Eyes to See

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

In some translations, Jesus often follows His teachings and His miracles with an admonition to "whoever has eyes to see, let him see."  He chides even His disciples in Mark 18:8 that they "...have eyes but fail to see..."

Jesus wants His followers to see.  Some of his followers think that only happens in church, in "Christian" activities, or watching "Christian" movies and listening to "Christian" radio-stations

I've never bought that.  Tribal culturalism is not following Jesus.

I watched Masterpiece Theater’s “Les Miserables” last night.

I've never read the book, and never seen the musical.  I was curious what the story is about.  I was blown away.

For those with eyes to see, it’s a story about repentance, forgiveness, and God’s grace.

The thought occurred that for those with eyes to see, every story is.

For those with eyes to see, that’s what it means that Jesus is Lord.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/episodes/les-miserables-e1/

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Give to Moochers

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Jesus says to give to everyone who asks (Matthew 5:42, and Luke 6:30).

In other words, Jesus tells us to do the same as He does, and the same as His and our Father does.

But many people today take the opposite view: that when you give to people, you harm them.  Helping people, they say, makes them lazy and dependent on your charity, and robs them of their self-reliance and self-respect.  This opposite view is that it does needy people the most real good to not give to them.

We're probably not far from the mark if we think that argument sounds like the devil's rationalization.  His "thing," ever since his chat with Eve in the Garden of Eden, has always been to afirm the opposite of what God says.

But even if take it as nothing more than a current-useful "principle" of self-serving politicians, it doesn't seem that argument should ever persuade Christians.  At least not Christians practiced in choosing between what Jesus says, and what "the world" tells us.

The temptation to believe the politicians tempts Christians too, because we all know of, or have heard of, able-bodied people who live by "mooching" off of others, especially charitable others.  So we are all tempted to predicate our giving on whether we consider a person in need is "worthy"...or a moocher.

Let's be as straight on that score as Jesus is.  NO one...ourselves included...is "worthy" of the good God has lavished on us.  That's exactly why Jesus says we should give to every fellow-moocher who asks us for a little of what God has given our unworthy selves,

There are predatory people who fake neediness:  we can all agree on that.   Human beings are fallen creatures, some so fallen they will use other people to their own evil ends.   But they seem to be very few.  Muhammad Yunus, who started grameen ("community") banks to loan money to people so poor they were considered "uncredit-worthy" by the financial-system, writes that there is a 98% return on those loans.

Playing the percentages alone, it seems foolish to refuse to give to people in need because 2% of them would not repay you.

But for Christians, of course, our decision whether to obey Jesus or not doesn't really depend on the fact that other people are unworthy, or that some would take advantage of us.

If Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount to give to everyone isn't sufficient, we need to think about what our response to people in need says about ourselves.  Jesus' command to us in that same teaching was to "be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48).

We are either people who believe and wish and do good regards other people; or we are people who distrust others, and believe their intentions are evil.

Every one of us makes our own decision which kind of person we will be.  And Jesus is very clear which kind of person is His follower.


                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Christian Sin

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

 ^"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in
him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the
father of lies."  (John 8:44)



Is it sin to deceive ?

Jesus said we show who our father is, by the deeds our hearts desire to do.  He said
deceivers show their hearts are set on doing the deeds of "the father of lies" (John 8:44).

Is it sin to be deceived ?

Of course it is.  How is anyone ever deceived, except by their own failure to love the truth.
The con-man understands perfectly how deceit works.  He operates by the evil wisdom that
"you can't cheat an honest man."

The ultimate of that reality is where Christians live.  Nobody is a Christian at all except
they love Jesus, Who said "I AM...The Truth" (John 14:6).  No one can claim to be a Christian
unless they are led by "the Spirit of Truth," sent by God to lead us into all Truth (John 16:13).

Is it sin then for Christians to be deceived ?  Is it sin that a Christian does not love Jesus ?
Is it sin that a Christian turns from following the Spirit ?

The good news for Christians is that God will forgive even those deep sins.

Even at this late hour, any Christian who will can confess their sin, turn away from their
sin, and be forgiven.

All you Christians who have been deceived, and foolish enough to follow liars, please
be radically honest to God about your horrible sin, while He is still pleased to forgive.

Amen !!



                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Best Thing About the Current President

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The best thing about America's current president is that he will die.  When, and how much more harm he will be permitted to do before then, is God's decision alone.

It's good that the current president is such a complete narcissist that his evil thoughts and deeds center entirely on himself, on what he personally and immediately wants.  He will not leave his followers an evil ideology to follow to destruction, like Nazism or Communism.  Trumpism's sole Great Purpose is Trump, and when he is dead it will not survive.

But of course, the spirit of evil is greater than any man, or ideology of men: and evil will survive and flourish

An amazing number of people who've made it their life's purpose to follow the current president will be without direction when their Great Leader is no more.  They will not then know whom they should hate, and who to love.  They will not have his hourly outbursts specifying what "opinions" and worldview they must adapt to accord with his.

An amazing number of people will then be waiting for someone...anyone...to tell them what to think, and what to believe, and what to do.  The current president's admirers have shown they lack the spiritual discernment to recognize and flee from satan's evil spirit and intent.  When Trump passes from the scene, their hearts will continue to desire someone of that spirit whom they can follow, and trust, and believe, and obey.

I'm convinced God will allow them their heart's desire.

Jesus' coming was preceded by God's sending John the Baptist to prepare His way.  It just may be that satan's end-time anti-messiah likewise has his forerunner, preparing those whose hearts long for his appearing.

Perhaps the best thing about the current president is that through him God is purifying His Church of those who will not receive the love of the truth, so as to be saved (II Thessalonians 2:10).  Perhaps in this way God is preparing for His Son a Church in submission to Him, Who IS The Truth: a Church cleansed, glorious, holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:24-27).



                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Reaping the Whirlwind

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

"For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind..."     Hosea 8:7a


It's not often we see a direct line between causation and result in history.  America's distress today may be one of those times.

Almost 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan began his presidency with the proclamation that "...government is the problem."  He promised his presidency would attack that "problem" by making government smaller and less powerful, and instituting a government-wide policy of "de-regulation."

He did a great deal to enact his doctrine.  His followers ever since have proclaimed and followed his doctrine...at least, publicly and superficially.  Politics' real purpose is always power, and politicians are always lying when they claim they want to limit their own exercise of power.

There are so many things wrong, and hypocritical, about Reagan's doctrine.  I usually focus on its greatest falsehood: its denial of God's command that human government be His "minister," doing good to its people, and punishing evil-doers.  Reagan "de-regulated"  government from doing both.

Sometimes I ponder Reagan's reversal of America's traditional doctrine of government, that "the people" are our government.  If government is instead a "problem," it's clearly an external entity endangering "the people"...unless Reagan meant that "the people" are "the problem."

Sometimes I focus on the illogic of that statement.  Anyone who paused to think for an instant, in the flow of Reagan's inaugural rhetoric, would have had to ask how it was possible to have anti-government government.

As a former anarchist, I was probably more sensitive than most people to the fact that Reagan's doctrine..."government is the problem"...is the core teaching of anarchism.  But that's the evil I was pondering today.  Pondering what scripture says about the consequences of following evil.

The scripture in Hosea 8:7 came to mind, that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind: almost always, in scripture, a symbol of God's wrathful judgement.

The thought that came to mind with that scripture was very clear:  Reagan sowed in America the "wind" (the Hebrew word is ruah, which is also translated "spirit") of anarchic government, and America is reaping God's judgement in today's anarchic government.

Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Milton Mayer: Understanding Nazis

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I've been greatly moved by a book I just read, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45, by journalist and academic Milton Mayer.

Mayer wrote that in 1935 he'd unsuccessfully requested an interview with the new Chancellor of Germany, Adolph Hitler.  But after the war he'd come to see that "...Nazism was a mass movement and not the tyranny of a diabolical few over helpless millions.  Then I wondered if Adolf Hitler was, after all, the Nazi I wanted to see.  By the time the war was over I had identified my man: the average German."

Knowing there was no such person, Mayer set out in 1950 to live in Germany for a year, and get to know Germans who had lived through the Nazi years.  He settled in Marburg (called "Kronenburg" in the book), a university-town of 42,000 in Hesse, central West Germany (at the time).  His intention was to develop a friendship with the ordinary men he met there, and get to know them in friendly visits to their homes, and their visits to his.  Mayer wrote that he wanted "...to bring back to America the life-story of the ordinary German under National Sicialism..."

He was aware that there would be problems in befriending Germans.  First that he was an American, whose troops occupying West Germany were widely seen as "conquerors:" and second that he was Jewish, though he'd become a Quaker.  For purposes of befriending people in Marburg and encouraging them to be candid in their conversations with him, he didn't divulge his ancestry.

Mayer felt he succeeded in developing a friendship with the ten ordinary Marburgers on whom the book is based, except perhaps one.  They were deliberately a mixed group: a teacher, a tailor, a butcher, a local policeman.  Mixed too in their acceptance of Nazism.

One had been a local Nazi leader, but all the others had only joined the party in connection with their jobs.  The local leader was later convicted of involvement in the burning of the city's synagogue, and served prison-time.  But for all the others, the evil that befell their nation was largely tangential to their daily lives.

Beyond their culture's antipathy toward Jews, only one man admitted to participation in official anti-Semitism (before Jews were taken into "protective custody" and sent to a regional holding facility, after their synagogue was burned on Kristallnacht), saying he had passed a lifelong Jewish neighbor with only a nod, rather than his usual "Good evening, Herr Schmidt."  Even the policeman, ordered by his state's government to assemble local Jews for transport to their facilities, served them tea in his office as they came to agreement with him that they would be safer under state protection.

Only the teacher, although a party-member, resisted the Nazi regime in any way.  Contrary to party instructions, he quietly assigned his German Literature classes a few classic works by Jewish authors.  And of all Mayer's friends, he alone expressed regrets for his tacit acceptance of Nazism.

Mayer wrote too that he also had two assets in befriending his ordinary Germans: "I really wanted to know them.  And another, acquired in my long association with the American Friends Service Committee: I really believed that there was 'that of God' in every one of them."

I was especially impessed by Mayer's "Foreword," perceptive of how absolute political evil insinuates itself into the lives of ordinary people: and prescient in its warning about that possibility in America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My faith found that of God in my ten Nazi friends.  My newspaper training found that of something else in them, too.  They were each of them a most marvelous mixture of good and bad impulses, their lives a marvelous mixture of good and bad acts.  I liked them.  I couldn't help it.  Again and again, as I sat or walked with one or another of my ten friends, I was overcome by the same sensation that had got the way of my newspaper reporting in Chicago years before.  I liked Al Capone.  I liked the way he treated his mother.  He treated her better than I treated mine.

"I found--and find--it hard to judge my Nazi friends.  But I confess that I would rather judge them than myself.  In my own case I am always aware of the provocations and handicaps that excuse, or at least explain, my own bad acts.  I am always aware of my good intentions, my good reasons for doing bad things.  I should not like to die tonight, because some of the things that I had to do today, things that look very bad for me, I had to do in order to do something very good tomorrow that would more than compensate for today's bad behavior.  But my Nazi friends did die tonight; the book of their Nazi lives is closed, without their having been able to do the good they may or may not have meant to do, the good that might have wiped out the bad they did.

"By easy extension, I would rather judge Germans than Americans.  Now I see a little better how Nazism overcame Germany . . .It was what most Germans wanted--or, under pressure of combined reality and illusion, came to want.  They wanted it; they got it; and they liked it.

"I came back home a little afraid for my country, afraid of what it might want, and get, and like, under pressure of combined reality and illusion.  I felt--and feel--that it was not German Man that I had met, but Man.  He happened to be in Germany under certain conditions.  He might be here, under certain conditions.  He might, under certain conditions, be I.

"If I--and my countrymen--ever succumbed to that concatenation of conditions, no Constitution, no laws, no police, and certainly no army would be able to protect us from harm.  For there is no harm that anyone else can do to a man that he cannot do to himself, no good that he cannot do if he will.  And what was said long ago is true: Nations are made not of oak and rock but of men, and, as the men are, so will the nation be."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also give here a quote from Mayer's Wikipedia profile.  As a "public intellectual" of his time, he was involved in various controversies.  This summary of one seems to well summarize his lifelong championing of social change:

"Before a group at a War Resisters League dinner in 1944, he denied being a pacifist, even while admitting that he was a conscientious objector to the present conflict. He opted for a moral revolution, one that was anti-capitalistic because it would be anti-materialist. About this time, he began promoting that moral revolution with his regular monthly column in the Progressive, for which he wrote the rest of his life. His essays often provoked controversy for their insistence that human beings should assume personal responsibility for the world they were creating."

                                            --  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Mayer

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I Believe Putin

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

There was a lot of attention paid the remarks of the current president after his servile summit with Vladimir Putin last July.  His dismissal, for example, of United States' policy toward Russia, by the 11 U.S. Presidents who preceded him, as "foolish".

And there was much attention given his claim that when he said "I don't see any reason why it would be Russia" who interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (although all of America's intelligence agencies had certified to him it was so), what he meant was "I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia" who interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Paying close attention to any of the current president's remarks is wasted effort.  Their stupidity and lies are obvious on the surface.

But the most interesting comment in that press conference was Vladimir Putin's:

Q    "President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election?  And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  "Yes, I did.  Yes, I did.  Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."

 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/)

Vladimir Putin has showed that he's not stupid.  But we know he's no more truthful that our president.

The context of his remarks was that the U.S. president had just bragged about his Electoral College numbers (again) to claim again there was "no collusion" between his campaign and Russia; and Putin had chimed in to say charges of collusion were "nonsense."

It's no doubt true, as Putin admitted, that he wanted his toady to be president of the United States, and had directed his government's officials to help the current president win election.  All American intelligence agencies had verified that.  But that admission quite puts in question Putin's claim of "no collusion."

(As does the current president's campaign speech asking Russian hackers to search for his opponent's e-mails.)

But most of all, I think we have to discount Putin's claim that his motive was a "normal relationship" between the U.S. and Russia.  Everything Putin has done; murder of Russian investigative journalists, fomenting war in Ukraine, occupying Crimea, sending troops to help the President of Syria slaughter his people; shows his motives are always, and only, about increasing his own power, in Russia, and in the world.

It's a safe bet that Putin's interest in America and its elections is that America, his only real super-power rival, be too weak to stand in his way.  We have Putin's admission, and independent verification, that he wanted our current president to be elected, and directed that his government do everything it could to make that happen.

Putin wanted an American president who would weaken America.  The candidate Putin wanted elected was elected.

The candidate, our current president, got what he wanted.  Putin got what he wanted.  I don't know the technical legal definition of what constitutes "collusion," but relationship of mutual wish-fulfillment between Putin and our current president seems like it might qualify.

Jesus cited the Law, that every fact should be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses (in Matthew 18:16, and elsewhere).  I have to wonder if that applies here, in the negative.

When two liars swear there is "no collusion," does that constitute proof there was ?