September 17, 2009
Colossians 1:15-20
1 Corinthians 15:20-28, 8:6
John 1:1-9
What do these verses tell us about creation?
Genesis 1-Let Us make- us is the divine council-the writer of Genesis doesn’t know about the Trinity, but back then they were aware of a “divine council”
We are not just in God’s image-we are in the image of all the creatures created before us.
Creation story is not to tell us how sin came to be, sin is already there or else there wouldn’t be a tempting serpent, but what this story tells us is the creation of the human and how sin enters the human experience.
What does it mean to be human- gen 1,2,3.
LET US MAKE-God is going to mediate his creation through these higher beings (angels-in their image as well).
What is the significance of a mediated creation- It keeps a distinction between the creator and the creation.
Proverbs 3:19-20 God creates with wisdom. Sends wisdom out to the mediators who create using his wisdom.
Psalm 8:3-5 - a hierarchy. We have been made a little bit lower than the gods. Word is elohim which means lord.
Creator human distinction that cannot be overcome
Wisdom literature (Wisdom of Solomon, Proverbs etc..)-the point is to gain wisdom, creation is the outcome of wisdom mediating God’s will. When we get wisdom, we can know God and know what he wants us to do with his creation.
the Torah become the way in which God is mediating
Shekinah-where God is, it is but it is not God
Tabernacle/Temple-Psalmists want to be in the Temple, because that’s where God’s presence is
Angel of the Lord-not God, but when the angel of the Lord speaks, God speaks.
Gen 18-God appears to him in the mediation of three men, don’t think the trinity, they didn’t have that.-The text is intentionally being coy. You don’t know what Abraham knows or how he knows it. Even though this is three men, it is still God speaking. How can no one see God, yet see God? Because God’s presence is accessible mediatorally.
Ezek 1.4-
Above, middle, middle, over- theologically- you can’t quite get to GOD. But this God wants to make himself known to us, so these mediated beings are the way he can relate to us. God is inaccessible to us but is imminent through mediated beings.
All of this sets us up with the picture of Christ. It doesn’t let you fall into the thought that God is only inaccessible and it doesn’t allow you to know him wholly accessible.
Scripture is set up for us to have mediators, but the scandal of Christianity is that God mediates as God. Jesus is shekinah, temple, etc…but he is also GOD. Because he is God and not some creature, what does this mean? The Mediation is complete. Never before has the mediation been complete because some is lost in the translation. Now that it is God doing the mediation, then nothing is lost.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Dehumanization Leads to Violence and Violence Leads to Dehumanization
Recently I viewed the documentary: "The Blood of My Brother" by Andrew Berends. The basic premise of the film is the story of a Shi'ite family living in Iraq during "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The family suffers a terrible loss when the eldest son, caretaker, and father figure of the family, is shot by an American soldier while guarding (unarmed) the local mosque. Although he is heralded as a hero and a martyr, the family he left behind is left in shambles. Ibrahim, Ra'ad's (the deceased) younger brother, is left in charge of providing monetarily for the family and running the family "shop". It is quite apparent, however, that he is still too immature to take on such responsibility and the family's emotional and financial stability disintegrates. Many times throughout the film Ibrahim states that he would much rather be avenging the death of his brother and even die a martyr, than tending the family shop. Repeatedly, he states that anytime he sees an American or Jew, he wants to take their life for what they did to his brother and his family.
This depiction of the Iraq War opened my eyes even further to the grotesque nature of the violent and irrevocably destructive nature of this conflict our nation is engaged in. Scenes within the documentary allow you to: eat with this Shi'ite family, laugh with them, cry with them, ride with their neighbors wielding Kalashnikovs, shoot down an American Apache helicopter, hide in houses peeking out at the monstrous American tank scouring through the neighborhood, attend a mosque, protest the Americans presence and watch as a friend screams after receiving fatal gunshot wounds for his participation in the peaceful protest. This journey, allows you to relate to the people on the other side of the American M16. You understand who they are, their emotions, and ultimately and most importantly their humanity.
I'm afraid we have lost sight of the effects on humanity that our decisions create; the decisions we allow our nation to be engaged in have an eternal consequence. I know that some Americans are apathetically uninformed of the disgusting occurrences that happen in a nation on the other side of the world, but why? Why do those who are uninformed of the reality of the situation choose to not seek the truth? My hypothesis is that we have allowed ourselves to dehumanize those who do not bring us any personal satisfaction. We have become so busy thinking about our own personal benefit that we have lost site of the beauty of the ordinance Christ gave us to: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Let us ask ourselves, like Jesus ordered us to, whether we would want a tank in our neighborhood, our brother to be killed for standing outside of our church, or whether we would be upset with a foreign soldier busting down our home's door in the middle of the night and arresting us for owning a weapon. It is not right. Try to imagine containing the fury inside yourself after your wife was killed by a stray bullet. Ask yourself whether you would go into your house, pull out your shotgun, and have your revenge. This sort of action isn't justified, but imagining the situation helps one to have compassion on those who feel violated and respond out of deep emotional stress. Instead of facing the humanity involved in this issue, some Americans throw Iraqi's into a category that says: "All of those damned Iraqi rebels are Bin Laden supporters, they just love killing people, and they are evil to the core." This mentality, is what is evil to the core.
What brought me to this film and ideas was a recently acquired friend. My friend is originally from Libya, but now lives in the states. He served a four year term in the U.S. Marine Corps with whom he played an active role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Needless to say, we have discussed on many occasions his thoughts on the controversial military engagement. For the sake of confidentiality, I will refer to him as "the translator."
The fact that the translator is an Arab and fluent in Arabic landed him in a infantry unit working as a translator. Mostly, the translator would move with his unit as a kind of reconnaissance team. On these recon patrols, situations would sometimes arise that were an opportunity to gain valuable military intelligence by extracting it from the local people.On a number of these patrols the translator was ordered by his commanding officer to tell those being interviewed or interrogated that they would be killed if they didn't provide valuable information. The translator reassured me that he wouldn't, couldn't, follow such orders. His struggle with carrying out such orders surfaced because when he looked at those being questioned, all he could see in their faces were the faces of his own: aunt, grandparents, brothers, or father. He saw the humanity of the situation. He saw the humanity of the humans. He could relate to them culturally, physically, lingually, and spiritually. For his compassion and care for the Iraqi people he was ostracized and socially secluded from his American comrades and labeled as a "softie". His comrades still saw the Iraqi rebels on the other side of the conflict as a bulls-eye in target practice, but the translator saw the enemy soldiers' lives, families, emotions, and turmoils bleeding to death in the dirt.
Seeing the inside of others is what is necessary to end this twisted and feuding world's violence. So often, we only see our own situations and how we will be affected on a personal level. We must transcend our own situation and place ourselves in our opponents shoes. I understand that most of those that are reading this are not in live combat situations, but I assure you that this lifestyle of transcending oneself for the sake of love will prove insightful and beneficial in all types of situations.
For instance:
Work at Burger King for a year with no other form of income and then you will be justified in saying that the government "gives too much financial aid to poor people."
Volunteer at a Homeless shelter everyday for a month and then you can be justified in saying that all homeless people are "just lazy."
Live in a foreign country, meet locals and become their friends then you can be justified in saying that our government has the right to occupy their streets and land and kill or arrest whomever they want.
The point is that until someone knows the other's situation, he cannot love or change them. For the sake of Christianity and Humanity let us risk our own well-being for the sake of other's.
P.S. Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?_r=2&hp
For the sake of your sorrowful passion have mercy on us sinners.
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
Amen.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Idol of Tangibility: The Root of Idol-Worship?
Pondering deep thoughts this evening. Upon finishing this, I have decided I need to practice conveying written thoughts in a more understandable way. I apologize if this comes across as babble.
Earlier today I was reading in a book by Daniel Harrington entitled: "Interpreting the New Testament." Essentially it defines different forms of literary criticism that help one attain meaning or authenticity in regards to Scripture, or any literary piece for that matter.
I came to the chapter dealing with "Historical Criticism," which describes how this form of criticism is used to help prove or disprove claims made in Scripture. Harrington makes the statement that, historically, all that can be said of the person Jesus is that: he was a real person, he was born in Nazareth, he preached and healed, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This, as it should, made me stop and question the validity of this worldview that I ascribe to, this way of life that is an acceptance of a life of suffering and self-denial, and, ultimately, this denial of worldly logic. A thought flew through my head: "I wish there was multiple and accurate historical accounts of Jesus and his deeds to make all of this easier to believe." Then, I realized that I had fallen on my face in front of the golden calf of tangibility.
I then had the revelation that us, as humanity, worship tangibility because it feels as though it is real and understandable. We worship tangibility despite the fact that the root of all things tangible is an idea or benefit that is intangible. Therefore, the truth is that we deny the fact that our desire is that which is physically impossible to grasp (God), and instead replace His void with other intangible ideas symbolically presented in a tangible and understandable form.
For instance:
Paper currency brings: respect, power, ability to act in certain manners, and attention.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
College diplomas bring: respect, power, money (which is purely an idea), knowledge, and opportunity.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
Food and Shelter brings: life, safety, and health.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
We are made to worship God, something that doesn't seem to our earthly and physical minds to be tangible, and this makes us very upset. God, knowing our nature, graciously sent a physical and tangible form of Himself to the Earth, Jesus Christ. Even after this amazing and loving act by our Creator, we still question His existence. Perhaps this is why there is such a massive shift towards humanism in the world today. Humanism is the worship of the only thing that seems truly tangible to humanity, ourselves. But even at the root of finding truth through humanity, one cannot even define what a human is to the point of tangibility.
Let us admit our spirituality. Let us admit our void designed to be filled by the seemingly intangible deity that John the Elder referred to as "Love." Jesus Christ was the tangible revelation of Love. It takes us admitting our desire and void for that which is physically intangible to our simple minds, and inviting the Creator of all things fill that void.
For the sake of Your sorrowful passion have mercy on us sinners.
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
Amen.
Earlier today I was reading in a book by Daniel Harrington entitled: "Interpreting the New Testament." Essentially it defines different forms of literary criticism that help one attain meaning or authenticity in regards to Scripture, or any literary piece for that matter.
I came to the chapter dealing with "Historical Criticism," which describes how this form of criticism is used to help prove or disprove claims made in Scripture. Harrington makes the statement that, historically, all that can be said of the person Jesus is that: he was a real person, he was born in Nazareth, he preached and healed, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This, as it should, made me stop and question the validity of this worldview that I ascribe to, this way of life that is an acceptance of a life of suffering and self-denial, and, ultimately, this denial of worldly logic. A thought flew through my head: "I wish there was multiple and accurate historical accounts of Jesus and his deeds to make all of this easier to believe." Then, I realized that I had fallen on my face in front of the golden calf of tangibility.
I then had the revelation that us, as humanity, worship tangibility because it feels as though it is real and understandable. We worship tangibility despite the fact that the root of all things tangible is an idea or benefit that is intangible. Therefore, the truth is that we deny the fact that our desire is that which is physically impossible to grasp (God), and instead replace His void with other intangible ideas symbolically presented in a tangible and understandable form.
For instance:
Paper currency brings: respect, power, ability to act in certain manners, and attention.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
College diplomas bring: respect, power, money (which is purely an idea), knowledge, and opportunity.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
Food and Shelter brings: life, safety, and health.
All of these 'benefits' are intangible.
We are made to worship God, something that doesn't seem to our earthly and physical minds to be tangible, and this makes us very upset. God, knowing our nature, graciously sent a physical and tangible form of Himself to the Earth, Jesus Christ. Even after this amazing and loving act by our Creator, we still question His existence. Perhaps this is why there is such a massive shift towards humanism in the world today. Humanism is the worship of the only thing that seems truly tangible to humanity, ourselves. But even at the root of finding truth through humanity, one cannot even define what a human is to the point of tangibility.
Let us admit our spirituality. Let us admit our void designed to be filled by the seemingly intangible deity that John the Elder referred to as "Love." Jesus Christ was the tangible revelation of Love. It takes us admitting our desire and void for that which is physically intangible to our simple minds, and inviting the Creator of all things fill that void.
For the sake of Your sorrowful passion have mercy on us sinners.
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
Amen.
Monday, April 6, 2009
ruh-roh
Net firms start storing user data
Details of your e-mails will be recorded
Details of user e-mails and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive.
The plans were drawn up in the wake of the London bombings in 2005.
ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it was a "crazy directive" with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens.
All ISPs in the European Union will have to store the records for a year. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for 12 months is already in force.
The data stored does not include the content of e-mails or a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals.
Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant.
Governments across the EU have now started to implement the directive into their own national legislation.
The UK Home Office, responsible for matters of policing and national security, said the measure had "effective safeguards" in place.
There is concern that access to our data is widening to include many public bodies
ISPs across Europe have complained about the extra costs involved in maintaining the records. The UK government has agreed to reimburse ISPs for the cost of retaining the data.
Mr Killock said the directive was passed only by "stretching the law".
The EU passed it by "saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter", he explained.
"Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters," he said.
Sense of shock
He added: "It was introduced in the wake of the London bombings when there was a sense of shock in Europe. It was used to push people in a particular direction."
Sweden has decided to ignore the directive completely while there is a challenge going through the German courts at present.
"Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive," said Mr Killock.
Isabella Sankey, Policy Director at Liberty, said the directive formalised what had already been taking place under voluntary arrangement for years.
"The problem is that this regime allows not just police to access this information but hundreds of other public bodies."
In a statement, the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government's priority to "protect public safety and national security".
It added: "Communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally.
"Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.
"Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
Please note, in an earlier version of this story we incorrectly stated that ISPs would be storing details of website visits. This is not the case.
taken from bbc.co.uk
Details of your e-mails will be recorded
Details of user e-mails and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive.
The plans were drawn up in the wake of the London bombings in 2005.
ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it was a "crazy directive" with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens.
All ISPs in the European Union will have to store the records for a year. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for 12 months is already in force.
The data stored does not include the content of e-mails or a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals.
Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant.
Governments across the EU have now started to implement the directive into their own national legislation.
The UK Home Office, responsible for matters of policing and national security, said the measure had "effective safeguards" in place.
There is concern that access to our data is widening to include many public bodies
ISPs across Europe have complained about the extra costs involved in maintaining the records. The UK government has agreed to reimburse ISPs for the cost of retaining the data.
Mr Killock said the directive was passed only by "stretching the law".
The EU passed it by "saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter", he explained.
"Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters," he said.
Sense of shock
He added: "It was introduced in the wake of the London bombings when there was a sense of shock in Europe. It was used to push people in a particular direction."
Sweden has decided to ignore the directive completely while there is a challenge going through the German courts at present.
"Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive," said Mr Killock.
Isabella Sankey, Policy Director at Liberty, said the directive formalised what had already been taking place under voluntary arrangement for years.
"The problem is that this regime allows not just police to access this information but hundreds of other public bodies."
In a statement, the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government's priority to "protect public safety and national security".
It added: "Communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally.
"Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.
"Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
Please note, in an earlier version of this story we incorrectly stated that ISPs would be storing details of website visits. This is not the case.
taken from bbc.co.uk
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Do You Realize?
This post is actually written by me, Michael Rowley, and not an article that I have copied and pasted.
Last night I was enjoying a dinner with my best friend Meredith, and another good friend Eddie.
The topics discussed were varied, but we always seemed to find a way back to a theological topic. This is not out of the norm for me lately, in that I am completely immersed in the subject of spirituality because: I am attending a Christian school and I am a biblical literature major which requires extensive study of Scripture and the context it was written in and what meaning it was intended to convey. These classes are coupled with four Humanities requirements, which I am currently enrolled in. The Humanities class that I attend every Tuesday and Thursday at 12:30-1:45 is primarily focused on the Byzantine Empire through The Renaissance period. Studying this explosion of human history alongside theology classes makes one start to ponder on things.
Basically, I am seeing how cyclical the world is, and by the world, I mean humanity. I know this is already established and is no great and new revelation, but I think we don't pay enough attention to it. We live in a post-modern American society that is starting to skeptically view religion and all that it claims, and rightfully so. Does this sound familiar to the rejection of the church by those who started religiously following the claims of secular philosophers and accepting a "humanism-worldview" during the Renaissance period? The question of the similarities is not necessary to ponder on for hours, but instead one would benefit from studying why this mass departure from faith occurred.
So what did the American church do wrong to create another vicious cycle of apostasy and, hopefully, reconciliation? I think the answer is simple enough, they twisted and misrepresented the truth that is Christianity (the revelation of Jesus Christ) to the point of creating so much heresy that why should anyone want to take part in it? If it wasn't for the greedy, war-mongering, consumer-obsessed, gnostic, magic, hypocritical, and most importantly, unloving Christians, then maybe we wouldn't be in this "terrible and evil American society" that we find ourselves in today. I admit that I also am one who is guilty of most, if not all, of those accusations in the previous sentence, but what I do feel proud of is that I am cognoscente of the issues and asking why are we so completely and apathetically blind to our failure?
The Catholic church sold forgiveness, the modern church sells healing through tel-evangelists. The Catholic church promised salvation for fighting in the crusades, the modern church promises judgment if one doesn't vote for the war-hungry-Republican. The Catholic Church decided what would be forgiven and what would be forgotten, the modern church preaches damnation to the sins of her choosing. 1+1+1=Apostasy.
I am not here, sitting on an elitist throne, trying to point out the faults of everyone else. Instead, I am doing the only thing that is the answer that will bring those in a state of apostasy back: ADMITTING MY FAULTS. I understand that I don't deserve my salvation. I am NOT better than the average unsaved person. I am a failure. I sin EVERY SINGLE DAY. I CANNOT and WILL NOT live a sinless life. I forsake my savior with too little fear of His feelings and how it will affect our relationship. I judge people every day. I struggle with lust. I have viewed pornography. I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I have supported evil companies that take advantage of less fortunate people. Pride plays a role in my life. I swear. I damage my temple with tobacco use and terrible food. I don't pray everyday. I have damaged the Earth that the Lord graced me with. I sin out of apathy. I AM NOTHING GOOD.
This, however is the answer. It is only when we admit that we are shit that the Holy Spirit can show up and prove itself to be truth, grace, and love. It is only when I say: "Jesus, I can't do it. Jesus, I will never be able to do it. Jesus, I don't deserve you. Jesus, I love you for your grace, righteousness, and peace. Jesus you are the definition of love," that we will become attractive to others who are just as lost as we are. Please, let us awaken from this ignorant and passive slumber of self-righteous-elitism and step out of the swamp that we have created and start to build something new. Please help. I feel such a strong burden for how messed up the world is. Christ is the answer and the Church conveys Christ's love; let us admit our faults and glorify Christ for who he was and is and is to come. Let us get back to the beautiful and pure roots of our faith: Father-Son-Holy Spirit.
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
For the sake of your sorrowful passion have mercy on us sinners.
We pray this in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Last night I was enjoying a dinner with my best friend Meredith, and another good friend Eddie.
The topics discussed were varied, but we always seemed to find a way back to a theological topic. This is not out of the norm for me lately, in that I am completely immersed in the subject of spirituality because: I am attending a Christian school and I am a biblical literature major which requires extensive study of Scripture and the context it was written in and what meaning it was intended to convey. These classes are coupled with four Humanities requirements, which I am currently enrolled in. The Humanities class that I attend every Tuesday and Thursday at 12:30-1:45 is primarily focused on the Byzantine Empire through The Renaissance period. Studying this explosion of human history alongside theology classes makes one start to ponder on things.
Basically, I am seeing how cyclical the world is, and by the world, I mean humanity. I know this is already established and is no great and new revelation, but I think we don't pay enough attention to it. We live in a post-modern American society that is starting to skeptically view religion and all that it claims, and rightfully so. Does this sound familiar to the rejection of the church by those who started religiously following the claims of secular philosophers and accepting a "humanism-worldview" during the Renaissance period? The question of the similarities is not necessary to ponder on for hours, but instead one would benefit from studying why this mass departure from faith occurred.
So what did the American church do wrong to create another vicious cycle of apostasy and, hopefully, reconciliation? I think the answer is simple enough, they twisted and misrepresented the truth that is Christianity (the revelation of Jesus Christ) to the point of creating so much heresy that why should anyone want to take part in it? If it wasn't for the greedy, war-mongering, consumer-obsessed, gnostic, magic, hypocritical, and most importantly, unloving Christians, then maybe we wouldn't be in this "terrible and evil American society" that we find ourselves in today. I admit that I also am one who is guilty of most, if not all, of those accusations in the previous sentence, but what I do feel proud of is that I am cognoscente of the issues and asking why are we so completely and apathetically blind to our failure?
The Catholic church sold forgiveness, the modern church sells healing through tel-evangelists. The Catholic church promised salvation for fighting in the crusades, the modern church promises judgment if one doesn't vote for the war-hungry-Republican. The Catholic Church decided what would be forgiven and what would be forgotten, the modern church preaches damnation to the sins of her choosing. 1+1+1=Apostasy.
I am not here, sitting on an elitist throne, trying to point out the faults of everyone else. Instead, I am doing the only thing that is the answer that will bring those in a state of apostasy back: ADMITTING MY FAULTS. I understand that I don't deserve my salvation. I am NOT better than the average unsaved person. I am a failure. I sin EVERY SINGLE DAY. I CANNOT and WILL NOT live a sinless life. I forsake my savior with too little fear of His feelings and how it will affect our relationship. I judge people every day. I struggle with lust. I have viewed pornography. I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I have supported evil companies that take advantage of less fortunate people. Pride plays a role in my life. I swear. I damage my temple with tobacco use and terrible food. I don't pray everyday. I have damaged the Earth that the Lord graced me with. I sin out of apathy. I AM NOTHING GOOD.
This, however is the answer. It is only when we admit that we are shit that the Holy Spirit can show up and prove itself to be truth, grace, and love. It is only when I say: "Jesus, I can't do it. Jesus, I will never be able to do it. Jesus, I don't deserve you. Jesus, I love you for your grace, righteousness, and peace. Jesus you are the definition of love," that we will become attractive to others who are just as lost as we are. Please, let us awaken from this ignorant and passive slumber of self-righteous-elitism and step out of the swamp that we have created and start to build something new. Please help. I feel such a strong burden for how messed up the world is. Christ is the answer and the Church conveys Christ's love; let us admit our faults and glorify Christ for who he was and is and is to come. Let us get back to the beautiful and pure roots of our faith: Father-Son-Holy Spirit.
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
For the sake of your sorrowful passion have mercy on us sinners.
We pray this in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Monday, March 23, 2009
John Hagee tells me this is o.k.
In last week’s SojoMail, the quote of the week was from an Israeli squad leader describing the incredulous reactions of his men when he took measures to protect civilian lives during the invasion of Gaza. Later I found a more complete transcript in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz of the very candid forum from which this comment was taken. It is worth reading the entire article, to get a sense of some of the conflicting opinions among Israelis who fought in Gaza, and of the kinds of orders they were given. But I wanted to provide more context here from the SojoMail quote now that I have it:
At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then … I call this murder … in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?
From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn’t fled. I didn’t really understand: On the one hand they don’t really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they’re telling us they hadn’t fled so it’s their fault …. This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this. In the end the specification involved going into a house, operating megaphones and telling [the tenants]: “Come on, everyone get out, you have five minutes, leave the house, anyone who doesn’t get out gets killed.”
I went to our soldiers and said, “The order has changed. We go into the house, they have five minutes to escape, we check each person who goes out individually to see that he has no weapons, and then we start going into the house floor by floor to clean it out …. This means going into the house, opening fire at everything that moves , throwing a grenade, all those things. And then there was a very annoying moment. One of my soldiers came to me and asked, “Why?” I said, “What isn’t clear? We don’t want to kill innocent civilians.” He goes, “Yeah? Anyone who’s in there is a terrorist, that’s a known fact.” I said, “Do you think the people there will really run away? No one will run away.” He says, “That’s clear,” and then his buddies join in: “We need to murder any person who’s in there. Yeah, any person who’s in Gaza is a terrorist,” and all the other things that they stuff our heads with, in the media.
And then I try to explain to the guy that not everyone who is in there is a terrorist, and that after he kills, say, three children and four mothers, we’ll go upstairs and kill another 20 or so people. And in the end it turns out that [there are] eight floors times five apartments on a floor - something like a minimum of 40 or 50 families that you murder. I tried to explain why we had to let them leave, and only then go into the houses. It didn’t really help. This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it’s cool.
You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won’t say anything. To write “death to the Arabs” on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It’s what I’ll remember the most.
One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious - I don’t know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood.
Of course, not all of his comrades agree with his interpretation of events:
Zvi: “Aviv’s descriptions are accurate, but it’s possible to understand where this is coming from. And that woman, you don’t know whether she’s …. She wasn’t supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn’t be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn’t right. It’s known that they have lookouts and that sort of thing.”
I don’t feel that this testimony requires much commentary. Like I said, read the whole thing and draw what conclusions you will. And this isn’t just about Israel. This is about war — especially wars fought by democracies who pride themselves on the superior morality of their methods and the “justice” of their cause. These testimonies find ready parallels with the attitudes and policies regarding civilian casualties by the U.S. military. I cite this testimony in the same way I have cited testimony by U.S. soliders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military aid, my tax dollars helped buy weapons for both armies, so I feel an acute degree of culpability for the deaths caused by those weapons. But other deeply disturbing comments were those on religious overtones of the war, also with parallels to the U.S. role in Iraq and how evangelical Christians approached it:
Ram: “What I do remember in particular at the beginning is the feeling of almost a religious mission. My sergeant is a student at a hesder yeshiva [a program that combines religious study and military service]. Before we went in, he assembled the whole platoon and led the prayer for those going into battle. …
The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and … their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war. From my position as a commander and “explainer,” I attempted to talk about the politics - the streams in Palestinian society, about how not everyone who is in Gaza is Hamas, and not every inhabitant wants to vanquish us. I wanted to explain to the soldiers that this war is not a war for the sanctification of the holy name, but rather one to stop the Qassams [rockets].
I realize I’m quoting a lot of the article, but I can’t help but conclude with this last piece of historical and political framing by the forum moderator, himself a military veteran:
After the Six-Day War, when people came back from the fighting, they sat in circles and described what they had been through. For many years the people who did this were said to be “shooting and crying.” In 1983, when we came back from the Lebanon War, the same things were said about us. We need to think about the events we have been through. We need to grapple with them also, in terms of establishing a standard or different norms.
It is quite possible that Hamas and the Syrian army would behave differently from me. The point is that we aren’t Hamas and we aren’t the Syrian army or the Egyptian army, and if clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren’t representative of the whole spectrum in the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population - what are we expecting? To whom are we complaining?
Thankfully, introspection on the nature of violence and the horror of war is not limited to either side of this conflict, and is leading some to consider peaceful alternatives. We recently posted an article by Valerie Elverton Dixon about former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters who have formed a group of about 600 “Combatants for Peace” who are just wrapping up a U.S. speaking tour. May God bless their efforts, for theirs is the only cause that will ever bring real peace and security to their land.
At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then … I call this murder … in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?
From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn’t fled. I didn’t really understand: On the one hand they don’t really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they’re telling us they hadn’t fled so it’s their fault …. This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this. In the end the specification involved going into a house, operating megaphones and telling [the tenants]: “Come on, everyone get out, you have five minutes, leave the house, anyone who doesn’t get out gets killed.”
I went to our soldiers and said, “The order has changed. We go into the house, they have five minutes to escape, we check each person who goes out individually to see that he has no weapons, and then we start going into the house floor by floor to clean it out …. This means going into the house, opening fire at everything that moves , throwing a grenade, all those things. And then there was a very annoying moment. One of my soldiers came to me and asked, “Why?” I said, “What isn’t clear? We don’t want to kill innocent civilians.” He goes, “Yeah? Anyone who’s in there is a terrorist, that’s a known fact.” I said, “Do you think the people there will really run away? No one will run away.” He says, “That’s clear,” and then his buddies join in: “We need to murder any person who’s in there. Yeah, any person who’s in Gaza is a terrorist,” and all the other things that they stuff our heads with, in the media.
And then I try to explain to the guy that not everyone who is in there is a terrorist, and that after he kills, say, three children and four mothers, we’ll go upstairs and kill another 20 or so people. And in the end it turns out that [there are] eight floors times five apartments on a floor - something like a minimum of 40 or 50 families that you murder. I tried to explain why we had to let them leave, and only then go into the houses. It didn’t really help. This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it’s cool.
You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won’t say anything. To write “death to the Arabs” on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It’s what I’ll remember the most.
One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious - I don’t know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood.
Of course, not all of his comrades agree with his interpretation of events:
Zvi: “Aviv’s descriptions are accurate, but it’s possible to understand where this is coming from. And that woman, you don’t know whether she’s …. She wasn’t supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn’t be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn’t right. It’s known that they have lookouts and that sort of thing.”
I don’t feel that this testimony requires much commentary. Like I said, read the whole thing and draw what conclusions you will. And this isn’t just about Israel. This is about war — especially wars fought by democracies who pride themselves on the superior morality of their methods and the “justice” of their cause. These testimonies find ready parallels with the attitudes and policies regarding civilian casualties by the U.S. military. I cite this testimony in the same way I have cited testimony by U.S. soliders in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military aid, my tax dollars helped buy weapons for both armies, so I feel an acute degree of culpability for the deaths caused by those weapons. But other deeply disturbing comments were those on religious overtones of the war, also with parallels to the U.S. role in Iraq and how evangelical Christians approached it:
Ram: “What I do remember in particular at the beginning is the feeling of almost a religious mission. My sergeant is a student at a hesder yeshiva [a program that combines religious study and military service]. Before we went in, he assembled the whole platoon and led the prayer for those going into battle. …
The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and … their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war. From my position as a commander and “explainer,” I attempted to talk about the politics - the streams in Palestinian society, about how not everyone who is in Gaza is Hamas, and not every inhabitant wants to vanquish us. I wanted to explain to the soldiers that this war is not a war for the sanctification of the holy name, but rather one to stop the Qassams [rockets].
I realize I’m quoting a lot of the article, but I can’t help but conclude with this last piece of historical and political framing by the forum moderator, himself a military veteran:
After the Six-Day War, when people came back from the fighting, they sat in circles and described what they had been through. For many years the people who did this were said to be “shooting and crying.” In 1983, when we came back from the Lebanon War, the same things were said about us. We need to think about the events we have been through. We need to grapple with them also, in terms of establishing a standard or different norms.
It is quite possible that Hamas and the Syrian army would behave differently from me. The point is that we aren’t Hamas and we aren’t the Syrian army or the Egyptian army, and if clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren’t representative of the whole spectrum in the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population - what are we expecting? To whom are we complaining?
Thankfully, introspection on the nature of violence and the horror of war is not limited to either side of this conflict, and is leading some to consider peaceful alternatives. We recently posted an article by Valerie Elverton Dixon about former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters who have formed a group of about 600 “Combatants for Peace” who are just wrapping up a U.S. speaking tour. May God bless their efforts, for theirs is the only cause that will ever bring real peace and security to their land.
Friday, February 20, 2009
...No, really, they want us there to help them!
US soldier guilty of Iraq murder
US soldiers have had to answer a number of accusations of abuse
A US soldier has been convicted of murder for his involvement in the killing of four Iraqis who were shot and dumped in a Baghdad canal in 2007.
Sgt Michael Leahy Jr had confessed to investigators that he shot an Iraqi in the back of the head from close range.
His lawyers argued that the stress of being in a conflict zone for so long meant he was unable to reason properly.
But a panel at a court martial in Vilseck, Germany, dismissed the claims and will decide Leahy's sentence later.
The 28-year-old army medic, from Lockport, Illinois, faces a maximum life term in jail and a dishonourable discharge from the army.
'Fear and madness'
The victims were a group of Iraqis who were detained briefly and questioned over an attack on a Baghdad military base.
Leahy was one of a group of soldiers who took detainees away after it was decided there was not enough evidence to charge them.
Blindfolded and gagged, the four were then shot and dumped in a canal.
During interrogation in January 2008, Leahy told military investigators he had shot an Iraqi in the back of the head with a pistol.
The Associated Press reported that a video of the questioning was played at his court-martial hearing in the US army's Rose Barracks earlier this week.
"The detainee I shot fell back on me," he was heard to say in the videotape.
His lawyer, Frank Spinner, argued that Leahy went along with the killings because he was dazed from a lack of sleep.
"The tragedy resulted not so much by design but rather the working of fear, danger and madness attendant on many combat operations," Mr Spinner said in his closing arguments.
But prosecuting lawyer Cpt Derrick Grace said the soldiers could not be allowed to claim that they were protecting themselves "from future harm".
Leahy was found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder by the nine-person panel.
Several other soldiers also face charges for involvement in the same incident.
US soldiers have had to answer a number of accusations of abuse
A US soldier has been convicted of murder for his involvement in the killing of four Iraqis who were shot and dumped in a Baghdad canal in 2007.
Sgt Michael Leahy Jr had confessed to investigators that he shot an Iraqi in the back of the head from close range.
His lawyers argued that the stress of being in a conflict zone for so long meant he was unable to reason properly.
But a panel at a court martial in Vilseck, Germany, dismissed the claims and will decide Leahy's sentence later.
The 28-year-old army medic, from Lockport, Illinois, faces a maximum life term in jail and a dishonourable discharge from the army.
'Fear and madness'
The victims were a group of Iraqis who were detained briefly and questioned over an attack on a Baghdad military base.
Leahy was one of a group of soldiers who took detainees away after it was decided there was not enough evidence to charge them.
Blindfolded and gagged, the four were then shot and dumped in a canal.
During interrogation in January 2008, Leahy told military investigators he had shot an Iraqi in the back of the head with a pistol.
The Associated Press reported that a video of the questioning was played at his court-martial hearing in the US army's Rose Barracks earlier this week.
"The detainee I shot fell back on me," he was heard to say in the videotape.
His lawyer, Frank Spinner, argued that Leahy went along with the killings because he was dazed from a lack of sleep.
"The tragedy resulted not so much by design but rather the working of fear, danger and madness attendant on many combat operations," Mr Spinner said in his closing arguments.
But prosecuting lawyer Cpt Derrick Grace said the soldiers could not be allowed to claim that they were protecting themselves "from future harm".
Leahy was found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder by the nine-person panel.
Several other soldiers also face charges for involvement in the same incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
