Get a Grip on the History of this Book:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science.
Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man.
To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment.
In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
On Science, Awe, and Humility
(read more @ Alfred Einstein Thoughts of a FreeThinker)
Spirituality =/= Religion. One breathes life. Religion is tradition, to "tie it back," literally.

Welcome to my blog. This is how I talk...
It is not a dissertation or outlined. It is an exhortation, and may at times sound foolish, so be it.
Is life eternal? Who knows for sure. But -- I see people who understood their own times (Jesus clearly was such a person) and I exhort us to understand ours, now.
While this blog reeks of my personality and writing style -- the Bible (and Christ) have at least the scent of God, of something more abiding and eternal than a mystic emotion of awe and reverence.
This book deals with and as a language talks about spiritual matters.
To understand (versus just appreciate the impact of) this book is, literally Jesus, Lord and Christ. The central premise of the book defies imagination and human experience; it demands faith, and as such deals with the impossible.
Its depth has many layers, which is sometimes hard to hear when politico-religion is around, sounding the call to submit, attend, participate and donate. And, in the United States, to also "incorporate" for tax (avoidance) purposes.
[[A Psalm] of David.]] I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, [and] strengthenedst me [with] strength in my soul.
All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth."
Though the LORD [be] high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off
The history of the preservation, translations, and censorships of the language and concepts of this "book" [starting apparently with papyri] is itself in part a history of the world -- politics -- nations. Obviously, it also speaks to the control of wealth and confronts it.
and now here we are on the internet, where words and creeds are cheap. (far too cheap and too easy to propagate).
It is a history of sweat, tears, drama and fire (book-burnings, people-burnings) and bloodshed. It was spread, with changes of technology and languages; and
For some reason, the understanding and action on this book was a threat to power, and to accumulated wealth-- which tells us something about this type of power, and wealth.
Religious people exist - -and can be seriously disruptive. I suggest -- getting a grip on the language (and history) of this book, if nothing else, for survival reasons.

Could you describe nature, its origins, its behaviors, like this? [Or, do you want to lament to God, "Why me??"] Check out Job 38, when the LORD, after hearing (37 chapters of theological debate, who's to blame for Job's suffering..) the LORD finally quizzes not his miserable (self-righteous) psychoanalysts -- only back then it was religious -- but Job himself.
. . .Actually, less a quiz than a challenge -- like standing (alone of course) to defend one's beloved thesis, in hopes of that blessed Ph.D. -- and realizing one is empty-handed: Job 38
"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? [smile...] Gird up your loins now and answer me like a man! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...who laid the cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy?" ... Where is light and darkness?[v.19]; "Who hath put wisdom in the heart, and understanding in the inward parts?" [v.36]
Where is light and darkness, indeed! Men still wish to know! NASA, MIT, FermiLab and various universities are still working on it . . . . . must be powerful information to invest such fortunes into exploring...
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (Dated: June 15, 2001)

The existence of light (a massless U(1) gauge boson) is one of unresolved mysteries in nature.

In this paper, we would like to propose that light is originated from certain quantum orders in our vacuum. We will construct quantum spin models on lattice to demonstrate that some quantum orders can give rise to light without breaking any symmetries and without any fine tuning.
Through our models, we show that the existence of light can simply be a phenomenon of quantum coherence in a system with many degrees of freedom. Massless gauge fluctuations appears commonly and naturally in strongly correlated quantum systems which originally contain no gauge fields.

PACS numbers: 11.15.-q"

(MIT Xiao-Gang Wen: The Origins of Light)

Who puts wisdom in the heart?
Do we normally think in those terms--of wisdom, as a quality, which can be planted, engrained, or even poored into a heart? We don't yet know where light comes from -- so with all our institutions, anyone have a definition, way to implant, and who can tell what is the origin of "wisdom"??
...after a while of this interrogation (still presumably being destitute and completely covered with disease) Job replies -- I will lay my hand upon my mouth....
Generally speaking, most people won't come to God (or, this word) until life has got them speechless. But "speechless" is appropriate before this text. Reading it, one is in the presence of something older, very probably wiser (even if "collected wisdom") and more perceptive than onesself. It, and its language, just may have some serious insight & wisdom you just do not have! . .
What would persuade men to risk their lives, and end up burned at the stake, rather than recant on their translation of this book, and instead of saying "FORGET you -- this is MY survival, here!" to future generations, literally say things like (Jesus, allegedly) "Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do?" -- or (Stephen, on being stoned, Acts 7, allegedly) "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" -- or Wm. Tyndale, 1536 A.D., Lord, Open thou the King of England's eyes!" . Why? -- or for that matter, why were these men murdered to start with? Does the world really NEED a continual provision of scapegoats and bloodshed over who rules this place? If so, then perhaps they need the central message of Christ! -- or at a minimum of the books which similarly foretell of the need for redemption and prophesy of a Redeemer to come! Why did they value it so highly -- and why do religions today clearly (which this blog will illustrate) value almost anything higher than this Bible, while quoting it?
And what IS it about those psalms? . . . how can you not admire this plain speech and sentiment?....
"But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.Selah
Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time [that] their corn and their wine increased." (from Psalm 4)

Who can really summarize this topic? But I WILL speak to it -- and while the experience is shared by many (women and mothers), not enough are speaking out about it.
Now is the time to understand its concepts, and how that church-state hybrid never (ever) had any blending with the gospel in purpose and intent, and by about 300 (possibly 200) A.D. also had little in common with its language.
Which of course, can still change....
Let the games begin...

Friday, September 7, 2012

A Minor Omission of Half the Human Race, in Global Outreach

Somehow when some worldwide evangelical associations challenge each other on how to  "Respond to the Global Challenge of Islam," whether doctrinally or culturally, -- somehow honor killings, etc. -- didn't even make the agenda.  

At the bottom, don't forget to note the conclusion of the matter:

 The credibility of the Christians’ missionary endeavors, at home within a pluralistic society, and overseas, depends on their distancing themselves from the norms and the lifestyles of the secular societies that surround them.
That's about as dangerous a philosophy for women in some of these cults, or even widely accepted religions.  Not a day goes by when I don't wonder HOW in America, did this abuse happen? Does everyone someone think someone else is going to address it?   And what's going to happen, how much worse, if Romney becomes President (not that Obama is a woman's friend either)....

What About the Women?  3 Women Speak Out

OK -- I have to bring this up.  Why no rhetoric -- at all -- on violence aimed specifically at women, from both groups?  What is so frightening and dangerous to the same system about non-abused, adult or young females?  

This silence has been an absolutely clear statement BY Christians, whether this abuse was coming from their own, or those they wish to disciple sensitively to culture, but without compromising the doctrine of the Trinity (see 300 AD or thereabouts), itself promoted and perpetuated by violence and force.

Welcome to Middle East Resources

Just a reminder, there are both men and women in both these movements.  This means, the women in the movements are either (see "dumb idols" above) "aphona" (mute), or blind, or perhaps both. OR, their voices while participating and supporting these groups are silenced.

Prophets, in the past, were not silent about violence, and the prophesied prophet called Jesus was not deaf dumb and blind about treatment of women even in the gospel accounts.  Why, that long ago (see John 8) would there actually be an account about him saving a woman caught in adultery (strangely, and as happens also often to this day in certain cultures, no male was caught with her) from being stoned to death?  

Almost none of these groups mainstreamed, sidelined monotheistic "Christians" (which others, of course claim are not true Christians) will touch with a ten-foot pole what their own leadership (and let's not forget that these are groups of follow-the-leader by definition) have done to endorse, condone, and commit extreme violence against women, and children overall -- let alone other profiled groups.  And in this (alas) I have to of course include Muslims.

So, I can't be honest here -- if I omitted this discussion, which will offend-- well, proponents of both, and possibly a third, religion -- as  I will also (as ever) put in my two -- or fifteen-- bits of scripture to talk back, below, for which you will have to blame me, none of the three well-known women below.

There are leading women, all writers, all with some roots in the Abrahamic religions, all alive now, who have been documenting and reporting on the violence of Islam, specifically, for a LONG time; at least one has had a death threat on her (and fled from a European country to the United States); another has been in New York (I believe) as a psychologist and writer, but has been repeatedly, it seems, excommunicated by feminists (though she is one of the originals) for speaking out on honor killings; this woman also had experienced being trapped in Afghanistan as a young wife and mother; she knows what she writes about.
And the third hails originally from Egypt.   She's been heckled, I think on both coasts at prominent Universities (Brown Univ. & UC Berkeley)

They are:  All address issues within Islam, from different standpoints; of these the last (Nonie Darwish, from Egypt) became a Christian in the US; Ayaan Hirsi Ali (from Somalia) became an atheist in 2002; and Dr. Chesler has been Jewish all along and an outspoken psychologist & feminist.  All three know personally about the matters they speak about; all three talk about honor killings, which are now happening in the US as well as Europe; Dr. Chesler has served as court expert witness).  Their lives count and these matters should be also addressed by conservative evangelicals -- but for obvious reasons (they endorse similar, though not quite as horrific, viewpoints towards women, and the history of their religion has been AS violent, I believe its safe to say, towards "infidels," which are called historically "heretics.").

  • (Dr.) Phyllis Chesler, (this link describes honor killings and has a table of them, in the US, and other countries.  It should be understood, unless murder (violating one of the Ten Commandments, much?) is now acceptable, depending on the victims.  

Amina Said (L), 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008. Said was upset by his daughters' "Western ways" and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls' mother. The victims of honor killings are largely teenage daughters or young women. Unlike ordinary domestic violence, honor killings often involve multiple family members as perpetrators.

Don't want to talk about it?  Too disturbing?
(this Wikipedia article, fairly critical, says she became an atheist in 2002; the sheer length tells of her impact), and 


Ms. Hirsi Ali, above:  The Wikipedia Article says plenty, and I have blogged her also over at the familycourtmatters blog.    This person was not hidden under a bushel, or in a corner; she has been covered by mainstream media and she directly engages with the topic of Islam.   World Evangelical Association, Wycliffe Translators, and so far as I know, Horizons International (et cetera) have not spoken to this issue, or this woman; it is being handled by SILENCE, so far as I can tell.

I have to speak to it, as I do not reject the Bible -- just these strange forms of religions which claim to be based on it.  I don't even reject, in all good conscience, Jesus Christ per se.  I find it interesting that these women are seeking haven, need bodyguards (DNK about Chesler), and have also suffered plenty of being "cast out" by their own ranks -- and yet they are still publishing, speaking, and writing.

And documenting what they say, as well, as well as testifying to "how it is" in this religion.  They are "a thorn in the flesh" to many systems, and I thank them for it (it's about time!)


(the man standing in background is her bodyguard, coverage by Al-Jazeera TV; this being Berkeley, 2007.  Link below*):

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others. While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

* "Nonie Darwish at Berkeley (oct. 22, 2007" collaborative (photo collage plus narrative) of a speech she held for "IFAW" (Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week) coverage more than entertaining, and shows some of the heckling and disruptions for her speech.  

Nonie Darwish came out to give her speech. But before she could say even a single word...  ..she was interrupted by abrasive protesters who screamed "Fascist! Fascist! Fascist!" at her and "You are nothing but a tool for the imperialism of the United States! You are here to spread racist filth on our Arab brothers and sisters!" The moment was captured in this outstanding video of the event put out by Incorrect University, starting at exactly six minutes into the 11-minute video. (And do watch the whole thing -- it's an excellent video report covering some of the same material in this photo essay.) As the video above showed, the interruptions were constant.
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is a nationwide series of lectures and presentations organized by conservative writer David Horowitz and his various organizations. On the evening of October 22, dozens of famous speakers gave lectures at universities around the country, mostly on the subject of Islamic extremism. The presenter at U.C. Berkeley that evening was Nonie Darwish, an Arab-American author and feminist who has become a Muslim apostate and vociferous critic of radical Islam.

Her appearance at Cal was sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans, and strongly opposed by several left-wing groups and Muslim organizations, including World Can't Wait, the Muslim Students Association, and Students for Justice in Palestine. Her speech was even condemned by the ASUC, the official student governing body at Berkeley

Phyllis Chesler (this link contains brief bio and is source of the photo below):

Phyllis Chesler, PhD

OK -- now I put my foot in it; I'm quoting Chesler (2011) about silence on violence towards Muslim women, including those seeking asylum and dissidents.  I feel similarly about Christian silence towards Christian violence towards women; and although it's not this vicious -- dead is dead, and women have been beaten, killed and systematically dishonored/stigmatized over the matter of "family honor" in the United States, which is being done
through a different system (the family law system); this system is also abusive and extortionist towards men at many levels. (See other blogs).  

In these several days of  tangling with the theological (insanity) of mainstream evangelicals -- and this is an election year and election season -- which represents a re-engagement on my part (from being primarily political advocacy and tracking down grants & corporations that bribe the courts) --- I have not run across ONE "outreach to Islam" website which even mentions treatment of women and children in this realm.   

It's not as though the three women above are unknown, or the issues unknown -- they are simply "unmentionables" in these communities, the evangelicals attempting to reach the world for Christ (without compromising their doctrine) and those attempting to be sensitive to Muslim issues and not overly dogmatic about preaching -- that Jesus was God, etc.    

Well, I think they need to be brought together; and I do not know if at this point, believing in Jesus Christ as I (still) do -- I can legitimately afford to call myself a "Christian" if that's the definition and that's the history!  

So -- here's what Phyllis had to say.  I should acknowledge, though I've never met, I have brought this issue of concern about Christian fundamentalism going the shari'a way before to her attention, and particularly as it functions through the (now, unified) family court systems:

A Feminist Duty, by Julie Gunlock, "Independent Women's Forum" 3/12/11

The op-ed-actually the adaption of a speech delivered last week by author and self-proclaimed "radical feminist" Phyllis Chesler to the Gender Fairness Committee of the New York City Supreme Court-is a brave commentary on how feminists have a responsibility to the women of the world and how political correctness is leading many feminists to abandon their Muslim sisters.

In the speech, delivered on International Women's Day, Chesler spared the audience the usual bromides (like those delivered by the first lady at the White House's commemoration event, which I wrote about here), and explores two important questions: Are feminists doing enough to support women around the world-particularly in Muslim countries, and is fear trumping Western feminists concern for Muslim women's rights?
While I believe in cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. Therefore, I have taken a strong stand against the persecution of Muslim women and dissidents. Thus, I now submit expert courtroom affidavits on behalf of Muslim girls and women who have fled being honor murdered and are seeking asylum here.
Those of us who expose the plight of such women, and this includes Somali-born feminist hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as myself, have been demonized as "Islamophobes" and racists because we do not, in the same breath, blame America, the West, or Israel for their suffering.
In my view, western academic feminists, including gay liberationists, are so afraid of being condemned as "colonialists" or "racists" that this fear trumps their concern for women's rights in the Arab and Muslim world.
Chesler then lists some of the horrifying crimes committed against women in these Muslim countries. These crimes include normalized daughter- and wife-battering, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, polygamy, purdah, (the segregation or sequestration of women), arranged marriage, child marriage, first cousin marriage, acid attacks, public stonings, hangings, and beheading, and the further victimization of rape victims who are jailed, tortured, and executed.
Considering these truly gruesome crimes, Chesler excoriates mainstream feminists and the Muslim community for staying silent

All three of these women, which disturbs me, have gravitated towards conservative organizations.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here's from a website that has links to the Biblical Missology page (which is the tradename of the group protesting that Trinitarian Wycliffe Translations of FL was subject to an Insider Group in diluting the scriptures (as far as I could untangle the story, that is); I believe the link was through the author of a certain blog on the B.m. page, which led to this site:

Welcome to Middle East Resources

Church Facing Global Challenge of Islam

Rev. Bassam M. Madany
At the dawn of the Third Millennium, we need a new vision of world missions based on the solid foundation of the Word of God coupled with a realistic description of our times. We are living in a new era of world history. In the early days of modern missions, between 1800 and 1950, the West was more or less Christian, and its culture reflected the impact of the Christian tradition. “The mission fields” in Asia and Africa formed an integral part of the vast colonial empires of Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Not so today. The West is secularized, and those European empires are a thing of the past. Furthermore, Christian missions overseas should never be abstracted from what is going on in the homelands. Hence the critical importance of reaffirming the uniqueness and finality of the Christian faith in our missionary endeavors within the global scene and for the support groups in the West to be identifiably Christian.
            The post-world-war II era has ushered in a new Diaspora that has brought millions of people from the former colonies to settle in Western European countries. And due to the changes in the immigration laws in Canada and the United States, the North American population is now more diversified than ever before. Such a mega shift in the global situation requires a re-examination of our mission strategies.
(Paragraph after paragraph indicates an understanding that Islam is warlike in its conception, but apparently his main concern is missions and counter-evangelism -as Islam is evangelizing the West spontaneously - not the impact on home communities of a culture of violence.  The recommended solution, unbelievably, is for Christians in the West to isolate them further from Western (secular) values to achieve a more Christian identity and restore credibility for -- I suppose, missions):

 When we take these facts into account, we conclude that in planning for missions to Muslims in the 21stCentury, it becomes the responsibility of all Christians to fight tenaciously the steady advance of secularism into the various spheres of their life and communities. The credibility of the Christians’ missionary endeavors, at home within a pluralistic society, and overseas, depends on their distancing themselves from the norms and the lifestyles of the secular societies that surround them.
Why?  Because unless they act more "Christian" no Muslim will consider Christianity (or "what it has to offer") seriously:
 Unless Christians lead lives that are concretely different from the lifestyles of the secularized citizenry, no Muslim will consider seriously what Christianity has to offer. We have so much to learn from the history of the first three hundred years of the Christian era when to be a Christian meant both a marked separation from the corrupt heathen environment and, at the same time, engaging it with the bold Christian word-and-life testimony: Jesus is Lord.
Actually what "you-all" have to learn from the first three hundred years of the Christian era is, among other things, about One God, and other fundamentals of the Bible which were lost ca. 300 A.D. when, as you note, sir, it blended itself with the current power structure.   Moreover, an honest history lesson (they are now available many places) would indeed acknowledge that this same Word of God was "locked up in Latin" for one thousand years (1,000) until primarily ONE man (Wycliffe) managed to get it into the current form of English, miraculously.  For which, after his death, his own bones were dug up burned and scattered, and his books used to light another (Christian) martyr's flames for supporting him (Hus), and so forth.   Something ain't right with that kind of "evangelism."

From Jude (as in the last book in the Bible before "revelation" as canonized); the terminology is strong:

1Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
then several sentences in which the word "ungodly" makes repeat appearances, and other vivid language describing those who "crept in unawares" and denying the only (ONE?) Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (and I showed of the Lausanne document that it could barely spit out the word Jesus Christ 8 times (in 14 points) and with Lord attached, about 4 times -- none of them prominent.  There is a problem with pronouncing that name in public, apparently.  None of the original apostles, per what's in the book at least, suffered from this inability to say the words "Lord Jesus Christ" and talk about the resurrection..)  Anyhow it then goes:

17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
v. 18 "ungodly lusts" doesn't mean only sex (or that sex is bad).  It's "ungodlinesses."  Walking after their own (over)desires of ungodliness (plural, emphasizes the bigness of it).  The word for desires (epithumia) is  very strong word, it's not simply "desires" in English.  It's close to the word for "wrath," or burning/boiling -- as I recall anyhow.

"Sensual, having not the Spirit" simply means "psuchikos" -- natural men (see I Cor 2 for "the natural man") -- meaning, they were not baptized in the name of Jesus, have not received the gift of the holy spirit, which is the unifying force among the church, the earnest (pledge) of the future inheritance (Eph 1:14, etc.) and everything it is alleged to be in the Bible:

778 [e]
19   Houtoi
19   Οὗτοί
19   These
19   DPro-NMP
1510 [e]
3588 [e]
they who
592 [e]
ἀποδιορίζοντες  ,
set apart [themselves]
5591 [e]
ψυχικοί  ,
natural [men]
4151 [e]
[the] Spirit
3361 [e]

2192 [e]
ἔχοντες  .

The words "praying in holy spirit" (no "the" shows in the Greek) would've been understood
to the hearers, and is part of that common salvation, and what was first delivered, for which Jude exhorts they contend.  It is a spiritual matter and has been addressed in words inspired by the spirit (which the Bible claims to be:  "holy men of God spoke as they were inspired by the holy ghost.)and is nto rocket science to those who have received the spirit; it is foolishness to those who have not.
So for the record, apparently this writer on the Global Challenge of Islam (meaning, to Christian missionary movement.....), not knowing better, or different, likes to talk about learning from the so-called dawn of the Christian era:

We have so much to learn from the history of the first three hundred years of the Christian era when to be a Christian meant both a marked separation from the corrupt heathen environment and, at the same time, engaging it with the bold Christian word-and-life testimony: Jesus is Lord.
What about: that God raised him from the dead, repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost, for the promise is unto you, and your children, and all that are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call?  (Acts 2). . . And what about "save yourselves from this untoward (nasty) generation"?   What about, God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world by that MAN he hath appointed, Jesus Christ? If I can remember all that, how come a real missionary can't remember anything but Jesus is Lord which apparently (absent the resurrection) isn't even enough to get one "saved"?

And then, what about doing that?   

I expect this is going to look exceptionally foolish, but once the words from scripture start resounding in one's soul and exposing other rhetoric -- and silence on the institutional actions -- they just make sense.     

There was a sea-change ca. 300 A.D. Atheists know it, but Christians, while they know it, do not so acknowledge it as to realize THIS was about when debate was shut down (or attempted to be shut down) -- and rather than revelation from the One God, we -- and the world -- got indoctrination from the emperor-gods of this world, for which the Trinity was more acceptable, as the real Jesus as preached (along with the whole doctrine) would be an affront to their own kingship -- which talk was allegedly used against Jesus himself in getting him crucified.   

In summary (after some more paragraphs comparing theologians on this matter of global islam, I take), here is the conclusion of the matter, on a respectable-looking website by a respected (at least by his peers and associates) reverend and writer, under a nice graphic of the world (see right above, here), about GLOBAL response:

Taking into account these insights and listening obediently to the teachings of the Word of God, we conclude that at this juncture in world history, global missions in general and missions to Muslims in particular, should be the concern of every church member. The old distinction between domestic and foreign missions is outdated. As noted at the beginning of my lecture, millions of Muslims and adherents of other world religions are now living in the West. Furthermore, a great number of Christians from America, Europe and the Pacific Rim are working in many parts of the Muslim world. They have ample opportunities for missionary activities not necessarily structured as in the past, but equally faithful to the mandate left for us by our victorious Lord.
            Thus, as members of the Body of Christ, we must consider ourselves on active duty in the service of our Lord.
This goes without saying in the word "Lord" and says we live into him. It doesn't use the military draft terminology, "on active duty in the service of our Lord."  Where, may I ask, did that come from, and look where he goes next about it - into missions.  The guy should be a Mormon....

None of us should have the luxury of sitting back and simply supporting missions in a purely financial way.
It goes without saying that EVERy member of the body of Christ should be financially supporting missions -- even after repeated discoveries in the press that some of these missions (and/or orphanages, etc. -- like the one in Haiti recently) are instead abusing boys and young men from the street as part of the ministry.  (Doug Perlitz, Fairfield University, Project Pierre-Toussaint, for which  lawsuits have now been filed....) 
While busy with missions within our own communities and country, we should ardently support those whom we have sent to distant lands, through our prayers, our generous gifts as well as by a consistently Christian lifestyleWe must not leave it to the Muslims among us to be busily engaged in “calling.” We have a great message to share with mankind.
DO YOU?  What's that message?

And if we, Western Christians, shirk our missionary responsibility, Christians from Africa, Asia and Latin America will accomplish what God had ordained from all eternity.
Unbelievable logic.  He must have totally skipped the first few chapters of I Corinthians, where Paul wrote:  "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."  Basically, he is advocating for competition with Muslims (who are more evangelistic without being so structured about it) and Christians in other parts of the world who are accomplishing what God ordained for all eternity. .  . .I gather he probably is thinking "the Great Commission."  What is that -- jealousy?  Competition?

It's all sense-knowledge, not spiritual.  Jude was right.

And where is even a hint of a breath of indignation about what is being done to women -- wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts -- by both religions? 

Go back and read the link to Dr. Chesler's table of honor killings in the US, and ask yourself why Hirsi Ali became an atheist. . . . . 

While recent, this article is in a different context, but in an aside in "Lara's** Lies -- Or How Peace Now Sees the IDF," regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting by a man called "Zimmerman," Dr. Chesler comments re: Obama:

What if Trayvon looked like my son or your daughter? Would the American President take such an immediate and personal interest in the matter?

Does Obama only spontaneously weigh-in when the victims are African-American boys and men? He certainly jumped right in when his friend and former Harvard colleague, African-American Henry Louis Gates, the Director of the W.E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, had an altercation with Caucasian Sgt. James Crowley. Obama invited them both to the White House for a beer.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but Obama has not interjected himself so publicly when an individual woman of any color was battered, murdered, or honor killed in America.

I don't know.  I'd say, probably not.  For example, August 10, 2010 [Julie Marsh], Christian Science Monitor (not that I don't already follow a lot of this funding):

 Russell White (second from l.) and others at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore July 14. The program aims to help men become better fathers and succeed in the workplace. Marriage-education advocates worry that such programs cut into their funding.
Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

The apparent shift from a marriage to a fatherhood emphasis can be seen in the funding philosophies of the two administrations.
The Bush administration's family funding included dedicated line items in the budget – $100 million a year for marriage and $50 million annually for fatherhood. President Obama's new fund, which has yet to be approved by Congress, takes a different tack: It splits $500 million into two equal pieces that states deliver to local organizations. One piece is for "comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs – including those with a marriage component," and the other is to improve the lives of children by helping their parents get jobs.

To be sure, the Obama administration believes that marriage is important, says Jesse Moore, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families, the agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that will administer the new {{as of 2010}} fund. But at the same time, the fund reflects the fact that "children live in a wide range of family structures and there are many different ways that fathers can engage in the lives of their children," he says.

Fatherhood has been a recurring theme of the Obama administration. Shortly after his inauguration, Mr. Obama established a Fatherhood and Healthy Families Taskforce. He called the high rate of absent fathers in African-American communities "a real crisis." In June, Obama launched a Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative.

While I'm here, let me bring this back round to the FAITH FACTOR, which is where it came from, a brief recap:
  • 1994 (National Fatherhood Initiative nonprofit formed, with HHS grant helping out, and in part in response to the Violence Against Women Act (same year) and feminism in general.  A lot of feminism, it turns out, has to do with women staying alive.
  • 1995 (then-President Clinton issue "Fatherhood Memo", 
  • 1996 (Welfare reform block grants to states allows states to divert funds for hungry children or needy families into fatherhood/marriage promotion & access/visitation grants aimed at the family courts), 
  • 1998/1999 (both houses of US Congress pass "fatherhood" resolutions, and -- setting an example -- the state of Oklahoma nabs welfare contingency funds to run a STATEWIDE marriage promotion project (basically enriching the people running the programs); meanwhile in Los Angeles, an anti-trust taxpayer advocate attorney (Richard Fine) discovers approximately $14 million of money collected in the form of child support -- wasn't reaching the intended recipients, the kids.  Marv Byer (a grandfather) also appears to discover an L.A. County Judges Slush fund which later morphs (it appears) into what we now know as the family law system run by "AFCC." (See my other blogs; I'm a veteran of the hallways....)

  • Speaking of Mr. Fine, For his efforts in a class action? suit (Silva v. Garcetti) over this and for opposition to other bribery schemes in Los Angeles, Fine is eventually targeted by most of California's government (especially judges, the state bar, real estate developers, as an obstruction to business as usual) and gets disbarred, loses many of attorneys' fees he won and was tossed in solitary confinement.  For 18 months; as I recall he was eventually released on Yom Kippur.
  • Also for his efforts, many "domestic violence advocates" turned a deaf, dumb, and blind response to this very relevant factor, not to mention, also to the fatherhood funding, which some of the larger coalitions and groups ("") were, ah, in on.  
  • 2000 -- in 2000 three groups got together (I think it was at Chicago Div School), including "" originator (i.e., "relationship education" conferences run in D.C. for about the next 10 years), and David Blankenhorn, either "Institute for American Values" or "American Enterprise Institute" (they are beginning to blur, to tell the truth) and signed a "MARRIAGE COVENANT," i.e., to promote it.
  • 2000 also -- somehow -- George W. Bush, in a disputed in Florida (where his brother JEB was Gov) election -- somehow became President of the United States.  Obviously USA presidential elections are in November.  
  • JANUARY 29, 2001 -- the FIRST two Executive Orders by GWB were to set up the Office(s) of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (see exact titles elsewhere) which became centers for steering grants to either religious organizations that promised not to evangelize while promoting marriage and fatherhood, or quickly set up a shell corporation (which I found out the American public through HHS grants) of some sort to get the grants.
  • WHICH BRINGS ME TO OBAMA and the rest of the 2010 CSMonitor article.  Just for the record, in 2010 (under a different name) welfare was again reauthorized in the "block grants to states" form with, oh, perhaps $150 million or so for this topic (Designer Families/promoting marriage, etc.). . . . . .  And in 2011 another round of grants.  AND IT'S UP AGAIN THIS SEPTEMBER 2012 -- PLEASE STOP IT!
I know this stuff like I know the books of the Bible (OK, not quite that well) and I know it experientially.  But I DID NOT know about it going into the court system because it was intentially concealed from mothers (by the courts, the funders AND the domestic violence outfits that sometimes helped jumpstart the jump to safety for such mothers).  

CSmonitor of 8/10/2010 continues to talk about the faith-based office and the horrors of fatherless children and single mother raising their kids.  This goes on despite Obama having been raised by one himself:   

Religion and Politics are NOT separate in America, and for this reason, No, I do NOT recall having heard President Obama stepped in, in outrage, to protest an honor killing.  In fact, while many murders and horrors are directly attributed to families themselves, including some that want shari'a law in the United States, and some Protestants such as the kind that were clueless that wife-beating in their ranks is indeed at least nominally criminal  (and are still all-but-silent on it), here we are:  USA 2010:

"Given the focus on fatherhood at the highest levels of the administration, it's clear that this is a priority," says Joshua DuBois, who oversees fatherhood initiatives as director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
When Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, a section of the law directed that funds go to the "formation and maintenance of two-parent families." This section opened the door to federal funding for programs that support and encourage marriage.
Since then, presidents {{plural}} have cited the same dire statistics surrounding single-parent households: One in 3 children in America lives in a fatherless household, and these children are likelier to be poor, abuse drugs, and become teen parents.

No matter that since 1996, the policy has been, women are not allowed to actually leave the relationship with their ex, as the courts will keep them joined at the hip for years, if necessary (there being financial incentives to do so).   

For example, take my case.  I got off welfare immediately after a violent relationship, thanks in part to a restraining order -- the first real restraint that had happened towards this violence in nearly a decade, which marked what my kids grew up witnessing.   I would've made it too, except that WHAM, here comes the custody case -- off goes safety, on goes regular interaction with someone who'd threatened to kill me.  Instead, he settled for long-term punishment (including basically getting out of supporting his own family by finding others to do so) by taking the kids overnight, which was -- of course -- a "family dispute."   Female family members, and female judges, attorneys, and custody evaluators also profit from "dissing" the single parent family, not taking into account how theocratic America has become. 

Many of the men doing these things are middle aged Caucasian men (not to mention the ones in US Congress!, probably are feeling their superiority and entitlement (as such) is at risk, while other honest working men are ALSO negatively affected by the same system --as it's draining their wages and sets up another system of oppression, plus social services for all the cases it creates needlessly.   Women-- who are natural networkers when allowed to-- are mistrusted in network with each other not headed up by a man and so collectively attacked through BOth government and church.  While those in the US who haven't been targeted by this still apparently  believe all's well because there's NOW and there are domestic violence organizations.

To those (probably because they are themselves working and/or generally speaking honest) who do not realize how the system is presently tweaked, the talk about "fatherless children" households and single mothers being a burden to society may make sense.  . . .   What I have been at times trying to communicate to the "all's well in USA" people is that it's not, and that by combining gay with women's rights, this has brought down the wrath of the religionists on straight AND gay women and in particular mothers. . . . . 

That in part is what led me back to address this "JesusLordChrist" topic again.  For one -- God being real, and most governmental protections being a thing of the past, I need the help!  

For another -- as someone who thinks the Bible is a fantastic and remarkable book, and who still believes in the power of God (a sense of NOT being alone in this world) -- I'd like to really set the record straight.   What is though of as Christian, may be "Christian" -- but it's not what the Bible -- ANY of it except later interpolations (I mean, especially 300ADff) says, means, or recommends.

This next segment, finally -- of the same article, reference a group whose records (and transformations of corporate status) I have actually studied, quite a bit (see "http:/" and I'd like to make a few points about it, after:

"Now, groups concerned about the Obama approach are pressing members of Congress to create a dedicated portion of funds that would go to marriage education.

"The California Healthy Marriages Coalition is one group calling for this. The coalition provides marriage- and relationship-education funding to organizations throughout the state. It received almost $12 million over five years from the Bush administration's Healthy Marriage fund.

"But the group would be fortunate to get $1 million from the new fund, says Dennis Stoica, the coalition's president. He argues that the language in the proposed budget, placing marriage as a "component" of comprehensive responsible-fatherhood programs, favors fatherhood. The multifaceted nature of the funds would crowd out marriage, he adds. "For us, it's this tremendous shift," Mr. Stoica says."

Yeah, right.   That's quite the story -- and like Jesus Christ Lord really IS the key to understanding the scriptures (I still believe), this particular group was a key to my understanding the marriage/fatherhood grants, and why leaving a violent marriage felt like attempting to detach from a cult.  I literally was reading books like "Infidel" and wondering why they so spoke to me, when my profile is nothing like the author's.  

1.  CHMC is (or was?) a faith-based coalition whose stated goal was to get marriage education to virtually every fertile (like 15 or over) California in the state.  Such global thinking is worthy of nice big rewards, and they got about $11 million, then the largest around (from 2006 forward).  The history of their incorporation is fascinating.  A related one (with some overlapping personnel) in Northern California, closer to or in Sacramento; this one is in San Diego area, or was.

2.  While I can't say it's a "took the money and run" outfit (others, I can say this of with more authority), several corporations with Mr. Stoica's name on it were suspended or dissolved by (my illustrious Western state) and he & others then formed a group in Florida called "NARME" (National Association for Relationship  & Marriage Education") whose membership, notably, included other grantees (some of who had similar problems staying, er, "incorporated), the primary theme being, how to get a head start on getting them marriage & fatherhood grants.   A certain guy who was working (for, like 10 years?) in HHS as Special Marriage Assistant (or such), Bill Coffin, worked with them to help get the grants, and then retired to head up another grantee, I think it was called IDEALS (also HHS funded).  Getting the picture yet?).  All this can be traced on the internet, it just takes a little time.

3.  To top it off, one of the marriage educators in CHMC (Bento Leal) happened to be a man intensely involved with the UNIFICATION church, and probably not the only one.  Apparently our very smart Christians who want to reach the world about the greatness of marriage, have an allegiance to a certain well-known couple who call themselves, or are called by others, the "True Parents." (Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his mother).  And that story is over at the other blog (and probably cost me a few associates in the on-line support groups, BUT, my facts were right.  )

Which brings me to the question -- WHY would the religious right and the liberal left** BOTH be so enamoured of this particular couple -- known for an intent to form a global religion with them at the top, also known for tax evasion and money-laundering and a few other REALLY not so nice activities, some of them in association with a former US President (Bush)?

(*Is not Congressman Danny K. Davis of IL a Democrat? -- he carried the crown for Sun Myung Moon in a US Senate building in (i think it was) 2004 -- for a mock? ceremony with this couple, and was also a sponsor of yet another fatherhood bill in 2010.)

And WHY do women has to stand so alone when addressing these things, almost no matter what country they do it from?  Whether sounding the alarm about failure to sound the alarm VIS A VIS women & kids over "the global challenge of Islam" -- or the evangelists who have forgotten, in practice, the Bible which says God is no respecter of persons -- and that includes gender, when it comes to Christ?   

I mean no disrespect, but I think that in general, it's actually men who are the real herd animals (and herders), whether it comes to sheep, harems, or armies.  Organize the thing and give it a name, then reap the profits.  I think that women, having been for centuries in charge of small children, simply have to be able to pay attention to a LOT of detail and the vulnerable ones, plus for Pete's sake, we also still nurse kids, when allowed to.   Man's solution is to put everyone in school (the earlier the better), and feed'em milk, put the Moms to work, and teach the fathers how to be more nurturing.  Sure. . . .

[[Well, THAT was off-topic, some, but it's my blog, after all!]]

When the authors of the Democratic Party’s platform’s sections dealing with the Middle East—I dealt with the section on Israel in a previous article—finished it, they were no doubt quite satisfied. They felt that they had built a strong case for reelecting President Barack Obama along the following lines:
America is more secure and popular. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are on the run. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ending. America is supporting democracy, women’s rights, and gay rights around the world. Isn’t this great leadership? How could anyone not vote for Obama?

When I read the platform I am shocked and disappointed. I can pick a bit at the issues of popularity, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But the failure to deal with revolutionary Islamism is ridiculously glaring — they didn’t use the tiniest fig leaf to cover themselves — making a mockery of the democracy and human rights pretensions. 

If they don’t even see the main threat at all, how can one trust such people to rule the country and provide leadership in the region?

(**a woman from  "Americans for Peace Now" badmouthing the IDF (Israeli Defense League) who apparently thought Zimmerman, the shooter, was Jewish)

No comments:

Post a Comment