that manifests itself in our daily relationships. So when your question whether your forgiving someone, someone who is clearly your enemy, don’t get all hot and bothered. I don’t think we’re required to forgive them. We stand, we fight,(internally) we testify. And that’s what I think Jesus means by whatever you don’t forgive, won’t be forgiven. Those people will be called to account for how they treated you.

If they repent and ask for forgiveness it's a no brainer. That’s a different deal and a completely different context; even if they killed your wife, husband or children. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous. Brothers and sisters should live in forgiveness for one another. But your enemies are just that. And that’s where I think Joel and I part ways. In daily relationships he’s really advocating to treat enemies as friends. And while Jesus called Judas friend it was not because he forgot for one iota who he was and what he was about. Neither should Christians. We are called to be as wise as the serpent. And that’s really the only way to be as harmless as doves.

So I don’t forgive everyone. I’m not all hung up about it either. Vengeance is God’s, he will repay. I love my enemies but I don’t throw my pearls before swine. I don’t treat them the way they treat me, I can't, but neither do I treat them as I treat friends. Jesus says to give them a few chances to change their ways and if they don't "treat them as a pagan or a tax collector". (Matthew 18:15-17) And in Luke 17:3-4 he says to forgive but only in the context of their repentance.

I recently saw Joel and his wife being interviewed on 'Piers Morgan Tonight' and he was just as I expected. The man has lost his salt, if he indeed ever had it. And you know what Jesus says about that condition. I watched True Grit on the weekend and that’s what Joel needs.

Fundamentals

Before I even start this I can tell it will be a bit of rambling. My mentor once said as the world gets darker the lights will only shine brighter. lol. Miss him. My continued involvement on this earth sharpens the "other than" difference between normal people and those possessing real Christian faith. aka Conviction of things unseen. The extraordinary thing about my experience is that things seem simpler and simpler as life moves on. I used to struggle to see any distinction between myself and how others think and now it hits me over the head like a ten pin bowling ball on a daily basis. Also, it comes down to some very simple bottom line thought lines which spread like oak trees throughout my thought patterns. I thought I'd toss out the ones that come to mind. I'm sure I'll miss a few; they're all intertwined; since the God of Christianity is the perpetrator of all of them.

1. Creation: Already spoke to this in  a previous post. There is a daily onslaught of subtle and not so subtle opining that all things evolution are true and good while anything smelling of creation is naive, stupid and hateful. I don't mean any type of watered down view that thinks the first day might be millions of years. I mean the 6-24 days variety right off the pages. Ya gotta remember Jesus quoted from this historical tomb when it was in it's completed stage. The spirit of the Antichrist is so apparent in this sphere. No worries about the environment, God's going to create a new heaven and new earth. Mr. molecular management.

2. Man is sinful: Meaning man is fundamentally evil. It's not your upbringing, it really is genetic. Well not really genetic but the fact that you are human brings it upon you. The sins are visited from previous generations but only in type. Whoever raises you will shape the way it's expressed. If you were born on a desert island you'd be a sinner. This view is also anathema to virtually every educational discipline. That's what's psychiatry is for, make you better. Listen to Oprah, Dr. Phil, Hollywood, yadda, yadda. Go to therapy. Now all the problems are genetic. Everything and anything except the real source. And God doesn't blame you for Adam's fateful detour, he gave up his son for you to get fixed.

(sidebar: I believe my favorite movie is "Ordinary People". Perhaps because it so accurately portrays the nature of relationships in a family. At one point the main character says he doesn't believe in God. Nevertheless the fundamental theme is his ability to forgive himself. He finds a true friend who leads him there. The irony of this is not lost on me. A movie offering the answers to all our problems denying the existence of he who is the only way. Nevertheless, I appreciate the honesty of the godless reality and the state of mankind without him. A place I am familiar with but no longer frequent)

3. Immortality of the Soul: Sorry, no nice warm bed to spend your afterlife in. Not even a darkened eternal bliss without consciousness. Scary enough. Nope, all souls live eternally. Would you expect anything less from a creator. It's just a question of in what state of mind you'll be in and where that will be. Yep, good old fashioned heaven and hell. I'm shuffled off to the loony bin at this point. The current intelligentsia deals with this in countless ways with endless movies, books, shows to calm any fears. Holding out the heroes and aspirations of money, sex and power on this earth as Satan did to our Lord. Still can't get around it though; it really is a matter of time. No one's ever gone and come back, save one.

4. Jesus Christ being the only means to Salvation: A salvation not required if the first three are rejected. I guess I'm beginning to realize why this would ramble. It's like being in a forest and trying describe each tree and how it intertwines with the others. Basically everything of the "world" is at war with everything in the kingdom. The three I've already mentioned do spread far and wide through a broad range of disciplines. Then I get to number four which is of course what the world is doing everything it can to deny by utilizing lies about the first three. Every day it just becomes more apparent. Especially in a country that was founded by men who believed all of this and embedded those thoughts in a framework to build the greatest country on earth. On every front and by the boldest of steps that is being dismantled as quickly as possible. I believe all in preparation for the end of this aeon. 

Aeon Doodle

I generated a lengthy diary during a pivotal time period in my pilgrims progress. I think it was simply a spill over from not having a necessary third reference point to balance the mental chair. While this is meager by comparison, rereading what I thought a week or month ago still provided a reference point.

At some time I hope to dictate it’s contents into a software tool and limitedly publish those words to those who might find them relative to their experience - an exceptionally small audience by any measure. Nevertheless, this diary was a very useful and necessary venting of some critical issues that eventually came to full resolution.

In the diary I infrequently took to doodling. The primary artifacts were to summarize modes of thinking, and in this case only those of Charles Malik and Anders Nygren. I studied both of their views extensively and found I could render their universe in a fairly simple sketch. I was then able to layout my own thinking in contrast to theirs. This visual method significantly clarified the differences, albeit only to myself.

I wanted to pass along my “History of the Universe” chart at left. I began this blog with a detailed biblical time line from creation to current day based on details passed on from the Old and New Testaments. This drawing has a slightly different theme than that. It is meant to contrast the light with the dark or the Godly with the ungodly. The time bound earth is enclosed; everything within it’s borders is subject to the conditions of the fall. God’s presence through man, up to the time of Christ, is gray as it’s under the old aeon. The arrival of the Son on the scene is white as are all the expressions of him since that time. Also, since that time, the Spirit of the anti-Christ began and continues to grow. The re-expansion of the white bubble is the reformation. I consider Luther, and others likeminded, a reiteration of the original gospel (freedom from the law) as a temporary correction of the ever darkening closure of the spirit of the antichrist. The end of the age is where the time bubble ceases and those who are part of the white are reunited with the eternal word encapsulating this creation.

Hurt Locker vs Avatar

Having endured Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, I sat motionless in my semi-recliner musing  over connected feelings from the close of “Eyes Wide Shut” and/or “The English Patient”. From inside I could hear the voice of Elaine, “Oh. No. I can’t do this anymore. I can’t. It’s too long. Quit telling your stupid story, about the stupid desert, and just die already! Die!!”.

My mind wandered onto thoughts of the incredulity that accompanied the Avatar experience. Cameron’s stunning movie pedigree, the concept development coming to fruition 15 yrs later and the pioneering 3D work come as a sharp contrast to what appears as a thrown together, amateurish war commentary vehicle. It wasn’t so much that I preferred the other nominees that I’d seen (District 9, Blind Side, Up in the Air) but that but I didn’t really even grasp the redeeming value or purpose of The Hurt Locker. A pure documentary would have been far more appreciable and applicable to the topic.

We really have some cowboy, with little regard for the safety of his fellow soldiers at the helm of a disarmament crew?  And he’s deactivated 853 situations without a problem. It seems like a rambling piecemeal video reminding us for the billionth time that some people in Hollywood would rather pretend war is avoidable than face the evil that exists. If anyone of them were President in 41, they would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor and we’d all be speaking German or Japanese.

And speaking of Pearl Harbor, any of the 6 episodes I’ve seen so far of “Pacific” are embarrassingly superior to any section or all of THL. So my disturbance is not so much from type as it is from degree. Supporting some twisted, mindless thought pattern through the use of the movie medium is nothing new and even Avatar, from my view, follows this familiar road. It’s the immeasurable variance between the two enjoyment factors that shows as a blue whale on my radar.

Hollywood would like the fact that they entertain us (Avatar) to be replaced with the thought that they are some type of courageous heroes. (THL) In fact the word courage seems to be in every other sentence that drivels out of their mouths. As another contrast, the real heroes’ in “Pacific” don’t like to be described as such because they were “just doing their jobs”; or simply prefer not to talk about it because the degree of the trauma is indigestible. (Continued discussion becomes chewing on regurgitated emotional vomit) Interestingly, the so called courageous actors, directors, producers never show either of these symptoms.

Hollywood talks about and makes movies of topics that they self determine to be counter culture, when in fact they are totally consistent with their culture. This pretence at risk is necessary to cultivate their ‘courage’ on the other end. This make belief world is well beyond the fantasy of Avatar even though they frown on movies of this genre. Of course they think their courage is real, they champion causes no one else will, they stand for right in a world of wrong, they risk everything for conscience and principle. As in Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Love is actually hate and those having real courage are maligned and destroyed by those who are motivated by cowardice. More than a reminder that this pretense continues, the Oscar result shows the degree is ever deepening.

Haiti

Read an article in the Telegraph regarding the situation in Haiti. It read, “Max Beauvoir, Haiti's "supreme master" of voodoo, alleged his faith's opponents had deliberately prevented much-needed help from reaching followers of the religion, which blends the traditional beliefs of West African slaves with Roman Catholicism.” It goes on to say that the Christians were getting the bulk of the aid coming to Haiti because they were controlling the airport. He then commented on Pat Robertson’s suggestion that ‘Haiti had made a pact with the devil 200 years ago’ saying “I don't know much about him (Pat) and I don't think I'm losing much, Voodoo has been discriminated against for 200 years…It was developed by our ancestors, it is a way of life. To ask us to stop would be like asking an American to stop eating hamburgers." Mr. Beauvoir is a Sorbonne-educated biochemist. (University of Paris founded in 1253) 


Later in the same article it goes on to say that ceremonies were halted in Mr. Beauvoir’s grand house, which seconds as  a voodoo temple, but they were still going on in the countryside. They reported that the temples are “where followers dance around a totem pole in the grounds to the sound of drums. Bonfires are lighted to attract spirits and the blood of animals, including goats and chickens, is drained and used to heal the sick” and the “elaborate ceremonies include secret languages, people dancing after being possessed by spirits and talismans including dried animal heads.” Apparently in rural areas “people practice the ‘darker’ side of voodoo, summoning evil spirits." 


While many in Hollywood are livid over Mr. Robertson’s comments (esp. Whoopi Goldberg) according to Kompe Filo a believer and Haitian TV/Radio personality “voodoo predicted the earthquake six months ago.” Since that’s the case I would assume preparations were made to deal with the disaster and minimize it’s impact? Another voodoo believer, Monique Henri, wore a cross around her neck while waiting for food to arrive. She said, “The earthquake happened because people were sinners so God was angry, because people did wrong.” I guess Pat is not alone.

Assassination of the assassination

I watched a show a few days ago that I'd saved for about a month on my PVR. I taped it because the visual snippets were impressive but hadn't watched it because the dialogue associated with those brief images was annoying. The show is called "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy" (2003). Since I have no method of transferring the show to my hardrive (which I did in my old setup; previous home) I decided to clear it off my PVR. I watched the show from front to back but was unable to prevent some serious responses being shouted at the screen.

This piece by Jennings (Senior Editor) was inundated with gross distortions and skillfully missing information. Ironically, this was the very thing that they vehemently accused everyone else of doing. What I love about the assassination is that it's a lightning rod for illuminating evil from good, truth from lies, openness from deceit so that one might understand the state of the world. Not dissimilar from Christ’s resurrection in terms of the degree of the war over the actual events which transpired. Reflecting on this I surmise that this is the case for all incidents, amplified to the degree of what is at stake. With Kennedy’s assassination the stakes are exceedingly high as the machinations of evil can be seen in broad daylight. It is the likes of Jennings who hopes we close our eyes.

The only good I can say about the two hour show is that there were two items that additional light was shed on that were of significance. Oswald was a better shot than I had previously been informed. They actually showed the Marine shooting records with his scores from rapid fire shooting at 200 yards. This was impressive until they decided to weaken their argument by extending the implications beyond their capacity. The repeatedly mentioned that Kennedy was 75yds from Oswald when he was shot at. This is supposed to impress us how close he was relative to 200yds?! They failed to mention at any point that it was a moving vehicle (target) so there would be necessarily 3 distances at which shots were fired. (from their count). The results on a driving range with a stationary target would be quite different than on a moving target with trees in obscuring your view. This kind of attempt to extend the import of the facts makes me question the whole scenario as simply a means to push their desired viewpoint.

The other item of interest was the death of Office J.D. Tippet. I knew it was pretty solid that Oswald shot him but there was more evidence to confirm that in the show. So while I don't think Oswald took the fatal shot, he's still a murderer. I never really thought much about Oswald’s participation because it became irrelevant due to other overwhelming evidence. It’s fairly obvious to me now, and already had been, that someone took some shots from the area of the Depository, to at least set Oswald up or it may have been Oswald himself.

These items represent about 4 minutes of the 120 minutes of viewing. The rest was simply a blatant and subtle attempt to continue the brainwashing of the viewers to Jennings desired result. Three particular points make this abundantly clear to me.

One is the total lack of refutation of evidence provided by the witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Of the 104 people who were in ear shot of the assassination, 35 (minimum) said they heard them coming from the knoll area. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm) Like the Warren commission report they were not really included in the discussion! I don’t see how the choice to leave this unanswered means anything less than a severe prejudice. The report simply focuses on the shots from the depository and leaves it at that.

A second item was the death of Danny Ferry who had supposedly been part of a meeting between Clay Shaw and Oswald. In the dialogue Jennings says his death was through “natural causes”. This was over a picture of Ferry with the newpaper article in the background. If you freeze the screen and read the article (HD) his death was an “apparent suicide” and the cause was “brain hemorrhage”. So from Jennings perspective, a natural cause of death is blowing your brains out or having someone blow them out for you?! So while Ferry’s manner of death was never part of my consciousness up to this point, the asinine and clumsy attempt by Jennings to bury the facts will forever imbed it in my memory. And of course the entire line of discussion is meant to discredit Jim Garrison, or better put, Oliver Stone’s representation of Garrison.

The final item, before I summarize, was the mention of the autopsy reports which de facto makes Oliver Stone a liar. The dialogue runs that the x-rays and autopsy ‘prove’ that the shots came from behind. In the least, this is a gross misrepresentation of the readily available details of the autopsy(s) and surrounding events. There are enormous questions raised by the variances in the presentation of the President’s body from the time he died on the table at Parkland Memorial to the autopsy slab at Bethesda Naval Hospital. An entire book was written by the resident physician at Parkland memorial providing direct evidence to contradict Hume’s conclusions. David Lifton’s phone call interview of the attending Physician, Malcolm Perry, where he described the maximum length of the tracheotomy as being significantly less than the opening encountered by Hume’s at Bethesda. Or the absurd fact that the autopsy photos had been ‘flipped’ in a number of cases and the right side description being applied to the left side of his head. (thank god for Kennedy’s nose scar) Anyway, the lack of any depth of investigation into these issues ends any idea that Jennings was remotely objective.

(for proof that there is more to the autopsy than Jennings one line acceptance of Hume’s pre-burned notes - http://www.jfkresearch.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf - 125 pages that show the complexity and deceit at work)

What was particularly insidious was their vicious raping of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And it wasn’t just Jennings. Jack Valente and a host of other respected individuals popped up one after another to denounce Stone’s treatment of the subject. They took a single snippet from a Stone interview where he said he used ‘dramatic license’ in the film and proceeded to lynch him with it. Then they bemoaned and lamented over the fact that this type of movie ends up being imbedded in the thoughts of the American people instead of the truth of what happened. This piece of subtle propaganda was an amazing thing to behold.

From where I sit, Stone used about 10% of the license that Jennings used in making this report. (documentary?) At least Stone is honest about it. Jennings continues to operate under the shroud of journalistic objectivity all the while making a ‘movie’ of his own. The reason Stone’s film is in the minds of the American people is because it was already there. Evidence available from the day the assassination occurred has never been fully explained. The bullet fragments absolutely never added up. The motorcade vehicle being washed before any serious forensics could be completed. A mysterious pristine bullet found on a stretcher that supposedly rammed into Connelly’s wrist after passing through the President, all the ‘grassy knoll’ information etc. ad infinitum. So while Jennings and his team lament the American public’s ‘brainwashing’ by Stone’s film (28 yrs after the fact) , I am hopeful the same public will discard Jennings’s tripe as the real attempt to control their minds.

Jennings audience is to those who don’t want to know what happened or those who prefer his comforting, assured persuasions as opposed to the harsh reality of the facts. Anyone who has even done a surface investigation into this incident would have problems with the presentations in this “report”. I’m not sure of his motivations, but Jennings has a serious stake in convincing as many as he can that Oswald acted alone. There’s a Titanic sized load of evidence that simply doesn’t add up to that conclusion. I still think the search for the truth is fairly simple - present all the facts then attempt to put some plausible scenario together that explains everything you know. It is patently obvious that Jennings doesn’t even know what that is.