#purpose of it than most christians do now. he called the 'poor artists' of before and their popular more feminine 'pretty' depiction of

[butchjess]

a canticle for leibowitz a book that is like a vaccine in getting you to forgive fictional christians for being annoying. i love you religion prevailing after the world ends and then starts again i love you the cyclical nature of man and empires and nations

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Moses: An Example

by J.C. Ryle

"By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward." (Hebrews 11:24-26)

The eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a great chapter; it deserves to be printed in golden letters. I can well believe it must have been most cheering and encouraging to a converted Jew. I suppose no member of the early Church found so much difficulty in a profession of Christianity as the Hebrews did. The way was narrow to all, but preeminently so to them. The cross was heavy to all, but surely they had to carry double weight. And this chapter would refresh them like a cordial--it would be as "wine to those that are of heavy hearts."

The three verses I am going to explain are far from being the least interesting in the chapter. Indeed, I think few, if any, have so strong a claim on our attention. It seems to me that the work of faith described in the story of Moses comes home more especially to our own case. The men of God who are named in the former part of the chapter are all examples to us beyond question. But we cannot literally do what most of them did, however much we may drink into their spirit. We are not called upon to offer a literal sacrifice like Abel, or to build a literal ark like Noah, or to leave our country literally and dwell in tents and offer up our Isaac like Abraham. But the faith of Moses comes nearer to us. It seems to operate in a way more familiar to our own experience. It made him take up a line of conduct such as we must sometimes take up ourselves in the present day, each in our own walk of life, if we would be consistent Christians. First, Moses gave up rank and greatness. "He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter." We all know his history. The daughter of Pharaoh had preserved his life when he was an infant; she had adopted him and educated him as her own son. Moses might have been, if he had pleased, a very great man. If he had been content with the position in which he found himself, he might easily have been among the first (if not the very first) in all the land of Egypt.

Let us think, for a moment, how great this temptation was. Here was a man of like passions with ourselves. He might have had as much greatness as earth can well give. Rank, power, place, honor, titles, dignities--all were before him and within his grasp. These are the prizes which there is an incessant race in the world around us to obtain. To be somebody, to be looked up to, to raise themselves in the scale of society, to get a handle to their names--these are the very things for which many sacrifice time, thought, health, and life itself. But Moses would not have them as a gift. He turned his back upon them, refused them, gave them up! Moses refused pleasure. Pleasure of every kind, no doubt, was at his feet if he had liked to take it up--sensual, intellectual, social pleasure--whatever could strike his fancy. Egypt was a land of artists, a residence of learned men, a resort of every one who had skill or science of any description. There was nothing which could feed the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, or the pride of life," which one in the place of Moses might not easily have commanded and possessed as his own.

Pleasure, be it remembered, is the one thing for which millions live. Pleasure and enjoyment in the holidays is the grand object to which a schoolboy looks forward. Pleasure and satisfaction in making himself independent is the mark on which the young man in business fixes his eye. Pleasure and ease in retiring from business with a fortune is the aim which the merchant sets before him. Pleasure and bodily comfort at his own home is the sum of the poor man's wishes. Pleasure is the shadow which all alike are hunting--high and low, rich and poor, old and young,--each, perhaps, despising his neighbor for seeking it, each in his own way seeking it for himself, each secretly wondering that he does not find it, each firmly persuaded that somewhere it is to be found. This was the cup that Moses had before his lips. He might have drunk as deeply as he liked of earthly pleasure, but he would not have it. He turned his back upon it. Moses refused riches. "The treasures in Egypt" is an expression that seems to tell of boundless wealth which Moses might have enjoyed had be been content to remain with Pharaoh's daughter. We may well suppose these "treasures" would have been a mighty fortune. The pyramids, obelisks, temples, and statues are still standing there as witnesses.

Let us consider the power of money, the immense influence that "the love of money" obtains over men's minds. Let us look around and observe how men covet it, what amazing pains and trouble they will go through to obtain it. Tell them of an island many thousand miles away where something may be found that may be profitable, and at once a fleet of ships will be sent to get it. Show them a way to make one percent more on their money, and they will reckon you among the wisest of men. To possess money seems to hide defects, to cover faults, to clothe a man with virtues. But here is a man who might have been rich and would not. He would not have Egyptian treasures.

Add to all this that Moses did it deliberately. He did not refuse these things in a hasty fit of youthful excitement--he was forty years old, in the prime of life. He did not refuse them because he was obliged to. He was not like the dying man who tells us "he craves nothing more in this world;" and why?--because he is dying and cannot keep it. He was not like the pauper who makes a merit of necessity and says, "he does not want riches;" and why?--because he cannot get them. He was not like the old man who boasts that "he has laid aside worldly pleasures;" and why?--because he is worn out and cannot enjoy them. No! Moses refused what he might have enjoyed. Rank, pleasure, and riches did not leave him, but he left them. Others have refused much, but none, I think, so much as Moses. In the way of self-sacrifice and self-denial, he excels them all.

Now, I wish to consider what Moses chose. For one thing, he chose suffering and affliction. He left the ease and comfort of Pharaoh's court and openly took part with the children of Israel. They were an enslaved and persecuted people, an object of distrust, suspicion, and hatred. To the eye of sense, there seemed no chance of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage without a long and doubtful struggle. If ever man seemed to be choosing pain, trials, poverty, need, distress, anxiety--perhaps even death--with his eyes open, Moses was that man.

We draw back by a kind of instinct from suffering and avoid it if we can. We spend our days in fear and anxiety when we think affliction is coming near us and use every means to escape it. And when it does come, we often fret and murmur under the burden of it. And if we can only bear it patiently, we count it a great thing! Moses saw the cup of suffering that was before him if he left Pharaoh's court and chose it, preferred it, and took it up.

But more than this, Moses chose the company of a despised people. He left the society of the great and wise among whom he had been brought up, and joined himself to the children of Israel--slaves, serfs, pariahs, bondservants, laborers in the brick kiln who were oppressed, destitute, afflicted, and tormented. Moses chose reproach and scorn. Men would tell him he was mad, foolish, weak, silly, out of his mind. He would lose his influence. He would forfeit the favor and good opinion of all among whom he had lived. There are few things more powerful than ridicule and scorn. It can do far more than open enmity and persecution. Many a man who would march up to a cannon's mouth, lead a forlorn hope, or storm a breach, has found it impossible to face the mockery of a few companions--to be laughed at, made a joke of, sneered at!

Finally, let me speak of the principle which moved Moses and made him do as he did. We have the answer in the text: "Faith." He did it all because he believed. God set before his mind's eye his own will and purpose. God revealed to him that a Savior was to be born of the stock of Israel, that mighty promises were bound up in these children of Abraham and yet to be fulfilled, and that the time for fulfilling a portion of these promises was at hand. Moses put credit in this and believed. Faith was a telescope to Moses. It made him see the goodly land afar off--rest, peace, and victory, when dimsighted reason could only see trial and barrenness, storm and tempest, weariness and pain. Faith told Moses that all the rank and greatness of the earth was a poor, vain, empty thing, fleeting and passing away; that there was no true greatness like that of serving God. Faith told Moses that worldly pleasures were "pleasures of sin," ruinous to the soul and displeasing to God. Faith told Moses that these pleasures, after all, were only for a "season." They would weary him soon; he must leave them all in a few years. Faith told Moses that there was a reward in heaven for the believer that was far richer than the treasures in Egypt: a crown incorruptible.

What has all this to do with me? someone will ask. For one thing, if you would ever be saved, you must make the choice that Moses made. You must choose God before the world. I do not mean that the statesman must leave his office or the rich man forsake his property. But I mean that if a man would be saved, whatever be his rank in life, he must be prepared for tribulation. He must make up his mind to choose much that seems evil and give up and refuse much that seems good.

Are you making any sacrifices? Does your religion cost you anything? Are you, like Moses, preferring God to the world? Is there any cross in your Christianity? Do you know anything of the afflictions of the Gospel? Is your faith and practice ever a subject of scorn and reproach? Many, I fear, would like glory who have no wish for grace. They would fain have the wages but not the work, the harvest but not the labor, the reaping but not the sowing, the reward but not the battle. But it may not be. As Bunyan says, "The bitter must go before the sweet." If there is no cross, there will be no crown.

Dear reader, would you be eminently holy and useful? Would you, like Moses, make it clear as noon day that you have chosen God before the world? Then take this advice: go and cry to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the disciples did, "Lord, increase our faith." Faith is the root of a real Christian's character. Let your root be right and your fruit will soon abound. Your spiritual prosperity will always be according to your faith.

[pope-francis-quotes]

10th April >> (@ZenitEnglish) #PopeFrancis #Pope Francis Presides Over Celebration of Passion of the Lord. Full Text of Homily by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap

Pope Francis on Good Friday presided over the celebration of the Passion of the Lord in the Vatican Basilica.

The Preacher of the Pontifical House, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., delivered the homily, which is provided in its entirety below, provided by the Vatican.

“I HAVE PLANS FOR YOUR WELFARE AND NOT FOR WOE”

St. Gregory the Great said that Scripture “grows with its readers”, cum legentibus crescit.[1] It reveals meanings always new according to the questions people have in their hearts as they read it. And this year we read the account of the Passion with a question—rather with a cry—in our hearts that is rising up over the whole earth. We need to seek the answer that the word of God gives it.

The Gospel reading we have just listened to is the account of the objectively greatest evil committed on earth. We can look at it from two different angles: either from the front or from the back, that is, either from its causes or from its effects. If we stop at the historical causes of Christ’s death, we get confused and everyone will be tempted to say, as Pilate did, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Mt 27:24). The cross is better understood by its effects than by its causes. And what were the effects of Christ’s death? Being justified through faith in him, being reconciled and at peace with God, and being filled with the hope of eternal life! (see Rom 53:1-5).

But there is one effect that the current situation can help us to grasp in particular. The cross of Christ has changed the meaning of pain and human suffering—of every kind of suffering, physical and moral. It is no longer punishment, a curse. It was redeemed at its root when the Son of God took it upon himself. What is the surest proof that the drink someone offers you is not poisoned? It is if that person drinks from the same cup before you do. This is what God has done: on the cross, he drank, in front of the whole world, the cup of pain down to its dregs. This is how he showed us it is not poisoned, but that there is a pearl at the bottom of it.

And not only the pain of those who have faith but of every human pain. He died for all human beings: “And when I am lifted up from the earth,” he said, “I will draw everyone to myself” (Jn 12:32).

Everyone, not just some! St. John Paul II wrote from his hospital bed after his attempted assassination, “To suffer means to become particularly susceptible, particularly open to the working of the salvific powers of God, offered to humanity in Christ.”[2] Thanks to the cross of Christ, suffering has also become in its own way a kind of “universal sacrament of salvation” for the human race.

* * *

What light does all of this shed on the dramatic situation that humanity is going through now? Here too we need to look at the effects more than at the causes—not just the negative ones we hear about every day in heart-wrenching reports but also the positive ones that only a more careful observation can help us grasp.

The pandemic of Coronavirus has abruptly roused us from the greatest danger individuals and humanity have always been susceptible to: the delusion of omnipotence. A Jewish rabbi has written that we have the opportunity to celebrate a very special paschal exodus this year, that “from the exile of consciousness” [3]. It took merely the smallest and most formless element of nature, a virus, to remind us that we are mortal, that military power and technology are not sufficient to save us. As a psalm in the Bible says, “In his prime, man does not understand. / He is like the beasts—they perish” (Ps 49:21). How true that is!

While he was painting frescoes in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, the artist James Thornhill became so excited at a certain point about his fresco that he stepped back to see it better and was unaware he was about to fall over the edge of the scaffolding. A horrified assistant understood that crying out to him would have only hastened the disaster. Without thinking twice, he dipped a brush in paint and hurled it at the middle of the fresco. The master, appalled, sprang forward. His work was damaged, but he was saved.

God does this with us sometimes: he disrupts our projects and our calm to save us from the abyss we don’t see. But we need to be careful not to be deceived. God is not the one who hurled the brush at the sparkling fresco of our technological society. God is our ally, not the ally of the virus! He himself says in the Bible, “I have . . . plans for your welfare and not for woe” (Jer 29:11). If these scourges were punishments of God, it would not be explained why they strike equally good and bad, and why the poor usually bring the worst consequences of them. Are they more sinners than others?

No! The one who cried one day for Lazarus’ death cries today for the scourge that has fallen on humanity. Yes, God “suffers”, like every father and every mother. When we will find out this one day, we will be ashamed of all the accusations we made against him in life. God participates in our pain to overcome it. “Being supremely good – wrote St. Augustine – God would not allow any evil in his works, unless in his omnipotence and goodness, he is able to bring forth good out of evil.”[4]

Did God the Father possibly desire the death of his Son in order to draw good out of it? No, he simply permitted human freedom to take its course, making it serve, however, his own purposes and not those of human beings. This is also the case for natural disasters like earthquakes and plagues. He does not bring them about. He has given nature a kind of freedom as well, qualitatively different of course than that of human beings, but still a form of freedom—freedom to evolve according to its own laws of development. He did not create a world as a programmed clock whose least little movement could be anticipated. It is what some call “chance” but the Bible calls instead “the wisdom of God.”

* * *

The other positive fruit of the present health crisis is the feeling of solidarity. When, in the memory of humanity, have the people of all nations ever felt themselves so united, so equal, so less in conflict than at this moment of pain? Never so much as now have we experienced the truth of the words of one of our great poets: “Peace, you peoples! Too deep is the mystery of the prostrate earth.”[5] We have forgotten about building walls. The virus knows no borders. In an instant, it has broken down all the barriers and distinctions of race, nation, religion, wealth, and power. We should not revert to that prior time when this moment has passed. As the Holy Father has exhorted us, we should not waste this opportunity. Let us not allow so much pain, so many deaths, and so much heroic engagement on the part of health workers to have been in vain. Returning to the way things were is the “recession” we should fear the most.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks;

One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. (Is 2:4)

This is the moment to put into practice something of the prophecy of Isaiah whose fulfillment humanity has long been waiting for. Let us say “Enough!” to the tragic race toward arms. Say it with all your might, you young people, because it is above all your destiny that is at stake. Let us devote the unlimited resources committed to weapons to the goals that we now realize are most necessary and urgent: health, hygiene, food, the fight against poverty, stewardship of creation. Let us leave to the next generation a world poorer in goods and money, if need be, but richer in its humanity.

* * *

The word of God tells us the first thing we should do at times like these is to cry out to God. He himself is the one who puts on people’s lips the words to cry out to him, at times harsh words of lament and almost of accusation: “Awake! Why do you sleep, O Lord? / Rise up! Do not reject us forever! . . . Rise up, help us! / Redeem us in your mercy” (Ps 44, 24, 27). “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (Mk 4:38).

Does God perhaps like to be petitioned so that he can grant his benefits? Can our prayer perhaps make God change his plans? No, but there are things that God has decided to grant us as the fruit both of his grace and of our prayer, almost as though sharing with his creatures the credit for the benefit received.[6] God is the one who prompts us to do it: “Seek and you will find,” Jesus said; “knock and the door will be opened to you” (Mt 7:7).

When the Israelites were bitten by poisonous serpents in the desert, God commanded Moses to lift up a serpent of bronze on a pole, and whoever looked at it would not die. Jesus appropriated this symbol to himself when he told Nicodemus, “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:14-15). We too at this moment have been bitten by an invisible, poisonous “serpent.” Let us gaze upon the one who was “lifted up” for us on the cross. Let us adore him on behalf of ourselves and of the whole human race. The one who looks on him with faith does not die. And if that person dies, it will be to enter eternal life.

“After three days I will rise”, Jesus had foretold (cf. Mt 9:31). We too, after these days that we hope will be short, shall rise and come out of the tombs of our homes. Not however to return to the former life like Lazarus, but to a new life, like Jesus. A more fraternal, more human, more Christian life!

[1] Moralia in Job, XX, 1.

[2] John Paul II, Salvifici doloris [On the Meaning of Human Suffering], n. 23.

[3] https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/coronavirus-a-spiritual-message-from-brooklyn (Yaakov Yitzhak Biderman).

[4] See St. Augustine, Enchiridion 11, 3; PL 40, 236.

[5] Giovanni Pascoli, “I due fanciulli” [“The Two Children”].

[6] See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, II-IIae, q. 83, a. 2.

10th APRIL 2020 19:27POPE & HOLY SEE

[yes-supreme-justice-blog]

Open Letter To Forsyth County

FORSYTH EXPOSED

Open Letter

An Open Letter To Forsyth County

August of 2018, a 19-year-old UGA student didn’t return home on time, the overly zealous and dramatic parents of Byron Grogan, contacted the police. The Forsyth County Sheriff’s department, outside standard procedures in a missing person, is reported, initiated a full-scale search effort. Enlisting the help of Park Rangers, members of the community, the media, and even police dogs. Byron was safely found alive when he stumbled into his parents Suwanee home in the wee hours of the night. Forsyth County utilized the best of the best, of their resources when a 19-year-old white resident sent all of his parent’s calls to voicemail. Three months later, Tamla Horsford, also a resident of Forsyth County was found dead, in the backyard of her friends home. Forsyth County then assigns it’s the dumbest investigator to supervise the case, Andy Kalin. Byron Grogan got helicopters, boats, community shock and worry, and even a police dog and all Tamla Horsford got was Andy Kalin. Tamla Horsford was black.

Dear Forsyth County, I have some questions.

I have poured over hundreds of hours of video and social media post, before writing this letter. I wanted to get a better understanding of, what #blacktwitter was calling a murder and a poor attempt at a cover-up, in Tamla Horsford’s death. And like Forsyth County, I spent all that time investigating and I am still not any closer to understanding any of this. But, unlike the Sheriff’s department, I actually proofread my stuff before releasing it.

This subject matter evokes a lot of emotion within my soul. This letter has been weeks in the making, I did not want to get too far off topic or too deep into my feelings when addressing this subject matter. But music has been my outlet since I was a child, it has given me a way to express my emotions when I had no words, it has been the noise I needed when I could not sleep. And music has been the soundtrack of my life. My favorite artist is Michael Jackson, his music moves my feet and my soul’s conscience, with his help, through his lyrics, here is my

Open Letter To Forsyth County.“Carry me / Like you are my brother / Love me like a mother / Will you be there?”

November 4th, 2018 Jeanne Meyers made a call to 911 to report her friend was unresponsive in her backyard. As per her statement, she began to call 911 before even seeing the lifeless body in her yard. What stood out to me the most was her tone, it was flat and had no emotions.

So this is where it gets odd for me. During the 911 call, Jeanne’s voice is, slightly labored but calm, she’s middle-aged and out of shape. She speaks in a very matter of fact tone. Without being prompted, she gives the 911 operator her alibi, which is again, is odd to me. Her friend is lying lifeless, and instead of asking how to help, she’s walking the 911 operator through her version of events. This is called an alibi.

Jose Barrera then takes control of the call and talks to the 911 operator. He introduces himself to her and I am sure they know each other. As if almost on cue, with no prompting, Jose begins to walk the 911 dispatch operator through his version of events. And refers to his girlfriend’s friend, as “the woman we believe to be deceased.”

Looking at her as she lay motionless, probably pacing back and forth, walking the 911 operator through his poorly constructed alibi. Jose continues on, the 911 operator asks him, repeatedly did he assess her, or did he check her pulse? “NO, but I did bend her leg back, and she appears to be stiff.”

During the entire 911 call without “assessing her,” he believes that she is dead, not one of the 4 people present, attempts to provide aid to her when the police arrive no medical personnel accompanies them. No statements are taken that day, her car is driven to her home be police, and aside from crime scene tech taking photos to illustrate how her body was positioned, no evidence was gathered and no statements were made.

According to online training documents that I found online, basic standards for training of Probation officers involves CPR. Jose Barrera failing to administer aid to Tamla Horsford, given his training and employment background and after repeated prompting by the 911 dispatcher is somewhat suspicious

Responding officers, crime scene techs, and the coroner where on scene, but medical professionals were noticeably absent from any of the reports given to open record. By Georgia law, a medical professional has to present to declare a person dead according to § 31–10–16.

As Michael Edward Christian, walks around Jeanne’s backyard and speaking to his pal Jose, he requests that all the guest present who left return. As they do, I am sure he probably trips over his own two feet somehow and notices an inanimate object in the grass, and declares she had a medical emergency from a ground level fall and then succumbed to her injuries a few hours later. Remember Byron Grogan got police dogs, Tamla’s death investigation was done by Michael Christian and Andy Kalin.

“If they say, why, why, tell them that it’s human nature.”

And 2 weeks later, Jeanne produced an email from ARLO stating the batteries in her camera were dying, and they needed to be replaced. And in the forwarded email to Detective Christian, Jeanne alluded that she was not astute enough to know how to replace the batteries in the cameras.

A quick trip to Best Buy and a phone call with ARLO determined this to be a lie. If Jeanne has ever replaced batteries in a child’s toy or even a sex toy, I am sure Jeanne would have been able to change them. She has 3 sons, a boyfriend under 30 and an ex-husband, and none of these people were able to help Jeanne change some damn batteries, I call foul.

From the beginning, this investigation clearly was not a significant concern or important to Forsyth County. “Persons of interest” interviews took place days later including one that happened 3 weeks later. More than enough time for possible corroboration, cover-ups, and lies.

As Jeanne sat next to her aunt Madeline Lombardo, as if she were assisting one of her children with their homework. Jeanne Meyers directed her aunt on what to write in her statement. And while her aunt gave detectives her oral statement during her interview, Jeanne barged her way in yielding gifts in the form of gift cards for the detectives.

“Situation, aggravation / Everybody allegation / In the suite, on the news” “All I want to say is that / They don’t really care about us.”

As I look back on the history of Forsyth County, mainly racism. I wonder did that have any bearing on the handling of this investigation? According to his self-written biography, Ron Freeman started his career over 30 years ago, in 1987. The same year that was plagued with racist counter marches by white nationalist and hateful bigots in robes calling themselves the KKK. Did any of this history have a part in the way this case was handled?

Sheriff Ron Freeman, Judge Jeffrey Bagley, District Attorney Penny Penn, Judge David Dickinson, Coroner Lauren McDonald, and Judge Phillip Smith this letter is too you. You all are elected officials and are in place for two purposes, to serve the citizens of Forsyth County and to protect their constitutional rights.

But instead, you misuse the authority and power you are given in its complete capacity. I will provide you with some examples:

Bagley, Dickinson, Smith, and Penn, you 4 especially Bagley are amongst the top 5 corrupt officials along with Sheriff Ron Freeman. Instead of using the authority given to you to protect the community that has elected you, you instead use it to further create a racial divide within Forsyth County. How many wealthy defendants have you given a “sweetheart” deal too? How many rapist, child molesters, and sexual predators still roam the streets freely because of the “sweet deals” their overpriced attorneys have afforded them?

Seriously how many sexual predators are going to be able to be free of the label of a “registered sex offender” when their probation is done, but their victims will forever carry that burden of pain. You, Judge Bagley, are a despicable round little man, you like the lack as mentioned above any sort of integrity or moral compass. How do you from an ethical standpoint preside over a case that you are friends with the defendant and the attorney. Is that why Frisky Hands Frank Huggins got off with only probation for sexual assault on a teen.

“Tell me what has become of my rights / Am I invisible because you ignore me? Your proclamation promised me free liberty, now /I’m tired of bein’ the victim of shame.”

Ms. Penn how many DUI’s has the sheriff’s office covered up for you now? I lost track when you were required to pay for the damages out of pocket. Can you also explain to me why you love sending blacks to prison? The question, for you, Penny Penitentiary Penn, wasn’t your job as a public defender to keep your clients out of prison, so why did the majority of your cases end up with plea deals that ended in prison? I mean the number alone would make even Dickinson blush.

Dickinson, what about you sir, you old grumpy goat. Why the significant disparity in sentencing and bonds when it comes to black defendants? But you give rich white kids breaks? Like the kid a few years ago who was already on probation for underage drinking, has a serious DUI, kills his passenger and you give him a low bond, and you sentence him on the low end for his offense so he can “enjoy his life” and he will also be able to get his license back? I know you remember Adam Robert Joesph Di Millo. You sentenced him to just 5 years in prison, you gave him a low bond you even let him “stay in rehab” before going to prison. It’s not like in prison he is going to have access to an open bar now is he Dicky?

And you Ronnie or do you prefer to be called Ron? I really could care less. You ran this big campaign hinged upon you’re more ethical, you’re smarter, more qualified, and hell you probably think you are better looking than Piper(no, you’re not). But I hate to tell you bud, the results have come in and that sir, like everything out of your mouth was determined to be a lie. I am not sure if it is because you have low self-esteem and you just want to have friends, and you desire to be liked, or is it you like to have the authority to selectively, administer the law.

Like all of these scandals that are popping up like teenage acne out of your office. Todd Maloney, Chris Barrett, and I hear you may have dug a hole and stuck Ben Finley in it because you don’t want his sexting scandal to get out. Why is it hard for you to be ethical and adequately administer the law. And why are you still friends with Creepy old man Frank Huggins? Why do you sympathize with racist Ronnie? I mean, that’s the reason why you are no longer at the City of Brookhaven, you stuck your chubby little neck out for Chris Shelton after he was fired, right Ronnie? For that photo, he posted of himself online in blackface. That’s the real reason you needed a two-year head start, to start your campaign. Now Chris Shelton is a deputy coroner, who got him the job? The man was fired for having poor judgment in thinking it was ok to be a racist, yet here we are again, and you have re-hired someone who was already fired, and fried for good reason. Ironic how you went on about Piper being dumb and turns out he was quite the opposite. When he fired the 11 of you, Barrett and Shelton included, that was one of the best things to happen to Forsyth County. So

And what do you do Ronnie? You come back and you bring the unwanted guest with you. Maybe instead of acne, you’re more like herpes? You know you were fired, and you and the other 10 rightfully unemployed people went to court on 4 occasions trying to get your jobs back.

And here we are, and no one has been held responsible for the death of Tamla Horsford. Ronnie, can you explain to the people why?

Nichole Lawson

Matt Meyers

Let’s backtrack a little bit there Ronnie back to your campaign. Anna DeBlois was your campaign manager, right? Didn’t her husband Brian give a hefty donation? Stacy and Tom Smith are friends with DeBlois, they are also good friends with you and your wife, right Ronnie? Did this have anything to do with the way Tamla’s case was handled? Brian was one the 11 fired by Piper, he also got creepy Frank the job at Lanier Tech, and he knew Huggins was a sexual predator right? Which is why Paxton forced him into early retirement..

“Tired of injustice / Tired of the schemes Your lies are disgusting / What does it mean”

Ronnie my boy! So let me make sure I got this correct, the Deblois’s are good girlfriends friends with your wife, and the Deblois are really good friends with Nichole and Steven Lawson as well as Stacy and Tom Smith. Jose Barrera and Andy Kalin are also really good girlfriends, back when Andy was employ be the courthouse. Then you brought him over to the sheriff’s department after he helped your campaign, right?

So just off things, I can prove on paper, you and 4 persons of interest have a connection and a friendship, Jose Barrera knows personally at least 75% of the people that work at the courthouse or the Sheriff’s department. Not only that, you got racist Chris Shelton working at the coroner’s office, where Tamla’s body stayed for two days.

So Ronnie, why wasn’t this case turned over? Clearly, there are conflicts. No one within Forsyth County clearly has any ethical values. Penn, Dickinson, and Bagley don’t keep getting re-elected because they are just great people, they keep getting re-elected because no one is running against them. So, this is what I am going to do, I have written an identical letter, with just a little less satire and I have emailed it to every elected official in the state of Georgia. I also have crafted a message to more progressives encouraging them to run. And just like Penny Penn can indict a ham and cheese sandwich, I am sure someone will be able to successfully run against you all ending your corruption and conspiracy.

Truly Yours,

Supreme Justice

www.forsythexposed.com

[freedomsoapbox]

Dear “Moderate” Liberal Millennial Christians: It’s Time To Pick A Side

I  went to a conservative  Christian high school.  Most of my friends from  high school are  Christian.  It may surprise you to learn that many of  them are liberal  Democrats or Democrat sympathizers, though if you  yourself went to a  Christian high school this may not surprise you at  all.

It’s  no secret that many Americans  who claim to be Christian are liberal   Democrats.  But I mention the  phenomenon of graduates from Christian   high schools being (often  becoming sometime during their senior year if  my suspicions and  experience are any indication) openly liberal to   highlight the known  fact that even conservative Christian institutions are producing,  attracting, and harboring liberal activists.

I   say “liberal activists” because, in my generation at least, there is no  other type of liberal. Donald Trump’s election has resulted in what  few  of them were not openly political effectively being conscripted   into  The Resistance.  Most of those millennial liberals who went to my high  school are not as extreme as the stereotypical college feminist. They  don’t talk about “safe spaces”, they don’t sympathize with Antifa  (at  least not openly), and most will be careful not to be seen   defending  Planned Parenthood too loudly.  Their activism is mostly   restricted to  Facebook, just like most activism from liberals and   conservatives alike  seems to be restricted to Facebook.

But   being friends on Facebook is enough to know which side they have   picked.  And as moderate as they may try to appear, they have picked a   side. A few shared memes, liked posts, etc. communicate that they are   members of The Resistance, even if they are only part of the reserve   force.

I have  also been able to intuit   what they tend to think of the group comprised  of me and the other   students from my high school who chose to remain,  or even become,   conservative Christians.  Now I want to make it clear  that none of   these liberal classmates have ever individually  disrespected or   mistreated me, and I have good relationships with most  of them. But as a  whole, they view us as relatively intelligent peers  who have simply   not been fortunate enough to break away from the mental  shackles   imposed on us by our church denomination through our parents  and the   conservative faculty at our high school. I could picture their   collective advice to us being something like “Dr. Peterson (made up name   of our Dean of Students) isn’t here anymore to fine you for not   wearing  a belt.  You need to take some of what they taught us at that   school  with a grain of salt.”

That’s   not to say I think all of them necessarily thought the strict dress   code at our school was a bad thing, but the point is that our high   school was very conservative, had its share of nonsense and bullshit   from the administration, and in general they are kind of glad to be away   from it.  Well, I know for a fact that I and several other of my   conservative peers are glad to be away from that place as well, but   liberal millennials tend to view themselves as supporting characters in a   real-life dystopian story, and it is clear that these liberal   graduates  view our Alma Mater as being beholden to the conservative   dystopia that  is currently headed but not entirely controlled by Donald  Trump.  And  as for their classmates who also remain beholden to this dystopia, we’re  kind of like that kid in the terrible movie Dead Poets Society   who ratted out the Society to the school administration and got Mr.   Keating fired, not because he really wanted to but simply because the   agents of the dystopia convinced him that it was the right thing against   his better judgement.  They, on the other hand, are standing on their   desks, and they are trying to convince us that it’s alright to do so.

This   dynamic is not unique to alumni from Christian high schools.  It is  the  same attitude with which many of the more “moderate” liberals of  all  age groups regard their conservative friends.  It’s not that we’re  bad  people, it’s just that we don’t get it. It is the same attitude  conveyed  a little more condescendingly in articles like this,   which explains a study that purports to demonstrate that being a   steadfast conservative is often reducible to having stronger primal   self-preservation instincts than liberals.  If you want to drop the   clinical facade and judge the article as the propaganda piece that it   clearly is, what the author is really saying is that conservatives in   middle America, by and large, are at best the unfortunate victims of   repressed mild emotional trauma from our parents never letting us leave  the house alone until age 13 for fear of kidnapping, and at worst   atavists whose genetically predetermined responses to stimuli are more   fitting for societies of a more, ahem, simple state  of development.   But don’t worry, society needs folks who possess such  mindstates as   well, after all the root of such attitudes is a healthy  drive for   safety and prudence (wink wink).

You  see  the liberals in my friend circles, especially liberal Christians  who went to my high school, like to share articles like this on social   media.  They will also, without directly addressing us conservative   peers, delineate on how such findings relate to the rise of Nazism and   other hyper-nationalist movements in a manner that they no doubt think  is erudite.

First  of all, as a quick   aside, I’d like to address this narrative of the  rise of Nazism.   Someone needs to point out that while the ability to  regurgitate this tired thesis that Hitler was able to rise to power by  manipulating   people’s primal urges in a population that was starving and   war-traumatized, by giving them an internal enemy (the Jews) to project  their fear and bitterness onto, and by promising them a better life   while not telling them very much about the uglier side of his agenda   until they had been fully initiated, on an essay exam may have impressed   your AP World History teacher, it is at best an oversimplification of   history and at worst disingenuous.  Germany in the 1930s was not just a   country of poor farmers and unemployed Great War veterans who simply  let  themselves be led down Hitler’s path to hell before they realized  their  mistake. The fact of the matter is that Weimar Germany was  already a  society of people who by and large did not value freedom and  democracy  and which already suffered from widespread moral bankruptcy  before  Hitler became prominent. Hitler did not recruit the Brownshirts  by  inviting young men with no future to be part of something greater  than  themselves so much as he simply organized and militarized the  criminal  element of several major cities to serve his purposes.  The  Germans had  to be carpet-bombed and then occupied before they were  ready to finally  be a part of the civilized West. And any attempt to  connect the  narrative of the Nazis to the rise of Trump is, you know,  stupid.

But  anyway, getting back to the  point, I’m focusing on my liberal peers  from Christian high schools  across the nation because I know that we,   conservative millennial  Christians, will have to deal with them in the not-so-distant future.   My liberal classmates may not have much respect  for the conservative  traditions of our school, but they will likely  comprise a large share  of the school’s future teachers, staff, PTO  leaders, Alumni Association  officers, and major donors.  And that’s a  problem. We know where their  loyalties lie, and it is with the  Democratic Party first and Christ  and His church second. You cannot be a  loyal Democrat and have those  priorities reversed. These people will be  leaven within the church’s  institutions.  We’ve seen what their so-called “moderate” liberal parents from the Boomer generation can do to such institutions   simply by being tolerated within them even if most of them don’t go   out  of their way to be liberal activists. And they will be active   soldiers  in the war against conservatism and Christianity, whether they  know it  or not.

And  so I’d like to   address the remainder of this piece to those people.  Not  just my   liberal classmates, but all moderate liberal Christians of my   generation (hereafter “you”):You  have picked a side, and it is the   wrong one.  You think that we  conservative millennial Christians   (hereafter “we”) are on the “wrong  side of history”, but it is actually  you who have chosen the wrong side.   You may very well have chosen the  winning side,  but your side remains  objectively, morally wrong (alternative title for  this piece: Some  Things Young Conservative Christians Wish We Could Say  To Our Liberal  Christian Friends If You Guys Would Hear Us Out).

We   can still be friends.  We have remained friends with you even after   you  have indirectly called us homophobes, fundamentalists,   reactionaries,  woman-haters, and the like.  Many of you have not   directly addressed us  so to our faces, but we happen to fall into the   group of people whom you  regard as such. Nevertheless, we remain your   friends.

But  you need to realize that we  have also chosen a side, and it is  decidedly against everything you   stand for.  That does not mean we stand  against justice, fairness,   charity, and the like. It’s just that those  are the things you claim to   stand for, and I am speaking of the things that you are actually   willing to stand for.  When the chips are down, you will stand for the   evil of abortion. You will stand for middle school students being forced   to share shower facilities with members of the opposite sex, including   adults.  You will stand for police officers being railroaded by the   media and the justice system for doing their job in cases where a young   black man happens to end up dead.

And   you will stand for the persecution of Christians.  Specifically, you  will stand for the persecution of Christians who have not thrown their   lot in with the American persecutors of Christians, which means   eventually that you will stand for the persecution of us.

For   example, whenever you guys rail against a certain Christian artist or   business owner for not accommodating a same-sex couple or someone who   identifies as transgender, it never seems to occur to you that your   Christian friends on the other side of the political aisle could and   probably will be in that same position in the future.  We are afraid to  open our own businesses or go into creative professions because we know   that the minute we cross the LGBT agenda, or possibly the abortion   agenda, we are liable to have our lives destroyed by the government.

And   you support this.  You will side with the government when they come to   take our businesses away from us or even impose criminal sanctions.    Perhaps you will reason that it is regrettable but necessary, and that   it’s our own fault in the end for resisting civil rights.

You   know, I’m not going to go as far as to pull out the “if you’re a   liberal Christian then you’re not really a Christian” card here, but   Jesus does have some strong words of warning for those who persistently  side with the world over Him.  We all side with the world over Him, and   we all do so often. Even the Apostles did. But you have formally   chosen a  side, declared it, and it happens to be the side that is   waging war  against Christ and His Church.Your  excuses that you would   actually be furthering Christ’s love are totally  hollow.  Jesus would   not have baked a cake for a gay “wedding” (or  built a gay couple a   house to live in, being a carpenter), he would not  (does not) support   Planned Parenthood, and he would not (does not)  support the gender   transition process.  If you disagree with this, you  are disagreeing   with Him, the Apostle Paul, not to mention the Church  Fathers along   with every serious prominent theologian throughout the  history of   Christianity until the past three or four decades. Of course,  the   church fathers never spoke about transgenderism, but that’s only   because it is an insane demonic dystopian agenda that even the ancient   pagans could hardly have conceived.  They did speak on abortion and gay   marriage, and their opinions on the matter hold a lot more weight than   yours. Ecumenically speaking, the scholarship on these matters, along   with evolution and some other things, within Christianity is as settled   as you claim the scholarship is on climate change. The denominations  and  clerics that claim otherwise do so ashamedly and uneasily, and can   accurately be described as “Bible deniers”.  And don’t try to bring  lame  arguments regarding shellfish and eating pork into this, because those arguments have been quite thoroughly debunked,   and if you haven’t heard the debunking it’s only because members of   your side ban us from the message boards (one of the things that annoy  us about debating with you liberal Christians is that, while you guys  are generally more willing to at least debate us in the first place than   your more extreme SJW allies, many of you have a tendency to need to   have very basic theological concepts explained to you as if you've never   heard them before.  It makes it difficult for the discussion to   progress when we constantly have to stop and do your liberal pastor's   job for him.)

Of  course, I wouldn’t   expect that to hold much weight with atheists and  hardcore secularists who don’t believe the Bible to have any authority  anyway.  They have   chosen their side, and they are proud of it. But at  least they won’t be  attending a Christian college claiming to want an  authentic Christian  education and then working to tear down  Christianity within that   institution.

Your  Christian brothers and  sisters are being persecuted by the side you  have chosen, and you will  be required to assent to and sometimes  participate in the persecution  in order to be a loyal member of your  Resistance. Although the gap may  be closing, you are still the  out-group within American Christianity,  and yet you demand equal  (greater) say and status. You call our kind  Pharisees while enabling our  persecution at the hands of the side you  have chosen.  You have gone  out of your way to declare yourselves  “allies” to every group from gays  to transgenders to feminists to  Muslims, but we never seem to part of   your alliance. Not that we would  want to, because you’re allied with   enemy powers.

You   see, we don’t disagree with you because we are more afraid or less   college-educated or whatever else you have in mind.  We disagree with   you because the Bible is on our side, the facts are on our side, common   sense are on our side, and moral principles are on our side, and not   yours.  We showed you footage of Planned Parenthood trafficking in baby   parts, and you ignored it. You might be a little uncomfortable with it,   but you would never be as vocally outraged as when a police officer   shoots a black person and it gets the attention of the national media,   despite the fact that in almost every single case your side has been   objectively and completely wrong about both the facts and the law of the   matter.

This  is the point where many of you decide to pull out the “personally  opposed” card. Mainly, you   will use this card in the abortion debate,  since you have long ago   given up pretending to be “personally opposed”  to gay marriage   (although you might be one of the few left who will  admit the inability  to defend gay “marriage” on Biblical grounds but  simply sidestep the issue by repeating the lie that the Constitution  requires the   government to recognize it even though it does no such  thing, which is to say you think that the despot Supreme Court has  absolved you of   having to make any further defense of this abomination  to others or to your own conscience) or gender conversion. Conveniently,  you have   already passed the point of having to worry about being a  scared   freshman girl who now has to share a locker room with a boy. And  come   to think of it, you’ve also conveniently passed the point of having  to worry about being aborted. I’d just like to point out that your  sudden  “personally opposed” fig leaf when it comes to especially morally   uncomfortable topics like abortion kind of clashes with your persona as  a fighter for justice in the face of dystopia.

Of   course you don’t have to use that card often, because compared to your   more extreme, non-Christian contemporaries, most of the political talk   we hear from you centers around the somewhat less controversial topics   like gun control, immigration, environmentalism, welfare, etc. Much  of  what you have to say concerns how “uncaring” our side is more than  it  does any actual evidence, but at least you could hold the Democrat   positions on such issues and still theoretically be a member in good   standing of Christian orthodoxy. These are issues that the Bible does   not give explicit guidance on like abortion and gay “marriage”.  But   there are still two main problems with you siding with Democrats on   these issues. The first is that in most cases your opinions are wrong,   often unconstitutional, and easily debunked. But more importantly for   your case specifically, even your stances on these issues and the way   you argue them betray a mentality that is fundamentally at odds with   traditional Christianity.  For example, when you argue that the New   Testament commands us to accept waves of refugees from Islamic nations,   or to expand the welfare state, or raise the minimum wage, or whatever   else you think is “caring”, claiming that “Jesus would want it”, you  are  twisting His words and putting your own words in His mouth, you  know,  like how you claim we are doing whenever we articulate what the  Bible  clearly says about homosexuality.  Twisting the words of the  Bible to  make them say something they do not and advance an agenda that  is not  Biblical is called heresy. Heresy is not something people who  have  chosen the side of God should be comfortable with. The Bible  leaves room  for Christians to disagree on the worldly, practical merits  of things  like welfare, immigration policy, and gun control. It does  not leave  room for you to make Jesus the champion of causes he never  took up,   especially since there is no reason to believe Jesus would  take up a   political cause despite most of the evidence being clearly  against it.

What’s  more, your  championing of such lesser causes is often used as a fig   leaf to  deflect from your moral cowardice concerning bigger issues like   abortion and homosexuality.  You know you can’t win a serious   theological argument about those issues, so you, like the Pharisees,   make a show of how “caring” you are for others, mostly by making arguments that have no factual basis and usually require someone else to do the “caring” for you.    And in so doing, you show signs of where your loyalties lie. When you   got angry about Harambe being shot, you betrayed your anti-life   colors,  because many of your arguments boiled down to the implication   that the  kid somehow deserved to be mauled by a gorilla or at least   that the  gorilla had an equal right not to be shot as the human child   had to not  be mauled at the zoo.  When you defended Michael Brown and   said his  death was a murder in bold spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,   you betrayed your warped sense of justice or general disdain for true   justice. Whenever you demand that the welfare state be expanded or   advocate socialism, you ignore the evidence reagarding the welfare state   and socialism. Ignoring the evidence regarding such issues does not   automatically reveal that you harbor anti-Christian values, but it does   indicate that you care more about your public image than you do about   the lives and families that have been destroyed by the welfare state and   socialism, especially when you ignore the historical link between the   abortion agenda and the welfare state and population control and   socialism (or environmentalism).

And when you protest against the Trump administration for wanting to favor Christian refugees from Islamic countries despite that making every kind of humanitarian sense   while simultaneously demanding that millions of unchecked Muslim men be  let in and allowed to stay indefinitely, one has to wonder: whose   side  are you on?

And  if most of what I have said does not actually describe you, if you  actually are appalled  by abortion, would defend my rights as a business  owner if I were ever  targeted by a vindictive gay couple, if you are  willing to take an  evidence-based or at least moderate and balanced  approach to   immigration and environmental regulations, and you don’t  want to put   cops in prison for doing their sworn duty, then one has to  ask: why   have sided with the American left?

Note:   “Trump scares me” is not a good reason.  I was a firm “Never Trump”   conservative in 2016, and did not vote for him.  That didn’t cause me to   throw my lot in with the party that wants to force me to fund Planned   Parenthood.

And one more thing: your  more extreme secularist liberal friends that have gone full-SJW are not  impressed with you.  They aren't impressed with your virtue-signaling,  they aren't impressed with the constant apologies you make for us, they  aren't impressed with your attempts to prove yourselves as [the  Christians that are cool and will respect you](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/02/an-other-christian-responds-to-buzzfeeds-questions-christians-have-for-other-christians/)  while treating us like an uncle who sometimes says racist things at   Thanksgiving dinners but whom you love anyway.  To them, you're still in  the same group of square losers as us, it's just that they may think   there is a little more hope for you.

I   realize my words so far have been harsh, but they could be a lot   harsher.  I don’t want to burn bridges with my friends on the other side   of the aisle, and I certainly don't think every cause they take up is   completely without merit (for example, I do think conservatives have  railed just a little too hard on the #MeToo thing, wrought with   hypocrisy though the movement has been). But I’m writing this piece   because, frankly, things are going to have to come to a head between our   two sides.  Your side has engaged an unrelenting campaign of attacks  and persecution against those of us who have remained faithful to   Christian orthodoxy for the past two or three decades at least, and we,  orthodox Christian conservative millennials, are not going to defer   responsive action against the agents of those who seek to destroy the   church indefinitely, even if those agents include our friends. So when   you take up teaching positions at Christian institutions only to reveal   your sympathies with the militant LGBT movement, we are going to have  to  move to get you fired. When you start advocating the leftist social   agenda within the church itself, we are going to excommunicate you.  When  your church is caught harboring illegal immigrants in brazen  defiance  of the Biblical command to submit to the civil authorities, we’re going  to speak against your church and possibly work with the   government to  root them out.  The Democrats and the liberal   establishment have  declared total war on conservatives and the   Christian Church in  particular. We are under no obligation to sit back passively and take it  all the time.

So with that in mind, I ask one more time:  whose side are you on?

[dustydahlin]

God’s Love and The Bicycle

Subject: The purpose of God’s love! (Eph. 1:3-14)

           {Click here to read Scripture}

“It is the year 1975, when Charlotte Von Sledvin, a 19-year-old student of a Swedish royal family, travels to India to get a portrait made by a gifted artist. The artist was born into a poor Indian family of the lowest caste, also known as the “untouchables.” Despite the incredibly difficult circumstances, the artist named Pradyumna Kumar Mahanandia had gained an outstanding reputation for being a gifted painter. His reputation led Charlotte Von Sledvin to travel all the way to India to get her portrait done. 

By the time the portrait was finished, the two had fallen in love. Pradyumna was fascinated with Charlotte’s beauty. Never before had he seen a more beautiful woman from the Western world. He gave his best to capture all her beauty in the portrait, yet never fully succeeded. Nonetheless, the portrait was magnificent and Charlotte fell for his simplicity and his beautiful character. Because of him, she spontaneously decided to stay longer in India. Out of a couple of days became weeks and then even months. The two had fallen so deeply in love that they decided to get married according to traditional Indian rituals.

Unfortunately, the time came when Charlotte had to leave again in order to complete her studies in London. Thousands of miles separated the two but their feelings for each other never changed. They stayed in contact through letters, which they exchanged almost weekly with each other. Naturally, the newlyweds terribly struggled with the great distance between each other. Charlotte offered her husband to buy him air tickets, which he refused. He had not only decided to complete his studies first, but he had also set his mind on reuniting with the love of his life on his own terms. He even made her the promise that he would do anything he can to see her again.

After Pradyumna had finished his studies, he took all his possessions and sold them. Unfortunately, the money he earned didn’t even come close to a flight ticket. All he could afford was a cheap and used bicycle. Many would have been greatly disappointed, some would have even given up. But not Pradyumna. Instead of allowing the difficult circumstances to stop him from seeing his beloved wife again, he met the decision to use what he had in order to see her again. Nothing could stop him from reuniting with his wife, even if that meant an exhausting bicycle ride halfway around the world.

His decision was the beginning of a bicycle journey from India to the Western world. Pradyumna took all his paintings and brushes along with him in order to financially support his endeavor. His voyage led him through eight countries and took more than four months. But eventually, he arrived at Charlotte’s hometown in Sweden and finally saw her again. From then on, the two did never leave each other’s side for too long” (planetofsuccess.com). 

I love love-stories! They inspire me. They make me cry. They help renew my hope in humanity. And yet no matter how incredible a love story between two people, Heaven’s love story far exceeds them all. 

This may be one of the reasons why I cherish this passage of Scripture! This section is possibly the most profound Scripture to deal with God’s incredible love for mankind! It shows how God, motivated by love, pursued mankind from the foundations of the earth – from the moment of creation. It discusses the will of God. It discusses “God’s purpose.” And, to my great delight, it draws on the purpose of God’s love for man. As we will see, it makes this passage incredibly special and incredibly powerful. 

But this section of scripture is not unique only for that reason. It is also hermeneutically unique. 

In other sections of Scripture, it is entirely appropriate to dig deep into the Text. To go line by line. To phrase by phrase. To go word by word – parsing by parsing. These things are good. They are often exceedingly helpful for identifying the main intent of the inspired writings. Doing so with this passage, however, can be harmful to its intent and its beauty. In fact, I propose attempting to go too deep (or too narrow) in our exegesis of this passage can actually detract from it - distract from the main point. 

For example, if we take this passage and perform a study on all the incredible soteriological terms (i.e. adoption, predestination, election, forgiveness, being sealed with the Spirit, redemption, etc…), we can miss the deep missiological implications of this passage altogether. Or if we focus in on the identity of the believer – who we are now in Christ – (e.g. the blessings, the power, the inheritance, the sonship, the position, etc…) we can miss the main theological focus of this entire passage. Yes… all of these elements are present in the text, and they are worth exploring. However, it should not be at the extent of the primary focus and intent of this passage. 

This being said, let us look at Eph. 1:3-14 for some textual considerations of what the main focus is! 

{Recommended by Dusty}

Textual Considerations!

This section (vs. 1-14) is one long run-on sentence (Max Turner). In the Greek, it is one long, unbroken section. This can be understood as representing one continuous thought or theme – as Paul was inspired to write. This suggests the intent of this section is to present one main motif to the Christian. 

The opening of this passage grants us insight into the main focus. In verse 3 it states, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” In the Greek, this is a proclamation of blessing. More specifically, εὐλογητός (eulogētos from the Greek eulogeō) refers to the “blessworthiness” of God! Max Turner states that this opens as “a eulogy to God.” He continues by saying how this is “a paragraph of joyful celebration” of God, which is understood as a stately “call to worship, designed to lift the readers’ eyes away from themselves, and from their fears, to the majesty and love of God.” 

While the passage contains many actions performed by God on behalf of his people, “the point is that God is to be seen as worthy of praise.” This is emphatically seen by the repetition of the phrase, “to the praise of his glory.” This phrase is seen 3 times in this little section (vs. 6, 12, and 14) and it is implied (a fourth time) in verse 3. This demonstrates the main thought behind this passage. The central point is that God is praiseworthy and he deserves to be glorified.

Lastly, we see this section encapsulating the greatest meta-narrative in Scripture. It promulgates God’s desire to be glorified! Every action mentioned. Every heart changed. Every dead soul brought to life. Every blessing lavished. Everything he does is to glorify himself and further his renown in the world! God is worthy to be praised, and everything he does is “to the praise of his glory.” 

This is why it is so important to view this passage from five-thousand-foot view. If we get too the Text or get too mesmerized by all the incredible subsequent items in this passage, we can run the risk of missing the main point. 

The purpose of God’s love (part 1)!

One of the reasons why this is important is because it communicates the purpose of God’s love. In this little Scripture, we can see that love motivates God’s actions toward humankind. 

A lot of systematic theologies showcase love as being a part of God’s nature and character. In fact, J. Rodman Williams states, “God is centrally the God of love. Love is the very essence of divine nature.” Due to how this is regularly taught, it can be tempting to think that he has to love. If we consider this is what God has to do, because it is at the very essence of his character, we may wrongly conclude that love is the goal of love. It can be easy to think that the end of love is no greater than its means. 

But Eph. 1:3-14 tells us this: Love is one of the ways God is glorified. It is not that he has to love. It is not cold, indifferent, and obligatory. God does not demonstrate his love for us simply because he has to!  He chooses to express, and communicate, and demonstrate his love for his people because it is one of the greatest ways through which he is glorified. 

The purpose of loving us is to glorify himself. Because of how emphatic this passage is, it may be argued that love is the greatest means of glorifying God. He chooses to love, and to act lovingly on our behalf because it brings him glory! It is “to the praise of his glory!”

Rom. 5:6-8. “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

The purpose of God’s love (part 2)!

The purpose of God’s love is “to the praise of his glory!” But it does not stop there. There is one further element to this that needs to be discussed. The context of the entire book of Ephesians is that of community. This means the theological principles, the theoretical constructs, and the practical instructions found herein are to be interpreted through the lens of community! Ephesians should be corporately understood (Max Turner). 

What does this mean to our conversation about the purpose of God’s love? The greatness of God's love is to glorify Himself to the individual and the surrounding community. It means the purpose of God’s love is to not only magnify God to the recipients of his love, but it is also to magnify and glorify God to the watching world. “The purpose of God’s love to his children is to flow through his children to those around us” (Katrina Dahlin). 

Cross-reference Col. 4:5, 1 Thess. 4:12, and 1 Tim. 3:7.

John 13:34-35, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another.”

The objective is not to selfishly sit around and stockpile knowledge about the greatness of God’s love. The purpose is to share the love of God with those around you, so God may be most fully glorified on earth. We need to be as concerned with God's glory as he is. And one of the ways we can glorify him on earth is through selfless acts and expressions of love. 

[earlywrites]

there’s no place like 127.0.0.1 commentary part I: ‘looking back’

Hey gang! Here’s part one of my commentary on my Angela & Robot fic there's no place like 127.0.0.1, a.k.a. A Weekend At Angela’s, a.k.a. Mr. Robot’s Day(s) Off. This will contain spoilers through Season 3 of Mr. Robot.

To start off, the title of the fic itself I got from a fun piece of set dressing in 3x05:

...which (and I'm probably stating the obvious here, but either way) is a play on 'there's no place like home' from the Wizard of Oz, as 127.0.0.1 is the 'localhost' of any given machine.

“Dolores… Haze?” she says, frowning [...]

I believe this is the codename Elliot would have Darlene stored under on his phone, since it’s a handle she’s used in other areas -- recently, as the name of the network she and Elliot used in the arcade during 3x09:

Somehow, he both feels like he’s been hit over the head with a truck, yet at the same time had the best sleep he’s ever experienced in the scattering of days where he’s been the one in charge. The sleeping pills on the side table aren’t a name he recognizes, and the instructional lettering is all in Chinese, but holy balls did they knock him the fuck out. Seems Angela wasn’t kidding when she said she was committed to keeping Elliot out at all costs.

I did a bunch of reading on DID and several people on the forums suggested sleeping pills as a method to prevent alters from switching over in one's sleep. Ambien and melatonin etc all seemed to also promote sleepwalking as a side effect, especially when combined with alcohol (and this is more relevant in part II), so I took artistic licence and made a fake drug that essentially knocks you out with zero (known) side effects, lol.

Residual self-image. Everyone has a face that only they can see, projected outwards into the mirror. A false idol of confidence, of ego, or a shell of dysmorphia and despair – either way, a lie repeated for so long it manifests into your own monster. Or maybe it’s something as little as a smaller nose or a slimmer waistline, look, ultimately, people like to reject reality and see what they want to see – for better or worse, ‘til death do us part, until every feature is stripped back and washed away, and that face in the mirror is just a skull the world has finally fucked. Technically, his own projection is long dead, but reanimated for a greater purpose – a divine one, even, according to Tyrell and his whole wackjob microreligion thing he’s got going on.

Residual self-image is indeed a term from The Matrix, which Morpheus describes as the 'mental projection of your digital self'. Here, it's a literal way that Robot describes how he and other people see themselves, even if in reality it can be very different. The major theme of this fic was perception versus reality, in that both Robot and Angela are focussed so narrowly on their specific ideal outcomes of Stage 2 that they omit or ignore any signs that the plan will not go exactly their way. This is the first area where I start to address that, and basically continue to hold up a sign in big black lettering that goes HEY ISN'T THIS IRONIC THAT THEY'RE SAYING THIS GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW for the rest of the fic.

Still, he only gets wrapped up in this metaphysical bullshit when he’s in the driver’s seat for an extended period of time, because situations tend to arise that take him on a stroll through Uncanny Valley. For example: he showers and then shaves, but no stubble leaves his jawline. He changes into fresh clothes that Angela has left him, but the label on his jacket still proudly proclaims Mr. Robot: Computer Repair with a Smile! (still not his name, no matter how much Elliot tries to pin it to him). Sometimes he can squint through the mirror, rearrange his focus a little bit, and see this analogue of Elliot staring back at him – eyes half-lidded, the pinched anxiety on his face smoothed out. This is what they all see, which really is a poor substitute for the damn good-looking guy he’s facing off with in the bathroom vanity this morning.

Like, I've always wondered about this. Elliot is always clean-shaven after Robot's been in control for longer stretches of time, so Robot must shave, but we know he always has stubble -- how does any of this work, really? Is the fact that we see Robot's face in the mirror just a product of Elliot's overarching control over what is depicted in the show, and Robot actually sees 'Elliot's face? Who the heck knows, Sam sure as hell probably isn't going to explain it, so I'm sticking to this interpretation for now. And, also, no, Robot's never actually referred to himself as Mr. Robot in the show, going so far as to laugh at the idea of Elliot calling him that name when Krista brings it up in 3x02, which is why I have him rejecting it in here.

He tries watching TV, for a bit, but nothing particularly engaging is on basic cable on a Saturday morning – crappy cartoons (they really don’t make them like they used to), some more bullshit presidential candidate Donald Trump (seriously. This, if anything, is why Stage Two is an absolute fucking necessity to get the world back on track) has regurgitated about taxes or something is being picked apart by no less than twelve ‘experts’ on CNN, and the hysteria continues on four other channels. Only one news channel is actually covering the upcoming UN vote, which is quintessential Americocentrism - like, holy shit, the UN is going to sell a fucking country to China, and all people give a shit about is some failed reality star who can't, apparently, do math beyond a grade-school level. The next channel he tries is airing a repeat episode of Teen Mom, which is about the point where he gives up and switches it off, tossing the remote somewhere down the couch.

I don't know what was on US basic cable on that September weekend in 2015, and neither do you, probably. I do know that, around this time, Trump unveiled his tax policy at a press conference. It wasn't on a Friday/Saturday, but then again, September 29th wasn't actually a Monday, so whatever, I'll take some wiggle room on that.

[...] Darlene doesn’t know about the arrangement between Angela and himself, all he needs is plausible deniability for the knock – sleeping pills on the side table, that’s it, that’s the play, if he bunks down on the couch she’ll believe he was so far under he didn’t hear any of it. Wake up, fidget a bit, Elliot-style – keep it vague, let her fill in the blanks—

I would've loved to have seen the Robot v Darlene route, where Robot plays as Elliot and finds out about Elliot's plan to have him followed, and how things might have played out differently from there, but, that would then diverge from the canon series of events I was trying to keep within. I guess we'll never know!

“I know, that’s why I set up a contingency, give me some fucking credit here,” he argues. “It’s a little self-destructive sequence, a ransomware mimic – forget to key the password into the dialog box that pops up every five minutes and you’ll get locked out, and all the files on this laptop will self-encrypt. Only I have the keys, so even if – if – he manages to resurface, he wouldn’t get far.”

I'm sure this is wildly inaccurate, since I know pretty much nothing about programming, lol. We can't all be Elliot, okay!!!

“Is it possible for you to not be an asshole for like, five minutes?” Angela mutters. “Fine. I’ll—wait, hold on.” She brings up the Netflix home page, typing ollie.p.parker@gmail.com into the email field. “Let’s see if he – nope, hasn’t changed it. Why am I not surprised.”

“This is your ex-boyfriend’s account,” he clarifies. Angela hums the affirmative as she scrolls through his recommended titles – fucking hell, there’s at least three different Adam Sandler flicks alone. “Well, good to know he’s still a fucking moron. You sure dodged a bullet there. Or,” he pivots, reconsidering the context, “I suppose, given how that all played out, got that bullet lodged in you removed before it was too late.”

Fuck Ollie, this is the least of what you deserve, you dickwagon. I had a further scene that I ended up cutting because it dragged down the pacing, where Robot convinced Angela to let him 'hijack' Ollie's Netflix account by changing the email address and password and then getting into his email account to verify the change and delete the notification emails. Anyway, he's probably suffering in the post-5/9 economy, so, suck it dude.

He wrinkles his nose. “Oh, that guy’s in this?”

“Who, Christian Slater?” Angela says, looking up over her phone as the monologue continues. She finishes her text and slides it back onto the coffee table. “Not a fan?”

“Of his works? No, I like them well enough, Heathers is great,” he says, tossing a piece of popcorn in the air. “There’s just something about his face that makes me hate him. You know, when you look at a guy, and he has a face that’s just asking for a fist? This guy. He always looks so smug.” He points an accusatory finger at the TV. “What have you got to be so smug about, huh? Besides the fact that you’re probably jerking off to that fat royalty check in the mail every month. I mean, we all know that’s what all the Hollywood schmucks are doing, tugging it to their stacks of cash, but you don’t have to wear it right there on your face so I’m reminded of the fact every time I see it. And it doesn’t help that he spends half the movie miming the act, it just makes it so stupidly meta, Christ, I need to build a fourth wall in my brain and kick over a bucket of bleach – also, by the way, what the fuck, I can’t believe you actually watched this as a child, you—”

This was probably the most self-indulgent thing I got to write. I love that Christian Slater exists in Robotverse, so that I can exercise the 'character played by actor, who also played a character in another thing, thinks this character sucks/is ugly' trope. If you missed it, here's Pump Up The Volume on VHS in Angela's childhood home in 3x06:

She’s silent, for a moment, and the movie plays on. “It helped, in a way. With my mom. There’s a line, that’s always stuck with me – ‘the terrible secret is that being young is sometimes less fun than being dead.’ See, they don’t approach death in a way that’s nice, and polite, and full of platitudes – it’s angry, and messy, and it’s okay to want to just—” She suddenly leans over to the laptop, clicking forwards a few times.

“I’m sick of being ashamed. I don't mind being dejected and rejected, but I'm not going to be ashamed about it.” She mouths along with him. “I mean, you look around, and you see nothing is real, but at least the pain is real. You know, even this show isn’t real? It’s just me, I’m using a voice disguiser, I’m a phony fuck just like my dad, just like anybody—”

If you haven't seen the movie, basically Slater's character is reacting to the news of a teen committing suicide, after they had stated the intention to do so on his show - you can watch this scene here. This is, of course, not a movie a young child should watch, but Angela has always talked about her anger regarding her mother's death, and I thought (aside from the self-indulgent aspect of Robot v Slater, lol) it would be interesting to explore how she might act out, a little, like kids sometimes do to cope with grief and pain, secretly watch a Movie Definitely Not For Kids, and within it find a helpful way to release the anger she bottled up. (Also -- she would've loved the lizard. What a cute little friend.)

Somehow, they keep this train chugging along until well into the night. His pick is next – he chooses Snakes On A Plane, just to fuck with her a bit, but it turns out she just loves snakes, because of course she does, so that backfired somewhat, aside from the fact that Snakes On A Plane is actually pretty fun if you really embrace the hammy acting and ridiculous plot. Angela parries, picking a recent release called Jupiter Ascending, a large proportion of which he spends loudly trying to work out at what point in time since The Matrix Trilogy were the Wachowskis secretly killed and replaced by doppelgänger hacks, as Angela sips her appletini and coos over werewolf-angel(?)-in-rollerskates Channing Tatum. He then counters with Sharknado 3, which is definitely a mistake, and then they have to both suffer through all excruciating ninety-five minutes of it because neither of them are willing to budge on their unspoken cinematic war. A victory for him, maybe, but a Pyrrhic one nonetheless.

Angela does canonically love snakes, so this wasn't intended to be a jab at her manipulation of Elliot this season, but, of course, interpret at as you will. This great piece of characterisation is from the Red Wheelbarrow tie-in book for Season 2 (which is an awesome read, definitely recommend):

Second, the 'cinematic war' is totally one-sided. In my mind, Angela actually enjoyed all the films they watched, while Robot basically fucked himself, lol. Look, Jupiter Ascending is a wonderful, whimsical film, that should be taken at face value for the work of art that it is. Space paperwork! Bee princesses! Eddie Redmayne whisper-screaming as he tries to marry his mother! It's an absolute cinematic treasure. I can't say the same for Sharknado 3, but, well, all in good fun.

“First off, the entire concept of monogamy is bullshit,” he replies, and yes, he is going to actually give her a serious answer. “It’s an archaic evolutionary tactic to boost survival rates among Neanderthals that has no place being the gold standard in 2015, in the same way that we don’t kill a mammoth and spend the rest of the year eating hairy elephant ass for every meal — newsflash, supermarkets exist now, there are like fifty different varieties of beans, literally just beans, so it makes zero sense to pledge your undying commitment to a can of Spam, I mean, shit, even if it’s something you actually enjoy, you’d get absolutely sick and tired of eating it and nothing else until you keel over and die. So, on that note, it’s pretty obvious why most of our parents spend the rest of their lives fucking hating each other if they’re not a part of the fifty percent who cut ties before it’s too late, because, yes, alongside the great lie of the picture perfect nuclear family, the modern factory-line industry of marriage is just a capitalist cash cow where everybody thinks they’re getting milk, but in reality? That sure ain’t a teat they’re sucking on.”

This also comes back to the Red Wheelbarrow tie-in book, and specifically, to this scene in it, where Robot rants to Leon about monogamy in the context of Mad About You:

This is probably my favourite scene from the book -- I love the idea of Leon and Robot having long-winded debates on media, and it's a pity we'll never get to see that acted out, lol.

[...] “Fuck Gosling, fuck Stone, kill Groban. Done.”

“Wow,” Angela replies, leaning back, one hand against her heart. “Wow. You’re such a dick. How can you kill Josh Groban?”

“Breaking news! What a scoop. Angela Moss, come and claim your Pulitzer,” he says. “And, to answer your question: very easily. Groban is clearly the least attractive of the three, and so by the metric of this game it condemns him to death.”

“The correct answer,” she says firmly, barreling over him as if he’d never spoken, “Is fuck Ryan, marry Josh, and, well, if I have to kill someone, I guess I have to kill Emma, but I’m sure she’s lovely. Actually, no, okay, if you get two fucks then I do to. Fuck Ryan, fuck Emma, marry Josh.”

I love Angela's love for Josh Groban nearly as much as getting to see Elliot in that 'Property of Josh Groban' sweater in 3x01. It's never been explicitly stated on the show, but my interpretation of Angela and Robot's sexualities is that they're both bi as fuck, so there you go.

“And, you know what? I don’t want to live in a world where everyone’s as cynical and jaded as you, old man. Because,” she hiccups, ending it in a giggle, “That’s what you sound like, you grumpy fuck, like you’re pushing eighty, not long until you start yelling at kids—” and at this, she cups her hands over her mouth, imitating a megaphone, “Get off my lawn, you capitalist piglets!”

“Okay,” he says, shaking his head, grinning in spite of himself as she yells out “you bourgeoisie microscum!” in a shitty imitation of an elderly man [...]

This is my favourite piece of dialogue in this entire thing. 'Bourgeoisie microscum' fucking kills me every time I read it. Originally I also had 'pushing fifty' as a sly wink at Christian Slater's real age, but no middle aged man has quite the curmudgeonly attitude to pull off 'bourgeoisie microscum'.

That's it for part one, folks! Thanks for reading, if indeed you still are. Click here for part II :D

[eksbdan-blog]

New Post has been published on https://passingbynehushtan.com/2019/05/29/christ-vs-the-hermeneutical-death-spiral/

Christ vs. the Hermeneutical Death Spiral, part 1

The Hermeneutical Death Spiral

I have a problem: I’m a Christian. As a Christian, I am constantly being compelled to silence by those who are religiously attached to a world and a kind of thought that is violently opposed to Christ.

Now, that does not seem to be a very good problem statement for an article with the stated intention of bringing to light unaddressed ones. Nearly every Christian worldview apologetic you will read will speak about, for example, the various solutions to the increasing passivity of believers against and increasing certainty of the street that the Christ is losing to science. Although on the surface my complaint seems the same, mostly about the Church having to function righteously despite an ever-increasing onslaught of anti-biblical theologies, it’s not.   Here, it’s not in the same way as Christ intended it to be, silenced in the static of meaning that is the world’s language that can never speak of it. Lost in its meaning of “theology.” Lost in its understanding of “world.” Lost in its avatar of “Christ” which is now everyone who is well-intentioned, loves cats and wants to save the rainforests. Anyone acclimated to the world’s default modes of communication will take for granted as true the accepted ultimate definitions of its keywords.

Those ultimate definitions, however, if they are framed within the cultural ethos, are no so ultimate. If one can accept that how something hides most completely is in plain sight, in hermeneutics the rules of meaning are defined essentially as lying within a statement, a philosophy, an opinion, an intuition. Hidden and waiting to be fleshed out. Not defined by the very perspicuous attractions of the human heart which make mundane things exalted and exalted things mundane.

There is my introduction to hermeneutics. It’s everything. Its the battle for meaning, yes, but as a Christian, it should be the about the war fought against the powers of obscurity, culture, intellectualism, human organizations, the love for strife, puzzles, and industry. Hermeneutics in Christianity is supposed to be the establishment of what has been given to us, not made by us, concerning meaning. But we have become absorbed into the flotsam and jetsom of LifeWay Christian Store consciousness. Have you ever heard the phrase “we’re screwed?” This is about how “screwed” we are, because of our fallen hermeneutical method.

My opening problem statement is about Christianity and its hermeneutics, which is the story about its establishment and fall, and a fall in which we now live and call Christian and don’t know it because it has no meaning, no hermeneutics. It’s about what is now our fierce fight not against poor spiritual vision in which we must constantly strive to improve, but a striving for a world with a permanent dark glass in which we are to see that beatific vision, keeping it locked in only imagination and possibility. It’s not about the unbelievers, this hermeneutics in which Christianity has agreed, but those “religiously attached to a world and a kind of thought that is violently opposed to Christ” whose method of meaning deludes them into thinking they are his champions.

My message is that nothing you can believe about anything and disagree or agree with another about has anything to do with whether who is true or false, or whether we are true or false in our hearts, by what is being said, but true or false by whether what is being said is informed or misinformed by one unstated fact and phenomena that the NT writers took for granted and which alone frames the spiritual context of all meaning. Say something wrong and it can be changed and made right. But get the main thing wrong and nothing but a special and miraculous act of God can be done about it. How ironic and unexpected, but strangely appropriate, that in our hundreds of years in writing libraries of books on Christain hermeneutics, sure that the problems and solutions to the correct reading of the sacred texts have to do with bad procedures, attitudes, and presuppositions, all along the problem and solution was not there. It was in the meaning first of the fundamental, biblical ground to the meaning of “Christian hermeneutics” which we have rejected, and which subsequently tainted, fatally, every attempt to get at transcendent meaning.

Meaning, and real Christian hermeneutics, has been hiding in plain sight. We have missed it because obscurity is our true love, not Christ, and because of that fact, not in spite of it.

The Divine Trickster

The Greek god Hermes represented many things. The trickster. The master of boundaries. Of trade and sports. But if you were to settle on one it would be something like “divine trickster” in his role as messenger to Man from the God’s. The Greek word hermēneuō means interpretation or translate. Hermeneutics is usually spoken of as around biblical texts and retains this original meaning in an assumption that there is an upper, immediately comprehensible layer to the text and a deeper one which requires an application of hermeneutical rules to reveal and understand. This is because it was written in another time, language and culture by a certain individual.  But no less because of the belief that if God were the author and meant the Bible for all times, he both bridged the cross-historical problem and then used his sacred symbolism as the bases on which to reunite all those who search for the truth to agree on it once it is found in that symbolism. We will see that in time the meaning of “Hermes the divine trickster” came to be understood much like Christian hermeneutics: far more locked into a past, little understood, antiquated and spiritually ignorant culture than an example of how God’s hermeneutics, not man’s, is the first order of business.

Hermes brought the word of the gods to man, but this part implies something that we have entirely lost in the highest notion of what it means to interpret and derive meaning from another if both parties are ontologically, radically different. In the case of both man and God, the reason that rules of interpretation are codified is that one understands himself much easier than we may understand another. Hermeneutics stresses listening to another, and whether man or God, this other is a foreign source for which we are required to exercise some care, reflection, and effort to fully understand if we care, and not operate under naive assumptions about him. The Greeks could stop here in their efforts to understand the gods because the gods were so much like them.  Not in Christianity and Judaism. Here, hermeneutics is not in the service of men to other men or supermen, or even man with respect to “God’s word,” since that phrase is constructed in a way that makes it just as fraught with divine but ultimately false conceptual gods. Hermeneutics is supposed to be about finding first what God ultimately values and his chosen method of communication, God’s hermeneutics, which he expects man to find, accept and learn through some level of effort in a display of a love of Truth.

I want to speak of Hermeneutics in a way that has been implied but never taken seriously and worked: Hermeneutics in our first responsibility of grasping what God’s rules of meaning might be for us, by which we are obliged to know, before we start talking about what are our found rules of meaning for understanding God. It’s a lot like a talk on sacred symbolism: are symbols only man created objects, creative, finite, perhaps “unreal,” changeable and cursory, or are they not fundamentally something that God creates, like the physical universe itself, for us to understand him? Doesn’t hermeneutics have to be something God created and revealed, something found and applied before it is something that we make and apply? And doesn’t it have to be a fact before it is taken seriously and forms the basis of a theory, a method?

If we were still in the time of Homer, our divines of present and past could be excused to remain like the Oracle at Delphi, who, by enveloping themselves in the sacred smoke of the bottomless pit before them, would fall into an ecstatic trance and begin babbling incomprehensible messages from Zeus to be translated by an accompanying priest. Something perhaps about the outcome of a war, whether good fortune would be the result of a business trip or whether a certain woman would be a good wife. Our hermeneutics could be justifiably locked into the same pattern, out of which we gain nothing but confidence that our carnal affairs would in the future be in order, but we are not supposed to be so helpless today. We are supposed to have a real, testable message from a real objective God, not one out of the very rich imagination of man. The need for the babblers is supposed to be over, replaced by a divine hermeneutic in the minds of honest men from which to resolve all meaning that matters, a meaning which is supposed to be much more compelling to the mind and heart than denounced and discarded.

The black hole of Delphi is covered and graded, and a barbecue pit and cabana set up over it. The smoke is, if it appears at all, would only be an artistic expression of praise and prayer in what is a quiet place of contemplation. That is, to us that are Christian who know and believe that a real revelation, not a fantasy, has been given, which makes symbols cursory carriers of meaning and not meaning itself. To the others in the church, the struggle, the naivete, the Mysterium, the hermeneutic of darkness can never be allowed closure when the Oracle is still in full operation and continuously expanded into a spiritual theme park, where each worship ride even ideas are represented, alongside one for rocks, feelings, reason, and Zeus.

The purpose of this article is to establish what is fundamentally wrong with Christian theology, what is wrong with ourselves, what we have thrown away that God thought essential, and by such action why we have become sure that a spiritual empowerment of ourselves has taken place while it is really more like drinking a slow poison. Hermeneutics is at its heart, and especially the biblical idea of “fulfillment.” This is our theodical starting point. Everything else is a mere side interest.

Words Mean Things. God’s Word Means Things Higher.

What I mean by “anti-biblical theologies” and “thought violently opposed to Christ” is by no means henceforth revealed in my initial problem statement. It requires some hermeneutics because it’s designed to imply more and surprise you when my intended meaning is revealed. But what is supposed to be more surprising is not necessarily my meaning, but the way that we carry around an almost unbreakable assumption about having to favor how the world expects us to think of the highest possible value instead of favoring what is before us that is quite obviously of an infinitely higher value. Of course, I am not speaking of communication in mundane affairs, but language meant to communicate what is expected to be the great questions of existence. Not “what is the best interpretation for greasing of the spiritual skids of a cultural ethos.” Nearly all of that aims not for a view of the spiritual except through the cultural lens first. But for a religion that is supposed to be transmitting a message from an alien world and Person, taking “Jesus is Lord” as “Jesus is master, sovereign, the decider of men’s souls,” or any statement that that could come exclusively from culture, is a religion promising heaven but giving only what the culture could produce on its own.

“What?! You’re saying that Jesus is not Master and Judge?!” Oh my no. I’m saying  quite the opposite, that his mastery and means of judgment go far beyond the natural and disposable implications of our understanding of “master” and “judge.” Its hermeneutics, you know. It’s all about hermeneutics.

You may think I’m shooting blanks so far, but what I have just done is shown the root of the problem of evil.  Simply, it’s hidden in a divine parable, exposable only by divine hermeneutics,  because we deliberately hide it from ourselves, addicted to anything except that which exposes us.

Please go to the next page…

First Hint: What only God Can Do and What Man Can Do.

Christ is against that “world thought paradigm.” Nothing is startling about that kind of antagonism. That paradigm is just the common, culturally influenced way of understanding the world and using language to communicate it. But that is the real problem that the statement hides. Since we as Christians believe that his antagonism in this is not entirely borrowed out of the fevered brains of wandering tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists, but supernaturally transmitted by God, I think I am compelled to think that a transcendently communicated problem should be as unique and remarkable and unexpected as the mind and person of its alien origin and to who it is meant to address as an influence of alien origin. Is “the world is against God” supposed to be taken as a great revelation that man would never have obtained without God’s special intervention by the incarnation? Is “have faith in God and you will be saved” supposed to be an example of the ultimate teaching and warning of God that waited thousands of years until Christ came? Is “we are saved by Christ’s work on the Cross” or “a person is saved by works and faith,” where “work” is, well, what Christ did by dying and a “faith” which is, just, umm, faith, supposed to be revelatory, startling and utterly impossible to have come from the minds of unenlightened men?

We don’t have that strangeness and unexpectedness upfront here by the expectations of a certain opaque and common and man-made and motivated hermeneutic, but if we begin thinking about it as a potential for meaning in the service of a real revelation, our hermeneutic is controlled by a divine source, not our puny brains.

Christ is against the world thought paradigm, but “Christ” and the “world thought paradigm,” if they are themselves examples of that world thought paradigm, are not gateways to our understanding of Christ, and then gateways to what really constitutes the “world thought paradigm” of ambiguous or optional meaning, either. The power of autonomous ideas and those ideas, which defines that paradigm, need not have originated exclusively by an objectively, transcendent Christ and outside of the world thought paradigm. The ideas are potentially converted to meaning, but if converted only by an act of pure choice and not guided by a compelling transcendent influence they are by definition only symbolic reflections only of a human conversion ability and priority. If there was any idea unexpected and foreign enough unsuited to that insular kind conversion, the act of conversion itself would have its character that is a reflection of the unusual as well. But on its face, neither the task of conversion of symbol-to-meaning that is being asked to perform is any more transcendent than what is being asked to convert. Unless, of course, we presume the conversion of idea to meaning is being asked by a demonstrated, revealed Christ of history entirely outside of mans’ natural noetic influences.

We are talking about hermeneutics? Take the word “anti-biblical” in my theodical problem statement. Do I mean the Catholic version, the Protestant version, or the Jehovah’s Witness’s version of “anti-biblical?” The Universalists and the atheists also have theirs. Am I speaking of the pedestrian or academic sensibility on the general subject of theodicy? Why would we automatically assume that they are in error or not only by comparison to one of the other operational and accepted modes? Because they are all sufficiently transcendentally opaque, prosaic and innocuous so that nothing of unexpected lethality jumps out from God at us. They are our world. What man has come up with, the choices he has presented us, are everything we have to work with. There are no alternatives but what our consensus says there are.

Please go to the next page…

Who is the Word, Them or All of Us? The Theodicy  of Ideas

It’s time for us to face the fact that every single problem we have, far from our number of opportunities and a dearth of clever men to tackle them, is that although we claim to use biblical ideas because they are found in the Bible, we do it in a way that is not exclusively dependent upon a demonstrable transcendent, biblical premise to give those errors their final resolution, and one that is quite remarkable and unexpected, not prosaic, not common. Because of that we, hermeneutically, are part of the “world thought paradigm.” Christ is against the world thought paradigm, and to the extent that Christ can be shown as a transcendent fact and not a dream, the world thought paradigm, the evil that opposes him, is all of our horrible “starts with an idea, not with a premise” approach to theology that renders every biblical notion we put our hands on bromidic, of general definition, and puerile. Face it, we have fully come to believe that we will be saved or know God by the worship of insular and idiomatic ideas, not through the inspiration from miraculous historical facts that could only have been made by a Supreme Being outside space/time.

Please be advised that when I say that the real Christian thought is not convertible to something common is not to say that it is a reality so compelling that it can’t be denied or reused for something counter-purpose. I mean an original transcendent idea makes it uniquely inefficient to fuel a mundane converted use. We don’t have one, at least not one in common use.

Our problem with this puerile and opaque use of biblical ideas, like a “faith” which means faith in theological statements, conclusions and propositions, and Christ who is the Son of God but not necessarily exclusively through the prophets, but through a vision, a dream, or any reason we so wish, goes back to the Greeks and beyond into the pagan talismanic religions. We are obsessed with the independent power of concepts that can originate exclusively out of the human mind to transmit true knowledge, thinking of them as having an independent existence, such that the power of the idea alone is sufficient to carry whatever content it holds. It was, in fact, necessary and understandable for a long time in the absence of a real revelation, a real demonstration of an objective divine being, but, as I have said, it’s not supposed to be after the Cross if, in fact, we believe that the “Cross” is not convertible to a purely human concept of prosaic understanding like “love,” “death,” and “sacrifice.”

Atheists can say the same about Christians, putting themselves as the light bearers in a dark world in which theism reigns. My opening sentence need not exclusively imply the problem of a good God and creation in which evil exists, making it subject to conversion for the use of anyone who might take “God” and put themselves in his place and take “evil” and put their antagonists. The entirety of the thought may be so coopted because of the way the words used in an unqualified sense. That is why you can’t use it, or anything like it, to lead an investigation into Christian hermeneutics. It’s a non-transcendent language.

But ideas are not the problem. Its autonomous, creative, self-indulgent, unmiraculous ideas. If I accept, for example, the seemingly counter-cultural idea of a theodicy where the evil that kills the good mind is necessarily grounded in the independent power of the concepts “God,” “goodness”, “evil,” “perfection” and “people.” Well, their definitions are not the problem. Ideas are no problem. Using them is not a problem. The evil religious object of use is the ideas, and the evil idea, that is so because it is not beholden to anything but us.

If the “good” is, however, not the autonomous concept, but could otherwise only be an autonomous divine demonstration which demands and projects those concepts into the world for its mere representation, then this is the theodical solution. If not, the whole theodical question is irrational if we expect one. This implies a theodicy based on the good and evil of fundamental divine ideas, where the divine is not imperfect in the sense of a being, and evil is not evil in the sense of physical phenomena, but good and evil in the sense of truly good divine ideas which do not dictate but serve what has been divinely dictated. We might then rephrase the theodical problem like this: why do good, divine ideas suffer by the presence of evil tyrannical ones, or, if there is truth out there, why does it seem so hard to find, keep unmolested, and challenged by what seems so many attractive mundane alternatives?

The subject of theodicy is not why do bad things happen to good people, which is a philosophical statement. It begins with “bad,” “things” and “good,” which concepts make up the statement. And, no, I am not about to say exactly what true concepts ground the statement, because concepts themselves are statements. That would be asking to define a concept by another concept. I would ask: what grounds presumably divine concepts in divine premises? Whatever they are, these are the true masters of “bad,” “things,” and “good.”

Now, if you’re writing a book on Christian theology or church history, what better ground to the subject of the outworking of its errors than addressing the issue of what is driving the cultural, rational and systematic forces that encourage them? The persistent theme of the solitary pilgrim in a hostile world, rejected by the crowd, crying in the wilderness for righteousness, persecuted by the world but beloved of God, is not a significant direct point of contact with what is supposed to fundamentally inform our search for theological truth in that world because they are not divinely qualified, but only have a potentiality of divine starting place.

The right assumption is that the world, defined as the vast majority of the working modes of theology, is in a state unconverted by revelation and hostile to Christ. It would be best for us to start at the point of skepticism about our commonly accepted fundamental working ground instead of jumping in to build on the shifting sand (Matthew 7:24-27) of religious ideas. But we don’t. We are not these theological pilgrims, but something else entirely.

When we read this, as fully acclimated residents of this world, we are inclined to automatically make certain unconscious assumptions about what is a Christian, who is Christ, what is a Christian in a secular world, who are supposed to be his champions and what are the faith’s true systems of thought. This is where my problem begins: our chosen working assumptions and their motivations, not the belief that results from them that we like to call “doctrines.”

Where do our assumptions about genuine Christianity, and its antagonists, really come from?  What qualifies, in the true Christian worldview, as the secular world and the spiritual world of Christ? After all, if I say I have a problem being a Christian in a world violently opposed to Him, I think the most crucial question for me before saying that my irritation is grounded in reality is whether my informed affectations driving it are not more rooted in allegiance to the oppressor instead of the truly oppressed. It’s not only about consideration of “presuppositions” as a general rule of hermeneutics because presuppositions are also the result of both premises and conclusions. It’s more about what specifically prior and foundational loves and key biblical phenomena which are thought not exclusively the product of the human mind compelled a general presupposition about my condition. Indeed,  telling ourselves that the quality of our “presuppositions” is at the root of our delusions or clarity is to little effect in telling us anything about whether we are right or wrong unless there is true, revelational and specific content in our general “presupposition” container.

What if our working understanding of Christian thought for the past 1800 years, and therefore anti-christian thought, is its conflation with whatever the zeitgeist thinks it is, with the resulting dysfunction of the Church being its increasing detachment and alexithymia toward the original consciousness of its founder? I’m not talking about the content between the general categories of “Christ” and “Antichrist,” “sin and “righteousness,” “faith” and “unbelief,” “power” and “weakness,” “rich” and “poor,” “hate” and  “love.” But it is hardly controversial to say that since “Christ” is a singular entity, of a single transcendentally transmitted document, then no matter how much we use general categories to lead us into discussions about their nature and importance, if these are also generally grounded in essentially philosophical categories then we can’t possibly use them as starting points to reliably lead us to anything specific about Christ or what he is trying to tell us which is not philosophy, but essentially showing us transcendence. If we could, we would be those within the secular zeitgeist, not without, and therefore the oppressor, not the oppressed.

I might restate this here: The problem is simply that here, in the physical and philosophical conceptual world into which we are born, there is a great amount of personal reward gain by engaging some belief which starts with a fundamental belief, not a fundamental premise, where “premise” is not rooted in that which is not of that world and could never come from it. In our opaque philosophical world here, where all ideas are only products of the mind and therefore can benefit that same mind which loves only insular things,  the work of truth is wrongly defined as that first of “subject” and then to “object,” man to the world, man to idea, of person to his desire, attraction, need and want, or benefit. But the good and not corrupt version is the antithesis,  the notion of what is true to truth.

This fallen belief is set up so that the first clause represents a person or fact (subject) who is in moral and qualitative relation to a material or intellectual world (object) which intrinsically has its same moral or qualitative potential, a person (subject) which is a state of being equal to what it most supremely loves (object).  This idea is supposed to be impossible for theology since the presumption of Man seeking, finding and confronting transcendence is that the world is a real and current state unsynchronized with an ultimate idea state. Sure, how can we imagine it not the case that a subject that is essentially a present and demonstratively transcendent one is something that could never reveal or be revealed by anything evidential which is not of its same quality? How then are we to assume that a non-transcendently based subject is to demonstrate his ultimate integrity by a subject that is the same as himself? If the Bible, we believe, at least in practice, is a document in which there is no specific, scripturally perspicuous ground acting as this divine “subject,” and not one vital, incorrigible theological vital center, only declarations off a dizzying number of possible and general ones, such as “faith,” “ righteousness,” “zeal,” “work,” “covetousness,” “God,” “Heaven”, etc.,  all of which are worthy of our attention or not only through a lot of mental work and equivocation as we search to fill them with any scriptural content we can glean, by what justification are we claiming the Bible to be a revelation from a personal God? We must, in our twisted estimation, begin with a two-dimensional proposition that is capable of independent emergence within the same opacity as what it will hold and present.

Here is the unstated Christian idea put yet another way that is never asked: When are people not essentially the equal of what they inhabit, but are morally obligated to reject, and when are they are obligated to adopt that rejection as the greatest conceivable rejection of a claimed truth? Part of what is being rejected here is also paired with a choice about what is ultimately important and what we think is our essential positive equal that we are to go after instead.

This Christian idea is supposed to be that people are not essentially food, clothing, atoms, galaxies, concepts, philosophies, logic, and beliefs. I think that this is a theological universal and a true one. That we are the superiors to ideas, containers, but not concent or meanings, which are to demand representation by the concept that we control as a moral act.  The moral act is forming ideas, which competently represent meaning, by a superior to the idea, which is not another concept and not its unfulfilled meaning.  We are supposed to be made for higher but hidden things, its identification, and love, from which we are to be obedient in forming good ideas that hold meaning. The ideas are supposed to be made so they look as much like this our superior as we are. We command ideas to fall in line with us, but since man is himself an idea awaiting the fulfillment of meaning “us” is not an “us” alone and unfulfilled in a world of confusion and death.

If we did not believe that ideas were not essentially our equals or betters, they, not meaning, would be human consciousness’s only real dictators to whatever superior spiritual content of meaning humans should choose to make for them to hold, and this is our theolidcal condition of our own making. Subject made gods and God made a subject, but with respect to hermeneutics.  If ideas were otherwise and we were their subjects, the decision of content would be made for us, not by us, by what they are assumed to be the equal of, which is from where and from whom they came. If not God, then they are cruel masters indeed, as so are we their cruel subjects.

We are the masters of ideas, but depend on them for meaning even when we know we really worship them as gods. It’s an uncomfortable habitation, a confusing state, a state of constant uncertainty, pain, and work. It’s a deathtrap that guarantees that the parts of the person that inhabits it as an equal or even as a superior will not survive. It’s not supposed to be a state that we love, who take up an industry that seeks to make it comfortable and long-lived, ameliorable to us.

You may disagree with the principle of objective, basic morality, or you may be instantly inclined to interpret it in such a way as to think, far from the root problem of the Christian mind, that Christians are the only ones that affirm its truth. I don’t care. It is my task now to “red pill” you as to the true state of the Christian problem with biblical epistemology and hermeneutics, how we still live in a theological container of our own making but which we value more than God, and how it is that we can call ourselves Christians while confidently, boldly and without conscience read the Bible and essentially declare it it a cookbook for various curry recipes by which practice has made us spiritual master chefs in a transcendent Indian (or French, or British, or Thai, et al.) cuisine, with our salvation coming by eating its exclusive consumption. No, this is not hyperbole, as absurd as the analogy might appear. The extent to which we misunderstand Scripture and call it understanding is the precise distance this exact belief is from the true biblical message of evil in the world that afflicts the good, the spiritual consequences of that misunderstanding being deadly and final.

I have a problem. I’m a Christian living in a world that is anything but. The irony seems to be that it is also not a world without brilliant minds, millennia of work, great ideas and compelling narratives of amazing heroes of body and mind. It’s not a world without choices. It’s not a world without reasonable choices. On the contrary. But it is still deeply, violently, irredeemably antichristian, especially the Christian version, a world where, as the King James so eloquently renders, “judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.”

Please see these articles:

Head and Heart: John 14:1-12: Having Jesus In Your Heart But Not In Your Head

What is the Word of God?: A Prophetic Think Tank

[mikemortgage]

Berlin housing activists lead campaign to fight rising rents

BERLIN — Low-cost housing advocates are launching a grassroots campaign to force Berlin’s state government into taking over nearly 250,000 apartments worth billions from corporate owners to fight rising rents in one of Germany’s hottest real estate markets.

The fight pits two philosophies against one another: free-market companies that see real estate as a means to profit, and housing activists who see affordable rent not only as a necessity but as central to the city’s character. Its prospects are uncertain at this early stage and a resolution will take years, but the successes of other such campaigns have shown the strength of social activists.

“There need to be some rules here for the game — it’s a city, not just open land for people to do what they want,” said Thomas McGath, a representative of the group behind the campaign, known as Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co. “It’s not something that can be completely determined by the market.”

The city had been a low-rent mecca after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 opened the gates to the economically depressed former communist east of the city. That gave rise to an influx of artists and others seeking a more bohemian existence and prompted a former mayor to label it “poor, but sexy.”

With the return of the government to the city from the West German capital of Bonn, and its growing popularity as a high-tech and startup hub, the population has been increasing since 2004 from 3.39 million to 3.6 million.

Rents have been steadily rising at the same time, and even though the prices still lag behind other major German cities and European capitals, growing gentrification has been forcing many out of the very neighbourhoods whose trendy vibe they created.

“The asset companies are coming in, making a good extremely scarce by buying it up when it’s available and then raising the rents,” McGath said. “We’re running out of space where we want to live our lives and we can’t live in the city anymore. If they come to the city, they should follow the rules of the city.”

Still, according to the average monthly prices from the fourth quarter of 2018, 1,000 euros ($1,120) could get you an apartment of more than 80 square meters (860 square feet) in Berlin, but less than 60 square meters in Munich, Germany’s most expensive city for rents.

The campaigning group’s argument invokes Article 15 of the German Constitution, which provides for the “socialization” of “land, natural resources and means of production” by transferring it to public ownership. It’s never been used before, but in principle should apply, said Christian Pestalozza, a constitutional and public law professor at Berlin’s Free University.

“With Article 15, I would say the path is probably open,” he said.

The group has introduced a resolution calling for the city to purchase the apartments of any corporation that owns more than 3,000, arguing the price should be “determined with due consideration of the interests of the general public” instead of market value.

The idea is they’d then be used as affordable homes administered by tenants and elected members of the public, and profits would be put back into maintaining and modernizing them, as well as constructing new housing.

The group’s main target is Berlin’s biggest landlord, Deutsche Wohnen, a publicly traded company that has 111,500 apartments in Berlin with an estimated market value of about 15.2 billion euros ($17 billion) — the majority of which were acquired from the city over the last decade or so as the capital struggled with debt. With those and the properties of several other companies, a total of about 243,000 apartments worth more than 36 billion euros ($40 billion) could be affected.

Deutsche Wohnen suggested the initiative was misguided, noting that its apartments average 60 square meters and rent for a modest 580 euros, and that even if they were sold to the city, it wouldn’t solve the housing crisis.

“Expropriation is creating a lot of emotions right now, but it won’t create a single apartment,” CEO Michael Zahn told The Associated Press in an emailed statement. “An expropriation will bring no relief to the worryingly tight housing market in the capital.”

He added that already, half of rental income is reinvested in Deutsche Wohnen properties, 5 per cent of new apartments are offered at lower rents or rent-free for “social purposes” such as housing for refugees or battered women looking to start new lives. He said the company also follows government regulations like the “mietspiegel,” or “rent mirror,” which is used to calculate allowable rent increases by reflecting neighbourhood averages.

The group behind the movement argues, however, that Deutsche Wohnen and others are so big that they can drive up an entire neighbourhood’s rent calculations, and perpetually justify further increases.

“There needs to be a limit at some point, because there are just too many big players coming into the market and completely screwing it up,” McGath said.

Although radical, it’s not just a pie-in-the-sky dream. As recently as 2014, activists were able to successfully use a referendum to block plans to develop a big part of the former Tempelhof airport and instead turned it into a massive park.

But just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it will happen anytime soon.

The first phase begins Saturday with the group setting out to collect 20,000 signatures needed to bring its proposal to Berlin’s government for consideration. It’s joining other groups demonstrating for rent controls for a rally expected to attract 25,000, and believes it will have the necessary signatures in a few weeks at most, McGath said.

Then, if the government fails to come up with a proposal to the satisfaction of Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co., the group will then need to collect 170,000 more signatures to trigger a referendum in the city-state of Berlin. Then it goes to a ballot, and a majority is needed to pass it.

Each step takes time, and there will inevitably be domestic legal action as well, Pestalozza said. Some have also suggested it could violate international laws regarding the expropriation of property.

“There could be a lot of conflict,” he said. “It could be a decade until it’s all said and done.”

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2WPF7cy via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[clay-teeth]

Nemesis: how she’s the baddest b, and a big ol butch lesbian

okay so this write up is for the lovely @tenderdyke, an homage to her poetry <3. But share as much as you want! Stories are cool. Sorry this got really long

I’m gonna talk about my favorite greek goddess, Nemesis. Sound familiar? 

Foe? Downfall? Enemy? Ruin? Sounds terrible! 

WRONG. These are lies that have wormed their way into language, because men really, really hate it when they have consequences to their actions. So, if not for a mean woman who goes around ruining men, what is she? Fair. Nemesis is the ultimate representation in feminism, equality and fairness. But before we get there, lets get some background! As with all Greek myths, the facts get a little wobbly, especially with the origin stories. For the purpose of this rant (and it’s nothing more than that) I will be going by my own personal favorite hymns and myths, and I’ll try and provide a source where I can. 

According to most sources, Nemesis is the daughter of Nyx, the goddess of night. It’s fun to note that in Greek mythology (as opposed to christian mythology) night came first, and is the natural state of the world. Day is a mode of change, is an alternative. Other sources add that Erebus aided Nyx in birthing Nemesis. Erebus is the void. But it’s not really a void as in lack of stuff, he is the primordial deity. Is the the very notion of existence. He is the space where all things occupy. So, its easy to see the our lovely lady Nemesis was an old god, older than Zeus and the Olympians. Its easy to assume that the Greek poets thought of Nemesis as vital, natural, and important. In another myth, she is the daughter of Oceanus, the primordial sea the circumferences the earth. 

Let’s talk about her family. Nyx, goddess of night, is her mother. In Theogeny, her siblings include -The Moirai - The fates. They are synonymous with destiny. They are in charge of everything that makes up a person’s life. -The Keres - The Black Fates. beasts of death, but specifically violent death. They were the result of men’s violence towards one another -Oneiroi - Dreams -Eris - Discord, also equated with strife -Apate - Deceit -Philotes - Friendship -Geras - old age

Nemesis only bore 1 child, Helen. You’ve probably heard the story of Zeus as a swan. There are several sources that say the nemesis was the victim of Zeus. He turned himself into an innocent swan, and ran to nemesis pretending to need help. Nemesis cradled him, protected him, and fell asleep. He assaulted her, and she bore an egg. Mercury took it from her, and gave it to Lyda, and from that egg was Helen, the most beautiful to ever exist. 

Now as far as myths go, there’s pretty much only one myth where we get to see her actions (aside from her treatment of Zeus). Narcissus. Really common myth! Pompous dick-head and pretty-boy narcissus falls in love with his own reflection, where he withers and dies, as punishment doled out by Nemesis. What’d he do to deserve this? Echo, a nymph, was cursed by Hera for sleeping with her husband, Zeus (ah, that asshole again). Echo lied to Hera, and from then on Echo could only repeat the last thing she heard. But poor echo, she fell in love with Narcissus. Unable to communicate her love, she followed him around in hopes that he’d notice her. Instead he shunned her, saying he’d rather die than lay with her. 

Nemesis ached for echo, and sought to punish Narcissus. It’s been twisted that Nemesis forced Narcissus to stare at his own reflection, but that’s not true. She simply lured him to a pond and, too air headed to know the difference, fell in love with himself. Many other women approached Narcissus, but he shunned them, too, in favor of himself. He eventually died by his own hand, basically throwing a temper tantrum that physics wont allow him to fuck his own self. 

A few other notes: Nemesis was sometimes called Fortune. Neither good, nor bad fortune. She was also stunningly beautiful. Her mother was said to have been so beautiful that it made Zeus quake with fear. She gave birth to Helen, the most beautiful woman to ever be born. 

The romans, who we all know overtook greece and basically wrote their name on everything greece mad and pretended it was their own homework, renamed Nemesis to Invidia-Jealousy. Reading modern-day translations or interpretation of nemesis, they call her ruthless, vengeful, etc. All of the classic revivals describe her as wrathful, ruinous, etc. And honestly? I hate it. 

Now, this is completely my own interpretation, pretty much as is everything I write here, but if you are to look at Nemesis’ origin and family, her existence could be described as “given”. Natural. Inevitable. She existed before the earth, before man, before the gods. Her kin are things like life, death, dreams, friendship, and struggle. Her “punishments” weren’t really punishments, turns out Narcissus is just Like That. I think she is the divine force in the world to make sure things are fair. The ultimate anarcha babe, allowing men to fall victims to their own weaknesses, leveling the playing field.

Anyway here are some more fun things about her: she was widely celebrated across greece! Despite being mostly forgotten (men really don’t like being confronted about their problems, huh) she had several temples in different locations, including a festival in Athens. This is where her alternative name, Rhamnousia comes from - her temple at Rhamnous. She was also the adopted goddess of roman freedmen - slaves who were released from their bonds, and able to own property and function in society in full capacity. (Yet another part of history that points to her being the manifestation of fairness and deservedness, seeing how all men deserve freedom). 

She was never known to bear any children willingly, or lay with any man. She has olive skin, and (sometimes) short, dark (indigo) hair, and blue eyes.  (She’s a lesbian lets be real). She’s winged, and is frequently depicted with a flaming sword. Her most known themes are a crown of stags and small winged beings, to symbolize Nike (victory), and she’s frequently depicted carrying a scale, reins (sometimes later a steering wheel), a ruler, and an apple branch (a symbol of long life and good health. Yeah, totally, she’s just a big ol meanie, right?)

 Its to be noted that depictions of her with a sword are special, swords are the be-all-end-all symbol of power, and even Zeus wasn’t allowed to have a sword. Nemesis was extremely powerful, frequently described as literally unstoppable. The sword is double edged, a symbolism of balance. She is also depicted in a chariot pulled by female griffins-who are typically a masculine symbol. Many artists of the day use masculine imagery with her, for one, to show her power, and for two: because she’s the true nature of duality (also comes in to play with her sword, which is another masculine symbol). 

Idk that’s it for now! 

[sjohnson24]

Blood & Stone

My wings start unfolding into Heaven as I fall onto the ground in a prayer. The places that I know will not be forgotten yet, they will never be remembered. The memories that I hold so dear wrap around my brain like ivy on a tree, slowly suffocating it as the years go by. What pain is this which could numb me in such a shattered reflection of myself, which tears us both apart? Why must we surrender to the feeling that traces tears onto our hearts?  My true love, he is a castle. He is a royal tomb which holds my bones. It doesn’t matter if the structure collapses, fades or burns away. He will forever mark me. He told me five times in the essence of seasons passing, that I should go away from him eventually, so he could find his silence. With the right timing, the truth did grow.

In death there is not an absence of sound, as images become clearer in my head from the vibrations of the minutes. My time will be soon. The moments are short yet shortest for many still. A year is faster than a second when I think about the past. It goes by much faster than the past or future. Before I know it the cycle will have ended and all that’s left is what I could think to tell you. This is how important you are to me, dear.

I want to tell you about the legends of blood & stone which transport us into other realms. The magick of the unknown and mysterious lands of which we do not know will haunt over us because the future is heavy and slow in context to the moment we open up and learn our paths. This is the one thing that we all have; blood magick.

Blood Ritual

A blood ritual is one in which a release of blood is used with intention to bring about a pact, or purpose. In these instances, blood symbolizes a rebirth and resurrection. Blood magic can be used in two ways. One is by the blood of the living and the other is by sacrifice. Many ancient rituals from past civilizations used the latter as a means of extreme worship and is considered to be an evil decision by most of us, in today’s world.

One with any knowledge of the occult can translate these magical workings into a number of different ways. Use with a candle, incantations, various magical offerings or any other spell form is always intensified by the use of blood, which can have a very magnificent effect on any working. It is an energy signature of the artist.

Please be aware that exchanging blood with another person or being can cause very dangerous pathogens and poisons to transfer from body to body. It doesn’t take much to deliver life threatening toxins to one another. Please be creative and try not to use this method as some people are unsuspecting of what they do carry.

Bloodstone

The mineral aggregate heliotrope is also known as the bloodstone. It is a variety of chalcedony and jasper, a dark green color, sometimes including red marks of hematite as well. This is the image that has sparked the stone’s name and magical powers.

In ancient texts, it is said to bring about good health and Pliny the Elder himself recounted that it can bring about invisibility to the user. It has wondrous capabilities in the magical realms. Another property of the stone is that it is said to have the unique ability to turn the sun red, or cause an eclipse. It is known to also be able to control certain water elemental storms, such as rain and lightning.It was also used as an ancient amulet to stop bleeding in people. A Christian’s tale is that Christ’s blood fell upon a stone at his feet, turning it into this. In turn, many artisans craft biblical scenes using bloodstone, or martyr’s stone, as they call it.

If the red spots in the stone are yellow, it is then known as plasma. It was commonly placed in Egyptian tombs to protect the dead person from unknown evils and bad luck. Greek soldiers were known to wear it in battle, believing that it would bring good luck to them. Nowadays, it is used by crystal healers to reduce stress, bring mental clarity and inspire self-confidence.

Gravestone

Gravestones became a popular way to identify a person’s grave. In earlier times, the person’s body would simply be covered with dirt. Over time, family and friends made dedications with stones, pieces of wood, iron and marble to honor them. They soon evolved into what we now see today, which is commonly the person’s name, including the year they were born and died, sometimes with an icon of something spiritual engraved and maybe a few short words.

Burials evolved from being around a person’s home, to the church to public cemeteries, which became popular sometime in the 19th century. The business of headstones started booming and it has become like a necessity. However, as times change so too then will peoples tastes and demands. The wealthier always tend to have a more eloquent grave than the poor.

The binding properties of the stone are recognized even as far as ancient Celtic weddings, where couples would tell their oaths to a stone and then throw it out, in order to have a good marriage. This is still practiced to this day in some weddings. There is much power imbedded within the Earth and as humans we still recognize it, even in our evolved states.

Pray

We will pray hard on the day that our soul feels unrest. Yet, while we are summoning angels, the demons are feeling tempted. How you do bind them with improper words? A tower of Babel, a destruction of Earths, I dream of another birth. For all that must be ordered is unrestrained, while those who hold positions of power feel only for theirselves and what they understand.

I know you. The blood that we have flows through our veins, our spark, and our essence. Yet we bond to each other in a higher demand. Like lust or gratitude, we honor the Gods with their forces. The highest of them which can see us, they are also unchanged. Stay in the order, they say now, as they go to and fro. Our blood and words will open the portals to a higher realm of existence.

It is a juxtaposition of elements that transfixes our hands into branches reaching out. Do not be afraid as we have been led this far without questioning our capabilities of self-modified genetics through behavior practices such as prayer. We will wish onto the blood of our bones, until the day we die, for a resurrection of the truth. May we stay buried until we are fed the mana of immortality. The Last Supper

A common Christian blood ritual is the drinking of Christ’s blood through a glass of juice and a cracker to represent his body. But, this activity is meant to mock a real occurrence from this mythology. According to the Gospel accounts of the bible, The Last Supper is the final meal that Jesus shared with his apostles in Jerusalem before the crucifixion.

Jesus is said to take a piece of bread, breaking it into several pieces and passing it around while saying, “This is my body, which is given for you.” He then takes up a bottle of wine, of which he pours and says, “This is my blood of the everlasting covenant, which is poured for many…” To finish the ritual, he then attests that they should dedicate the moment for him always, as he says, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

This holy rite is considered today as the “Eucharist.” It is meant to remind the followers of the day and the death on the cross. It is a form of gratitude and respect to the holy being that dwells within him. It has many variations, spread throughout several denominations of churches and other religious facilities. Its meaning is also fiercely debated between different aspects of Christ’s people.

Morning Star Ritual

The Morning Star Ritual is a custom practice used by the Pawnee peoples. This includes the Skidi band. Their first accounted living habitat was recognized in Loup River in Nebraska. They were also commonly found at the Platte River, or the Pahnimaha River. The last known occurrence of this act was recorded in 1838. The last known sacrifice was of Haxti, a 14-year-old Oglala Lakota girl on April 22, 1838.

The Morning Star Ritual is the sacrifice of a young girl. The reason is because in their folklore, the male Morningstar and the female evening star mated to create the first human being egg, which was of a young girl. A symbolic ceremony was performed in springtime because that is when Mars was the Morningstar. The real one would not be performed until a person of respect within the community had the dream in which it was time to kidnap a girl from an opposing tribe to use. He would then be handed a specific warriors costume to fulfill this mission.

Once captured, the girl would be ritually cleansed with songs, sacred skins and treated with great honor, almost as if the Gods themselves would reside inside of her. Her clothing would be removed and she would be attacked by the man who had captured her. He would pierce her by bow through the heart while another would hit her over the head with a club. The chest would then be cut open while someone would catch the blood onto pieces of dried meat. Finally, the rest of the men would shoot arrows into her and circle her four times before leaving. This was to symbolizing shooting their life force into her.

At the end of the ceremony, they would lay her body in a field, facing down, so that her blood should run smoothly into the Earth. This represented to them the Garden of the Evening Star, which is all plant and animal life. In this way, her blood would fertilize the Earth and she would ensure that the spirit of the Evening star be released back into the world, time and time again.

Sun Dancer

In the Plains cultures of Native Americans we find a dance that was used as a form on invocation to the sun. These individuals gather together as one to empower each other and bring about change through the use of spiritual sacrifice and release of blood through piercing torturous methods. The typical sun dance was made around a fire, drums playing and great substance was created with energy by many people.

This tradition has been recognized since as early as Aztec and Mayan history. It was commonly thought that the sun resurrected itself each day and blood is the symbol for this philosophy. Most of these practices can only be learned about from pictures and information on ancient artifacts. The level of understanding and societal expectations has changed throughout the years and so many things can be misinterpreted.

An influence of other religions and cultures caused the native peoples to keep their present day workings only available to the pure of heart. No money and photography is allowed in the true worship of the sun today as they believe the spirits will not show around these devices. Also you must be of the heritage to honorably participate. It is thought that this ritual would show the Gods gratitude for life and cause a healing and enlightenment to occur in the community.

Blood & Stone

So we dream and we hope. We drown in the smoke. We’ve loved and we’ve lost. We will recognize the duality of life and pay that price. We will exist again, not as strangers, but as one movement of love. For all that was, is everlasting and all that will be, has already happened. This is a lasting moment made of pure energy. Please take the time to close your eyes. Do as much as you can before you die.

The words that are written into the stone, let them manifest. Let the thoughts of fear drift away and let the light in of what draws near. Live with laughter and you will not die here. Follow the path that the words are written on and you will find yourself. Do not be sure of anything else except for love and even then you may be mistaken. Do not lose yourself in the endings.

So, the time draws near for me to leave you now. I hope that in your journey you continue to grow and learn from every mistake until you become the superhero I always knew you were. I believe in you. Let the day be set forward in motion, where blood & stone become one and we are fragments of a dream just waiting to breakthrough. Until next time…

Deanna Jaxine Stinson, Metaphysical Researcher and Author aka Wish Fire www.teardropsofanangel.com

Blood & Stone syndicated from http://ylangylangbeachresort.com/

[travelling-trooper-blog]

With our friend Izi the walking tour app by our side, Trevor and I ventured off for another day through beautiful Munich. Today’s tour started off in Karlsplatz. This place was apparently the busiest junction in all of Europe in the 18th century. The arched gate is called Karlstor, which translates to Karl’s Door. It is named after Karl Theodor, the Elector of Bavaria. Not sure what an Elector is or does, but it sounds important. The gate was originally built for fortification purposes in the 13th century.

As the city continued to grow in the 18th century, though, the fortifications became a bit of a nuisance, since they got in the way of expansion. Theodor ordered all the fortifications be demolished, but the gates were kept as public monuments.

Karlstor initially had three towers, but there was a gunpowder snafu in the storage room and the towers went boom boom. When they were rebuilt, they built only two and an archway.

Just to the left of Karlsplatz sat this awesome looking gallery called Gallery 5. It being Monday, however, the gallery was closed. Le sigh…

On the plus side, it being Monday, all the shops along the fancy schmancy shops along Neuhauser Strreet were also closed. No tourist jam today 🙂

You kill that demon good, angel person. That’s Saint Michael’s Church.

Poor guy must have crazy neck pains.

Welcome to Frauenkirche. That’s Our Lady’s Church in German. It’s probably the most iconic church in all of Munich. In fact, to maintain its iconic status, no building is allowed to be built taller than the cathedral in Munich. Like City Hall, a larger church was needed to accommodate Munich’s rapidly growing population.

During our walk with Max the previous day, he explained that the reason the cathedral wasn’t completely destroyed during air raids in WWII was that it served as a useful navigational reference point for pilots. However, the building did suffer significant damage nonetheless. It wasn’t fully restored until the mid-1990’s.

Towards the back of the church lies this mysterious square tile with a footprint in it. The story goes that architect Jorg von Halsbach made a deal with the Devil to help him finance the construction of the church. He was also able to build it in only twenty years. The deal was that the church would not have any windows so that God would not be able to see into the church and the Devil could have his way with the people inside. Von Halsbach built the church in such a way that when the Devil entered through the main entrance, the columns perfectly blocked his view of all the church’s windows. Once he stepped forward, though, the Devil realized he’d been tricked, and he stomped his foot in anger.

The truth, though, is that the construction of the church was funded in large part thanks to the Pope. He pronounced Munich as a pilgrim city. That meant that by using what was called the Selling of Indulgences, pilgrims were required to donate several days’ living expenses in exchange for their sins being forgiven. Given the size of this magnificent church, it’s clear that people in Munich had a lot of sins they needed forgiven.

We went back to Marienplatz to explore the New City Hall a bit further. Once inside, we found this peculiar site. Apparently Munich has several sister cities around the world. This doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is that Cincinnati is one of those sister cities. Way to go, Cincy! I wonder if Munich has any Bengals fans.

Standing inside New City Hall gave me a bit of a Harry Potter feel.

Well except for these guys…

We walked inside and found an odd art gallery. I ask myself that question about modern art all the time. The picture on the right was my favourite from a series shot by this photographer. He’s dressed all snazzy in the most random of places. I love the look on Jesus’ face.

Old King Maximilian Joseph, or King Maxi-Jo as his friends liked to call him (maybe), looks like a giant ruffles potato chip.

This Michael Jackson shrine has taken over a statue commemorating Renaissance composer, Orlando di Lassi. Fans of the King of Pop built this outside the Bayerischer Hotel, which is where he stayed while on tour in Germany.

The previous day, I’d spotted an ad featuring this particular painting promoting some exhibit at the Kunsthalle gallery. It was certainly eye-catching, so when we happened to walk past the art gallery holding the exhibit, I couldn’t not go in.

Virgil is giving Dante a little tour of Hell, when they come across this wild scene.

The Paris Salon was the dream of every artist during the 19th century. It was where members of the Royal Academy presented their work. However it was very difficult to get your work displayed here, as a grand jury decided what made the cut.

Roman Emperor Augustus at the tomb of Alexander the Great. Following Alexander’s death, his grave site became a pilgrimage site for all Roman emperors.

Perseus just schooled Medusa, and is now flying off like a boss on Pegasus.

The story of Job. I wish the quality of this picture was better. The suffering and the pain on his face looked so damn real.

The virgin Cecille dedicated her life to Jesus despite being married to a pagan. She later converted him to Christianity and attended forbidden funerals for many Christians before eventually being executed. She was placed in boiling water, but it did nothing to her. An attempted beheading didn’t do the job either–at least, not immediately. She lived for three more days before dying from her injuries.

What I found most interesting about the exhibit was watching the accepted notion of beauty evolve over time, from a classical ideal to a more honest, modern, authentic, and flawed humanity. There is beauty in simplicity. A farmer working in a field can be just as beautiful as a Greek god.

Next stop: Hofgarten, where fancy rich important people brought other fancy rich important people to talk about fancy rich important people things.

And back to Marienplatz to take in more sights. This is the Old City Hall, with another one of those old fortification towers attached to it.

Before leaving Marienplatz, we took a closer look at the oldest church in Munich, Peterskirche. It’s locally referred to as Old Peter. The original church was built in the 11th century, but it has gone through several renovations, reconstructions, and expansions over the years.

This site was originally settled by monks, though; and apparently, that’s where Munich gets its name. The name Munich derives from the German word for monk. Unfortunately, we could not go into the church; so we had to settle for climbing to the top to get a view of the city.

Now the audio guide told us earlier that Frauenkirche was the tallest building in Munich, but this picture suggests otherwise.

From up there, I suddenly became quite aware of a thunderous drumming sound that was coming from somewhere nearby. I don’t know how Trevor and I hadn’t noticed until then, but it was suddenly the only thing I could hear. After climbing back down, we set off in search of the source of this sound and found these guys. They were drumming for the marathon runners that were running through the city.

With that mystery solved, we set to more important things: Beer. We were looking for the Hofbrauhaus to be exact. This is definitely one of the coolest pubs I’ve ever been in. The place was packed and full of awesome energy, thanks in large part to these guys.

The reason the logo for the beer features a crown is that the brewery was established by Duke Wilhelm the Fifth. Hof means royal court in German. The reason he created it was that he was getting tired of having his favourite beer shipped over all the way from Hanover.

Unfortunately, the selfish bastard only allowed people in the royal court to enjoy his beer. The public only had access to the beer once a year in the spring. In a truly beautiful move, the public demanded the right to buy the beer for themselves. Eventually, the Duke had to give in, and the brewery was turned into the Hofbrauhaus pub and restaurant.

Duke Wilhelm the Fourth established the Purity Law in 1516. It stated that only barley, hops, and water could be used to brew beer. This law is still followed to this day and is supposedly the oldest food law in the world. Wilhelm created the Purity Law because so many brewers were experimenting with ingredients to try and make the beer last longer and taste better, and people sometimes ended up getting sick or even dying.

The place really is beautiful, and it can accommodate up to 3, 500 guests in all three of its floors. The second floor is much calmer than the first, though there is live entertainment in the evenings. The third floor is used for various Bavarian performances and events.

Apparently, if you’re a local and a very loyal and frequent customer, you can actually store your own mug in your own personal locker. There’s a bit of a waiting list, though.

I had a delicious pork roast with a side of mashed potatoes. But more importantly, I had this massive beast to help me wash down my wonderful meal.

Trevor and I were going to head home with our bellies full and our hearts merry, but then I found out that there is an area in Munich with a budding street art scene, and so we ventured off to check it out. On the way, we walked along the Isar River.

And so we say auf wiedersehen to Germany…

The Travelling Trooper Meanders Around Munich Some More With our friend Izi the walking tour app by our side, Trevor and I ventured off for another day through beautiful Munich.