The Apocalypse of the Uninformed Voter

I am the way...

2011-05-22T19:24:00.002-05:00

After the excitement, or more like non-excitement, of the May 21st Rapture (the latest and most recent wrong prediction), I realized I had not yet put my thought on the famous "I am the way..." statement found in the New Testament from 2,000 years ago as I said I would in the rapture post.

Now, and back then, I wanted to share some thoughts on the single most passage from religious texts that is the reason for disunity, hate, death, and the feeling of superiority throughout the world. I am not trying to point fingers at my friends who believe the meaning of this passage is a statement to the monopoly of truth that Christianity claims to have, but rather to analyze what is being said in the passage. So, I apologize in advance to any reader who takes this the wrong way. But seriously, can anyone argue that the following passage is not the number one cause of death and “hate” in the history of this world?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” - Jesus in John 14:6

Is Jesus the only way to get to heaven or to God? This is what many Christians think and what gives them the idea that Christianity is the ONLY true religion in the world. When Jesus said "I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me" what was He saying exactly? Who was Jesus exactly? What was His exact relationship with God? Was Jesus God in essence? Or, was Jesus a Messenger that spoke the words of God given to Him to speak?

A long time ago, Jesus was talking to His disciples. He told them: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions (rooms): if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:1-6)

The translated word here as "way" in English comes from the original Greek word HODOS. The word HODOS means "road" or "highway" or “path.” In other words, Jesus was claiming that He is the true road or highway or path that leads to "my Father's house." What was Jesus saying? Was He saying that He, personally, was the only possible way to get to God’s house? We certainly know, and certainly Christians with a “monopoly” mindset know that God has sent other Prophets in the past. Hebrews 1:1-2, for one example, states:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (Jesus)…”

Can anyone doubt or question that Abraham, Moses and all the other Hebrew Prophets weren't also from God... that they also "at sundry times and in divers manners," didn't also provide a “path” to God and that they too were also part of this "highway" process of the Covenant? Of course they can’t, but they apparently forget about the former messengers and favor the one they have been taught to know as “the ONLY” without investigating things for themselves.

Jesus DID say, however, that He was the "highway" that leads to God’s house. At the same time Jesus also clearly identified Himself with the other Prophets who had appeared before His time. And, He also prophesied that there was still yet more to come when He foretold the future appearance of his Father's Kingdom on earth at a time when all things will be made anew.

Also, Jesus made a number of other "I am" statements. For example, Jesus claimed to be bread (John 6:35), living bread (John 6:51), light (John 8:12 & 9:5), a door (John 10:7 & 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), resurrection (John 11:25), a vine (John 15:1), the first & the last (Revelation 1:11) and a root (Revelation 22:16). Jesus was also called the Anointed or the Anointing (Greek: Christ) and He was called the Son of God. He called Himself the Son of Man. And He also was referred to as the Representation of God (Greek: Logos) and the Presence (Greek: Parousia). Again, what was Jesus saying when He said things like these? Certainly no one would claim that Jesus was a literal loaf of bread, or that He literally was a door or that He literally was light or that He literally was a root. Evidently such statements have inner, spiritual meanings. This brings up a question that people have been asking for two thousand years. Who was Jesus? Is Jesus personally the only way for people to get to God or to heaven? Was Jesus God, as many Christians today think? Who did Jesus claim to be? What does the New Testament say about who Jesus was?

Many Christians today point to Jesus' assertion that "I and my Father are one…" (John 10:30) and "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father…" (John 14:9) as evidence that Jesus was God. The Apostle Paul, writing about Jesus, said that: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16). In John 10:38 Jesus claimed that "that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." And in Colossians 2:9 Paul further asserted that: "For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." From these passages it is easy to conclude that "God was manifest in the flesh" of Jesus, that in Jesus dwelled "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", that God was in Jesus and that Jesus was in God, that Jesus was one with God and that whoever had seen Jesus had also seen God. This is pretty convincing evidence that Jesus personally was God in essence.... except for that fact that Jesus said many things that separate Him from God like "…for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and many, many, more. How can Jesus be God if God is greater than Jesus?

Jesus Himself defined His relationship to God. Jesus said: "…the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake" (John 14:10-11). "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49). When these "who do you say that I am" statements are looked at with the perspective of this “additional” evidence, we get a much different picture of Jesus' true relationship to God. According to these statements: God manifested himself to Jesus; God dwelled in Jesus; God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God; Jesus was one with God; Whoever had seen Jesus had also seen God. But at the same time: Jesus is not God since God is greater than Jesus and that God had sent Jesus. Doesn’t it make sense that the God part that dwelled in Jesus is the part that was doing the speaking and the mouth of Jesus spoke only the words that God gave to Him to speak?

These are difficult concepts to try to get an illiterate, uneducated, unsophisticated audience of two thousand years ago to understand. It's easy to see how such relationships could be misunderstood. At the same time, this explanation of Jesus' relationship to God makes the other difficult concepts in the Christian Bible make perfect sense. For example, at one time Jesus said: ”I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). This statement is identical to Jesus' "highway" statement. Jesus is the “path” to God... and people who eat the “flesh” of Jesus "shall (not will) live for ever." Ask your inner self, when Jesus said that anyone who eats "my flesh" "shall live forever"... was He saying that people should eat His literal flesh? Of course He wasn’t. Was He speaking of rituals, priests or sacraments? No. Instead, Jesus was speaking of spiritual characteristics found inside that His followers who had understood His true teachings will manifest and teach to others. This is what He meant when Jesus spoke of leading people along the path to God and transforming their lives. In none of these passages was Jesus speaking literally.

In John 6:38, Jesus also claims to have come down from heaven. When a number of rabbis, present in the crowd that day, heard Jesus claim that He had come down from heaven, they began to ”murmur at him” (John 6:41) and they asked "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” (John 6:42). Good question, isn’t it? The rabbis knew that Jesus had been born as a child just like everyone else. They knew that He had a mother and a father. So it's not surprising that they would have wondered, "How could Jesus possibly have come 'down from heaven'?"

The same was true about the disciples of Jesus. When they heard Jesus claim that He had come "down from heaven" they were shocked into disbelief. They knew that Jesus' claim couldn't possibly be true... at least not literally. They said: "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (John 6:60). From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed Him (John 6:66). For the most part, people today believe that Jesus had only twelve Apostles. But… many don't know that Jesus also had either 70 or 72 disciples (depending on which early manuscript you read). It was these other disciples and not His Apostles who "turned back and no longer followed him." It was these other disciples who abandoned Him forever. Both the hostile Jewish religious leaders and Jesus' own beloved disciples found it impossible to believe His statement that He had come down from heaven. From what they knew about the life of Jesus, having grown up in Nazareth with His mother Mary, they knew that this couldn't possibly be true, because they thought that He was speaking literally. They thought that Jesus was telling them that He had come down from heaven in his fleshly, physical body.

The disciples that walked away did not have the understanding to see what Jesus was really saying. While standing there, watching His disciples walk away, knowing that they were not going to ever come back, Jesus explained this "mystery" of His coming down from heaven. Jesus said: ”It is the spirit (PNEUMA) that quickeneth; the flesh (SARX) profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit (PNEUMA), and they are life” (John 6:63). Think about this, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit." Jesus was trying to explain that when He said such startling things as "I came down from heaven", He was not speaking of His own personal, physical, fleshly body coming down from heaven. Instead, Jesus was trying to tell us that it was the "Spirit" of God which dwelled in Him that had descended from heaven... and not His physical body.

The body of Jesus did not literally descend from heaven two thousand years ago. The Spirit of God that spoke through Jesus did. Jesus was not literally a highway, but those who listened to and followed the words of God which came from His mouth were led to God. Jesus was not literally bread and He was not suggesting that people eat His literal body. Jesus was not literally light, a door, a vine or a root or a star. Jesus was, at the time that the Bible was written, the most recent in a long progression of Teachers sent to deliver a Message from God. Each one of these Teachers spoke the words of God. Jesus was the "way." So were Moses and all the other Prophets of God. Jesus was the Christ ("the one who is Anointed by God" in Greek). Jesus was the Messiah (also "the one who is Anointed by God"... in Hebrew). This Anointing was another way of saying that God dwelled in Jesus and that God spoke through Jesus. This Anointing or “Christ” also spoke, in varying degrees, through all the other Prophets of God who also spoke the words of God. Take a look at just a few statements made by a few people that claimed to have a message from God to share, and see if you can see the same voice (Anointing Spirit) speaking to their followers:

“This is the way [to God]; walk in it.” Isaiah 30:21

“I am the way, the truth and the light…” Zoroaster

“I am the way and the truth and the life…” Jesus (John 14:6)

“Just this path, there is no other…” Buddha

“Follow Me: this is the right way [to God].” Muhammad

“This is the Way of God for all the inhabitants of earth and heaven and all that lieth betwixt them. No God is there but Me, the Almighty, the Inaccessible, the Most Exalted.” The Báb

“This is the Way of God unto all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Bahá’u’lláh

From age to age, in every culture and throughout history, many Prophets appeared who have been sent to bring God's message to humanity and to bring people to the light. There has been only one Anointing Spirit of God. This Anointing Spirit (Christ) is "the Way, the Truth and the Life". This Anointing Spirit (Christ) is the only way to the Father. It is the Anointing Spirit (Christ) who is "the same yesterday, today and forever." This Anointing Spirit (Christ) has been in many Messengers and called by different names. Think about it…

Hypocrisy

2010-08-22T17:37:00.002-05:00

Despite what the picture above displays (which is from a rally at the proposed Islamic Community Center today) the adversaries of the NYC Islamic Center (Park51) hold tightly to their “new” reason for the opposition, even though it is easily seen through by people that don’t have short-term memory loss.

This is only my thought, but I think the opponents of the Community Center realized a few weeks ago they do not have a Constitutional leg to stand on, so now we hear, “it’s because of the 9/11 families…they shouldn’t have to go to the ground zero site and see a mosque…it’s the 9/11 families that we care about.” OK, that’s legitimate, even though it’s not a Mosque and it would not be in sight of the ground zero site. I can understand the sentiment behind that reason.

BUT……..let’s be honest for a second. The opposition to the Community Center comes mostly from the GOP and voters that support the Republican Party. I have no proof to support this claim other than watching the news, reading OpEd’s, and hearing different opinions from the community I live in. There is no poll out there I’m aware of to measure this….but I would be confident that at least 9 out of 10 people opposed to the Park51 building would consider themselves Republican.

So…to get to the point of this thought… Basically there are a bunch of Republicans out there claiming they care for the NYC families directly affected by the attacks of 9/11 (including the 300+ Muslim victims of 9/11), then how in the heck are we to believe that to be true when just last month, EACH AND EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED AGAINST A BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE HEALTHCARE TO THE 9/11 VICTIMS AND FIRST RESPONDERS????????????? I mean, if you want to claim you care for someone, would you not help them each and every time you have an opportunity? This is not the first time a representative of the GOP has disrespected families of the 9/11 attacks and probably won’t be the last.

I would have believed their latest reason to not support equality in this country had I not remembered this from last month. Seriously???

From Genesis to protests...

2010-08-09T22:15:00.003-05:00

I wonder if the American people protesting the erection of Muslim community centers and mosques realize they are asking for our elected officials to do some very unconstitutional things. I wonder if these people think it was Islam that attacked us on 9/11. I wonder if these people realize that saying we are at war with Islam is like saying we would be at war with Christianity if just one of the 25,000 plus sects of Christianity attacked us in some way. You know, because if we were attacked by the Amish, of course we should include all Christians in the blame game (sarcasm here folks).

I am completely lost when I hear American Christians make comments like, ”Islam is a cult….Muslims worship a false God…Muslims are agents of Satan.” When I was a kid, I was taught every person that believed in God, believed in the same God, they only knew Him by a different name. I learned that from a Christian Sunday school teacher.

I also remember a day of fishing at the dam here in Winfield as a young teen-ager when I was in a discussion with an older gentleman about Islam. The man, who then was about 55-60 years of age explained to me that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believed the same things, they only differed on what he called the “Middle-Man.” The “Middle-Men” of course being Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. He added, ”I choose to follow Jesus because that’s who my dad followed and his dad before him. Besides, it too late for me to change and learn about something new when it works just fine for me. It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks…”

I have noticed mindsets like this and of my Sunday school teacher have been fading away in the Christian community, especially in the last decade. I get the sense that these mindsets have stopped being taught in favor of focusing only on the small differences. These differences are the ones that only vary on the surface and deal mostly with social or cultural practices and critics will paint a picture of contrast. But when one looks at the eternal spiritual teachings of every great world faith, a picture of harmony comes into focus.

I understand why it is important for the American Christian to feel like their religion is the only right one on the planet and it’s not just prevalent here. But when the most vocal American Christians seem to be the ones wanting Muslims to be treated less than American, I have to offer the following food for thought…The Bible says Islam is true and blessed by God. Here’s the scoop…

The founders of each religion (in reality each revelation of the one religion of God) foretell of the next ones to come. The tribe in which Jesus was born is described in Micah 5:2. In the book of Ruth (4:1-11) we find Boaz, from who Jesus was a direct descendant was of that tribe.

Muhammad, who accepted and claimed that Moses and Jesus as true and from God, said, “As for me, my Lord hath guided me into a straight path; a true religion, the creed of Abraham, the sound in faith; for he was not of those who join gods with Gods” (Sura 6:162). Judaism and Christianity are also outgrowths of the creed of Abraham.

In Genesis 17:6, we see that God promised to make great nations (faiths) out of Abraham. In 17:20, Ishmael, Abraham’s son, received the promise of fathering a great nation, begetting 12 princes, and was blessed by God. It is interesting to note that Shi’ah Islam had 12 successive Imams who reigned after Muhammad’s passing. Tradition says that the 12th Imam disappeared and is expected to return and reveal Himself at “the time of the end.” So, as clear as day, the OT promises the rise of a faith for the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) and God blessing it. Also interesting to note, in Genesis 16:12 it states about Ishmael, “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” Humm, a faith that dwells with the brethren of Abraham and is against everyone and everyone is against them. Does this not sound like Islam to you?

Muhammad asked the Arabs of His time why they had not accepted the truth of Moses and Jesus and all the prophets gone before Them. They could not follow Him without first acknowledging the truth of the former Messengers of God. Concerning Moses, He said, “And of old gave we Moses the guidance and we made the children of Israel the heritors of the Book-a guidance and warning to men endued with understanding” (Sura 40:56). Moses even foretold the coming of Muhammad to His followers in Deuteronomy 18:15. If this prophecy had referred to Jesus, the term “seed,” rather than “brethren” would have been used. The prophecies of the “nations” gathering in Israel in the “end” also speak of the validity of Islam and its source.

My point is this… would it not be better to understand something rather than to know nothing about it and call it false?? Not only are these protesters abasing themselves as Americans, they are fighting against something foretold in their Holy Book.

Freedom...reduced to a marketing campaign.

2010-07-10T13:44:00.004-05:00

Before I start on this thought of mine, allow me to make one thing perfectly clear… Not one word I write in the following paragraphs is intended to criticize those who have served, either voluntarily or through the draft, in any branch of the US Military. Being both the son, and the son-in-law of veterans, I have nothing but respect for our vets and have an understanding of their service to our great nation, their courage, and their fortitude against all odds. After many conversations with them, and friends that have served, I have developed a belief that most vets served while truly believing in the reasons our nation has given for the wars we engaged in and did so because they love our country and believed what they were doing was in its best interest. As you will see, I question only those in charge and those that may perpetuate what I perceive as a big lie. So…let me begin.

This past holiday weekend I felt bombarded by the marketing campaign, “Support our troops fighting for our freedom.” I got to thinking about how the two “wars” we are currently involved in protects my freedom. A rational freedom protecting reason still escapes me.

I watched an Independence Day themed commercial on TV which stated, “Veterans gave us the right to free speech…. Veterans gave us the right to a free press…. Veterans gave us the right to vote…. Veterans gave us civil rights…. etc. etc. etc.” My first thought was NO!! Veterans did not give me those rights any more than politicians, voters, or grizzly bears did. By creating me, God gave me those rights, which are natural freedoms created in the nature of being human. If you honestly think about it, whether you believe humans came into being through an act of the divine, a process of evolution, or a combination of both, we collectively started out as a small number of independent individuals with complete freedom to choose our own path in this world. It was only with the advent of individuals or entities that started to coerce others, either by force or persuasion, to obey them did our freedoms become something in need of defense. When you think about it with complete honesty in mind, the most accurate thing that can be said for veterans in this regard is they either helped to defend freedom from attack or helped to restore lost freedoms. Since it is not truthful to say, “The troops gave us freedom,” we should be accurate when discussing the role of troops in our daily lives and throughout our history. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that the troops “fight to protect our freedom” for any war in our recent history is looked with complete honesty as well.

Let’s take a look and see if veterans of the US military have fought either to protect or restore our freedom in every major war or conflict we’ve participated in since 1776:

American Revolutionary War -- There can be no questioning the fact that the veterans of the American Revolution were fighting to restore lost freedoms. The interests of the colonists being ruled by a king across the Atlantic did not always come into consideration in Brittan’s parliament. Taxation without representation, being forced to provide quarters (housing) for British soldiers, and other oppressive measures were forced on the colonists. Since they were not represented in the British government, they had to choose between declaring independence and taking up arms to defend their homes against the onslaught to come and living oppressed lives. The end result was 13 free and independent states with a brand new federal government. The veterans of this war are certainly to be commended for having restored freedom to America.

The War of 1812 -- A somewhat solid case can be made for veterans defending the freedoms of our citizens during this war since the biggest reason we waged war was because of the British acts of supplying arms to the Native Americans through Canada. Also, the British did try to burn down Washington DC and blockaded much of the Atlantic coast. However, on the flipside, part of the reason why we waged this war was an attempt to push out Brittan out of Canada. This exact desire gave rise to the War Hawk Politician. But nonetheless, the Veterans of this war did in fact fight to protect our freedoms at the time.

The Mexican American War -- Again, a solid case can be made for the Vets fighting to protect our freedoms in this war too. After Texas had declared their independence from Mexico and the set back at the Alamo which helped drive Santa Anna and his forces back to Mexico, the United States annexed Texas. Then the troubles began. Like in the War of 1812, U.S. expansionism played a role in President Polk’s desire to get the approval of Congress to declare war (at least he got the approval unlike the Presidents of the last half century). Texas ended up gaining independence from Mexico and a nation to belong to and the U.S. gained a lot of territory in the deal. It does seem, in hindsight, that this war could have been avoided and the rest of the country was not in danger in any way by Mexico, but yes, American freedoms were protected and restored by the Vets of this war.

The Civil War -- Most history books will teach that the Union soldier fought to end slavery (a noble act) and the Confederate soldier fought to preserve slavery (a not-so-noble act). The reasons for this war are often hidden. Allow me to sum it up by saying both sides were fighting to protect freedom in a way that they interpreted the word. So yes, Civil War vets fought to protect our freedoms.

The Spanish American War -- There was no charade of protecting American’s freedoms in this war. It was all about American imperialism, nothing more. The vets of this war helped liberate Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam from Spanish rule, but then those same vets turned their attention to keeping those same liberated souls under American rule. Hundreds of thousands of recently liberated citizens lost their lives trying to liberate themselves from the very same force that just liberated them from Spain. Once they finally did free themselves from U.S. rule, they were subject to dictatorships in which America chose due to natural resource interests. At no time were American freedoms at risk during this war.

World War I -- At this moment in time, there is no conceivable way American freedoms were in jeopardy during this war, even with the so-called “Zimmermann Telegram” (a telegram that was intercepted between Germany and Mexico). No Americans (except for a few strategically set-up by President Wilson in Europe) and no American “territories” came under attack. This was mostly a European war spilling over into the Pacific and parts of Africa. This war had much to do with protecting freedoms, but none of it was American freedom. After this war, “Armistice Day” was created, now known as “Veterans Day.”

World War II -- Americans came under attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor and this incident that pushed us into the war. At that time, Hitler was having nothing but trouble holding onto what he occupied in Europe and couldn’t even take the island of Brittan. When you hear someone say, “If it weren’t for our troops, we’d all be speaking German now,” it must be taken with a grain of salt since it would have taken something miraculous in order for Germany and its’ allies to have had the opportunity to threaten American freedom at that time. OK, now with that being said, our involvement in WWII was a noble one indeed if you understand that our fellow world citizens were being threatened and were in need of our assistance. An attempt to colonize an entire continent is something to get involved in, but…American Freedom was not at stake during the conflict.

Korean War -- This was a war against communism rather than protecting Americans. It was referred to as a “police action” rather than war because no declaration of war was obtained in Congress, and rightfully so because once again, everybody knew America was not threatened by North Korea. We entered under Truman via the UN, and rightfully so since we were a member of this international organization that through consultation, approved of this action. Veterans of this war fought to a stalemate with honor, but did nothing to further American Freedom.

Vietnam War -- Like in Korea, the U.S. entered this war to prevent communism, this time in South Vietnam and it later became known as our “Communist Containment” policy. Once again, veterans of this war fought with honor following the orders handed to them by politicians, but American Freedom was not at stake.

Operation Desert Storm or The Gulf War -- This war was not even sold to us as one defending American Freedoms. The so-called “abuses against humanity” reasons we were told about were all debunked within a year after finding out that a public relations firm was hired to drum up hatred against Iraq. This war, to put it bluntly, was all about oil and those that make their living selling it. To imagine that our leader and his officials sent our troops into danger to further line the pockets of oil men is just disgusting.

The Afghan War and The Iraq War -- I lump these two together not only for brevity, but because the justification and the sentiment behind the two are virtuously the same. First of all, there is no disputing the fact that both of these wars are illegal. The UN Charter we signed in 1945 and later ratified into law, made our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq illegal. You can disbelieve this all you want but the truth stands tall and steadfast. The U.S. Constitution says that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified are “part of the supreme law of the land” in the U.S. So, along with the international laws we’ve broken, we can also add our own laws to our rap sheet. Fact after fact has come to light after Congress was duped into voting for the use of military. Those facts show that we were all lied to by our President and his officials. Even if an alternative reality popped up and the lies we were told were true, American Freedom was not the reason for sending our nations’ best to these wars.

To sum up, it is fair (and accurate) to say “American Freedom” has not been fought for since 1865. Let me say it again, this is not an attempt to disrespect American veterans who generally neither choose to go to war nor decide how they will be fought. But my thought is rather than perpetuate a “lie” on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day and recycle the cliché empty comments like “Our Veterans gave us freedom…” or “Our Veterans fight for our freedoms,” would it not be better to consider that we wouldn't need two of the three holidays listed above if our elected leaders did not insist on involving us and our troops in endless and pointless conflicts? Would we not be better off with two fewer holidays than thousands and thousands of psychologically scarred, wounded, and dead soldiers? The answer to that question is carved in cemetery headstones across this nation.

Will we ever heed the warning of President Eisenhower and stop our madness and addiction? All of us were born with inalienable rights, just as the Declaration of Independence states. Those rights “pre-exist” the formation of our Government as our Founding Fathers stated. If we had a legitimate and “honest” foreign policy, our citizens would understand it and it would not need to be embellished with talk of “fighting for freedom.”

Ponder this for me… Think of your local police or fire departments. They serve a clear-cut purpose that people understand. You do not see citizens repeat phrases or slogans in order to justify their existence. Collectively, we do not claim that police and firemen protect our freedoms, as if they are part of some kind of civil rights organization. Our physical security and our freedoms are not the same thing. In most cases, U.S. foreign policy goals are not even related to our physical security or freedom. The military should be used to defend our freedoms and our Constitution, nothing more.

The TEA Party-Why are they so upset?

2010-07-05T19:39:00.002-05:00

I saw an ad today “approved by Todd Tiahrt,” a Kansas Congressman running for the open Senate seat left by Sam Brownback, who is running for Governor of Kansas. Tiahrt is really proud of his TEA Party endorsement as you can see in the video. Given that Tiahrt is about as good as collecting earmarked money (mostly aircraft industry related fed money) as the next guy, I was shocked to learn from Tiahrt himself in his ad that he was considered to be a “TEA Party Hero.”

I then wanted to find out just what the TEA Party stands for. Because I have to be honest, my perception of them up to this point has been angry white people upset about our country electing a non-white President. What I found, is the TEA Party members consider themselves to be the “conservative” conservatives. They want things to be like they were in the late 1700’s, regardless of what has changed since then. Basically, the military should be the only thing our tax dollars should pay for.

Below is the “Contract from America” the TEA Party came up with (followed by some commentary by yours truly). Now, after reading it, you will see just who this “contract” would benefit the most (the rich), but alas, the corporations behind this fake grassroots movement have fooled many middle class and low income people into pushing their agenda for them (see last paragraph).

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. -- Actually, this is a great idea, and redundant. I have no problem with this whatsoever. The Constitution is very clear that Congress (both House and Senate) has only the powers explicitly granted in the Constitution. So it seems like a good idea and reasonable that each law passed by Congress should be able to state which part of the Constitution allows Congress to make such a law. Being that the Constitution is a VERY BROAD document, there should be no trouble showing which article grants the authority to pass a law. I do find it a bit redundant though, since the federal and supreme courts exist for this very purpose. Let’s take it a step further and perhaps form a “new” agency free from political strings to protect us from the activists on the Supreme Court that have recently rendered decisions that violate the Constitution in favor of multi-national and foreign corporations that have given them the rights of individuals and does not restrict their influence on elections (look up “Citizens United”). I have read the Constitution specifically for this authority and challenge anybody to cite the article that allows corporations to be treated as individuals.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. -- I agree with this for the most part. I agree that “cap and trade” should be rejected, but only because it is too weak and doesn’t go far enough. The only way to rid ourselves of pollution is to force people not to pollute and not allow them to pay for polluting. Establish an initial level and force at least a 20% reduction per year until the effects are virtually gone. This is a practical use of regulations that will actually protect our freedoms as Americans, our freedom to access to breathable air, a necessity of life. I’ll give the TEA Party credit for recognizing that pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed by government intervention.

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. -- Who doesn’t want a balanced budget? Here’s the reality check though…this is impossible. There has never been a “balanced budget.” We have had national debt since day one of our country and you can not have a balanced budget as long as there’s debt. AND, if you’re arguing that there should NEVER be a tax hike at the same time, then you’re making an unreasonable argument. And the “2/3’s majority” thing…not only is it unconstitutional as the Constitution reads, but it would deter the Government to take action against pressing needs like we did at the beginning of the current economic downturn. California tried this and is the worst shape it has ever been in and was forced to make cuts to many necessary items, mostly education. Speaking of California, why do many of the people at TEA Party rallies idolize Ronald Reagan? The simple truth is that he more than tripled the national debt at the helm.

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution. -- I agree that the tax code is confusing and excessive, BUT, they are that way because in today’s world there is a multitude of businesses, investments, and various financial tools that can’t all be covered by a “simple” tax code. This demand is equivalent to saying, “we should get rid of a complex code full of little tiny loopholes and replace it with an easy system with a few humongous loopholes.” A “fair single-rate tax system” would create a huge windfall for the rich. This is why they favor such a system and is pushing the Conservative base, which is mostly made up of the middle class, to believe in things that don’t benefit themselves. This system would slash their taxes by a third and remove taxes on savings, investments, inheritance, and capital gains. A sort of class warfare has been waged on the middle class and poor for years by the rich, and people have become aware only recently when the conservative tax policies have shone a light on the fact that the top tax rate (the rich) is at historical lows. The top tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is currently at 35%. During the Great Depression until the 1960’s, the same tax rate was at 90%. It was then lowered 70%. The wealthiest Americans face much less taxes on their discretionary income. A message to middle class and lower income people---DON’T let the wealthiest Americans tell you which tax system you should be in favor of, the reason is obvious.

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. -- Both sides of the spectrum agree that all of our government agencies should function within the authority of the Constitution. Both sides also agree there is way too much spent on waste with tax dollars. This is a reasonable demand, BUT, there are a few problems that will certainly arise if this would come to pass. First, the most obvious and probably not even thought of by the authors of this “contract,” would be that it would cost a lot of tax payer money to figure out how to “save money.” Are the TEA Party people ready to spend the tax payer money needed to get this started, especially in these economic times? This in essence would be a “spend money to save money” endeavor, one that could provide a good return on investment, but the timing of it stinks right now IMHO. Is the TEA Party ready to take a good hard look at every agency, even ones the conservatives support? Like the military or corporate welfare as examples? The military is by far where the most money is spent on waste, followed by corporate welfare.

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. -- This is “pie in the sky” thinking. This would NEVER happen. The only way this would be possible is if we decide to quit going to war, if we never have a recession, if Mother Nature suddenly quits giving us natural disasters, etc. Yes, it would be nice if Congress knew exactly how much they needed to spend each year and then budgeted for that exact amount. Unfortunately, we elect Presidents that say, “Let’s invade Iraq” without justification and fail to have it paid for by asking Americans to pay a little more through taxes.

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care. Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. -- First of all, the recently passed health care system the contract refers to is not “government run.” It is also every bit as “competitive” and “free market” as the previous “system,” which is the exact same reason why it is going to fail to make health care and health insurance “more affordable” to working Americans. The TEA Party and conservatives should be giddy about this bill that passed. All it does is force more American customers to buy insurance from the existing private insurance companies through mandates and subsidizing the poor. If you think we now have “socialized medicine” here, you haven’t read the bill. The above solution does NOTHING to help the 50+ million Americans without health insurance. It does not STOP the 50,000+ people from dying every year due to reasons resulting from lack of health insurance. It does not STOP the health industry practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. It does NOTHING to stop the huge bills that come with a serious illness or injury which is the number one cause of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures. As for opening up the insurance system beyond state lines, did we not learn a lesson from caving into credit card companies? Credit companies fled to states with the least amount of consumer protection, and guess what? Record profits followed at their customers and tax payer’s expense. Basically, this would deter individual states from passing laws that are in the interest of their residents. This also shoots down the theory that conservatives favor state’s rights. The entire world knows that the Tea Party conservatives don’t like health care reform, but this is the first time I have seen a call to end Medicare and Medicaid from them. This is an issue stance that is even too extreme for the GOP. Perhaps the TEA Party wants to eliminate Social Security as well?

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy. Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. -- Geez…how do I say this without making it seem like I’m speaking to a child….ummm, here goes: Ok… those “proven” energy sources are not so “proven” and will not even come close to providing enough energy for our independence from foreign oil all while not providing us much of a “reserve.” Whew! Basic fact: There is a finite (limited, restricted, fixed, etc.) amount of energy sources on the planet to consume, AND only a small fraction of this finite amount is actually within the borders of the USA (less than 3%). We currently use around 25% of the world’s energy sources. That’s basic math and common sense. So can we stop debating over a few areas of oil/coil/etc, and begin to start actually ending our dependence on foreign sources by exploring NEW, RENEWABLE energy technologies? This kills two birds with one stone: dependency on foreign oil and our environmental dilemma. It’s a win-win for America.

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. -- I think both sides of the spectrum are tired of seeing good bills pass, later to find out many legislators managed to sneak in a few costly, unrelated projects in their home state, especially when these projects involve things like building a museum to honor the history of the banana. Basic fact: Earmarks went down 15.5% this year. So does that not meet the demand of this item?

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. -- (Ummm…see item #3 above) Never mind the FACT that over 95% of Americans paid less taxes this year, the scary thing is that 88% of TEA Party people believe this is not true. Along with a few other tax deductions, the majority of these tax breaks came along with the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) passed under the Obama Administration. When all said and done (according to the facts), the only increased taxes were to those making $500,000 per year and above, and they are modest at best. So in other words, the above article wants to repeal the modest tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Do you still think the Tea Party is a grassroots organization? Think again.

Now since the TEA Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” let me offer just a few facts on taxes for the past year, facts that shouldn’t be ignored by members of the TEA Party:

*“TEA Party Hero” Sarah Palin recently misled a TEA Party rally saying that “Americans on average now work 90 days to cover their tax obligations” (Tax Freedom Day), she failed to follow that up by mentioning that this year, Tax Freedom Day came earlier than when G.W. Bush was in office.

*Over 40% of Americans did not pay income taxes this year. None, zero, nada.

*For most of middle-class America, personal income tax levels have been at the lowest rate during their lifetimes. The lowest they’ve been since 1955.

*Contrary to the way people have been taught to believe, the stimulus bill lowered taxes for 98% of working Americans.

So, let’s assume for a moment that TEA Party represents America, an America based in reality. The facts show for TEA Party members that “Tax Freedom Day” came earlier than last year and at least 40% of TEA Party members did not pay ANY taxes this year and their personal income tax levels are the lowest they’ve ever been in a lifetime and 98% of the TEA Party saw a reduction in taxes paid. Then why do only 2% of them believe their taxes went down and 64% believe Obama raised taxes? There are ONLY three possible conclusions….: 1. The vast majority of TEA Partiers are extremely wealthy. 2. They are detached from the facts and have no sense of reality. 3. Their anti-Obama (African-American) sentiment is being taken advantage of by a PAC that started the “TEA Party Express” which takes their good faith donations to the so-called “grassroots” movement and distributes it to the same old tax-less and spend-more conservative candidates. Don’t believe #3 is a possibility? Read this, this, and this.

So which is it? #1. #2. or #3? And just what are they so upset about?

The big farce

2010-06-27T11:01:00.001-05:00

Everyone is playing the “blame game” when it comes to the Deep Water Horizon (BP) oil spill. Both sides are politicizing the disaster and using it to enforce their stance on our nation’s energy plan. The two sides agree on only one thing, we must end our dependence on foreign oil. Well that’s a nice thing to agree on I must say, but one side has got to start realizing that they have a faulty, unsustainable plan in order for us to collectively move forward as a nation on this issue. One side thinks we can sustain our oil consumption by expanding domestic drilling. It is foolish to think this is possible. We consume 25% of the world’s oil and have around 2% of the oil. Do you see the fault in that logic? The other side wants to start building renewable energy solutions and is being fought every inch of the way, mostly by politicians that are supported by oil companies.

As far as the “blame game” for the current disaster, here’s my .02 cents which is based on weighing both sides of the argument and investigating things for myself rather than merely being a sheep, like most political apologists out there.

Sheeez… W. Bush and Cheney just keep popping up as the source for many of today’s problems here in America. Following is just a couple of many events that opened the door to why this spill is so difficult to stop and contain, as well as why we (collectively) were so unprepared to handle this assault on nature…

The biggest farce -: The downfall started in 2005, when the MMS (DOI’s Minerals Management Service), the agency that is supposed to regulate drilling, changed long standing regulations and designated the oil companies as being “in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity” (Page 11-Section 250.227{a}). The MMS adopted these shortly after several “secret” (no transcripts available from the meeting sessions) meetings with the one and only Oil friendly VP, Dick Cheney. Yep, this is no joke. After meeting with Cheney, the MMS changed policy and said that the oil companies are in the best position of determining the impact their operations would have on the environment. This is akin to letting a rapist be the one responsible for providing security to a female dormitory.

So Cheney, being the good ol’ conservative and oil man he is, urged the MMS to shift the responsibility of determining the “worst case scenario” of a possible spill from an independent agency (MMS or EPA) to the oil companies. This is important because before being OK’ed to start a drilling project, the possible risks are weighed. And when BP declared it would only be 10,000 barrels per day spilled into the gulf, and reality put that number around 150,000, it is easy to see why all the big oil companies and the “Drill Baby Drill” crowd proclaimed that offshore drilling is safe (Obama himself declared it was safe just weeks before the explosion) and the project was approved based on this false information. Turns out, you guessed it, BP low-balled the impact the deep water horizon project would have on the environment in order to “just drill baby drill.”

Also, this “new rule” allowed oil companies to be pre-qualified to be exempt from environmental review, which was originally created for very minor projects like maintenance buildings being built on hiking trails and such. Good job Dick!!! You are a true conservative that believes that our environment is there for the taking rather than a giver of physical life. All appearances paint the picture that Dick thinks the world is coming to an end (See blog posts called Hijacked Part 1 and Hijacked Part 2), so why care anyway?

One other farce, er, I mean “rule change” - A rule change 2 years ago in April 2008 by the Bush/Cheney MMS allowed BP to avoid filing a plan for managing a major spill or blowout. Here’s the farce…the oil companies were no longer required to file these “spill plans” if only 1 or 5 “conditions” apply to the project. Previously it was required that any company drilling deeper than 1,312 feet would be designated as a “surface facility” and be required to file a blowout plan. BP argued (and won) that since it would be drilling at 5,000 feet plus, it does not meet the definition of a “surface facility” and was able to get approved without having to come under the scrutiny of being qualified to stop and maintain a spill. I might also add that these MMS “officials” in charge of OKing projects have been caught receiving cocaine and hookers from oil companies, as well as “kick-backs.” Geez….I guess it’s kinda easy to agree to something when the person trying to get you to agree with them is giving you money, cocaine, and hookers (that is sarcasm my friends).

The list goes on and on about the MMS under the Bush Administration changing rules, accepting bribes, and ethics violations. The sad thing is the polarization of our country will not allow for the truth to be clear. We need to get off of oil and fossil fuels….right now!!!!

What the ?

2010-06-26T12:10:00.003-05:00

Louisiana Federal Judge Martin Feldman (Don’t confuse him and elevate him to the status of the late great Marty Feldman), ruled last week that the imposed moratorium by the US-DOI & DOJ was to be ended. Turns out, he had selfish reasons to render his decision. Money.

Like most rich GOPers, he wanted to get his money and decided it was better to lift the ban on offshore drilling, and then he sold his stocks in what appears to be an attempt to hide the fact he has huge interests in the success of oil companies, including subsidiaries and partners of BP.

The scary thing about this is the people, who think his decision is right, don’t see the huge conflict of interest as a problem and also can not see the logical reasoning behind the moratorium.

It is time to change the influence of oil. What can the “Small People” do? This is sickening. I say to support any effort or person that wants to push our country into modern times by ending the “oil madness.”

Frustrated...

2010-06-26T11:07:00.001-05:00

Just in case you’ve been on the edge of your seat waiting for the next blog post, I apologize for the 3 month hiatus.

All the weird stuff that has happened since the passage of the health care reform bill propelled me into self defense mode, where I tried to just ignore everything.

I feel better now and am ready to exercise my own personal “venting” procedure that I find helpful in understanding what is going on. Now, if I could just get people to participate. Hmmm, are my posts really that boring? Perhaps, but I will continue on anyway.

Every eye shall see him??

2010-03-10T14:34:00.001-06:00

I recently had a discussion with someone about their beliefs in the rapture. This person gave me many specific details about the Post Tribulation Rapture beliefs he clings tightly to. One thing about his beliefs stood out immediately when I heard him say it. He said, ”It will be loud and glorious, an ‘every eye shall see Him’ type event.” Later in the conversation I asked him how he knew Jesus has not already returned, because He said it would be “like a thief in the night” and the only time you know a thief has come is after the fact. He responded, “if that happened, then every eye would have seen it.” His focus on “every eye shall see him” led me to investigate what he was talking about. This is what I concluded and gave to him for his consideration (sent via email to him)…

…IMHO, I think if you have the interpretation that "every eye will see Him" in a literal sense, you are expecting the wrong thing. Here is why:

OK, Rev 1:7 states: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

I assume that this is the verse that leads you and many people to believe that literally, "every eye" will see the return. In Luke 3:4-6, we read that the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled by the coming of Jesus, the Christ, and that all flesh shall see the salvation of God when clearly not all humans alive literally saw Jesus living in a physical body. It is written in Isaiah:

“40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.”

The interpretation MUST be spiritual or symbolic because literally “all flesh” did not see Jesus and “every valley” was not “filled” and “every mountain” was not “brought low.” Hence, “Every eye shall see Him” should be interpreted, IMHO, the same way Luke interpreted Isaiah’s prophecy of “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

Again, Rev 1:7: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

Now, since the Roman soldier’s eyes (who pierced Jesus at His crucifixion) are long ago returned to dust, it must be spiritual or symbolic eyes that will “see Him,” or at least eyes unlike the ones we see with today. Also, Rev 20:4 says that the Romans would not be resurrected at first when the Christ returns, but 1,000 years later, indicating the Roman soldier’s eyes would not literally “see” the Christ until 1,000 years after “every eye shall see Him.” Clearly only a spiritual or symbolic interpretation applies again.

He “shall come as a thief in the night” also suggests many literal eyes won’t see Him at His coming (Rev 3:3 & 16:15).

The verse says “every eye shall see Him,” not every eye shall recognize Him. Just as Luke 3:4-6 thought “all flesh” saw ”the salvation of God,” yet very few people became Christians at that moment, way back then.

Matthew states: ”24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” Let me remind you that the people did not recognize until after Noah was gone that the message was indeed from God and Jesus states here that so it will be for the return of the Christ.

Earlier in Matthew it states, ”24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. A few thoughts: A. How could every eye see Him when the earth is round and people on opposite sides of the earth could not visualize Him at the same time? B. How could the sun be literally darkened and the moon cease to shine (Matt 4:29) and still there be light for “every eye to see Him?” C. How could the stars fall upon the earth at the same time “every eye shall see Him” when stars are many times the size of the earth and just one would destroy the earth completely?

-Wes

I haven’t received a response to date and it's been a while.

Just read the bill already!!!

2010-03-09T21:02:00.004-06:00

Never in my lifetime, has one issue caused so much political turmoil as the current health care debate. It is my opinion that there are three types of politicians involved in this matter. One that makes up lies (or spreads them) about the legislation, one that knows it right but afraid to vote for it because their constituents believe the lies being spread about the bill, and one that wastes their time trying to counter all the false attacks and puts out the fires caused by the other two types.

Here’s a summary of the latest snag in reform:

The GOP tells people the Federal Government will directly pay for abortions.

Dem. Rep Stupac wants his amendment in the final bill rather than what is in the Senate’s version because he believes there needs to be stronger language about abortion.

Many rational politicians keep saying the Senate bill does not pay for abortion.

Folks, you can read the bill right here and see what it actually says. Here’s a “fact check” done that is interesting to read.

The bottom line is, the truth is so easy to find if you just look for it. The truth is…all those politicians you hear say, “…Abortion is not paid for with this bill…” are speaking the truth. Take a look and see…

Please...no comparison needed

2010-03-09T19:20:00.002-06:00

Sarah Palin made a comparison between herself and God on Friday during a speech at an Ohio Right to Life fund-raiser. Since the time she was filmed having scribbled notes on her hand, she has not been able to provide an explanation that is not, how should I say it?... embarrassing. These notes on her hand were to remind her of her own personal political tenets and philosophies, I guess. After delivering a stand-up comedy routine that was enhanced with laugh tracks on the Tonight Show, Palin said that nobody "could argue the substance" of her sharpie notes. Finally! A statement that is verifiable and true comes from her mouth. It is a true statement because it is literally impossible to formulate an argument against the word "energy." But that statement still didn’t address why she needed such simple notes in the first place, which is what people want to know.

Now, she has finally come up with a good excuse, “I'm just like God” she said at the Ohio fundraiser. She further added:

“Somebody, a fan, sent me the other day, Isaiah 49:16, and you need to go home tonight and look it up. Before you look it up, I'll tell you what it says though. It says, hey, if it was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it's good enough for me, for us. He says, in that passage, he says, 'I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you,' and I'm like, 'Okay, I'm in good company.'"

OK, let’s assume for a split second that Isaiah 49:16 refers to God literally “scribbling” notes on His hands in order to remember something rather than looking at it as a parable like we are told to do. Does God really need reminders? Or is this yet another attempt by a politician to bend the meaning of scripture to fit their political needs?

Isaiah 49:16
Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

Similar??? I think not!

Public good is evil???

2010-03-07T19:52:00.004-06:00

***DISCLAIMER*** Natural disasters absolutely have no logic and political meaning. This is not an attempt to make a political statement at the expense of the victims of the two most recent earthquake disasters in our global community. I merely use the earthquakes as examples, nothing more.

Government regulations have been around for what seems to be forever, as far back as governments have existed in whatever form. They were in place at the founding of our country. They are rules or laws that must be followed in order to protect people, places, or things. They are not there to limit individuals or entities, only to protect them. They all have a cost for a few in order to benefit the collective. They are never in place before the fact, only after some sort of damage occurs.

There are movements, associations, and political parties here in the US that view regulations as tools used by the government (local, state, or federal) to control our lives and take away our freedom. The opponents of regulations believe the private sector can regulate itself. In other words, they believe the individual citizen is oppressed by having regulations in place to protect them and the private sector will follow practices that put the end-user’s safety first.

An example of how regulations benefit the masses has come to light in the last week. Despite a stronger earthquake with far more damaging aftershocks and 500 times more energy released, Chile escaped with far less damage and more importantly, far less lives lost. Chile has building regulations. Haiti does not. Requiring companies and individuals to build structures that will withstand an earthquake saved countless lives.

Here in the U.S. we also have building codes. Some are regional due to weather patterns, fault lines, etc. Every one of them are in place to protect American lives. Is there an additional cost to a few people to meet these regulations? Yes. Is the cost passed on to the individual buyer? Just about every time. Do these regulations infringe on personal freedom? I guess it’s all in how you look at it. If you believe that paying taxes and government regulations are innately evil, then you’ll probably say “yes.”

Prepare to be "fear"ed...

2010-03-07T13:10:00.003-06:00

After many years of denying these tactics, the GOP was exposed last week by a document left behind in a hotel hosting room. The document spelled out the RNC’s, therefore the GOP’s, view of their donors and supporters. It was not flattering…

I asked a staunch, extreme, far right-wing GOPer friend of mine what he thought about being labeled as being “motivated by fear” and “reactionary” (two descriptions of “small donors” in the leaked document), and he told me, “I don’t care what they think of me.” I followed-up by asking if he thought the GOP characterizations of Obama and his policies were accurate. He said, ”I don’t care, Obama and the evil democrats must be defeated at all costs in order to save us from socialism.” I then asked him if truth deserved a place anywhere in politics. He said, “Not if it hurts our country.” I then changed the subject to baseball.

My friend’s responses are scary to think about and could be an accurate portrait of the GOP voters and party overall. When one is willing to abase themselves, such as lying or threatening violence, in order to somehow gain power or anything that goes with it, then something is really broken. This has been the clear tactic of the GOP, especially since Bush II in '04. Lie, lie, and lie again until many people believe you and cast their vote for your campaign, which is based on lies. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

So, now that we know how the GOP would like to see the campaigning in the upcoming season be executed, be prepared for some weird stuff “playing on people’s fears,” “painting opponents as Socialists,” and “creating situations for people to strongly react to.” And based on the past few years, probably 99.9% of it will be made up. Isn’t it scary to be in the minds of people that would rather lie than argue in favor of their stances??

side thought - - You may be thinking, “All politicians lie Wes!!” Well, yeah they do. BUT, if a politician says they will accomplish something if elected and then is not able to accomplish it because of any number of reasons, that’s the nature of the beast. Was it a lie? Yes, but did they try to fulfill it? Most do (regardless of party) but are unable to because it is blocked or nobody wants to pay for it in congress or whatever. I have always viewed the “promises” made by campaigning politicians as “wishes” they will pursue if elected. They are like the “direction” they want to go in. If one says, “I will vote this way…” and then votes differently, there lies the lie.

And...if you are my "staunch, extreme, far right-wing GOPer friend," rest easy, your identity is safe.

a looooong thought on "the rapture"

2010-02-21T17:59:00.000-06:00

Over the last eight years or so (since I moved back to Kansas), the topic of the “Rapture” has come up quite often in several different conversations I have had with Christians. In fact, one of the first comments on this blog alluded to it. It is my opinion, based on what the Bible says, it is a fairy tale invented by man. People have asked me, “Do you believe in ‘the rapture’?” I tell them that I believe exactly what Paul wrote about it.

The “modern” Christian doctrine (indoctrination) of the "rapture" teaches that "dead" and "sleeping" Christians will be physically "caught up" to heaven when the Christ returns in the flesh. This belief is derived from 1 Thessalonians 4 & 5, a letter written by the Apostle Paul, which reads:

4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

At first, when reading the fourth and fifth chapters of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, it appears that Paul was telling us that when the Christ returns, those Christians "which are asleep" and those who are "dead" will both awaken and rise from the dead and then be physically "caught up" into the sky "to literally "meet the Lord in the air."

Most Christians today have been taught, either by clerics or friends, to interpret this passage literally, in terms of its outward meanings. Is this what the Apostle originally meant? Or was he instead trying to convey a less obvious, spiritual meaning? How can one know for certain? Does Paul tell the readers how to interpret his writings? Can one find related statements elsewhere in Paul's writings which help to better understand what he was trying to tell the Thessalonians in his letter? The answer is yes, of course. Paul clearly tells us how to interpret his writings and he clearly paints a picture of what he meant when he spoke of people being "caught up" into heaven.

Referring to the issue of interpretation, Paul instructed the readers to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing (O-R-T-H-O-T-O-M-E-O in Greek) the word of truth.” - 2 Timothy 2:15

Paul wants readers to do two things. First, he wants one to “earnestly study” the “word of Truth.” In other words, he wants one to know what his writings actually say. And then, secondly, he wants one to “rightly divide” or to correctly interpret what he was saying.

How can we know how to “rightly divide” the Christian message? That's not too difficult because Paul tells us how. Paul wrote, 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1 Corinthians

According to Paul, the “word of Truth” must be “spiritually discerned.” The phrase “spiritually discerned” is translated from the original Greek P-N-E-U-M-A-T-I-K-O-S A-N-A-K-R-I-N-E-T-A-I. The word A-N-A-K-R-I-N-E-T-A-I comes from the original root Greek word... K-R-I-N-O, which means judged, determined or interpreted. In other words, this passage can also be correctly translated as spiritually judged, spiritually determined or spiritually interpreted.

What Paul was trying to help one to see is that literal minded people cannot correctly understand "spiritual truths" expressed in spiritual language. If Paul's teachings are to be "rightly divided" they must be spiritually perceived or, in other words, they must be interpreted in terms of the spiritual message that they contain. Nowhere in his writings does Paul even remotely suggest that passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4 should be interpreted literally.

Paul clearly says that his teachings need to be spiritually interpreted, and that if we interpret his teachings literally, we will not understand what he was actually saying. What does this mean in actual practice? And how can we know if we are, in fact, correctly interpreting Paul's "spiritual words?"

To help get a clearer understanding of what Paul was trying to tell us in 1 Thessalonians 4, let's begin by taking a closer look at Paul's statements concerning "those [Christians] who "sleep" and the "dead" Christians who will "rise again." First, ask yourself, how did Paul use these terms elsewhere in his writings? And then ask, how were such terms used elsewhere in the New Testament?

The NT (New Testament) writings contain numerous statements concerning topics such as: sleep, death, resurrection, awakening, and rebirth. For example, in the Apostle Peter's writings we find a statement which says that: ”For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit (P-N-E-U-M-A-T-I)” -1 Peter 4:6. If one was to interpret this statement literally, then one would have to conclude that Peter was saying that the Gospel was preached to literally "dead" people in an attempt to convince them to rise from their “deadness.”

The same is true of Paul's writings. For example, Paul told the Christians of Rome to start acting like they are alive. He wrote:”Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” -Romans 6:13. Later on, in this same letter, Paul again tells these Christians: "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11).

While Peter and Paul both advised their listeners to “wake up” and “to rise” from the "dead," Jesus told people that they had to get "re-born." Jesus said: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (S-A-R-X); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (P-N-E-U-M-A). Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” - John 3:3-7

It is obvious that Peter and Paul were not writing to people who had ever been physically dead, and likewise, Jesus was speaking to people who had obviously already been physically born. In another place, we can see where Jesus again used the analogy of "death" to refer to someone whom He had characterized as spiritually dead, spiritually misdirected or spiritually unaware. When Jesus told the man to "Let the dead bury their dead" (Luke 9:60), He certainly was not speaking of people who were physically dead and who were going to a funeral. Instead, Jesus again clearly was speaking symbolically. He was using a parable to describe people who had become spiritually misdirected.

In his letters, Paul also repeatedly uses Jesus' symbolic parable of “death.” For example, in Ephesians Paul was speaking to Christians who were obviously very much physically alive, and yet, he advised: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead," (Ephesians 5:14). In what way were the Roman Christians asleep and dead? Certainly not literally. If Paul was speaking in these passages of something other than physical sleep or a fleshly death, then wouldn't it be consistent to also apply the same principle of spiritual interpretation to 1 Thessalonians 4?

Consider back in 1 Thessalonians 4, when we take a closer look at the entire context of Paul's “rapture” passage, we can clearly see that Paul intended these passages to be interpreted spiritually. Here Paul concludes his statement about "those who sleep" by advising: "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." (1 Thessalonians 5:6). If Paul actually did intend for his statement about "those who sleep" to be interpreted literally, then to be consistent, wouldn't we also have to conclude that his other statement just a couple of verses later, "let us not sleep, as do others," should also be interpreted literally? Was Paul trying to say that he doesn't want Christians to ever physically sleep again? Of course not. This is not physically possible. Even Jesus had to sleep (see: Matthew 8:24 for one example). So, if Paul wasn't speaking here of literal, physical sleep, then what was he actually saying?

Apparently the Christians back in those days were not "rightly dividing" Paul's teachings so Paul was telling them to wake up spiritually, to open their eyes to spiritual realities and to begin to "spiritually discern" his writings. Paul continues by providing us with some even more specific examples of what he meant when he spoke of "sleep" and "death." Two thousand years ago, the Jewish people had failed to recognize the fulfillment of their prophecies. By not recognizing the return of Elijah from heaven as John the Baptist and similarly by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah they demonstrated that they had lost the true spirit of their teachings. This is what Paul meant when he called these people "blind", "asleep" and "dead."

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul explained that some of these "dead" people were raised from their spiritual deadness when they awoke to the fact that the promises contained in their scriptures had indeed been fulfilled and that Jesus truly was the Messiah. Referring to these newly awakened people, Paul wrote: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (a few that recognize Jesus) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ;) unto this day… For if the casting away of them (those who recognize Jesus) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” -Romans 11:7-15. A few had recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but the eyes of the others have been “blinded.” This is what the Scriptures refer to when they say that “God has put them to sleep,” shutting their eyes and ears so that they do not understand what they were talking about when they told them of Jesus.

Can you see what Paul was saying here? The Jewish people of Jesus' day obviously were very much physically alive, but however, according to Paul, as a result of their misunderstanding and denial they were characterized as being “dead,” not physically dead but spiritually dead or spiritually unaware. Then, Paul explains that when these people finally began to understand the inner spiritual message hidden in their scriptures and when they woke up to the fact that Jesus truly was the Messiah, Paul says that this was like "dead people coming back to life." This was something that was so wonderful that, metaphorically speaking, it was like coming out of the grave of denial and rejection and being carried up to the heaven of belief and certitude. This is also what Peter meant when he wrote that: "for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit (P-N-E-U-M-A-T-I).” - 1 Peter 4:6. It is obvious that this is what Peter and Paul both meant when they wrote of those who are "asleep" and those who will "rise again."

Paul continues his statement in 1 Thessalonians by next promising that the newly awakened Christians and those Christians who had risen from the dead will next " shall be caught up (H-A-R-P-A-Z-O) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air…" The literal interpretation of this passage has inspired the birth of the modern Christian dogma of "the rapture." Most people have seen the bumper stickers which read: "Warning: in case of rapture this car will be vacant." There are a lot more people than you think that literally believe that they will physically disappear from their cars and that there will be accidents because these cars will no longer have drivers behind the steering wheel. What would Paul have thought about this literal interpretation? What did Paul actually mean when he spoke of being "caught up... to a meeting with the Lord in the air?" Ask yourself, what are the examples of history? How were people raptured into heaven in the past? The answer, once again, can be found in the writings of Paul and the other Apostles.

The original Greek word which has been translated here as "caught up" is “H-A-R-P-A-Z-O”. The word "rapture" actually is a human invention and appears nowhere in the Bible. Paul only uses this word twice in all of his letters, in 1 Thessalonians and in 2 Corinthians.

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-5, Paul reveals that he too was “raptured” or "caught up (H-A-R-P-A-Z-O) as far as the third heaven… and heard unspeakable words no man could utter by law." Notice here, that Paul was saying that he, himself, was "caught up" into heaven two thousand years ago. Was Paul saying here that he physically ascended into heaven while he was still alive? If we can believe what Paul told us back in 1 Corinthians 15, we should already know that that "flesh and blood" can't go to heaven. So, if Paul's writings are consistent, the answer is NO! Paul was not physically “raptured” or "caught up" into heaven two thousand years ago. So, ask yourself again, what was Paul trying to teach here?

As you probably already know, before he became a Christian, there actually was a time when Paul was an enemy both of Jesus and of Christianity. Paul had rejected Jesus' claim to be the Messiah and Paul was actively working to destroy the infant Christian Church. When Paul woke up to the fact that Jesus truly was from God and that Jesus truly was the Christ, Paul describes this spiritual awakening as being "caught up (H-A-R-P-A-Z-O) as far as the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). Once again, Paul's “rapture” or his being "caught up" into heaven while he was still physically alive was a spiritual and not a literal reality. Paul's “rapture” symbolized his awakening to the inner spiritual realities which are concealed in the Jewish scriptures.

In the Apostle John's writings we can see that he too claimed to have ascended into heaven while he was still alive. John wrote: "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” (Revelation 4:1-2. When John was "caught up" into heaven he explains that this happened "in the Spirit." And again, later in the same book, John explains that he saw these things "in my vision (O-P-A-S-E-I)" -Revelation 9:17. Once again, when John was "caught up" or when he was “raptured,” this clearly was not in the flesh.

Are there any other examples in the Bible of people being “raptured” into heaven? In the Book of Hebrews we are told that the Old Testament Prophet Enoch was also "translated" into heaven. Paul (if he indeed was the author of the Book of Hebrews) explained that Enoch's "translation," or his being "carried over" into heaven, again was not physical. He wrote, ”By faith Enoch was translated (M-E-T-E-T-E-T-H-E means “carried over”) that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” -Hebrews 11:5-6. Enoch's translation into heaven was "by faith," it was a faith experience and had nothing to do with the literal flesh.

Later on, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul clearly explains what he meant by being "translated" into heaven or being "caught up" into the "kingdom of God". Paul wrote, “For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated (M-E-T-E-S-T-E-S-E-N means “carried away”) us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” -Colossians 1:9-14. Notice here that Paul was saying that when we combine "knowledge of his will" with "spiritual understanding," only then is it possible for us to be "translated" out of the "darkness" of ignorance and misinterpretation into the light of the true "faith." This is a spiritual and not a physical reality. This is Paul's spiritual interpretation of how people can be "caught up" or "translated" into the "invisible" spiritual realm of God, this is Paul's interpretation of "the rapture."

What does this actually mean to us today? In the past, we know that Jesus and His Apostles characterized those people who were caught unprepared and misdirected as being spiritually "dead," "blind," or "asleep." Furthermore, Jesus characterized the so-called Jewish religious experts of His day as "blind leaders of the blind." Jesus explained that He called them "blind" because they "teach for doctrines the commandments of men." In other words, the rabbis had misinterpreted what the Jewish scriptures were saying and yet they were passing off their viewpoint as the authoritative "doctrines" of God. In simpler words, they had become false teachers and they were misleading others. Jesus concludes this statement by warning that "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” -Matthew 15:14. Both will lose their way.

What lessons can people today learn from these mistakes of the past? Can we be certain that we're not repeating the same mistakes ourselves right now? What did Jesus and His Apostles say about it? Are there any statements in the Bible which promise that Christianity won't also be corrupted by the "leaven" of false interpretations? What did Jesus tell us?

Jesus knew what the future was going to bring and, sadly enough, He knew that His followers too would be deceived by "false prophets." Jesus predicted that, ”For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (E-K-L-E-K-T-O-U-S means “chosen”)." -Matthew 24:24. A similar warning was also given by Peter. Peter wrote, ”Israel had false prophets as well as true; and you [Christians] likewise will have false teachers among you. They will import disastrous heresies... They will gain many adherents to their dissolute practices, through whom the true way (H-O-D-O-S) will be brought into disrepute… They have abandoned the straight road (H-O-D-O-N) and lost their way (H-O-D-O-S).” -2 Peter 2:1.

The word that is translated here as "way" comes from the original Greek word H-O-D-O-S. This word means "road" or "highway." Remember, in one of his more famous statements, Jesus declared, "I am the way (H-O-D-O-S) ... no one comes to the Father, but by me.” - John 14:6 (future blog post coming on this topic). In other words Jesus was saying that He is the true “road” or “highway” that leads to the Father.

Consider what Peter was saying here. He first reminds that "Israel had false prophets" and then he predicts that Christianity will likewise have false teachers who "will gain many adherents." Peter further warns that, like the "blind leaders of the blind" in the past, "false teachers" will likewise "import disastrous heresies" into Christianity. And he concludes by sadly predicting that because of these "disastrous heresies" the "true way" or true H-O-D-O-S of Jesus will actually be "abandoned."

Is this what Paul was actually trying to warn us about in 1 Thessalonians 4 when he spoke of Christians who will be found "dead" or "asleep" at the time when "the Lord" returns? In Paul's second letter that he wrote to these same Christians in Thessalonica, Greece, in 2 Thessalonians, Paul further warns, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” -2 Thessalonians 2:3. What did Paul mean by this? Was he truly warning that Christians in the last days, like the Jews of two thousand years ago, will likewise have become "deluded" and "deceived" by false teachers? That Christians too will "fall away" from the truth and instead will be seduced into following the "lie?" Could this actually be possible? Ask yourself, did Jesus, Peter and Paul know what they were talking about?

Back in 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul states that when the Christ again comes down from heaven, he will come like a “thief in the night” (Jesus says this also). In the 24th chapter of Matthew, Jesus explains what this term means. Here, Jesus tells a parable of a servant who was left to guard his master's house when the master went away. The servant falls asleep and a thief breaks into the house. The thief was in the house and had gone before anyone had even realized that he had been there. What does this parable mean? How does it relate to the return of the Christ? Ask yourself, how was this parable fulfilled in the past? Was John the Baptist or Jesus recognized by the people of their day? Did they too come like a "thief in the night?" What can we learn from this lesson of history?

Jesus continues in Matthew 24 by telling another parable, the parable of the "ten virgins." In this story, ten future brides were waiting at night for the coming of the "bridegroom." Half were foolish because they didn't bring enough oil to light their way. Half were wise because they had come prepared. Jesus says that as they waited, they all fell asleep. Later, when the "bridegroom" finally did come, only those who had come prepared were admitted into the wedding, while those who were not prepared with the oil of insight were sent away. By their actions they had deprived themselves from the marriage to the "bridegroom." Once again, isn't this exactly what had happened two thousand years ago with John the Baptist and Jesus? The Jewish people who, because they weren't properly prepared, had deprived themselves of the opportunity of recognizing Jesus the Messiah. What does this mean to us today? Are people today, like the Jews of the past, also in danger of failing to recognizing the Messiah when he comes? If religious history is any indication, this definitely IS a possibility. Not one of God's Prophets in the past has been appropriately recognized by the very people that they came to save. What does it take for us to have the "oil" of spiritual insight? How can we avoid missing the "bridegroom" this time?

We could start by learning the lessons of the past. In the past the Jewish religious leaders were waiting to see the Old Testament prophet Elijah descend from heaven to herald the appearance of the Messiah, the Christ. When Jesus claimed to be the Christ they immediately concluded that this could not have been possible because obviously, no one had yet seen Elijah return from heaven. Jesus however explained that the actual fulfillment of this return of Elijah prophecy was much different that what they had been led to expect. The return of Elijah was John the Baptist, not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Jesus also explained that He Himself had come down from heaven two thousand years ago, again, not in the flesh, but in the spirit. These incorrect interpretations of the rabbis carried a high price. They cost John the Baptist his head and they got Jesus nailed to a cross. How could this possibly affect us today?

Today we see Christians making the exact same mistakes of interpretation that the Jewish people made two thousand years ago. Back then, the Jews were expecting to literally, visibly see the return of Elijah from heaven. Today, Christians are expecting to see Jesus literally, physically, visibly descend from heaven in the flesh. Why? Have the ominous predictions that "false prophets" will appear within Christianity come true? Has the "true way" again been "abandoned?" I ask again, did Jesus, Peter and Paul know what they were talking about? Most Christians either hope that somehow this hasn't really happened, or they hope that Jesus and Peter couldn't possibly have been talking about them. How realistic is this? What do you think?

My point is two-fold. One, is it not obvious that a lot of Christians of today are making the same mistakes that they accuse the Jews of making two-thousand years ago by interpreting things to be literally true? If they took their way of interpreting Biblical verses and lived in Jesus’ day, wouldn’t they be throwing stones at Him as well? Secondly, in a day when all of the prophecies concerning the “last days” before the “new age” comes have been fulfilled, what else are they waiting for to happen? Is it not obvious that you only know when a “thief” has come after the fact? Think about it…

cowardice followed by cowardice

2010-02-20T16:48:00.001-06:00

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid our government takes us to be. It was a cowardly act by the Obama administration to release the news of the recent DOJ (Dept. of Justice) findings on a Friday evening . Historically, Fridays are the days to release items in which you do not want the press/media to focus its attention on. The White House is attempting to do this very thing with the DOJ statement.

For those who haven’t been following the “torture-gate” scandal caused by the W. Bush administration, this is a summary: Bush lawyers, given direction by the Prez and VP, wrote “memos” that prompted our military and intelligence agencies to plan and carry out illegal interrogation tactics and torture. You may remember this as being called “Enhanced Interrogation.” No matter what one tries to call it, it was illegal, downright despicable, and yes, cowardly.

The Obama DOJ just released legal findings that called these infamous authors of the memos as exercising “poor judgment” rather than calling it what it is, ILLEGAL. Those who belong to the same party as these “war criminals” see it differently, claiming that torture, or “enhanced interrogation techniques” gave us American life saving information, even though there is not a scrap of proof to back up this statement. These same people are up in arms because the “Christmas Day” terrorist was arrested, read Miranda rights, and questioned outside a military tribunal. They claim Obama is risking lives by following the law.

So, if you’re keeping score at home, no one will be held accountable at this time for torturing prisoners, torturing done at the hands of the good ol’ USA, which is a country that prides itself on being a so-called “nation of laws.” Torturing is against US law and international law (Geneva Convention). The Obama administration has shown nothing but cowardice when it comes to holding the people responsible for this accountable.

Until the US holds itself up to a mirror and accepts responsibility for the wrong we have done, we have no hope of being looked at with respect by the international community. If I were an outsider looking at the recent development, I would clearly see the current POTUS protecting the past POTUS and his staff.

The above picture is my son. I teach him to respect laws not break them. If he asks me about this sometime in the future, I will have to tell him it was an act of cowardice followed by an act of cowardice.

where have fact based comments gone?

2010-02-14T22:05:00.000-06:00

I recently felt led to make a comment at a local blog I follow. Two posters made comments that are not supported by facts. The response I got from one of them leads me to believe that facts do not matter anymore when having a dialogue on politics. If someone keeps saying something that is not true over and over again, does it become true? It appears it makes it true in their mind. Am I wrong to see this as a trend in today’s political tactics?

Just do it...

2010-02-13T14:02:00.001-06:00

This post comes due to frustration in the log jam our government is currently in, where absolutely everything put on the table to help us move past our recession, create jobs, improve health care, national security, etc. is attacked for mostly false reasons.

It has become apparent to me that the majority of our elected politicians in the House and Senate (Democrats) have been reduced to trying to legislate according to how they will be attacked by the GOP or the emerging TEA party. Their actions, statements, and votes are as if they fear what the minority will think of them. It also appears they try to predict how they will be attacked and then take the road with the least amount of obstacles.

Here’s my suggestion to our current federal officials…. The GOP and TEA baggers are going to attack you even if you try to eliminate government or taxes all together. They have become a red meat crowd not interested in helping people but rather in making noise, obstructing progress, and being loyal to those that give them money. They are getting close to becoming masters at getting people to vote against their own interests and believe something even if it’s not true. You will be attacked for anything you do, so just do it.

1 vs 140 and it wasn't even close...

2010-01-31T17:27:00.000-06:00

Last week, we Americans got an excellent opportunity to witness how political dialogue should be exercised when President Obama visited the GOP retreat in Baltimore (multiple part video) and answered each question posed to him by several GOP members of the House.

As an independent voter I was floored by how well this went for the President. If you watch the entire video of the event, you will see why the left leaning and the unbiased media is calling this a “shredding of the GOP and their agenda” by the President and why the right slanting media is avoiding it like the plague or simply calling Obama “arrogant” or a “liar.” If one is honest with themselves, regardless of political affiliation, it is easy to see that the policies (or lack of policies) of the GOP are not what is needed at this moment in history and their criticisms are not based in facts, not even close to truth.

Our President was in a room with people that tell there base of supporters that he is not American, a Muslim, a Socialist, trying to destroy America, a liar, and what ever else they can think of to score political points. Our elected President stood in a room and answered every question honestly (based on all fact check sources I could find) without teleprompters (there goes the GOP talking point that Obama needs help to speak publicly). He pointed out their falsehoods whenever they arose. He never abased himself once during the event.

I was proud of our President after this never before televised event. It’s no wonder why the GOP did not want this televised even though they are so-called “champions of transparency” and later expressed regret by stating it was a mistake to allow cameras to record it. Now they have no way of “spinning” it in their favor which you know would happen if no eyes were on it but their own. One thing is for sure, their tactics and motivations were made transparent after this great political event and I hope it becomes an American tradition!

Hijacked - Part 3 - Repent

2010-01-24T15:49:00.002-06:00

When you hear the word repent, what do you think of? I always thought of someone confessing to a priest, loved one, or friend, telling them about something they have done in the past and asking for forgiveness. I was right to think of this based on today’s definition, but after discovering what the word means in it original form, I “repented” and re-thought my understanding.

Word: Repent/Repentance

Origin: Greek: μετάνοια (metanoia) and/or Hebrew: שוב (shuv) and נחם (nicham)
Original Meaning: Greek- 1. After thought, different from the former thought. 2. A change of mind or thought. 3. Change of mind and heart. 4. Change of consciousness. Hebrew (Compound Word) 1. To think differently after.
Today’s Meaning: 1. To feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc.. 2. To feel sorry for; regret. 3. To change one’s life for the better through confessing sins.

What If? One of the first things Jesus said during His earthly ministry was to repent and believe in His gospel (Mark 1:14 or Matthew 21:32). Does this mean to feel sorry for what you have done and believe in what He says? Or, does the original meaning make more sense? If you think about the time and circumstances under which Jesus made this command, it is logical to assume it is a command to change one’s thought. He asked the people listening to Him to “change the way they thought about God” in order to understand what He was saying. With this word being used several times in prophecy as well, it makes sense that things would be completely different than what people expect and require one to “think differently” to understand and see God’s signs at the end of the age.

In fact, in the King James translation of the Christian Bible, the word “repent” (or variation of) appears 80 times (37 in New Testament) and each verse makes more sense when you read with the earlier definition.

It is not clear why this word has a different meaning today, but I will venture out and say that the clergy of the past may be the culprit. It would certainly increase business for them…

RIP?? American Democracy

2010-01-23T20:40:00.003-06:00

The Supreme Court ruling earlier this week should be getting a lot more media coverage and discussion than what I’m witnessing. This decision will have a HUGE impact on every American and our political structure.

In essence, the court ruled that corporations are individual citizens and lifted the spending limits they have for political campaigns, limits that have been in place (or law) since Teddy Roosevelt and partially overturned the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002, even though they upheld that same law a few years ago. Hmmm….what has changed since? The opinion notes that corporations are like individuals and protected by 1st Amendment, which states:

”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So, according to the Supreme Court, we are to believe that the amount of money a corporation (think GOP contributions) or Union (think Dem contributions) give to political campaigns are expressions of speech protected under the 1st amendment. That since there are laws already on the books that limit the amount, or the timeliness of advertising dollars, it somehow takes away from their freedom of speech and is unconstitutional. WOW!!! The common man, like me, believed that the laws were there to protect the country from having elections bought by people with money and special interests. Guess I was wrong…

Here comes my dagger… This decision made by the Supreme Court, the so-called “Protectors of the Constitution,” was a severe wound, if not a mortal blow, to democracy as we know it, or how we think it should be. Everyone knows what drives the action taken in government over the last century: MONEY. Monies contributed by corporations, associations, unions, special interest groups, and more recently PAC’s, have influenced and sometimes controlled the house and senate while in the process of making policy. Why you may ask? It takes a lot of money to get elected and re-elected. Since there is always a need for money, the easiest way to get it is to bend over on a vote and receive your due so you can hire staff, print flyers, buy TV spots, etc.

Until this decision, there were limits on how directly big business, big associations, or big unions could affect or influence an election. Now… there are no limits and we’re being told it’s protected under the 1st amendment. This is how a Democracy dies and it should frighten everyone from left wing nut jobs to TEA Baggers. 9.9 times out of ten, the biggest purse or wallet wins elections, regardless of the party, and that won’t change now that corporations and their ilk can buy advertising space before a private individual can. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the ad space has already been purchased for next October and November in the last week.

Corporations are not people, they can’t vote, and therefore should not be the reason why a person is elected or a referendum passes. I agree with Justice Steven’s assertion below:

“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”

So now, unless the house and senate passes legislation that properly “redefines” corporations as what they truly and legally are (an invisible, intangible, artificial creation of the law existing as a voluntary chartered association of individuals that has most of the rights and duties of natural persons but with perpetual existence and limited liability), democracy will die and we will become a nation directed by MONEY and be a slave to those with the most.

My perception of MLK

2010-01-18T21:59:00.002-06:00

To me, not only should MLK Day honor the life and accomplishments of a great American, but should also remind people of timeless values taught through the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s actions and the example he set for every citizen of the Earth.

It seems like I have always experienced a sad moment on MLK day. I can not remember a MLK day free of someone saying, “Why does HE get a holiday?” or “Should the mail service stop for MLK?” or “I don’t understand why school is out for some guy that did nothing” or “Yeah, we get a holiday because he was shot!!! That’s the best thing he did for America.” Of course, these come from white people never in the company of someone that happens to have a shade or two darker skin color (and I won’t even repeat the REALLY racist sayings I’ve heard over the years).

They assume since I’m a pale white guy, I share in their stupidity. I will always point out the flaws in their comments, regardless of the person. I remember once, my boss made an idiotic comment about MLK and I simply asked him to name one other American that set a better example for the nation to follow when they are oppressed. He shut up. I often wonder if my responses make an impact with these people. I sure hope so.

I think all people should take time to visit the life of MLK on this day. Not only would they learn a lot about history, but also about CHARCTER and COURAGE. I recommend you imagine yourself living back in the 1960’s (either white or black or anything in between) and hearing MLK deliver any of these quotes . Here are a few that make me shiver with hope for mankind when I read them:

A right delayed is a right denied.

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.

These just make me chuckle and further endear him to me:

I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.

Thank you MLK! You were a great American and continue to be one in the hearts of those that recognize your importance in the development of our great nation!

Jesus Sights? Seriously America?

2010-01-18T20:51:00.002-06:00

Some people truly believe that our Founding Fathers envisioned a country based on Christianity, even though there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. They fail to remember that most of the colonist came here to flee Christian Theocracy rather than create a new one.

Apparently some of these same people are breaking many federal laws (and making millions of dollars) for manufacturing these weapon parts for the US military. Seriously? Do some people actually believe Jesus would support anything regarding a war???

Perhaps the best quote of Jesus to use when trying to put your enemies in your sights would be Matthew 5:43-45 which states, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Or maybe Luke 6:27-28 which says, ”But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Are these people trying to create the very thing our Founders were fleeing? One thing is for sure, they certainly do not “hear” Jesus…

Hijacked - Part 2 - Aion

2010-01-17T22:54:00.004-06:00

As I touched on in Part 1, the word, “World” (Aion) has also lost meaning over the years. There are three Greek words that are translated to “World” in English Bibles; they are κόσμος (Kosmos), οἰκουμένη (oikoumenē) and αἰών (Aion). Kosmos and oikoumenē refer to the physical Earth, its order, its contents, etc. Aion is analyzed below.

Word: Aion

Origin: Greek: αἰών

Original Meaning: 1. Period of time. 2. An age 3. An era.

Today’s Meaning: 1. The physical world.

What If? The phrase “end of the world” occurs seven times in the New Testament. Aion is used each time, never kosmos or oikoumenē. When the disciples of Jesus asked Him about the end of the world, it is aion. When Jesus says, “…so shall it be at the end of the world,” once again it is aion. Clearly this phrase means the end of an age or era.

So why translate this word as “world?” Who knows? The result of this is somewhat devastating. Instead of awaiting an end of an age, generations of Christians have feared some sort of judgment at the end of the word rather than the unveiling of something that is hidden. Perhaps in an attempt to “save” as many people as possible before the destruction of the physical Earth, many have abased themselves by attempting to scare people into sharing their own personal misunderstanding of what the Bible says. You’ve probably come across these people at some point, the ones that say you had better change your ways and believe as they do before the Earth ends or else!

Hijacked - Part 1 - Apocalypse

2010-01-17T17:12:00.003-06:00

It will be fun (mostly for me) to take a look at words that appear in sacred texts that are interpreted today with a completely different meaning than when they were written. I decided to use the title “Hijacked” because if you research the reason why these words are understood differently today, you will find various selfish, power hungry, political motives. So with that being said, here’s part one of “Hijacked.”

Word: Apocalypse

Origin: Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis

Original Meaning: 1. Disclosure 2. Manifestation 3. Revelation 4. Lifting of a veil. 5. Uncover.

Today’s Meaning: 1. The Book of Revelation. 2. Any of a number of anonymous Jewish or Christian texts from around the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. 3. Great or total devastation. 4. doom: the apocalypse of nuclear war. 5. A prophetic disclosure; a revelation.

What If? What if the original word kept its meaning? We know the first hand written English translations of the Christian Bible surfaced around 1384. Is it a coincidence that this is the period of time just one generation away from Christianity splitting into two major divisions and many different sects? I don’t think so. In Europe, the Bible was only allowed to be produced in Latin, and when it was translated into English, not only was the translator burned at the stake, it gave the Bible to the common man to read for himself should he choose. It was at this time that the English word “Apocalypse” was born.

Be honest, when you hear the word “Apocalypse,” do you not get a negative feeling? It is my opinion the word has had help from another Greek word that was lost in translation on its journey of becoming something else. That word would be the Greek word “ē'ŏn',” which simply means “age.” This word is translated as “world” in most English Bibles, as in “end of the world.”

Loosing the concept of both words has created many different sets of beliefs dividing people. Ask yourself this: Rather than having a large amount of people believing there will be “destruction” before the “end of the world,” would it not be a better place with a large amount of people that understood something would be “revealed” at the “end of an age?” Think about the modern day environmental debate and the decisions some political leaders make, just think about it…

Hell House

2010-01-15T23:42:00.005-06:00

I watched the movie Hell House tonight and starting thinking how scary the movie was. I wasn’t scared into becoming Pentecostal like the church that created this form of “entertainment” wanted me to do but rather because of the perversion of the Bible this church taught to its members and shared with the public. It is also scary that a spin off of this came to a small town just 7 miles from where I live, and children attended!!!

I found it interesting in the beginning of the movie when the pastor spoke of the history of the Pentecostal church. He said since the first bishop in the American movement was “black,” many people left and started their own movements of which his present day church is a descendant of. Translation: he said the church was founded by racists.

Probably the most shocking part of the film was after a visitor was led through the many rooms of Hell House (skits performed where someone loses their life and goes to Hell unless the accept Jesus), they end up in a well lit room with two normally dressed men standing in front of them. They are given approximately 20 seconds to decide whether they want to go to heaven or hell. If they choose heaven, they may pass through the only open door into another room filled with people ready to pray with you and get your contact information on index cards. If they choose not to go through the door, they’re told that they are risking an eternity in Hell. Then as they walk to their cars, other members are there to question their decision.

This film had a lot of memorable one liners including “…you’re goin’ to Hell for reading “Goosebumps” and “Harry Potter”…” and memorable scenes including a man dying of AIDS next to a girl bleeding out from an abortion that are “saved” at the last second because they said, “Jesus help me!!!” Not to mention all the speaking in tongues (the pastor checked to make sure the camera was on him before he started).

I would not recommend this film to you if you are easily brainwashed or susceptible to dogma. If you do choose to watch it, I would recommend a visit here afterwards for logical and rational study of the concept of Hell in the Bible. It’s an eye-opener in a different way.

The amazing thing about this film is the skilled filmmaker’s decision to let the subjects put themselves in a poor light rather than editing it to make it look like it was done on purpose. It was totally unbiased. For that reason alone, it is worth a look-see.