Before French philosopher René Descartes wrote these famous words: "Je pense, donc je suis" [1], "I think, therefore I am," there was Adam from the Garden of Eden. Would these words have entered Adam's mind? Possibly, but not in that order. Instead, Adam's words would probably be these: "I am, therefore I think."
Adam was God's creation. He came into being in the flesh, conscious that he was being made but without awareness of who he was. Adam could simply be without thinking, since he was provided with everything he would ever need, even though Adam was given the gift intellect and could think. However, at no time did Adam's cognitive ability precede his being. Therefore, he could not, unlike Descartes, first think, then conclude that he was. Adam simply was, before he could even think. Neither could Descartes think, in the literal sense, before he was, for if Descartes had never bothered to think, he still would have been a being of God's creation.
Perhaps Descartes' assertion, "I think, therefore I am," ought not to be taken literally; perhaps it went deeper. Perhaps he was not saying that he was nothing but a heap of cells lumped together in some random fashion until he thought, when as a result of his own thoughts, he came to realize himself. Perhaps he was saying that did not know who he was, what he was, how and why he came into being until he thought. That would be a reasonable interpretation of his words since Descartes was educated in, among other disciplines, metaphysics. [2], [3]. Regardless of how Descartes intended his famous words to be read, literally or metaphysically, they did not apply to Adam. Based on this blogger's assumptions, Adam did not have to think to know that he was Adam (God called him by that name), that he was made of flesh (he could feel it), that he came from God (he was given consciousness at some point while he was still in the making) and that he was made because of God's love (Adam's connection to God was so close that he knew instinctively why God created him).
Although Adam did not have a need to think, God nonetheless gave him intellect at some point after his creation. It is possible that Adam did not use his intellect for quite some time. In the Garden of Eden, time was irrelevant because it was timeless. Adam could have been roaming around for centuries in the Garden of Eden, a place that could have been earth before it was riddled with pests and pestilences, enjoying life and spending time everywhere without being aware of time, his intellect and his sexuality, before he finally became bored, before Eve was made for him [4] and before he experienced the Serpent. Because Adam was sinless at the beginning, he did not age nor did he know death.
All Adam needed to do as a human being in the perfect environment of Eden was to drink when he was thirsty, eat when he was hungry, rest when he was tired and carry out the remainder of his bodily functions and needs when necessary. All of this is instinctual requiring no thought. With no worry and no stress, Adam had no reason for thought. The Garden of Eden was the perfect vacation spot where the mind could be at rest. Perhaps thought did not enter Adam until he was made to think about disobeying God, to be just like God, perhaps even better than God, in order to create a better Eden, as if he could.
Adam did not live long enough to create his Eden, but his descendants have not stopped trying to surpass God's natural perfection in the Garden of Eden, by filling the flip-side of Eden with artifices and modified substances. If planet earth is Adam's Eden, it is a disaster in the making.
Man can only see so far--his lifetime and not much beyond, a moment in the course of eternity. Therefore, his plans are necessarily short-sighted. Even if they seem good, they only seem good to him during his lifetime, leaving behind by-products such as garbage and toxins for those in the next to clean up [5], until nothing can be done to dispose of generations of hazardous e-waste [6] that may never biodegrade and to neutralize higher and higher concentrations of toxins that are poisoning the air, the waters and the grounds.
New thoughts in a new generation do not solve problems created by the previous. They only create new problems for the next, but thought, however defective and deceitful, however motivated by greed, power and profit, is here to stay.
Thought, driven by intellect, is the foundation of Free Will. Without thought, Free Will could not exist. Free Will matters only when options are available. Ironically, it was the Serpent, a creature of deceit, that gave Free Will its first option, whether or not to eat the Forbidden Apple, thereby perfecting God's gift of Free Will but forever tainting pure innocence
The death of natural innocence gave birth to unnatural thoughts. It is possible that unnatural thoughts went into Adam's head after he sinned. That was when René Descartes' words began to apply to Adam metaphysically when he would have to first think, before he was, because after he sinned, he realized that he had choices to be who he wanted to be, to do whatever he wanted to, to create whatever he wanted to create and think whatever he wanted to think, often times disrespecting Creation and destroying it as a result, without seeing any need for accountability, not in the spiritual sense. Modern day adherents to those profound words of Descartes are Adam's descendants, including those who are transgender, who think; and therefore, they are.
[1] http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Descartes.Bio.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
[4] There has been some controversy as to how Eve was created after "biblical professor Ziony Zevit [suggested that] God made Eve from Adam's baculum, or penis bone" rather than Adam's rib. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3377487/God-Eve-Adam-s-PENIS-not-rib-claims-religious-academic.html
[5] http://listverse.com/2013/01/27/10-ways-recycling-hurts-the-environment/
[6] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2013/e-waste.aspx
Monday, August 29, 2016
Friday, August 26, 2016
Before Genesis
From the Book of Genesis:
And so on ...
Genesis established that God was there at the beginning, but what was there before?
This entry attempts to reach back into the amorphous space before Genesis. In it (more accurately, in this blogger's imagination), there was an indescribable love unknown to man. This blogger calls it the Spirit of Love, an entity separate and apart from the Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit of Love that gave existence to God and it was God that gave it its existence. It does not matter if God came first or the Spirit of Love came first--for God could not be God without it and it would not have been nor would it want to be formed without God. God and the Spirit of Love exist simultaneously for each other and indistinguishably from each other. In this respect, these are the three most important words in the Bible: "God is love." [2]
Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps the most erudite of all the popes, found those the three words to be so profound that he entitled his first Encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST, or "God Is Love," [3] in which he succinctly and eloquently linked the New Testament with the Old:
Pope Benedict XVI's paragraph above talks about different kinds of love but not the kind that is coextensive with the Spirit of Love, which is a living love, for lack of a better description. Nowhere does the Bible mention this "living love" because it is imagined and beyond what man can comprehend. In contrast, the kinds of love Pope Benedict XVI cited are the basic kinds of love that man supposedly knows, except that he really does not (besides self-love), and that man can act on, except that he will not.
First, he pointed out God's love for man, by citing the Gospel of John: "'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life' (3:16).'" [5] How can man understand a love that requires a man to made just so that he can be sacrificed for the salvation of souls? How does man know what response to give to a love that he cannot emulate?
The Pope then turned back the clock from the time of the New Testament and referred to the Book of Deuteronomy in which it asked man to love God with all his heart, mind and soul. [6] Is man willing to express that love (even if he knows how to) without leaving a portion of it for himself and his sins?
Not only was man asked to love God in Deuteronomy, but he was also asked to love his neighbor in the Book of Leviticus. [7] When Jesus came to speak to man in the flesh and in his language, He affirmed the words in both books in the Old Testament, but stopped short of asking man to love as God loves. In other words, man's love for God has been limited only to what man has, namely, his heart, mind and soul; likewise, man's love for neighbor has also been limited, to what man knows--how to love himself.
Expecting man to love in ways he is capable of and knows how to, to the best of his abilities, is reasonable. To expect more would be impossible. That impossibility does not apply to God.
Pope Benedict XVI did not say whether God's love for man is the full extent of God's love. He only cited the Gospel of John describing how great God's love for the world was, by giving to the world God's only Son so that whoever believes in Him could have eternal life. [8] That single act of love, great by any human standard, is not the limit of God's love.
God's love has no limits. It is encompasses unconditional love but is not confined by it. It extends to man, of course, but it also extends to things that are inanimate, such as a single rosary bead, whether it is a gemstone or a knot made from a piece of string, and things subatomic [9], or tinier, or bigger and abstract, like time and space. It is also vast, as vast as the boundless universe. And it is inexhaustible, for it is after all a "living love" that replenishes itself in abundance.
This overflowing love is in God but at the same time, it is a spiritual energy, a force of endless love that provides momentum to the creation of things functionally perfect and aesthetically pleasing (in God's eyes). It is not God, and not a god. It is what God is, and God is what it is: love.
It was this love that led to the creation of the universe described in the Book of Genesis. It was out of this love that man was created in the image of God. It is from this love that man derives meaning for his existence. It was this love that joined seamlessly with the Holy Spirit to conceive the Son of God. It was this love that kept burning in the Sacred Heart of Jesus that repelled all of Satan's temptations. It is this love that has saved man from eternal death. It is because of this love that creation is continuing, with new lives, new species [10] and new areas of the universe [11] being born. And it is in this love, in God, that every question from before Genesis to beyond the present has an answer, even if irrational, for perfect love defies logic, and is above it.
[1] http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4:16
[3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] http://www.explainthatstuff.com/atoms.html
[10] http://earthsky.org/earth/top-10-new-species-of-2016
[11] http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-hubble-finds-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-expected
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth [,]...the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters[.] Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' Evening came, and morning followed the first day." [1]
And so on ...
Genesis established that God was there at the beginning, but what was there before?
This entry attempts to reach back into the amorphous space before Genesis. In it (more accurately, in this blogger's imagination), there was an indescribable love unknown to man. This blogger calls it the Spirit of Love, an entity separate and apart from the Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit of Love that gave existence to God and it was God that gave it its existence. It does not matter if God came first or the Spirit of Love came first--for God could not be God without it and it would not have been nor would it want to be formed without God. God and the Spirit of Love exist simultaneously for each other and indistinguishably from each other. In this respect, these are the three most important words in the Bible: "God is love." [2]
Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps the most erudite of all the popes, found those the three words to be so profound that he entitled his first Encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST, or "God Is Love," [3] in which he succinctly and eloquently linked the New Testament with the Old:
"Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: 'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life' (3:16). In acknowledging the centrality of love, Christian faith has retained the core of Israel's faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might' (6:4-5). Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere 'command'; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us." [4]
Pope Benedict XVI's paragraph above talks about different kinds of love but not the kind that is coextensive with the Spirit of Love, which is a living love, for lack of a better description. Nowhere does the Bible mention this "living love" because it is imagined and beyond what man can comprehend. In contrast, the kinds of love Pope Benedict XVI cited are the basic kinds of love that man supposedly knows, except that he really does not (besides self-love), and that man can act on, except that he will not.
First, he pointed out God's love for man, by citing the Gospel of John: "'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life' (3:16).'" [5] How can man understand a love that requires a man to made just so that he can be sacrificed for the salvation of souls? How does man know what response to give to a love that he cannot emulate?
The Pope then turned back the clock from the time of the New Testament and referred to the Book of Deuteronomy in which it asked man to love God with all his heart, mind and soul. [6] Is man willing to express that love (even if he knows how to) without leaving a portion of it for himself and his sins?
Not only was man asked to love God in Deuteronomy, but he was also asked to love his neighbor in the Book of Leviticus. [7] When Jesus came to speak to man in the flesh and in his language, He affirmed the words in both books in the Old Testament, but stopped short of asking man to love as God loves. In other words, man's love for God has been limited only to what man has, namely, his heart, mind and soul; likewise, man's love for neighbor has also been limited, to what man knows--how to love himself.
Expecting man to love in ways he is capable of and knows how to, to the best of his abilities, is reasonable. To expect more would be impossible. That impossibility does not apply to God.
Pope Benedict XVI did not say whether God's love for man is the full extent of God's love. He only cited the Gospel of John describing how great God's love for the world was, by giving to the world God's only Son so that whoever believes in Him could have eternal life. [8] That single act of love, great by any human standard, is not the limit of God's love.
God's love has no limits. It is encompasses unconditional love but is not confined by it. It extends to man, of course, but it also extends to things that are inanimate, such as a single rosary bead, whether it is a gemstone or a knot made from a piece of string, and things subatomic [9], or tinier, or bigger and abstract, like time and space. It is also vast, as vast as the boundless universe. And it is inexhaustible, for it is after all a "living love" that replenishes itself in abundance.
This overflowing love is in God but at the same time, it is a spiritual energy, a force of endless love that provides momentum to the creation of things functionally perfect and aesthetically pleasing (in God's eyes). It is not God, and not a god. It is what God is, and God is what it is: love.
It was this love that led to the creation of the universe described in the Book of Genesis. It was out of this love that man was created in the image of God. It is from this love that man derives meaning for his existence. It was this love that joined seamlessly with the Holy Spirit to conceive the Son of God. It was this love that kept burning in the Sacred Heart of Jesus that repelled all of Satan's temptations. It is this love that has saved man from eternal death. It is because of this love that creation is continuing, with new lives, new species [10] and new areas of the universe [11] being born. And it is in this love, in God, that every question from before Genesis to beyond the present has an answer, even if irrational, for perfect love defies logic, and is above it.
[1] http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4:16
[3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] http://www.explainthatstuff.com/atoms.html
[10] http://earthsky.org/earth/top-10-new-species-of-2016
[11] http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-hubble-finds-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-expected
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
When Is Armageddon?
John Ramsden, writing for biblemagazine.com had an answer to the question: "So when will Armageddon Occur?" [1] His answer was: "To be frank, we do not know!" [2]
Nor does this blogger know what day and year Christ will return but guesses that it is the day when every being, those who are capable of making choices, has chosen definitively whether to accept or reject God. Is that day near?
This entry concludes that it is not because many have not quite made up their minds, including those who say that they are "spiritual" but do not care for any organized religion, Abrahamic [3] or not, Messianism [4]-based or not, and those who are generally good people who do not seem to have any time or need for God, at least not yet, as well as many more, like the scientifically-minded, who remain undecided, who are still looking for empirical evidence that God does not exist.
How difficult can it be to choose between (a) God and everything that is pure and holy, and (b) Satan and everything else that is tainted by sin--there is no (c). Why vacillate? It is so simple. Pick either "a" or "b" and be done with it.
The people who are "on the fence" between good and evil, trying to pick between the two or, quite possibly wanting both, have just as much Free Will as anyone else. Free Will allows one as much time as needed to reach a decision.
Whether the choice between God and Satan has to be made during one's lifetime up to as late as the moment of death, this blogger is not certain, not at this writing, even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation." [Emphasis added.] [5]
Can a spirit that has left the body be undecided? If so, where would these beings go before Judgment Day, "[w]hen [Christ] comes...to judge the living and the dead?" [6] They cannot be in Heaven because they have not accepted God, nor will Hell admit them because they are not sure if they want to be with God. They cannot be in Purgatory since Purgatory is a place of purification and if they choose ultimately to reject God, then they would have committed a sin that cannot be purified. Maybe the Catholic Church was right, maybe the deadline to choose is at the moment of death, not after. [7]
Perhaps God will decide for those who cannot decide (and those who have not thought to decide as in sudden and early death cases) since Free Will expires at the moment of death, and that very last moment is too short for anyone, in particular, procrastinators, to reasonably make a fully-informed consent, especially when one's mental capacities are compromised by a combination of old-age, sickness and medication. In arriving at a decision, perhaps God will take into consideration the totality of the person's goodness in life, looking to see if that person always had the inclination to love God but did not quite know how to go about expressing that love besides being generally kind and loving. That maybe enough to land one in Purgatory, for actions that are close to God-like are just as clear indications of acceptance of God as vocal professions of faith in God which could at times be hypocritical. In contrast, those who had done evil deeds and refused to repent could mean that they had by will turned away from God and gravitated toward Satan, in which case, Heaven would likely be closed to them, even though they had not consciously rejected God in life or at death, and had always considered themselves to be "Christians."
God's decisions are swift, because God precedes time and knows beforehand what time and Free Will do not know. Therefore, there would not be a need to put undecided souls in transitional limbo while God reviews their records before rendering a judgment. Maybe the Catholic Church should revise paragraph 1022 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [8] to read: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment after (instead of "of") his death" since logistics does not even become an issue with God.
This minor change could just be semantics with no consequential effect. Nonetheless, the change would seem to allow Free Will to be exercised up until, and including, the very moment of death. That would be consistent with God's intention to have the gift of Free Will be maximized to its fullest extent. Moreover, that would be consistent with God's patience and compassion which ought to encompass the very moment of death, thereby allowing Free Will one last chance to make its call before God steps in and makes the final call between eternal life and death immediately after, rather than at the moment of death.
Satan, however, is not so nice. It wants to have people reject God sooner than later. It realizes that an overwhelming majority of people in the world are capable of making a final choice between good and evil. For Satan, that is good enough. It does not care about a relatively small number who are incapable of making such a choice, including infants and very small children, and those who are mentally handicapped, drugged-out, delirious and so on.
If what have been imagined above are true, then Armageddon will take place after those who have the ability to choose knowingly and irrevocably between God and Satan have all chosen. Perhaps there would be a time when they would be forced to make such a choice by a supreme ruler, the Antichrist perhaps, with the ability to block access to anything electronically based, such as bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, ATMs, fuel stations, health insurance and health care, cell phones and the internet, everywhere, until all those who can choose have made the choice, (a) or (b) (above). After that, the line can be clearly drawn between those who radiate truth and light and those who hide behind deceit [9] and in darkness. The battle will be a spectacle as brightness and darkness collide, without ever resulting in any shade of grey.
The question that remains is when, exactly, will this final battle occur. Only God knows [10]. This blogger nonetheless concludes that the day of Armageddon was ever so slightly further in the future when he was born than today. If people continue to drift incrementally further away from God, then Armageddon will be incrementally closer to the present, unless people change, and that potential is always there, for people to return to God, their Creator.
[1] http://www.biblemagazine.com/magazine/vol-9/issue-1/armag.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianism
[5] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm at paragraph 1022.
[6] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm
[7] Maybe that was how the word "deadline" originated, or how it ought to have originated, being a line that separates eternal life from eternal death, the living from the dead, Free Will from no-Free Will, a line that is alive for the living but dead to the dead--a line that "dies" with death and cannot be revived--ergo "deadline."
[8] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
[9] Deceit here includes deceit of others and self-deceit.
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A36&version=NIV
Nor does this blogger know what day and year Christ will return but guesses that it is the day when every being, those who are capable of making choices, has chosen definitively whether to accept or reject God. Is that day near?
This entry concludes that it is not because many have not quite made up their minds, including those who say that they are "spiritual" but do not care for any organized religion, Abrahamic [3] or not, Messianism [4]-based or not, and those who are generally good people who do not seem to have any time or need for God, at least not yet, as well as many more, like the scientifically-minded, who remain undecided, who are still looking for empirical evidence that God does not exist.
How difficult can it be to choose between (a) God and everything that is pure and holy, and (b) Satan and everything else that is tainted by sin--there is no (c). Why vacillate? It is so simple. Pick either "a" or "b" and be done with it.
The people who are "on the fence" between good and evil, trying to pick between the two or, quite possibly wanting both, have just as much Free Will as anyone else. Free Will allows one as much time as needed to reach a decision.
Whether the choice between God and Satan has to be made during one's lifetime up to as late as the moment of death, this blogger is not certain, not at this writing, even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation." [Emphasis added.] [5]
Can a spirit that has left the body be undecided? If so, where would these beings go before Judgment Day, "[w]hen [Christ] comes...to judge the living and the dead?" [6] They cannot be in Heaven because they have not accepted God, nor will Hell admit them because they are not sure if they want to be with God. They cannot be in Purgatory since Purgatory is a place of purification and if they choose ultimately to reject God, then they would have committed a sin that cannot be purified. Maybe the Catholic Church was right, maybe the deadline to choose is at the moment of death, not after. [7]
Perhaps God will decide for those who cannot decide (and those who have not thought to decide as in sudden and early death cases) since Free Will expires at the moment of death, and that very last moment is too short for anyone, in particular, procrastinators, to reasonably make a fully-informed consent, especially when one's mental capacities are compromised by a combination of old-age, sickness and medication. In arriving at a decision, perhaps God will take into consideration the totality of the person's goodness in life, looking to see if that person always had the inclination to love God but did not quite know how to go about expressing that love besides being generally kind and loving. That maybe enough to land one in Purgatory, for actions that are close to God-like are just as clear indications of acceptance of God as vocal professions of faith in God which could at times be hypocritical. In contrast, those who had done evil deeds and refused to repent could mean that they had by will turned away from God and gravitated toward Satan, in which case, Heaven would likely be closed to them, even though they had not consciously rejected God in life or at death, and had always considered themselves to be "Christians."
God's decisions are swift, because God precedes time and knows beforehand what time and Free Will do not know. Therefore, there would not be a need to put undecided souls in transitional limbo while God reviews their records before rendering a judgment. Maybe the Catholic Church should revise paragraph 1022 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [8] to read: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment after (instead of "of") his death" since logistics does not even become an issue with God.
This minor change could just be semantics with no consequential effect. Nonetheless, the change would seem to allow Free Will to be exercised up until, and including, the very moment of death. That would be consistent with God's intention to have the gift of Free Will be maximized to its fullest extent. Moreover, that would be consistent with God's patience and compassion which ought to encompass the very moment of death, thereby allowing Free Will one last chance to make its call before God steps in and makes the final call between eternal life and death immediately after, rather than at the moment of death.
Satan, however, is not so nice. It wants to have people reject God sooner than later. It realizes that an overwhelming majority of people in the world are capable of making a final choice between good and evil. For Satan, that is good enough. It does not care about a relatively small number who are incapable of making such a choice, including infants and very small children, and those who are mentally handicapped, drugged-out, delirious and so on.
If what have been imagined above are true, then Armageddon will take place after those who have the ability to choose knowingly and irrevocably between God and Satan have all chosen. Perhaps there would be a time when they would be forced to make such a choice by a supreme ruler, the Antichrist perhaps, with the ability to block access to anything electronically based, such as bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, ATMs, fuel stations, health insurance and health care, cell phones and the internet, everywhere, until all those who can choose have made the choice, (a) or (b) (above). After that, the line can be clearly drawn between those who radiate truth and light and those who hide behind deceit [9] and in darkness. The battle will be a spectacle as brightness and darkness collide, without ever resulting in any shade of grey.
The question that remains is when, exactly, will this final battle occur. Only God knows [10]. This blogger nonetheless concludes that the day of Armageddon was ever so slightly further in the future when he was born than today. If people continue to drift incrementally further away from God, then Armageddon will be incrementally closer to the present, unless people change, and that potential is always there, for people to return to God, their Creator.
[1] http://www.biblemagazine.com/magazine/vol-9/issue-1/armag.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianism
[5] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm at paragraph 1022.
[6] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm
[7] Maybe that was how the word "deadline" originated, or how it ought to have originated, being a line that separates eternal life from eternal death, the living from the dead, Free Will from no-Free Will, a line that is alive for the living but dead to the dead--a line that "dies" with death and cannot be revived--ergo "deadline."
[8] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
[9] Deceit here includes deceit of others and self-deceit.
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A36&version=NIV
Monday, August 22, 2016
Satan Not Taking Sides In The ISIL Fight
Satan does not care which side one is on in the ISIL conflict. So long as it keeps unfolding with suffering and death, Satan is happy.
ISIL killing Christians, Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims, as reported:
Two Muslims murdered in the United States, as reported:
A scapegoat killing in the United States, as reported:
ISIL using civilians in retaliation against coalition forces, as reported:
Russia bombing ISIL, as reported:
Russia bombing US-backed rebels in Syria, as reported:
Chechen suicide bombers in Istanbul airport, as reported:
ISIL militants killing Nigerian soldiers, as reported:
US airstrikes against ISIL, as reported:
US airstrikes against Syrian civilians, as reported:
The reports above are just a sampling. New ones will be written. They do not seem to end, but this entry has to end. The fight continues and the only one winning is Satan.
With Satan winning, does that mean God is losing? No, God is not losing. God is merely allowing man's Free Will to run its course. God certainly has the power to end all wars by creating conditions so that jets cannot fly, weapons do not fire and plans to kill cannot be carried out, and to remove all conflicts by taking away man's Free Will, giving man no choice but to obey God. If God intervenes like that, then man would be like robots, no longer a creation in the image of his Creator. If a robot was what God wanted, Android, instead of Adam, would have been made.
Absolute obedience to God would have made perfect sense if God's will is to be done perfectly, but that is not perfection. Perfection is a paradox: it can only be had if it can be rejected.
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims-are-the-victims-of-between-82-and-97-of-terrorism-related-fatalities-us-government/5516565
[2] http://www.copticsolidarity.org/2016/07/26/genocide-of-christians-in-the-path-of-isil-an-interview-with-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/queens-mosque-shooting.html?_r=0
[4] http://religionnews.com/2016/08/13/muslim-cleric-and-associate-shot-to-death-on-new-york-street/
[5] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-arab-christians-murder-some-see-deadly-american-cultural-tensions-53040/
[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/isil-kidnaps-900-kurds-and-forces-them-to-fight-for-terror-group/
[7] https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-july-13-2016-russian-strategic-bombers-strike-isis/
[8] http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/23/why-did-russia-bomb-american-backed-syria-rebels/86289354/
[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/chechen-islamic-state-fighter-named-as-one-of-istanbul-airport-s/
[10] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/new-isis-islamic-state-daesh-amaq-amaaq-news-pictures-videos-abubakar-shekau-boko-haram-isis-video-west-africa-full-uncensored-youtube-video-mp4-download/
[11] http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/WATCH-250-ISIS-fighters-killed-in-deadliest-ever-US-airstrikes-against-the-group-459148
[12] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/
ISIL killing other Muslims, as reported:
"ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on Westerners is evil.
"And as a white American from a Judeo-Christian background, I am repulsed by the fact that ISIS is targeting Christians in Syria and Iraq with brutal murder … including crucifixion. [And these crimes are invariably not reported by the Western media.]
"But most victims of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorism are themselves Muslim.
"The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center – the United States government organization responsible for national and international counterterrorism efforts – reported in 2011 (page 14):
"In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." [1]
ISIL killing Christians, Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims, as reported:
" On March 17, for only the second time in American history, the secretary of state officially designated an ongoing genocide. Secretary John Kerry declared that Christians, as well as Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims, are suffering genocide at the hands of the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also known as ISIL, ISIS and Islamic State).
...
"Two years ago, in the summer of 2014, ISIL stormed Nineveh and established its so-called caliphate, driving out, killing or capturing its entire Christian population, along with the Yazidis and other minority groups. Within ISIL-controlled territory in Iraq and Syria, all churches have been shut, desecrated or destroyed, all clergy have been assassinated or driven out, and no Christian community has been left intact.
"Collectively numbering about 1.4 million before the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraqi Christians now count only about 250,000, most of whom are in the Kurdistan region, with most of them deemed Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living as refugees. Two-thirds of the Syrian Christian community, who numbered 2 million in 2011, are displaced. Both Syrian and Iraqi Christian survivors can be found as refugees in surrounding areas, in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, as well as in Kurdistan.
"The Christian communities of Iraq and Syria are ancient ones with ties to the earliest Church. Some still pray in Aramaic, the language of Jesus of Nazareth and trace their religion to Thomas, one of the twelve, and to the Pentecost. Most of these Christians are Catholics or Orthodox but Protestants are also represented. The Eastern Catholic Churches – of the Chaldeans, the Syriacs, the Maronites, the Greek Melkites and the Armenians – are in communion with Rome. ISIL’s attacks are aimed at destroying all the Christian church communities." [2]
Two Muslims murdered in the United States, as reported:
"A gunman shot and killed an imam and his assistant on the street near their mosque in a working-class corner of Queens" on August 13, 2016, in New York. [3] A suspect was later taken into custody. [4]
A scapegoat killing in the United States, as reported:
"Khalid Jabara, [a 37-year old] Lebanese-American Christian man, was killed in Tulsa, Okla[homa, on August 12, 2016]. His alleged assailant was ['his 61-year old neighbor'] who repeatedly harassed his family with anti-Muslim, anti-Arab language." [5]
ISIL using civilians in retaliation against coalition forces, as reported:
"Islamic State fighters are reported to have abducted hundreds of Kurdish civilians in the Syrian city of Aleppo, in retaliation for an offensive on its territory in a nearby area.
...
"[S]ome of those taken captive have been forced to dig trenches in Isil-held areas while others are imprisoned in a detention centre. ... [A]ll captured males above the age of 12 were sent against their will to the front lines to help fortify Islamic State positions.
'The terror group is sending civilians to the battlefronts in northern Syria in order to use them as human shields to claim that the western-backed SDF troops are killing innocent civilians...'" [6]
Russia bombing ISIL, as reported:
"Six Russian strategic bombers (Tupolev Tu-22M3) have conducted air strikes against a major ISIS camp and ammunition depots in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) reported on July 12[, 2016]." [7]
Russia bombing US-backed rebels in Syria, as reported:
"Russian aircraft on June 16 dropped cluster bombs on a New Syrian Army unit garrisoned at a base in al-Tanf, a remote desert outpost where the borders of Iraq, Syria and Jordan meet.
"The New Syrian Army unit is a product of the American-backed train-and-equip program. Its mission is to fight Islamic State militants in Syria and to avoid confrontation with forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad." [8]
Chechen suicide bombers in Istanbul airport, as reported:
"Three suspected Isil jihadists from the former Soviet Union have been identified as being responsible for the attack on Istanbul airport, which left 43 dead and 230 injured." [9]
ISIL militants killing Nigerian soldiers, as reported:
"ISIS militants are shown conducting raids and killing soldiers with African government forces." [10]
US airstrikes against ISIL, as reported:
"US-led coalition aircraft waged a series of deadly strikes against Islamic State around the city of Falluja on Wednesday, US officials told Reuters, with one citing a preliminary estimate of at least 250 suspected fighters killed and at least 40 vehicles destroyed." [11]
US airstrikes against Syrian civilians, as reported:
"A US air strike killed nearly 60 civilians, including children, in Syria on Tuesday after the coalition mistook them for Islamic State (Isil) fighters." [12]
The reports above are just a sampling. New ones will be written. They do not seem to end, but this entry has to end. The fight continues and the only one winning is Satan.
With Satan winning, does that mean God is losing? No, God is not losing. God is merely allowing man's Free Will to run its course. God certainly has the power to end all wars by creating conditions so that jets cannot fly, weapons do not fire and plans to kill cannot be carried out, and to remove all conflicts by taking away man's Free Will, giving man no choice but to obey God. If God intervenes like that, then man would be like robots, no longer a creation in the image of his Creator. If a robot was what God wanted, Android, instead of Adam, would have been made.
Absolute obedience to God would have made perfect sense if God's will is to be done perfectly, but that is not perfection. Perfection is a paradox: it can only be had if it can be rejected.
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims-are-the-victims-of-between-82-and-97-of-terrorism-related-fatalities-us-government/5516565
[2] http://www.copticsolidarity.org/2016/07/26/genocide-of-christians-in-the-path-of-isil-an-interview-with-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/queens-mosque-shooting.html?_r=0
[4] http://religionnews.com/2016/08/13/muslim-cleric-and-associate-shot-to-death-on-new-york-street/
[5] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-arab-christians-murder-some-see-deadly-american-cultural-tensions-53040/
[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/isil-kidnaps-900-kurds-and-forces-them-to-fight-for-terror-group/
[7] https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-july-13-2016-russian-strategic-bombers-strike-isis/
[8] http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/23/why-did-russia-bomb-american-backed-syria-rebels/86289354/
[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/chechen-islamic-state-fighter-named-as-one-of-istanbul-airport-s/
[10] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/new-isis-islamic-state-daesh-amaq-amaaq-news-pictures-videos-abubakar-shekau-boko-haram-isis-video-west-africa-full-uncensored-youtube-video-mp4-download/
[11] http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/WATCH-250-ISIS-fighters-killed-in-deadliest-ever-US-airstrikes-against-the-group-459148
[12] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/
Sunday, August 21, 2016
The First Sculptor And Artist
While human artworks depend on the use of, for the most part, the static natural resources of earth provided by Creation, God the Creator, the first sculptor and artist, works with matters that change biologically and chemically with the progression of time and with every disturbance affecting the natural and delicate equilibria of Mother Nature on land, in the air and in the sea.
The photographs below were taken by Mark Watkins and Corey Donohoe [1]:
"Mark Watkins, 36, was out fishing with his dad south of Perth when they spotted the alien-looking pink sphere.
"The pair originally thought it was a capsized boat, then maybe a fallen hot air balloon.
"But once they got closer they were surprised to see it was the swollen corpse of a dead whale." [2]
With documented reports and images such as these, how can anyone think that life on earth can be the result of a "big bang," [3] leading to a series of random occurrences giving rise to the first signs of life on planet earth [4], a speck of dust in the entire universe [5], followed by a Godless evolution of natural selection [6]? How can the sun and the earth be so perfectly formed and aligned so as to provide all the sustenances necessary for all the species to claim their existences on this planet? Science has no answer.
The insufficiencies of science to provide satisfactory explanations have not deterred man from continuing to rely on science to theorize on existences, such as the universe's, the earth's and his own, even though all those theories are flawed. The more man sees, the less he knows. Using whales as an example, man has seen and identified various different types [7], but when the photographs of a dead whale were published (see above), there must have been questions, such as, why did that whale die, when did it start swelling, why did the swelling stop short of bursting, how many dead whales become swollen until the skin is stretched to reveal a pink color [8], why is the stretched skin pink, why can it not be grey or any other color and why are dead pink-colored whales floating in the ocean not as common a sighting as beached whales, to which man has no answer.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that human knowledge remains primitive and human intellect continues to be partially blind, with man's sight restricted by what he is able to observe objectively, which does not extend beyond the limits of his past and his future, unless his Creator has permitted him to have a glimpse of his beginnings and his endings. Even then, he remains confounded by the immensity and complexities of what lies in the realm of humanly undefinable time-space continuum and more so by the purposes and meanings behind all of it.
Perhaps man's life is not meant to be fully known, regardless of how many apples man continues to eat from all the trees of knowledge everywhere, and understood, but to be lived simply, guided by his instincts to love and be loved, as it was with Adam and Eve at the beginning, before they sinned. Perhaps man, having received his gift of Free Will, had developed the desire to go full circle under the Serpent's temptation, to experience what lies at the opposite end of the Garden of Eden [9], in order to verify for himself what he had been given was perfection.
Perfection is not a concept, but a reality. This world is not perfect, but Heaven is, and so is Hell. Heaven is a perfect place for those who love God; Hell is a perfect place for those who reject God.
Heaven, as was the Garden of Eden, is, in this blogger's imagination, a living and dynamic timeless and borderless sculpture of ineffable beauty that changes perpetually. Unlike the artworks of man, it is to not to be hung on a wall or placed on a pedestal and dwelled upon, but rather it is for one to enter into, to dwell in fulfillment, peace and happiness that God provides continuously with an abundance of love.
Hell is also an artistic creation with an unassuming but dreaded entrance into eternity with countless mutations of death and decay. Those in it have to confront their own inescapable past and suffer torments beyond imagination, or, are deformed down to a complete void, with a total absence of hope in varying states of painful non-existence, to Satan's endless delight.
[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/694952/Fisherman-Mark-Watkins-Australia-Perth-dead-whale-corpse-bloated-pink-ball-sharks-eating
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
[4] http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
[5] http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/610004/Largest-star-in-universe-Earth-and-sun-scale-image-red-hyper-giant-VY-Canis-Majoris
[6] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14
[7] http://marinelife.about.com/od/vertebrates/tp/typesofcetaceans.htm
[8] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1524651/confused-fishermen-spot-alien-like-creature-floating-in-the-ocean-being-eaten-by-sharks-off-the-coast-of-australia/
[9] God never created the flip side of the Garden of Eden. It is in the making, by man himself, as he continues to fall deeper and deeper into sin, by being oblivious to God's existence, and living in a constant state of moral turpitude sanitized by self-righteous, secularist moral relativism.
The photographs below were taken by Mark Watkins and Corey Donohoe [1]:
 |
| FACEBOOK/ MARK WATKINS |
 |
| FACEBOOK/ MARK WATKINS |
 |
| FACEBOOK/ COREY DONOHOE |
"Mark Watkins, 36, was out fishing with his dad south of Perth when they spotted the alien-looking pink sphere.
"The pair originally thought it was a capsized boat, then maybe a fallen hot air balloon.
"But once they got closer they were surprised to see it was the swollen corpse of a dead whale." [2]
With documented reports and images such as these, how can anyone think that life on earth can be the result of a "big bang," [3] leading to a series of random occurrences giving rise to the first signs of life on planet earth [4], a speck of dust in the entire universe [5], followed by a Godless evolution of natural selection [6]? How can the sun and the earth be so perfectly formed and aligned so as to provide all the sustenances necessary for all the species to claim their existences on this planet? Science has no answer.
The insufficiencies of science to provide satisfactory explanations have not deterred man from continuing to rely on science to theorize on existences, such as the universe's, the earth's and his own, even though all those theories are flawed. The more man sees, the less he knows. Using whales as an example, man has seen and identified various different types [7], but when the photographs of a dead whale were published (see above), there must have been questions, such as, why did that whale die, when did it start swelling, why did the swelling stop short of bursting, how many dead whales become swollen until the skin is stretched to reveal a pink color [8], why is the stretched skin pink, why can it not be grey or any other color and why are dead pink-colored whales floating in the ocean not as common a sighting as beached whales, to which man has no answer.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that human knowledge remains primitive and human intellect continues to be partially blind, with man's sight restricted by what he is able to observe objectively, which does not extend beyond the limits of his past and his future, unless his Creator has permitted him to have a glimpse of his beginnings and his endings. Even then, he remains confounded by the immensity and complexities of what lies in the realm of humanly undefinable time-space continuum and more so by the purposes and meanings behind all of it.
Perhaps man's life is not meant to be fully known, regardless of how many apples man continues to eat from all the trees of knowledge everywhere, and understood, but to be lived simply, guided by his instincts to love and be loved, as it was with Adam and Eve at the beginning, before they sinned. Perhaps man, having received his gift of Free Will, had developed the desire to go full circle under the Serpent's temptation, to experience what lies at the opposite end of the Garden of Eden [9], in order to verify for himself what he had been given was perfection.
Perfection is not a concept, but a reality. This world is not perfect, but Heaven is, and so is Hell. Heaven is a perfect place for those who love God; Hell is a perfect place for those who reject God.
Heaven, as was the Garden of Eden, is, in this blogger's imagination, a living and dynamic timeless and borderless sculpture of ineffable beauty that changes perpetually. Unlike the artworks of man, it is to not to be hung on a wall or placed on a pedestal and dwelled upon, but rather it is for one to enter into, to dwell in fulfillment, peace and happiness that God provides continuously with an abundance of love.
Hell is also an artistic creation with an unassuming but dreaded entrance into eternity with countless mutations of death and decay. Those in it have to confront their own inescapable past and suffer torments beyond imagination, or, are deformed down to a complete void, with a total absence of hope in varying states of painful non-existence, to Satan's endless delight.
[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/694952/Fisherman-Mark-Watkins-Australia-Perth-dead-whale-corpse-bloated-pink-ball-sharks-eating
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
[4] http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
[5] http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/610004/Largest-star-in-universe-Earth-and-sun-scale-image-red-hyper-giant-VY-Canis-Majoris
[6] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14
[7] http://marinelife.about.com/od/vertebrates/tp/typesofcetaceans.htm
[8] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1524651/confused-fishermen-spot-alien-like-creature-floating-in-the-ocean-being-eaten-by-sharks-off-the-coast-of-australia/
[9] God never created the flip side of the Garden of Eden. It is in the making, by man himself, as he continues to fall deeper and deeper into sin, by being oblivious to God's existence, and living in a constant state of moral turpitude sanitized by self-righteous, secularist moral relativism.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
The Consummate Politician
These are the words from the consummate politician and bureaucrat, the pope: "'the Church doesn't need bureaucrats and diligent office workers but impassioned missionaries consumed by the ardour of bringing to all people the consoling words of Christ.'"
Like all deft politicians, the pope of course did not mean what he said. The Church needs its bureaucrats and office workers. It could not function without them. In fact, the Church is full of bureaucrats that run the various departments within the Holy See [2], and workers are needed to perform chores that are perfunctory.
Telling the world what the Church does not need, bureaucrats and office workers, is only the first part of the pope's loaded statement from the pope's convoluted mind, and it is already problematic.
Then the pope wanted all his staff be be "impassioned missionaries."
The Vatican bureaucrats, many of whom are men of cloth, are supposedly trained to become missionaries, but they are probably so consumed by work and internal politics that they do not even have time to pray, let alone act as "impassioned missionaries." And if they are truly passionate about certain issues, they are not all in agreement. [3] Does the pope want his "impassioned missionaries" with opposing views to preach to the same flock?
The last part of the pope's statement is equally twisted. What did the pope have in mind when he referred to the "consoling words of Christ?" Indeed, some of Christ's words are consoling, but some are not. Should "impassioned missionaries" only focus on Christ's words of comfort and forget about the rest?
In a secular and permissive world, only words of comfort are heeded, and therefore only such words are spoken. This pope, being a street-smart politician, is only concerned with what people want to hear, the words of Christ that console, but not the words of Christ that people do not care to hear, words that are preachy.
For example, Jesus said, "'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.'" [4] The first part is reassuring, as if "rest" can be had just by relaxing on a sofa with snacks and drinks in front of a television, but before one can even sit down comes the difficult second part which states the conditions to finding "rest." Jesus made them sound easy: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart." [5] And He made sure everyone understood how easy they were by saying that "my yoke is easy and my burden is light." [6]. That may be true for one who is truly a saint, but for the common sinner, it is not so easy being "gentle" and "humble" like Jesus carrying His "yolk" at the same time. Is not His "yolk" His heavy wooden crucifixion cross that he had to drag uphill to Golgotha? Is not His metaphoric "yolk" His crucifixion? [7] Who wants to hear about carrying Jesus' "yolk?" Not many--even less who actually wants to and can carry it--and this pope is not about to bring it up anytime soon.
Jesus also said, "'[D]o not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the pagans [i.e. the modern "secularists"] run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.'" [8] Here, as in the previous example, Jesus had initially comforted all by telling everyone not to worry about what to eat, drink or wear, for example, when inviting friends over for a party. That sounds great but then in order not to worry, one must "'seek first [God's] kingdom and [God's] righteousness'" [9] (as opposed to submitting to and embracing the self-righteousness of the "highly evolved" secularists of the world). [Emphasis added]. Seeking God's kingdom and God's righteousness first before throwing a party in order not to worry about what food and drinks to get and what to wear? Who does that?
Hardly anyone thinks about God these days. ISIL is probably on people's minds more often than God. If Jesus were here talking about ISIL, His words could be the same as those He said during His time: "'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,'" [10] Jesus then asked, "'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?'" [11]. And concluded, "'Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.'" [12] Before that, Jesus said this: "'[B]e afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'" [13] Although the first words Jesus said about killers who could not kill the soul could be reassuring (even though it may be not all that comforting for those being savagely maimed or killed), the words that follow, talking about "the One" who can "destroy both soul and body in hell" certainly do not sound like words that console.
When the pope said the Church needed "impassioned missionaries" to bring the "consoling words of Christ" to all the people, was he deliberately striking out the "not-so-consoling" words of Christ? If that is the case, he is no different than the seasoned politicians who only say things their supporters want to hear, and omit the difficult and unwelcomed realities.
[1] http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/08/14/pope_at_angelus_church_needs_missionaries_not_bureaucrats/1251347
[2] http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/struttura-del-governatorato/organigramma.html
[3] https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/vatican-website-miquotes-pope-francis-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-rem; and
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-no-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A25-39&version=NIV
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jesus said, "'[M]y yoke is easy and my burden is light.'" Ibid. Is this statement inconsistent with the actual weight of the cross Jesus had to carry and the burden of pain and suffering He had to endure? The answer is no. The betrayal, the arrest, the false accusations, the scourging, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross, the crucifixion and the piercing taken together is the "yolk," but not the "yolk" of Jesus, but the "yolk" of man. Man's "yolk" is heavy because of the weight of Original Sin and all its variations. In contrast, Jesus own "yolk" is easy to carry because He is sinless, and therefore His "yolk" is correspondingly weightless. When Jesus said that His yolk was easy and His burden light, He was talking about His sinless "yolk" and not the "yolk" of Sin. So when Jesus said to learn from Him, to be humble and gentle like Him, then one would have taken His "yolk" which is light (actually weightless) and easy to carry (actually there's no need to carry it for Jesus does not have a "yolk."
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A22-34&version=NIV
[9] Ibid.
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A21-30&version=NIV
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
Like all deft politicians, the pope of course did not mean what he said. The Church needs its bureaucrats and office workers. It could not function without them. In fact, the Church is full of bureaucrats that run the various departments within the Holy See [2], and workers are needed to perform chores that are perfunctory.
Telling the world what the Church does not need, bureaucrats and office workers, is only the first part of the pope's loaded statement from the pope's convoluted mind, and it is already problematic.
Then the pope wanted all his staff be be "impassioned missionaries."
The Vatican bureaucrats, many of whom are men of cloth, are supposedly trained to become missionaries, but they are probably so consumed by work and internal politics that they do not even have time to pray, let alone act as "impassioned missionaries." And if they are truly passionate about certain issues, they are not all in agreement. [3] Does the pope want his "impassioned missionaries" with opposing views to preach to the same flock?
The last part of the pope's statement is equally twisted. What did the pope have in mind when he referred to the "consoling words of Christ?" Indeed, some of Christ's words are consoling, but some are not. Should "impassioned missionaries" only focus on Christ's words of comfort and forget about the rest?
In a secular and permissive world, only words of comfort are heeded, and therefore only such words are spoken. This pope, being a street-smart politician, is only concerned with what people want to hear, the words of Christ that console, but not the words of Christ that people do not care to hear, words that are preachy.
For example, Jesus said, "'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.'" [4] The first part is reassuring, as if "rest" can be had just by relaxing on a sofa with snacks and drinks in front of a television, but before one can even sit down comes the difficult second part which states the conditions to finding "rest." Jesus made them sound easy: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart." [5] And He made sure everyone understood how easy they were by saying that "my yoke is easy and my burden is light." [6]. That may be true for one who is truly a saint, but for the common sinner, it is not so easy being "gentle" and "humble" like Jesus carrying His "yolk" at the same time. Is not His "yolk" His heavy wooden crucifixion cross that he had to drag uphill to Golgotha? Is not His metaphoric "yolk" His crucifixion? [7] Who wants to hear about carrying Jesus' "yolk?" Not many--even less who actually wants to and can carry it--and this pope is not about to bring it up anytime soon.
Jesus also said, "'[D]o not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the pagans [i.e. the modern "secularists"] run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.'" [8] Here, as in the previous example, Jesus had initially comforted all by telling everyone not to worry about what to eat, drink or wear, for example, when inviting friends over for a party. That sounds great but then in order not to worry, one must "'seek first [God's] kingdom and [God's] righteousness'" [9] (as opposed to submitting to and embracing the self-righteousness of the "highly evolved" secularists of the world). [Emphasis added]. Seeking God's kingdom and God's righteousness first before throwing a party in order not to worry about what food and drinks to get and what to wear? Who does that?
Hardly anyone thinks about God these days. ISIL is probably on people's minds more often than God. If Jesus were here talking about ISIL, His words could be the same as those He said during His time: "'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,'" [10] Jesus then asked, "'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?'" [11]. And concluded, "'Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.'" [12] Before that, Jesus said this: "'[B]e afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'" [13] Although the first words Jesus said about killers who could not kill the soul could be reassuring (even though it may be not all that comforting for those being savagely maimed or killed), the words that follow, talking about "the One" who can "destroy both soul and body in hell" certainly do not sound like words that console.
When the pope said the Church needed "impassioned missionaries" to bring the "consoling words of Christ" to all the people, was he deliberately striking out the "not-so-consoling" words of Christ? If that is the case, he is no different than the seasoned politicians who only say things their supporters want to hear, and omit the difficult and unwelcomed realities.
[1] http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/08/14/pope_at_angelus_church_needs_missionaries_not_bureaucrats/1251347
[2] http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/struttura-del-governatorato/organigramma.html
[3] https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/vatican-website-miquotes-pope-francis-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-rem; and
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-no-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A25-39&version=NIV
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jesus said, "'[M]y yoke is easy and my burden is light.'" Ibid. Is this statement inconsistent with the actual weight of the cross Jesus had to carry and the burden of pain and suffering He had to endure? The answer is no. The betrayal, the arrest, the false accusations, the scourging, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross, the crucifixion and the piercing taken together is the "yolk," but not the "yolk" of Jesus, but the "yolk" of man. Man's "yolk" is heavy because of the weight of Original Sin and all its variations. In contrast, Jesus own "yolk" is easy to carry because He is sinless, and therefore His "yolk" is correspondingly weightless. When Jesus said that His yolk was easy and His burden light, He was talking about His sinless "yolk" and not the "yolk" of Sin. So when Jesus said to learn from Him, to be humble and gentle like Him, then one would have taken His "yolk" which is light (actually weightless) and easy to carry (actually there's no need to carry it for Jesus does not have a "yolk."
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A22-34&version=NIV
[9] Ibid.
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A21-30&version=NIV
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
A Photograph Of A Woman With The Pope
 |
| "Pope Francis meets with former prostitutes assisted by the Pope John XXIII Community in Rome Aug. 12, 2016. Credit: L'Osservatore Romano." [1] |
Seeing the pope caressing the face of a woman in the photograph above had initially evoked a combined sentiment of love, kindness and compassion. That wonderfulness vanished after reading the article that followed, quoted in part: "On Aug. 12 [the pope] met the 20 women, all of whom have suffered severe physical violence and live under protection, who are cared for at the 'Pope John XXIII Community' in Rome. Pope Francis has met with members of the community at the Vatican on several occasions." [2] [Emphasis added.] It is "a special community for women freed from prostitution and violent abuse." [3]
Call this blogger a cynic, an unrepentant sinner, because in his subjective opinion, what the pope was doing was not done with a heart of absolute purity, the Heart of Jesus. He hopes to be wrong, and would be glad to change his opinion. At this time, however, he is somewhat troubled because he had sensed that something Satanic had overcome the pontiff. May the Lord forgive him if he had sensed wrong, and forgive the pope if he had sensed right.
Above is a photograph frozen in time, not a video. Whatever the woman's movements were before and after the picture was taken, only those present at the scene would know for certain. This blogger will speculate, rightly or wrongly, that all of the things that could have been been going through her mind when the pope approached her and touched her, none of them, in his opinion, was gratitude.
If this blogger could be so impertinent as to create a fiction (a silent soliloquy if there is even such a thing), inspired by the photograph, and manufacture words that have never existed, these would be the words (from his deranged mind): "I do not need your pity. I have gone through a lot and I have managed to survive. Why do you feel me in this way? Is it necessary for you to put your head right next to mine? I do not care to smell your body odor and feel your body heat. Why can't you simply just touch my hands, and communicate to me nonverbally the sort of kindness and unconditional love that Jesus communicated to 'Peter's mother-in-law [who was] lying in bed with a fever'? [4] Yours is a touch I had felt many times before. It is not a touch of unconditional love. It is a touch of desire, a desire I have no interest in fulfilling. It is a touch that is disgusting to me, but I cannot defend myself, like I was unable to defend myself so many times in the past, when I had been sexually abused, so I will shut off my mind and my feelings toward you. I will remain motionless, as if I were an object for you to get as close to as you please, to touch as you please, to caress as you please, for as long as you please. Whoever you are, whatever your clothing represents, I am not impressed. You are but just another dirty old man. Must you betray your conscience with this unwelcomed embrace? Do it quickly and be gone, and leave me alone." This blogger apologizes to this woman if his fictional non-verbalized soliloquy inspired by the photograph above offends her in any way. However, if this "art" of imagined words that had been put together did in some small way turn out to imitate life, then the time spent in creating it would not have been a total waste.
While dreaming up such a fictional soliloquy, this blogger kept wondering why the pope found it important to meet with members of the community of women (now supposedly protected from sexual and violent abuse) "on several occasions" at the Vatican, as reported. This pope seemed to have quite a bit of spare time on his hands to meet with a specific category of victims multiple times. Were there no other groups of victims to meet, such as victims of pedophiliac priests, so that pictures of him hugging those victims in the same manner as he hugged the woman in the photograph can be taken? Did he not have time for them?
[1] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-prostitutes-get-special-visit-from-pope-francis-81221/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8%3A14-15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
