A local church that finally makes sense…

I had an excellent meeting with a pastor of a local church this afternoon as a part of my continuing quest to find a faithful church consistent with my understanding of Biblical teachings.

Our discussion revolved around the following topics:

1. When you hear people comment that God’s “hedge of protection” is being lifted, what comes to mind? Comment on how this applies…

• To Israel
• To the United States
• To “The Church”
• To individual Christian believers

2. What is today’s greatest threat to the Church (comment on each one):

• Our government
• Materialism
• Islam
• Immorality
• Lack of faith
• People who don’t live their faith
• People who ignore or question doctrine or Bible teaching

3. Judging vs. discerning:

• Does the Bible distinguish between “judging” and “discerning?”
• Is “judging prohibited? Or is it a Christian responsibility? Explain.

4. Looking for a church: What keeps me from selecting a church home in the area of The Villages?  Am I …

• Too critical?
• Fearing commitment?
• Occasionally feeling that a church home is not essential?
• Concerned the style of worship of too many churches is too casual and disrespectful?
• Observing that church preaching and teaching lack substance or relevance to what is going on in the world?
• Led to believe that churches are ignorant of or indifferent to the threats to Christianity in the world?
• Noticing that church preaching/teaching is too liberal or too “feel good”; all about “tolerating everything.”

5.  Does the Bible provide principles for the best way for believers to govern themselves and how to relate to civil government? Are church leaders discouraged by doctrine or hierarchy from equipping their congregations to influence their government in Biblical governance?

___________________

Starting from the top here are the results of our discussion:

This pastor believes that God’s “hedge of protection” applies to all four entities:  Israel, the United States, the Church, and individual Christians.  This view is consistent with how God interacts with all who are faithful to Him and who fall away, whether His chosen people, a formerly Christian nation, His Church, or His people.  He does provide a hedge of protection to the faithful as a general rule.  Of course historically, and even today there are gross persecutions of faithful Christians around the world, and especially at the hand of Muslims exerting their warped, Satanic version of “justice.”  This may be a consequence of the unfaithfulness and indifference of the Church Universal.

While he agreed the entire list of threats to the Church is valid, he focused on “materialism” as the greatest threat.  That keeps Christians from having God as a priority and has many other negative consequences.  He also agreed that Islam is an unaddressed threat in most churches and a significant threat to Christianity.  The Pastor exhibited a sound understanding of the evils of Islam and the need to inform his congregation of the Islamic threat.  He agreed that faith influences behavior and behavior influences faith just as what we take into our ears, eyes, and brain influence who we become.

Unlike most pastors I interviewed, he believes it is a Christian responsibility to judge – charitably.  Or as several commentaries put it – judge righteously, without hypocrisy.  The fact that we all sin and are all hypocrites to one degree or another should not keep us from discerning AND judging evil based on Biblical principles.

I laid my cards on the table for him regarding the likely reasons I was having a difficult time settling on a local church.  His own diagnosis of my reasons was that I could not find a church faithful to Biblical standards.  Most have been either mere purveyors of ancient Bible history disconnected from today’s challenges to the faith or were social centers providing entertainment and feel good self-improvement lectures.

And finally, I wanted to know his, his church’s, and his denomination’s views of the responsibilities of the church regarding “the State.”  The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a policy that states:

“We reject any views that look to the church to guide and influence the state directly in the conduct of its affairs.”

This statement gave me some concern.  I believe a priority of the Church, right behind The Gospel, is The Law (Biblical morality).  The Law and The Gospel, together, must be taught to Christ’s followers in such a way that they are fully equipped and motivated to influence the culture which ultimately influences our government.  He concurred that this is indeed one of the Biblical responsibilities of the Church and that the above “policy statement” ought not to be over interpreted to minimize or dismiss this important Church responsibility.

Here is a brief summary of my criteria for a Church Home:

1. Bible based; morally and doctrinally conservative/orthodox.  Most churches, especially mainline Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches fall far short.

2. Church leaders and laymen enthusiastic about their faith and mission; friendly and outgoing.  In most churches attendees seem more interested in the entertainment and personal “feel good” counseling more than worship and understanding the Word of God.  Their enthusiasm is directed more at the socializing and entertainment than for what God offers.

3. More sacred/faith building, etc. rather than “social center.”  A reverent and a worshipful environment is important to me rather than the feeling of a carnival or an Amway business meeting.

4. Opportunities for growth and service via small groups or individual assignments.  This relatively small church is embarking on a variety of Bible-based small group activities that will help their participants grow in their faith.

5. Sermons that relate Bible themes not merely to self-improvement or “feel good” sermons but to themes of personal responsibility and self control, especially those related to challenging and overcoming the culture we live in. Current events, immoral cultural trends and competing world views used as object lessons to teach Bible principles should be a key component of most sermons

6. Prefer a Church that focuses great preponderance of church activities

    On:

• Prayer/worship
• Study/learning the Bible and Church doctrine
• Understanding competing world views
• Evangelism
• Service

   Rather than*

• Bingo
• Church socials
• Golf outings
• Concerts

* except as occasional “bonding/fellowship” experiences or as means of Evangelism to attract to new people to draw them to Church and Christ

7. Church liturgical style is reverent worshipful; no rock bands/guitars. Most music early in the service soft, meditational, reverent. No harsh or overly loud music except occasional triumphal hymns when warranted.

___________________

The Verdict:

The Open Bible Lutheran Church, which is part of the conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), appears to meet these criteria for me.  I consider that churches that fall short in some of these qualities are verging anywhere in the spectrum from slightly irreverent to morally corrupt and useless.  Churches that corporately give in to the norms of our culture and adopt the culture as part of its worship service (as contrasted with personal, individual relational evangelism that Jesus practiced) become, in essence, an anti-Christ institution.

That is my judgment.  So be it.

 

'Catastrophic' John McCain: GOP's worst nightmare

I don’t often post verbatim commentaries by others, but here is one I agree with 100%.  It speaks of how suicidally out of touch with reality our leaders really are.  Personally I find their behavior rather “Twilight-Zone-ish”…

Pamela Geller, WND Column: 'Catastrophic' John McCain

'Catastrophic' John McCain: GOP's worst nightmare

by Pam Geller

Sen.  John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday, according to Bloomberg News, that “the U.S. must follow up with more assistance to Assad’s opponents to shift the balance of power in the conflict … dismissing concerns that some rebels have militant ties. ‘Those who say we don’t know who the opposition are, they are either not telling the truth and they know the truth or they are badly mistaken.’”

This is rich coming from a man who posed with known jihad kidnappers in Syria. Back in May, McCain went to Syria to meet with the opposition. While there, he posed for a now-notorious photo with two Sunni jihadists who were involved in kidnapping 11 Shiite pilgrims in 2012. This is what happens when clueless politicians inject themselves into situations in which they clearly do not belong. What was McCain thinking, sneaking into Syria to meet with jihadists?

Barack Obama is wrong and completely isolated on his Syria plan to back al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood opposition. But who do you think is coming to the rescue? RINOs. McCain and his sidekick, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are now carrying water for Obama’s pro-jihadist intervention in Syria. Step ‘n Fetchit McCain and Graham were at the White House Monday getting their marching orders from the Dear Leader. There were no congressional Democrats at the White House.

McCain said Monday that blocking Obama’s Syria strike would be “catastrophic.” No, Sen. McCain. Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was “catastrophic,” and so is his backing of the Brotherhood and al-Qaida in Syria.

McCain explained that to refuse to go along with Obama’s Syrian misadventure would be “catastrophic” because “it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and of the president of the United States.” As if Obama hasn’t undermined his own credibility beyond repair already.

Then on Tuesday, McCain dismissed the Syrian jihadis’ cries of “Allahu akbar” by equating them with saying “Thank G-d.” We are witnessing an embarrassing meltdown right before our very eyes. John McCain equating the cries of “Allahu akbar” after a jihadi attack with “Thank G-d” requires a complete break with reality.

I have never heard Christian or Jew (or any non-Muslim) scream “Thank G-d” after beheading someone or blowing up a school, or slaughtering Muslims on their way to mosque. “Allahu akbar” is a war cry, and John McCain is an idiot. The bloodcurdling cry of “Allahu akbar” is meant to “strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers” (Quran 3:151).

Why isn’t McCain the poster boy for the Christians and religious minorities being persecuted, oppressed and slaughtered under Muslim rule? He is a disgrace. McCain and Graham should be backing the Christians and the Kurds, not jihadists in Syria. The GOP coming to the rescue of the most seditious and dangerous president in American history is inexcusable and unforgivable.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books — featured at the WND Superstore

Even the New York Times reported that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” And that was on April 28. Nothing has improved for secularists in Syria since then. But neither the Democrats nor the RINOs have noticed, despite McCain’s protestations to the contrary. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday compared Bashar al-Assad to “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so scary. Just last week the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) ran a story featuring jihadists talking about fighting with the “rebels” and the Free Syrian Army – the very groups Obama is supporting. There has to be a complete disconnect to reality for Obama and McCain to support these savages. Despite knowing that the opposition in Syria is driven by jihad and brutal Islamic supremacism and that its players include the Taliban and al-Qaida, Congress caved to Obama’s demand to arm the jihadists. In July, House and Senate Intelligence panel members voted to block Obama from arming the Syrian jihadis, but Obama decided to arm them anyway.

And no, I do not believe Assad used chemical weapons. I think that is an elaborate ruse by the jihadists to get the U.S. and Europe to take up arms against Assad. And it looks as if it is working.

Which Muslim Brotherhood operatives are advising McCain and Graham? Seriously. CAIR, ISNA, ICNA? How otherwise could they possibly have come to the conclusion that Obama’s catastrophic Syria plan is good for America?

Muslims from around the world – the U.S., Europe, Africa, Asia – are joining the jihad in Syria to fight for Islamic conquest and supremacism. Religious minorities are being annihilated by the jihadists, and yet another nation could well fall to this brutal and bloody ideology.

And it isn’t just McCain. John Boehner Tuesday announced his support for Obama’s Syrian plan. And Jeb Bush is going to present an award to Hillary Clinton. Why? Why would the GOP and a potential 2016 candidate sanction this? Remember: Clinton’s State Department was told that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” minutes after it began – and lied about it.

We don’t need a third party. We need a second party. Ted Cruz is not enough. The GOP is all but disappearing before our very eyes. They are MIA on Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS and now Syria.

Obama is aiding the jihadists; McCain is sneaking into Syria to pose for pics with them. The former is complicit, the latter is clueless. The outcome is the same.

Petition against bombing Syria …

We have an out of control Muslim Brotherhood-pandering president and an ignorant Congress, John McCain paramount among them.

The proposed US bombing of Syria and our arming of the “rebels” have no benefit to the United States, and in fact emboldens savages worse than the Assad regime.

View the video below for stark evidence of this fact…

HERE is a site where you can petition our Congressman to refuse to sanction the proposed attack on Syria           http://dontattacksyria.com/

Please let your voice be heard on this most important issue of the year.  Contact your Congressman anyway you know how.

It is bad enough that our nation’s leaders are ignorant of the threat of Islamists and spend billions on Islamic nations that abhor Western society and Judeo-Christian existence.  Nation-building in those rat holes was enough of a waste of our precious resources.  Now our misguided, misinformed and mal-intentioned leaders want to start yet another war without end?

We shouldn’t spend a dime on any nation which is predominantly Islamic.  And there is no “good side” to choose when there is an Islamic civil war.  So-called “rebels” and “freedom fighters” and promoters of an “Arab Spring” are used by Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, to implement Sharia and to persecute any remaining non-Muslim in their nation.

Elysium: A parody on progressivism…

The movie “Elysium” has rightly been accused by conservatives has having an in-your-face socialist political message.

It is so blatantly in your face that I see it more as a foolish parody on progressivism, that is, it is exceedingly laughable.

There are three major socialist issues that the movie thoughtlessly promotes:

1.  Single provider healthcare:  The hoards on earth feel entitled to storm the space station (Elysium) to partake of their superior health care. 

2. Occupy Wall Street-type moral superiority of the 99%, even though they have devolved into thronging masses of crime, immmorality, and sloth. The 1% (perhaps 0.0001%) on Elysium is portrayed as morally reprehensible despite developing superior health care, a civil, law abiding society, and a high quality of life.

3. Automatic citizenship in Elysium for a all non-citizens on the planet via invasion, killing, and destruction, a la Bill Ayers in the 60’s.

The laughable ignorance of the message includes the following points:

• The masses are unproductive, irresponsible, and destructive
• The “elites”  are those willing to be creative, work, produce, and remain law abiding.
• The concept of “borders” is considered immoral, even though borders created a social, political, and moral environment that allowed Elysium to develop the medical technology that the “masses” below lusted after.   A world or society without borders creates anarchy.  Anarchy creates chaos which Elysium amply exhibited.
• Total lack of understanding that automatic citizenship in Elysium for the billions of people below on earth which allows free access to the services of a relatively diminutive space station is ludicrous – having the ultimate affect of a parasite killing its host.

Elysium represents the fuzzy, juvenile, and Pollyanish thinking of socialists/progressives on the issues of immigration, health care, and wealth redistribution.  It demonizes all that is good about personal responsibility, law and order.

Does Islam or the Islamic Mahdi fit the definition of The Anti-Christ?

Even from an Amillennial perspective.

Lutherans have historically had an Amillennial perspective of eschatology.  In other words, their view of end times is that “a thousand years” (millennium) is Biblically figurative, so there is no absolute “thousand years” involved.  Consequently they believe the Bible predicts a continuous parallel growth of good and evil in the world until the second coming of Christ.

This reliance on a more symbolic/figurative view of scripture has not served Amillennialists well in the evangelizing department.  This article on “Why Lutherans Can’t Evangelize” does a great job in explaining how not only strict amillennialism, but also the historic Lutheran version of it cripples any sense of urgency to convert.

 So what does all this have to do with Islam and the Anti-Christ?  Well, it has to do with what in history is deemed most worthy to be called “Anti-Christ.”  Changes on the world scene over centuries create new revelation, new and clearer understanding.  Islam is the new “rising star” worthy of that mark.

Most other versions of end times doctrine, like Pre-millennialism, interpret Scripture much more literally.  For example, Pre-millers readily convert the old place names of the Bible, like Cush and Rosh to their current names, the areas around and including today’s Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and Russia.  This literalism enables the Bible interpreter to relate hundreds of prophetic Biblical passages to what is going on in the world today.

Amillers tend to interpret things much more figuratively.  Consequently they have had a more difficult time getting folks interested in the urgency associated with end times discussion because the dots not only remain unconnected, but are not even identified. 

Except for Lutherans. 

Lutherans apparently got stuck on the notion that Pope Leo was the Anti-Christ.  It has only been over the last several decades that this focus has changed – initially to an “eschatology really doesn’t matter – we don’t want to talk about end times” position, perhaps out of embarrassment of their Pope-Leo as Anti-Christ fixation -  and more recently to a position that faces the dual reality of:

• The need to impose a greater sense of urgency in evangelizing, and a more literal, but updated view of how what is going on in the world fits scripture, and
• The fact that what is going on in the world today is really fitting the end times descriptions of Scripture.

The Wisconsin Synod is an exception, teaching that the "Papacy" is Anti-Christ.

In “A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod” the denomination addresses the term “Anti-Christ”.  It agrees with most other views that there are two different uses of the term in Scripture:

• Biblical references to the fact that there will be many anti-Christs, both opposers and false-Christs, which there have been throughout history.
• A final and ultimate individual who is THE Anti-Christ.

Here is a relevant excerpt from the Report:

“ The term Antichrist is found in John's epistles (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7) and signifies both a substitute Christ (Greek anti means "in place of") and an opponent of Christ.
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke: 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Antichrist" (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18).

Various folks throughout the previous centuries were declared to be THE Anti-Christ.  Besides Pope Leo, there has been Napoleon, Hitler, the United Nations, and now Obama.  A conservative denomination of Lutheranism still declares the Papacy as the Anti-Christ.

However, in view of evolving world events since the time of Martin Luther in the 1500’s and especially in the most recent decades let’s look with fresh eyes at what or who might qualify as The Anti-Christ.
According to the Report cited above:

The Scriptures reveal the following distinguishing marks of the Antichrist:
1. Just as Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the temple, so the Antichrist takes his seat in the "temple of God," that is, in the Christian church (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; 1 Tim. 3:15).

2. He is not Satan himself but operates "by the activity of Satan" (2 Thess. 2:9).

3. He ascribes to himself truly divine power and exhibits himself as God (Dan. 7:25; 11:36; 2 Thess. 2:4).

4. He is a pseudo-Christ, a satanic perversion of Christ. He has a "coming" to imitate the "coming" of Christ (2 Thess. 2:8-9). He performs "signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9) to imitate the Christ who was "attested. . .by God with mighty works and wonders and signs" (Acts 2:22). He represents a "mystery of lawlessness" (2 Thess. 2:7) to imitate the "mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4; Col. 4:3) and brings a "wicked deception," strong delusion," and "what is false" to imitate and oppose the truth of the Gospel (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Thus, he denies Christ and persecutes Christians (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Dan. 7:25).

5. He remains until Judgment Day when Christ will slay him (Dan. 7:13-14, 26; 2 Thess. 2:8).

Let’s look at how Islam fits this criteria, even the criteria cited by one of the most eschatologically-challenged denominations:

1. Profaning the Church:  Throughout the world, and especially in formerly Christian Europe Islam is transforming centuries old churches into mosques.  In the prior millenium, Muslim overran the Christian Middle East, including Jerusalem.  Not a church was left standing.  Today North Africa and the Middle East are dominated by Islam  with populations of these nations ranging from 95% to 99,9% Muslim.  Churches are prohibited in many, burned down in others, and persecuted in the rest.

2. Operates by the activity of Satan:  Islamic doctrine distorts both the Old and New Testaments.  Islam denies the deity of Christ.  Islam denies God had a son.  The nature of Allah differs from the Christian God in many substantial and significant ways.  The morality of Islam is opposite that of Christianity in many ways.    Books have recently been written that demonstrate that Islams Mahdi is Christianity’s Anti-Christ, and Jesus Christ is Islam’s Anti-Mahdi.

3.  Ascribes himself as God:  Islam declares Allah is the “one God.”  Allah is a pagan moon god.  Allah does not have the attributes of God of the Bible.  The Islamic Mahdi will assume this role.  The Mahdi is called “the Messiah promised to Islam.”

4.  Imitator of Christ; mystery of lawlessness; wicked deception; opposes the truth of the Gospel; denies Christ; persecutes Christians:  Well, this is a mouthful.  Where to begin.  The Christ of Islam is merely a prophet – an imitator of Christ without the substance.  The Islamic Mahdi is an imitator of Christ -  a false Messiah.  Islamic nations are hotbeds of lawlessness.  Islam desires to spread its evil lawlessness around the world via its Sharia – i.e. “Islamic Law” which mandates morality contrary to the laws established based on Biblical morality.  The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (lying to defend Islam) certainly promotes "wicked deception" and “strong delusion."   Islam denies the real Christ and declare “God had no Son.”  Islam persecutes Christians throughout the world.

5.  Christ will slay the Anti-Christ at Judgment Day:  This is the same day that Islam declares the Mahdi will slay the Christ.
The evidence is strong that Islam has a better fit with the Lutheran standards for Anti-Christ than the Papacy does.
The Lutheran Report continues:

Taken in its totality, the Scriptural teaching on eschatology will prevent Christians from succumbing to two opposite extremes which from apostolic times have been a recurrent threat to faith--feverish preoccupation with the "signs of the times," and spiritual laxity based on the mistaken notion that Christ's coming is no longer imminent. The church ought not therefore engage itself in uncertain speculations regarding the signs of the times. Rather, Christians must devote themselves to the clear proclamation of Law and Gospel, that people may, come to faith in Jesus Christ, and through daily repentance prepare for His coming.

I choose to believe that the “signs of the times” are rather important.  Christians devoting themselves to the clear proclamation of Law and Gospel, whatever that means, is all well and good.  But there is little stimulation for coming to faith in Jesus Christ and daily repentance preparing for His coming if there is no relevant sense of urgency.  The Lutheran Church was engaged in uncertain speculations from their very beginning:  Pope Leo, indeed.  Now they are stuck in a rut; paralyzed with “the fear of speculating” that keeps them from addressing reality – current world events – that may actually portend the Anti-Christ.

The Bible and Jesus Christ himself made a great case for a sense of urgency.  Lutherans appear to be watering down that sense of urgency by their mandated discounting of relevant current events.  I can understand their reticence to be totally preoccupied with pop end times theological speculation.  But when new current events begin to overshadow the churches own early speculations (like Pope Leo being THE Anti-Christ) it is time to readdress reality.

Many eschatologists deny Islam or the coming Islamic Mahdi fits their mold of the end times scenario based on their chosen interpretations of various prophesies of Scripture.  But evidence is growing.  And despite my own misgivings about the Islam-pandering doctrines of the Catholic Church as headed by the Papacy, the evidence for an Islam-related anti-Christ is today much more believable than the 500 year old alternative.

With Islam representing the gates of hell in the Middle East, and now Europe, along with their institutionalized doctrines promoting Satan-inspired deception, we need to wake up.  Identifying the Anti-Christ as related in some way to Islam is no less demonstrable today as identifying Pope Leo was in the 1500’s.  With the terror and mayhem and persecutions and church burnings promoted by Islam around the world today, I cannot understand why the Church Universal, Lutherans included, can’t at least entertain the possibility of an updated rendition of who THE Anti-Christ might very well be.

Reconstructed memory manipulated into false conclusions–the shame of shrinks

Have you ever known anyone who later in life was “guided” by a shrink to conclude childhood events that never happened?
The shrink profession, which I hold in relatively low regard, often engages in reconstructive memory practices as one form of “therapy.”  Taking two aspirin and going to bed would be more helpful.

As often as not, the “patient” is manipulated by the shrink to “fill in the blanks” of missing memory fragments based on the shrinks own predetermination of what she thinks the fragments should be.  The “memory fragment events” that she believes might most quickly reach a conclusion or “solution” are the ones she manipulates the “patient” into believing took place.

Here is an excerpt from the article reproduced in full on the website HERE  as well as below:

“… concerned mainly with how the recollections of eyewitnesses can be deliberately manipulated by misinformation. In extreme cases, this can lead to completely false memories of events that did not take place.
“upon recall, the subjects altered the narrative of the story to make it fit in with their existing schemata. Participants omitted information they regarded as irrelevant, changed the emphasis to points they considered to be significant, and rationalized the parts that did not make sense, to make the story more comprehensible to themselves.”

If this applies to eye witness accounts days or weeks after an incident, consider how much more dicey such reconstructed recollections are likely to be years or decades after an event.

Here is the complete article.  There are many more just like it under the Google Search “reconstructive memory.”

_____________________

 

Reconstructive memory: Confabulating the past, simulating the future

Posted on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by Mo Costandi under Cinema, Psychology
The term ‘Rashomon effect’ is often used by psychologists in situations where observers give different accounts of the same event,and describes the effect of subjective perceptions on recollection. The phenomenon is named after a 1950 film by the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. It was with Rashōmon that Western cinema-goers discovered both Kurosawa and Japanese film in general – the film won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1951, as well as the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film the following year.
Rashōmon is an adaptation of two short stories by Akutagawa Ryunosuke. Set in the 12th century, the film depicts the trial of a notorious bandit called Tajomaru (played by Kurosawa’s frequent collaborator Toshirô Mifune), who is alleged to have raped a woman and killed her samurai husband. In flashbacks, the incident is recalled by four different witnesses – a woodcutter, a priest, the perpetrator and, via a medium, the murder victim. Each of the testimonies is equally plausible, yet all four are in mutual contradiction with each other.
The film is an examinantion of human nature and the nature of reality. It compels the viewer to seek the truth. Each testimony is influenced by the intentions, experiences and self-perceptions of the witness. They all tell their own ‘truth’, but it is distorted by their past and by their future. Under Kurosawa’s masterful direction, the characters start off happy in the knowledge that they know exactly what happened between the samaurai, his wife and the bandit. One by one, each character begins to doubt their own account of the incident. In the end, both the cast and the viewer are left in a state of confusion and bewilderment.
The idea that we do not remember things as they actually happened is usually attributed to Sir Frederick Bartlett (1886-1969), who spent much of his professional career at Cambridge University, where he became head of the psychology department. He describes the process of memory in his classic 1932 book, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology:

Remembering is not a completely independent function, entirely distinct from perceiving, imaging, or even from constructive thinking, but it has intimate relations with them all… One’s memory of an event reflects a blend of information contained in specific traces encoded at the time it occurred, plus inferences based on knowledge, expectations, beliefs, and attitudes derived from other sources.

According to Bartlett, memories are organized within the historical and cultural frameworks (which Bartlett called ‘schemata’) of the individual, and the process of remembering involves the retrieval of information which has been unknowingly altered in order that it is compatible with pre-existing knowledge.
Bartlett’s ideas about how memory works came to him during a game of Chinese whispers, in which a short story is relayed through a chain of people, each of whom makes minor retrieval errors, such that the final retelling may be completely different from the original. One of his experiments involved asking subjects to read a Native American folk story called The War of the Ghosts, and then recall it several times, sometimes up to a year later. He chose it because the cultural context in which it is set was unfamiliar to the participants in his experiments.
Bartlett found that upon recall, the subjects altered the narrative of the story to make it fit in with their existing schemata. Participants omitted information they regarded as irrelevant, changed the emphasis to points they considered to be significant, and rationalized the parts that did not make sense, to make the story more comprehensible to themselves. In other words, memory is reconstructive rather that reproductive.
Although Remembering was largely ignored upon its publication, it is today highly influential. Elizabeth Loftus, a professor of psychology and law at the University of California, Irvine, has devoted her career to studying the reconstructive nature of memory in relation to eyewitness testimony.
Loftus is concerned mainly with how the recollections of eyewitnesses can be deliberately manipulated by misinformation. In extreme cases, this can lead to completely false memories of events that did not take place. One of Loftus’s more famous studies addresses the use of ‘leading’ questions in the courtroom. In the study, students were shown film clips of a car accident, and then asked a question about the accident. Those asked “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” gave answers which averaged about 39 mph, whereas those asked “About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?” gave answers with an average speed of 32 mph.
Loftus’s research, like that of Bartlett’s, shows that our memories are quite often not as accurate as we would like to think they are. The knowledge that memory is to some extent confabulation has very serious implications for the use in the courtroom of eyewitness testimonies, because if eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable, then the validity of criminal convictions based upon them is open to question.
As well as confabulating the past, the brain also envisages events that have not yet occurred. The process of anticipating oneself attending a future event probably involves drawing on past experiences to generate a ‘simulation’ of the future event. In an essay in this week’s issue of Nature, Daniel Schacter argues that this ‘episodic-future’ thinking is entirely dependent on reconstructive memory:

…future events are not exact replicas of past events, and a memory system that simply stored rote records would not be well-suited to simulating future events. A system built according to constructive principles may be a better tool for the job: it can draw on the elements and gist of the past, and extract, recombine and reassemble them into imaginary events that never occurred in that exact form. Such a system will occasionally produce memory errors, but it also provides considerable flexibility.

Most of the evidence that reconstructive memory may be essential for envisioning future events comes from amnesic patients who also have difficulties picturing themselves in the future, and now there is also some experimental evidence. For example, in a paper published in advance on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website earlier this week, Szpunar et al describe functional neuroimaging studies which show that some of the brain regions that are activated when recalling a personal memory – the posterior cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus and left occipital lobe – are also active when thinking about a future event.

Obama’s hollow threat to Syria: Portrait of a fool

President Obama’s threats against Syria make him a fool on so many levels.

What would be the Syrian government’s motives to gas civilians?  Isn’t a false flag attack by the rebels a more likely scenario?  Are we convinced that only the Assad government controls possession of all the gas-laden weapons and means to launch them?  Weren’t the targets random, as if there was little command and control behind their firing, as if the rebels forces coordinated a “hail Mary” multiple launch?  The Brotherhood and the rest of the Islamic terrorists have demonstrated their proficiency at coordinated terror attacks.

Another report indicates that Saudi Arabia supplied the chemical weapons to Syrian rebels.

What would a superficial attack – a slap on the wrist, so to speak – against Syria accomplish?  Do we really believe if it was the Syrian government that did the gassing that a few dozen cruise missiles would reverse such behavior?  Where would that action lead if Assad continued that behavior, assuming he did it in the first place?  Would we have to send in another round of cruise missiles?  A no fly zone?  Troops?  More democratizing of another Islamic nation that is as sensible as feeding Porterhouse to dogs.

And what about the reaction of Syria’s close ally, Russia, and the dozen Muslim nations in the Middle East that have conflicting views on both Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood – and mostly hate the US except as an oil customer.

And now, what happens if Obama and the US do NOTHING, after all the blustering threats and “Red Lines?”  There is no place for fool Obama to hide on this one.  He has made his fool’s bed and he now needs to lie in it.

Read this story about US military officers having deep concerns about Obama’s threats HERE.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Taxpayers to fund sex change for traitor?

UPDATE August 23: 

The day following his conviction and 35-year sentence to military prison for sedition, Bradley Manning (a fitting name, eh wot?) declared himself a girl.  His attorney will be demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for sex change hormone therapy and suggests that Manning’s gender confusion contributed to his handing over US secrets to the world.

From a Christian perspective we might be charitable and simply recite the Old Testament lament from Judges that “every man did what is right in his own eyes” acknowledging a human rebellion against God’s moral standards and against God himself.

My very first inclination is to suggest that Manning’s attorney is an unprincipled whore servicing his gender-confused client.  My second inclination is to suggest that Christianity in America is deserving of its decline due to its failures to speak out boldly with conviction against our culture’s sexual/gender/procreation rebellion.  Instead many churches and denominations endorse the rebellion, falling all over themselves to be the most ‘gay friendly’ or most ‘pro-choice friendly’ (aka ‘murder-in-the-womb’ friendly).  Even conservative churches choose the passive middle ground of indifference to this rebellion by merely noting the “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” passage. 

The highest priority has become being “charitable”, “tolerant”, “non-judgmental.”  This non-reaction to evil would be correctly  labeled “indifference” and is in fact part of the church’s own rebellion against God and his moral standards.  But who are we to judge?  Who is the Pope to judge?  We tiptoe around evil by parsing distinctions between judging and discerning.  I admit to not being well versed in the distinction.   I suppose the difference between “judging” and “discerning” is that judging is active – it requires our reaction to sin – either our opinion of the sinner, or altering our behavior toward the sinner.  Discerning, on the other hand, is passive.  It just requires taking notice, but going on with life as though there is nothing to see here folks.  This passive approach is what some call “charitable” as if there is little real problem with the sinful behavior.  After all, they say, who are we to judge – only God can judge – so let God do the judging while we just ignore the whole sordid mess.  We may only “discern” evil, but God forbid we judge evil behavior.  And this is the path of most conservative churches in America.  The majority of liberal mainline churches go the extra step of denying the existence of  sexual/gender/procreation sin altogether. 

One pastor explained to me that such indifference is in fact the opposite of “charity.” Passively allowing the sinner to rot in his own immoral cesspool while merely taking note (discerning) is not very charitable.

And just a question:  Why were “judges” called “judges” in the Old Testament?  And why are “judges” called “judges” today and not “discerners?”  I can just see the District Discerner up on his high Discerner’s bench stroking his discerning beard doing his “discerning”, and then doing nothing about the murder he has just discerned, as he declares silently to himself:  I’ll let God do the judging.

I can understand not being the judge, jury AND executioner.  Executioner is the domain of our government.  But judging?  Judging based on well founded moral principles of our God IS our duty.*

*Note:  Some theologians suggest that only Jesus/God can judge - that we are not to judge.  These same theologians are convinced from Scripture that we are to be “like Christ.”  This seems rather contradictory.  Which aspect of Christ’s behaviors are we to limit ourselves to mimick?  Only his resistance to temptation?  Only his love for us?  How about his recognition of evil?  Are we to ignore that?  Are we to ignore passages following his narrowly focused “do not judge lest ye be judged” passages when he himself clearly judges by admonishing “do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw our pearls to pigs.”  This is not merely “discerning”; this is judging, calling for our action in how we relate to the people being judged.  Are we to ignore this aspect of Christ?  God forbid!

__________________________________

Original post…

“Defense lawyer [for Bradley Manning] David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life.”

Washington Post, August 21, 2013

Let me understand this.  If an individual has “gender identification issues”, that should entitle him to a lesser punishment if he chooses to commit a crime.  In other words,  being a homosexual or a sexually confused individual entitles him to sympathy and preferential treatment. 

Not even suffering from terminal cancer justifies a lesser sentence.   But “gender identity issues?”  What does that have to do with ANYthing?

I’m confused.  I thought mainstream opinion on sexual preference is that varied gender identification is now as normal and acceptable as motherhood and apple pie – if not for the sexism involved in motherhood and the unhealthy carbs involved in apple pie.

So it IS true then, that attorneys will try to pull any stupid-sounding stunt to get their clients off the hook.

Muslim Brotherhood social welfare networks…

The promise of something for nothing, what we currently call the “entitlement mentality”, doesn’t just permeate the United States welfare and food stamp rolls, but its tempting promises are a part of just about every leftist/fascist/Communist/Islamic despot attempting to gain supporters.

This is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is known for.  Here is one example from Yahoo News:

“Nidal Sakra [Brotherhood political strategist in Egypt]  predicted that the Brotherhood would survive the latest blow, and make it back to politics within two or three years, because it would adjust, as it always has.

One key to its survival, he said, may be its vast and highly organized social welfare networks that made it popular in Egypt.”

Yes indeed, “vast and highly organized social welfare networks that made it popular in Egypt.”   By golly, that is exactly what Obama and his socialist promoters are doing here in the good ol’ US of A.  What a coincidence.  The ancient “something for nothing” tactic.

In fact, this tactic is so ancient it reminds me of something straight out of ancient literature:

4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted^[a] by the devil. ² After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³ The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

⁴ Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’^[b]”

⁵ Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ⁶ “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’^[c]”

⁷ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’^[d]”

⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ⁹ “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

¹⁰ Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’^[e]”

¹¹ Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Matthew Chapter 4, verses 1-11 (New International Version)

Or perhaps, more appropriately, a technique straight out of the pits of hell.

We might suggest this story to those Christians who are hell bent on distorting the Bible into a “social gospel.”

Brotherhood influence in White House is showing…

Why is the US waffling about which side to pick in Egypt?  US policy toward Egypt should have been a slam dunk.  Which side to pick?  You have got to be kidding.   The predisposition of an Islamist president is to pick the Islamist side, in the case of Egypt, the Islamist side is the Muslim Brotherhood.  Of course the we know that 90% over there are Muslim – but not all are as “devout” as the Brotherhood, which is perhaps 20% or so of their population.  Democratic election, you say?  True, much of the other 80% had a bad case of “hope and change” that backfired on them, much as it has in the US. 

But because of the President’s preference for all things “Brotherhood”, he sides with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The President’s preference is a chicken and egg thing.  Does he support the Brotherhood because of his Brotherhood appointments, or did he appoint Brotherhood advisors because he supports the Brotherhood.  And does that really matter?

What matters is he has chosen the wrong side of the battle, the wrong side of what is best for America, by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood.

And the wife of Weiner, Hillary’s personal friend and close advisor, Huma Abedin, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Muslim adds influence to the putrid stew.  There are many others.

Muslim influence in the White House is well known and widespread.  I recommend a great, new book by Eric Stackelbeck, “Muslim Brotherhood” that tells the whole sordid story.

And if that isn’t enough, here is a some evidence that Obama’s brother is a leader and advocate of the Muslim Brotherhood in Africa:

Obama’s brother: Muslim Brotherhood leader?

Speaking yesterday on Bitna al-Kibir, a live TV show, Tahani al-Gebali, Vice President of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt, said the time was nearing when all the conspiracies against Egypt would be exposed—conspiracies explaining why the Obama administration is so vehemently supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose terrorism has, among other atrocities, caused the destruction of some 80 Christian churches in less than one week.

Al-Gebali referred to “documents and proofs” which Egypt’s intelligence agencies possess and how “the time for them to come out into the open has come.” In the course of her discussion on how these documents record massive financial exchanges between international bodies and the Muslim Brotherhood, she said: “Obama’s brother is one of the architects of investment for the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Here the confused host stopped her, asking her to repeat what she just said, which she did, with complete confidence, adding “If the matter requires it, then we must inform our people"—apparently a reference to Obama’s support for the Brotherhood against the state of Egypt, which is causing the latter to call all bets off, that is, causing Egyptian officials to spill the beans as to the true nature of the relationship between the U.S., the Brotherhood, and Egypt.

She did not mention which of the U.S president’s brother’s she was referring to, but earlier it was revealed that Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, was running an African nonprofit closely linked to the Brotherhood as well as the genocidal terrorist of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir.

Posted by Raymond on August 20, 2013 9:42 AM | 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Is Russia behaving better than the US?

In many anti-Communist books and pamphlets over the decades we are warned that one of  the USSR’s most effective tactics against the US is to encourage decadence – hasten our moral corruption until we become an inert, neutered, self-absorbed, impotent, and corrupt nation.

To judge the real cause of our current moral condition is tricky.  Its difficult to know how much is self-created and how much was influenced by outside interests.  But we cannot deny we have become as decadent a country as exists on the planet.  We are the world’s greatest exporter of licentious movies, music, TV, porn.   Progressives, liberals, socialists and Communists love Hollywood.

With decadence comes corruption, both in industry and government.  And, might I add, loss of privacy and freedoms.  The NSA and IRS snooping scandal, selective law enforcement against political enemies, invasive airport pat downs of average citizens, out of control spending and entitlements causing half the population to be government dependent instead of independent and self-sufficient are all stark testimony to our nation’s decline.

Why did Snowden go to Russia?  Is he that stupid?  Is he a Commy spy?   A traitor?  Or does he know things that we don’t?

There are a number of indications that Russia is on a better track to preserve its morality and national interests than we in the US are.  Here a a few:

Why does the US government support the Muslim Brotherhood which is known to be a violent and seditious arm of Islamic Jihad; and Russia outlaws them?  Up until recently, Russia was considering softening its Brotherhood restrictions to strengthen ties with Egypt.  But you can bet that all such proposed “softenings” are now off the table with Egypt’s overthrow and suppression of the Brotherhood.

Pro-homo folks in the US believe that Russia’s anti-gay-flaunting laws are awful.  Those with higher moral standards (some in the US; more in Russia) believe they are essential to maintain social order.

Pravda claims the US is concerned about Christianity in Russia as a result of Russia’s laws against promoting homosexuality.  THIS ARTICLE may contain a healthy dose of Russian propaganda, but it correctly portrays the differences between Russian and US Christian moral standards.

Russia has a “flat tax” at a rate that is much lower than the “progressive” federal income tax in the US.

Articles in Russia’s Pravda newspaper declare Obama a “Communist”.  Coming from Pravda, that is quite a claim.  Many in the US feel the same way.  Is it possible that the US has become more Communist than Russia?  And Trevor Loudon documents this piece of trivia HERE.

There are significant indications that the US has become something it never was (Obama’s ‘hope and change’ that brought about ‘radical transformation’) while Russia has become something that we in the US might consider aspiring to.

Muslims planning “Million Muslim March” on 9-11 to protest anti-Muslim bigotry…

How many ways are there to describe “insane audacity” of Muslims to declare such grotesque excuses for a march my Muslims on 9-11?  We thought the ground zero Mega-Mosque was Islamic hubris.  That pales.

Synonyms for bigotry include: 

intolerance, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness, partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness

Here is what is narrow-minded and small-minded:  Anyone whose mind is so infinitesimally tiny that they don’t understand the evil of Islam and the insanity of any Muslim who proposes or participates in that march.

As for “intolerance”:  Islam is the personification of “intolerance.” 

As for opinionatedness, here is mine:  Muslims that propose or participate in that march can go strait into the lake of fire.  So call me a bigot.

And “partisanship”":  Islam is the bane of the earth and needs to be eradicated.  But some Muslims may be “good people”, just terribly brainwashed and confused.  (This is part of my attempt to practice “hate the sin [Islam] and tolerate the sinner [Muslims].”)

And finally, sectarianism:  The sect of Islam is inferior to all other religions and is a real and present danger to humanity.

By the way, the very idea of calling someone a “bigot” for their beliefs makes the accuser a bigot, so it really ends up being a useless term that most of us are unnecessarily offended by.

I’ll provide a preemptive tidbit:  Some may call the above opinions “hateful.”  Is it still tolerable in this “tolerate everything” culture to hate evil?  Well, I do.