Showing posts with label rebellion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rebellion. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Why God?
When things do not go the way that we think that they should or that we want them to go, we cry out, “Why, God?
When something horrendous like the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut breaks out, those who suffer the direct effects are hit by such a shock that they are left with little other than to ask and cry out, “Why, God?”
Since we all have suffered shocking things in our lives and we all have suffered some form of loss and grief and anguish and heartache, we all relate to the circumstances of such an event so that we all are inclined to cry out, “Why, God?”
But deep down we know that this is pretense. We are only pretending not to know why these things happen. We pretend not to know because to admit that we know the reason is to face reality honestly, which leaves us with accountability, very painful accountability. We do not want to face this. We would actually rather allow things to become worse than to face the truth openly and honestly so as to confront the real problem and to deal with it.
Moreover, we know the futility of asking, “Why, God?”
After all, God has plainly told us why. Even if He had not told us, the answer is plain for us to see. There is no real mystery here.
No one can escape the truth. The truth is unavoidable. We attempt to find ways to bury it or to hide from it, but eventually the truth comes to the fore. Eventually the light of the truth drives away the shadows in which we lurk so that we stand exposed by the light.
This is true both individually and societally.
Why does shit happen? It happens because of the sin that is in the world, sin that inheres to each one of us and to society as a whole. We are sinful people. We are a sinful society.
We ignore the truth. We bury the truth. We lie. We accept what is wrong and try to excuse it. We allow what is right to be ignored and denied and even to be persecuted.
We have allowed God to be replaced with free will. We have allowed creation to be supplanted by evolution. We have allowed absolute truth to be diminished to relativism. Theology is rejected for psychology. Divinely revealed knowledge is cast aside for subjectively deduced reason that is given the pseudonym of science. Grace is renamed as decision or commitment. Love for neighbor and brother is replaced by tolerance.
We excuse the sacrifice of children by calling it “choice” and even a “right.”
Is it even possible to find a movie that does not have revenge as part of the plot? Revenge, murder, selfish gain, selfish disregard for the safety of self and of others through extreme sports and fast driving. Even running red lights is presented as cool. Stealing of vehicles and breaking traffic laws is promoted as exciting and even acceptable. Irresponsible and promiscuous sexual behavior is displayed as the norm.
The answer for people’s problems is taught to be some form of pharmaceutical wonder drug. Depression is no longer counted as a reaction to grief and suppressed anger so that it now is a disorder caused by chemical imbalance that must be controlled medically.
And then we see the results of our defiance and cry out, “Why, God?”
Thankfully, God is not satisfied with merely answering our belligerent demand. He does not stop with simply answering the question of why these things continue to happen and to become even more prevalent as society moves farther and farther from Him. He presses onward to give the answer to the problem. He actually puts the answer into action.
In slightly over a week we will again celebrate His answer, His solution, His salvation.
For those who are genuinely weary of the pretense and the perpetual denial of truth that always leads to the same disappointing end, He has provided His Gospel. For those who are truly tired of seeking answers for themselves, He has given His Church on earth and the means of grace. For those who honestly admit their own helplessness and cry out for real help, He says, “Come to Me and I will give you rest.”
Perhaps it is time that we stop crying out defiantly with, “Why, God?” and come together to cry out with relief, “Thanks be to God!” This is the great gift of the Christmas season. His name is Jesus.
+ + +
Thursday, April 05, 2012
The Jealous Father
Here is a story that breaks the heart:
A loving husband and father worked very hard to establish a household for his wife and children. He promised to be faithful and always to take care of them. He built a house, a magnificent home, a genuine mansion. Some might even call it a castle.
He worked and provided for all of the needs of his family. He set up a trust fund that would continually grow so as to provide for his family in perpetuity. He made certain that they were safe and protected.
One day along came a conniving swindler, who had many secret assistants. This selfish and cruel embezzler and thief came to the wife and children with a story about how the father was not as caring and loving as he had presented to them. While the father was busy providing for them and planning for their future, this other fellow convinced the family that they would be better off making their own plans and establishing their own way. He explained how they could take the investments that the father had kept from them and use them more productively. He explained that they could use these investments for things that the father had not given to them for their use, or at least not for the uses that they now would engage.
All that the father had established was undermined. The family unity disintegrated. The family members began to envy one another and to plot against one another. Turmoil supplanted the peace and harmony previously enjoyed. The children began to focus upon hoarding resources. Hard and arduous work became the daily routine. Fences were built to prevent stealing. Wars arose over property disputes.
The father spoke to the family members and urged them to return to the way that they formerly enjoyed together. A few listened and lived in peace together. But the others, the vast majority, reacted angrily and began to promote hatred toward those who listened to their father. The few remaining in the unity of the family were mistreated and sometimes enslaved and sometimes even killed.
What was the father to do? What action should he take concerning those who chose to destroy all that he had lovingly established? What should he do regarding the belligerent rebellion and subsequent attacks against those who remained in the family together?
+ + +
A loving husband and father worked very hard to establish a household for his wife and children. He promised to be faithful and always to take care of them. He built a house, a magnificent home, a genuine mansion. Some might even call it a castle.
He worked and provided for all of the needs of his family. He set up a trust fund that would continually grow so as to provide for his family in perpetuity. He made certain that they were safe and protected.
One day along came a conniving swindler, who had many secret assistants. This selfish and cruel embezzler and thief came to the wife and children with a story about how the father was not as caring and loving as he had presented to them. While the father was busy providing for them and planning for their future, this other fellow convinced the family that they would be better off making their own plans and establishing their own way. He explained how they could take the investments that the father had kept from them and use them more productively. He explained that they could use these investments for things that the father had not given to them for their use, or at least not for the uses that they now would engage.
All that the father had established was undermined. The family unity disintegrated. The family members began to envy one another and to plot against one another. Turmoil supplanted the peace and harmony previously enjoyed. The children began to focus upon hoarding resources. Hard and arduous work became the daily routine. Fences were built to prevent stealing. Wars arose over property disputes.
The father spoke to the family members and urged them to return to the way that they formerly enjoyed together. A few listened and lived in peace together. But the others, the vast majority, reacted angrily and began to promote hatred toward those who listened to their father. The few remaining in the unity of the family were mistreated and sometimes enslaved and sometimes even killed.
What was the father to do? What action should he take concerning those who chose to destroy all that he had lovingly established? What should he do regarding the belligerent rebellion and subsequent attacks against those who remained in the family together?
+ + +
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
More Smoke and Mirrors?
Tuesday
In the article, 2 Charged in Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador to US, it is reported that the “Obama administration on Tuesday accused agents of the Iranian government of being involved in a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.” Near the end of the article it also reports that “President Barack Obama was first briefed on the plot in June.”
That was four months ago. Why the wait?
According to both this article and the one by the New York Times: U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy, this accusation by the administration was made on Tuesday. That is today. At the bottom of the NY Times article is this footnote:
Just in case this is changed later so as to deny it, here is a picture of it:
Does this seem strange to anyone else? On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, a footnote is included on a web page article saying that a version of this article appeared in print tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12, 2011.
Is this not peculiar reporting style? What does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?
Obama was briefed on this plot in June. His administration waits at least four months to act. The news report speaks of Tuesday (today) as though it were past tense. Then one report speaks of a past appearance of a version of this article on a day in the future.
Again, what does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?
The NY Times article bounces all over the spectrum regarding what the “experts” conclude regarding the likelihood of this plot having approval from high-levels of the Iranian government. Yet the hateful attempts to murder a man for converting to Christianity have gone to the very highest level in the Iranian government. Why does the media go to such extreme efforts to excuse or explain away the very facts that they report?
Should this concern us? Should we look to this peculiar reporting and this askew perspective of the Obama administration with uneasiness?
= = = = =
Wednesday
Today some are very boldly calling this an act of war on the part of Iran. See Kessler: Bomb Iran Now for Washington Terror Plot. This article says that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler say that this is a clear act of war against the USA.
Clear act of war against the USA?
First, the reports deny the likelihood of this being approved by higher levels of Iranian government. The next day the reaction is to call it a clear act of war.
But what of the evidence and the reporting of that evidence? What attack actually was perpetrated? What and whom were blown up? Where are the explosives?
Does anyone recall the reason for going to war against Iraq? Clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction was reportedly held by Saddam & family. Oddly though, those weapons were never found.
Now are we to go to war with a nation on account of a plot to kill an ambassador from another Islamic nation?
What is the point? How does going to war with Iran prevent war, especially when no actual ACT of war has been perpetrated? A plot is not the same as an act, even if it should be proven that this plot reaches to the high levels of Iranian government. Has a Lusitania been sunk? Would a plot to sink the Lusitania have been an act of war or merely a strategy?
The followers of Islam consider themselves to be at war with the world. Their Quran and other religious sources make this clear.
But Communism teaches the same. Why have we not bombed China or North Korea and the former USSR? They have each committed actual acts of war, and yet we have not bombed their nuclear plants. Each of these have most certainly plotted against the USA.
Who gains from war? The international bankers and the big military industrialists gain. But the people lose and lose big. It has always been this way, except on a smaller scale in the past.
James addresses this issue in James 4.
If the USA were not going to war around the globe forcing centralized banking and big corporate exploitation of resources and people upon nations in the guise of democracy and freedom, would we actually find ourselves at war with these nations? In older times this was called colonization. Today it is called spreading democracy. Soon it will be called world peace through global police enforcement.
When it finally reaches this stage, the people will cry out. But will they not be the ones who endorsed it all along? Will they not be the very ones who cried: “USA! USA! USA!”? Will they not be the ones who waved the flag, or burned it in a feeling of superiority while collecting welfare and food stamps and government jobs and social security or big corporate benefits and pensions?
In the end, will we not be getting exactly what we have endorsed or at least accepted and permitted?
+ + +
In the article, 2 Charged in Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador to US, it is reported that the “Obama administration on Tuesday accused agents of the Iranian government of being involved in a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.” Near the end of the article it also reports that “President Barack Obama was first briefed on the plot in June.”
That was four months ago. Why the wait?
According to both this article and the one by the New York Times: U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy, this accusation by the administration was made on Tuesday. That is today. At the bottom of the NY Times article is this footnote:
A version of this article appeared in print on October 12, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Iranians Accused Of Plot to Kill An Ambassador.
Just in case this is changed later so as to deny it, here is a picture of it:
Does this seem strange to anyone else? On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, a footnote is included on a web page article saying that a version of this article appeared in print tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12, 2011.
Is this not peculiar reporting style? What does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?
Obama was briefed on this plot in June. His administration waits at least four months to act. The news report speaks of Tuesday (today) as though it were past tense. Then one report speaks of a past appearance of a version of this article on a day in the future.
Again, what does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?
The NY Times article bounces all over the spectrum regarding what the “experts” conclude regarding the likelihood of this plot having approval from high-levels of the Iranian government. Yet the hateful attempts to murder a man for converting to Christianity have gone to the very highest level in the Iranian government. Why does the media go to such extreme efforts to excuse or explain away the very facts that they report?
Should this concern us? Should we look to this peculiar reporting and this askew perspective of the Obama administration with uneasiness?
= = = = =
Wednesday
Today some are very boldly calling this an act of war on the part of Iran. See Kessler: Bomb Iran Now for Washington Terror Plot. This article says that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler say that this is a clear act of war against the USA.
Clear act of war against the USA?
First, the reports deny the likelihood of this being approved by higher levels of Iranian government. The next day the reaction is to call it a clear act of war.
But what of the evidence and the reporting of that evidence? What attack actually was perpetrated? What and whom were blown up? Where are the explosives?
Does anyone recall the reason for going to war against Iraq? Clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction was reportedly held by Saddam & family. Oddly though, those weapons were never found.
Now are we to go to war with a nation on account of a plot to kill an ambassador from another Islamic nation?
What is the point? How does going to war with Iran prevent war, especially when no actual ACT of war has been perpetrated? A plot is not the same as an act, even if it should be proven that this plot reaches to the high levels of Iranian government. Has a Lusitania been sunk? Would a plot to sink the Lusitania have been an act of war or merely a strategy?
The followers of Islam consider themselves to be at war with the world. Their Quran and other religious sources make this clear.
But Communism teaches the same. Why have we not bombed China or North Korea and the former USSR? They have each committed actual acts of war, and yet we have not bombed their nuclear plants. Each of these have most certainly plotted against the USA.
Who gains from war? The international bankers and the big military industrialists gain. But the people lose and lose big. It has always been this way, except on a smaller scale in the past.
James addresses this issue in James 4.
If the USA were not going to war around the globe forcing centralized banking and big corporate exploitation of resources and people upon nations in the guise of democracy and freedom, would we actually find ourselves at war with these nations? In older times this was called colonization. Today it is called spreading democracy. Soon it will be called world peace through global police enforcement.
When it finally reaches this stage, the people will cry out. But will they not be the ones who endorsed it all along? Will they not be the very ones who cried: “USA! USA! USA!”? Will they not be the ones who waved the flag, or burned it in a feeling of superiority while collecting welfare and food stamps and government jobs and social security or big corporate benefits and pensions?
In the end, will we not be getting exactly what we have endorsed or at least accepted and permitted?
+ + +
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
