Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Sunday, March 06, 2005 But you knew this already since it's classic Omar at Iraq the Model details this interrogation on Iraq TV of a terrorist:
There are further comments by Omar about how these TV shows are winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis by exposing just who and what are the jihadis. posted by Mark Butterworth | 6:52 PM | Saturday, March 05, 2005 Purple Prose From the inimitable NYT's:
Written by VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN, do these passages indicate someone you'd look forward to spending a long airplane flight with? I wish she'd do something about her own hideous condition of life. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:32 PM | No sympathy Michael Newdow is the atheist who sued, using his daughter, to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The case made it to the Supreme Court which ruled he didn't have standing since his daughter didn't actually complain and he didn't have custody of her. Newdow never married his daughter's mother, but has been fighting for custody ever since and complaining about discrimination in the laws ever since they split up. Thus far it has cost him a fortune. Now he has: ...paid $320,000 of his ex-girlfriend's attorney fees Friday, complaining that he should not have to finance her fight for their daughter's custody. In his normal crybaby mode: He said a judge's order that he pay a portion of the mother's legal fees encourages her to fight his every request and is unconstitutional. He thinks the courts are unfair, but has no qualms about devoting superior resources to overwhelm his former lover. He thought he could beat her down in court by attrition. Newdow said Friday he is consumed with the custody case. Somehow this man will never win anyone's sympathy. There probably isn't a bigger fool or a greater egotist presently alive than Mr. Newdow. He's the kind of fellow no one ever wishes well; and every adversity that occurs to him will be met by others with a "couldn't have happened to a nicer guy" tilt of the head. Determined to have his own way in everything (imagine what his mother must have been like), there was a moment in his life when he could have become a loving husband and father. A woman loved him and she gave him a child. Rather than building up that relationship, it fell apart and his desire for revenge (with himself as a great crusader for personal rights) overcame any other sentiment. Enjoying the kind of deranged energy that comes of tilting at windmills, he has wasted his life, and done all he can to injure his daughter and former lover. (What ordinary American could imagine himself becoming so compulsive in seeking revenge that they would come to owe their object of revenge $350,000 not to mention what he has spent in court?) This guy deserves a documentary or dramatic movie made about him to serve as a cautionary tale of what we all have to fear from crackpots with resources. (George Soros, please pick up the white courtesy phone.) posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:40 PM | Friday, March 04, 2005 Copt Watch - Arrests Made The upstairs neighbor of an Egyptian Christian family found slain in their home in January was charged along with another man Friday in the killings, and authorities said the motive was robbery, not religious fanaticism, as some had feared.(via Jihad watch and relapsed Catholic The above was from Yahoo News. But Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio said the killings took place during a robbery by the two men, who owed someone a large sum of money. "I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear: The motive for these murders was robbery. This was a crime based on greed, the desperate need of money," DeFazio said. A commenter at Jihad Watch notes: This Northeast intelligence report still continues to make for an interesting component to these two arrested suspects based on a prison source that Douglas Hagamann is reporting on. Many questions remain. Who used the ATM cards? That should be on tape. There should be some blood evidence in the apartment upstairs, but it also explains why the murderers might have had an unforced entry - they were known to the family. The horrific acts of murder were like Islamic slaughter or actually were the same kind of slaughter intended not as cover but as ritual? Some are wondering about the M13 gang which has been migrating here from Central America and performing hideous murders themselves like this which Michelle Malkin has been regularly posting about. UPDATE Jihad Watch has more thoughts about the recent events and the lack of clarity in the current arrests, while the apparently willful ignoring of possible leads. posted by Mark Butterworth | 9:50 PM | Thursday, March 03, 2005 Today's Quote" Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, Dennis Prager used this to illustrate that the death penalty is required by God for murder (and no, war doesn't count as murder). His point is that the Judeo-Christian ethic treats life as sacred. Sacred, in fact, as God is. Therefore, the punishment for those not treating the life of an innocent as sacred must equal the abuse done to the sacred. That is how we impress upon each other that the greatest crime deserves the harshest punishment. People complain that an “eye for an eye leads to a world of one eyed people.” Really? If you steal $50 dollars from me and the judge makes you give me $50 dollars, does that actually leave me with $25? That’s the parallel in logic, though. In fact, if you steal $50 from me and are found guilty of it, I will probably be able to claim much more from the perpetrator in compensation as a victim of his larceny. To deny the equitable punishment for murder does two things. One, it denies that the victim’s life is an image of God, and thus denies the sacred entirely; and two, it asserts that the murderer’s life is more valuable than the victim’s. The reply is usually of this nature, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” and “Nothing we do now will ever bring the victim back.” The latter somehow assumes that justice consists of restoring the victim to life. The former consists of the erroneous belief that capital punishment is a wrong always and everywhere. Well, let’s return to the $50 thief. How is it wrong if he is forced to return $50 to me? This is the same logical equation. He was wrong to steal, and it would be wrong for me to take back? Undoubtedly, my adversary would claim these two sets of circumstance a matter of apples and oranges, sui generis. Yet, it goes to the heart of what we mean by justice, and not the matter of degree in punishment. Certainly, a murderer, though he has “taken” a life, can’t be said to possess the victim’s life (and thus cannot return it), yet he does possess that which the victim no longer has, and that is his own life. Since he cannot restore the victim to life, he must forfeit that which is of equal value; his own life. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:14 PM | %@#$$%&!!! [S]haking the Queen firmly by the hand, [Clapton] introduced himself by name. "Have you been playing a long time?” the Queen asked, obviously none the wiser. "It must be 45 years now," replied a non-plussed blues giant. Nonplussed (they misspelled it) means the opposite of what it sounds like. nonplussed adj : filled with bewilderment; "at a loss to understand those remarks"; "puzzled that she left without saying goodbye" [syn: at a loss, nonplused, puzzled] I am so tired of people (journalists especially) getting this backwards. It's getting to the point that it will have to switch definitions and come to mean - nonchalant. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:07 PM | mediocrity never has a bad day An update on the investigation of the family of Copts murdered in New Jersey from Jihadwatch (via relapsed Catholic). Original article from WorldNetDaily. Family members who viewed the bodies say they suspect the brutal slayings were a warning not to proselytize to Muslims. They say that the body of Sylvia Armanious was clearly the most viciously attacked in the killings, causing them to wonder if it was because she was too vocal in sharing her faith. Considering that the scenario of muslim converts having access to the family in a trusting relationship that would have allowed them to enter the house without force has been mentioned for weeks, it looks like the investigation may be getting a clue as how to proceed. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:21 AM | Wednesday, March 02, 2005 Today's Quote: The sad truth is that excellence makes people nervous. Shana Alexander Yes, it seemingly confers inferiority on the less than excellent. A most unwelcome sense for many. Implied criticism pains multitudes of folks. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:58 AM | Corpse Artist Planning Polish Factory What was that they used to say about not wanting to see how the sausage gets made? Eww, that was kind of a tasteless remark. Eww, so was that. It kinda sticks in one's craw, doesn't it? Eww, will you cut it out! Eww, stop doing that! posted by Mark Butterworth | 10:59 AM | What would we do without. . .? To eat or not to eat 22 pound lobster. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent Wholey a letter asking him to work with the group to release Bubba back in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Maine. Another group calling itself People for Eating Tasty Animals reportedly offered Wholey a hefty price for the lobster posted by Mark Butterworth | 10:46 AM | What were you thinking? While watching American Idol last week, I commented to my wife upon a particularly nice looking young female singer: "I would love to have that girl in my bed." "Oh, really?" my wife asked. "Why is that? Is it because of how she looks?" "She's very attractive, of course, and has a nice figure, but I like how she sounds, and I think she would perform beautifully in a group. She wouldn't draw all the attention to herself, but it would be spread around to everyone." "Oh, really?" What I actually said was, "I would love to have that girl in my band." posted by Mark Butterworth | 9:18 AM | Beside the point I have been wondering for some time now, given that Bush is without question a great president, why he has certain blind spots where he appears very foolish and ignorant. For instance, on illegal aliens, he has repeatedly said things like "family values don't stop at the border", or "they're coming here to take jobs Americans won't do." He says his plan is not amnesty, but it wouldn't actually do anything to curtail illegal entries (and in fact encourages them); and he has steadfastly refused to enforce the laws we have. Why is Bush so far from reality and fact on this matter? I believe I have figured it out. Being from Texas may have something to do with it, but I believe the main reason is that Bush can't see himself as the guy who looks into the eyes of big, brown eyed children and the pleading faces of their mothers begging for entry so they can have a better life. Poor Jose, with his hoe in his hand asking, "senor, let me pick your strawberries. It's for me familia." To be the guy at the border looking over the crowd of campesinos, peons, and peasants holding a shotgun, wearing mirrored Ray Bans and saying, "Nyet. Nein. Non. Not a chance", well, Bush can't see himself being the bad guy, the tough dad, the heartless neighbor. It's the same with spending. He lowers taxes but can't bring himself to cut spending because there'll be some parade of grandmas and babies to the Hill crying about how they'll starve. His Christianity has something to do with it also. I believe he finds the various appeals to charity from Jesus a mandate for permissiveness. A great many Christians have come to believe that loving your neighbor means letting them walk all over you as they please. And you have to keep forgiving them for it. Going to war to protect the innocent, free the oppressed, render justice to the evil -- well, that's heroic. Putting up barbed wire, digging moats, planting mines, building guard towers, and increasing detention camps, well, that's not very nice, is it? That's downright mean. Those poor people, oh the shame of it; they just want a better life. Please, how you can look into their eyes and point a gun at their chests? That is not how Bush wants to be remembered. (Who does?) posted by Mark Butterworth | 9:18 AM | Tuesday, March 01, 2005 Huh? John Derbyshire notes in a goulash column: What on earth is consciousness? What is present in the universe five minutes after I have woken up in the morning, that wasn't present an hour earlier? What ceases to be present when I go unconscious, or die? "A field of consciousness," says Prof. Searle. So... what's that? The Derb once wrote about his terrible fear that comes over him from time to time, "what if death is nothingness and I no longer am?" That made me think about the time I had an operation on my throat. I'd never been anesthetized before. It occurred to me later that I'd had absolutely no consciousness during the operation. I might as well have been dead since everything that was me was snuffed out like a candle during that time. But I've had a second thought about that. 1) I didn't die and wasn't dead. 2) I fell asleep and woke and was completely unaware of any interval of time. Thus I was never really unconscious to my self although I was unconscious in appearance to others. I'm trying to say that time did not exist for me. Even though you could say my consciousness was entirely dead during the operation, it still came back to me. That wouldn't be possible if death was annihilation of being. And what could be more annihilating than total unconsciousness? The fear, of course, is that the candle is snuffed out and never rekindled. But in fact it was never rekindled in me. The drugs wore off is all. I was never dead (snuffed out) although my mind might be said to have lost complete awareness which is identical to what we imagine death might be like. Yet, as I said, it was no more than a dreamless sleep. And we know a dreamless sleep is no harbinger or simulcrum of death. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:30 AM | Invincible Ignorance SCOTUS has once again proven that a majority of its members have no respect for the laws of the people.
In fact, there is only one reason we are now allowed to have a death penalty at all. It is because it is written in the constitution as appropriate in certain cases, and thus the judges cannot declare it cruel and unusual punishment as they have in this case regarding its application to those convicted of capital crimes who are under 18. There is not a criminal gang in this country now that will not be aware that any murders committed by its younger members will not be appropriately punished. The complete arbitrariness of the Court (kill somebody however you like on the day before your 18th birthday, and have no fear of equitable punishment), and its willingness to believe itself to be the true and only righteous maker of laws -- well, what can one say? This is a usurpation of power and a cynical treason upon the most fundamental level of our national agreements made in our founding documents. "Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote. This is patently false. Notice also that the reference to "our society" insists that there can be no difference now between how one state views reality and how another does. We are no longer a united group of states. We are the nation of Washington, D.C.. The powers of the states no longer exist whenever Washington decides it doesn't approve. How long will it take to undo the damage that has already occurred to the country because of this imperial court? Can it ever be undone even if conservatives become a majority of the court? It is clear that we need to either place term limits on all federal judges or renewal elections which approve or disapprove of sitting judges to continue on the court. That is unlikely to occur, though. The Court has granted young people a license to kill without fear of consequence. It is incredible, but that's what it amounts to in reality and not in the ivory towers and secured residences of this sick elite. So many innocent people (and not so innocent) people will be murdered because of this. The law which is meant to protect the innocent will continue to be perverted to protect the guilty. The mind simply snaps in fury at such complete legal and moral incompetence. We are no longer a nation of laws, but one of judicial fiats. What has Congress and the presidency wrought but abject cowardice in the face of these usurpations of their powers? This is one of the consequences of atheism. A majority of the court no longer actually believes in the power of a living God who insists we punish the guilty. Update Powerline weighs in with this: HINDROCKET adds: This is very bad. It's also quite odd: The Supreme Court is disdainful of public opinion in the U.S. as expressed by the laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures, but respectful of public opinion in Europe. I can understand the Washington social structure within which this world-view makes sense, but can anyone articulate a philosophy of jurisprudence in which European opinion, however manifested, is given priority over American opinion, as expressed in laws passed by legislators? Exactly. American opinion and law doesn't matter, but European does. Aside I mean atheism to include all those who accept that Diety is likely, but whose concept is so removed from actual contact or even belief in personal relationship to Diety as to render them intellectually no different than an atheist in practice. Call it soft Deism. It is funny (weird) that the people of the courts, the elite that these judges represent, will all easily fall to their knees and beg for God's mercy should they become suddenly pained and very ill or if a loved one should face death or horrible circumstances in the world, because then people have no shame in pleading with the Universe to give them some ray of hope, some miracle of saving grace; and yet, when all is well, they have not one iota of real faith. They have gained the world at the cost of their souls. Many a man will say, "thank God for that" but their sincerity extends no further than the expression of words. There is no compulsion to reciprocate in actions as to what God would like them to do with their lives to honor him. Can anyone imagine that there are any circumstances in which a Ruth Bader Ginsberg might come to know and worship God? I can, but the likelihood of such an event is next to nothing. The power of salvation lies in one's willingness to be humbled. People who are proud will not have God reveal himself to them. They must first become broken. But proud people who become broken through sickness, failure, misery, death of loved ones tend to become more defiant and not less; more denying and angry at God, and not less. My father is 76 now. He has emphysema, a defibrillater in his chest, needs oxygen, and has had a number of scary moments when he thought he was going to die in the last few years. Nothing of his condition, though, has made him open to God. Oh, when in distress he might invoke deity and ask for relief, but when the crisis is passed he has no further interest in the divine. In fact, if you talk to most people after they have had some catastrophic medical event, they and their loved ones start talking about how soon they can get back to "normal" and resume living life exactly as they had before. There are occasionally those who make some resolutions about smelling the roses, spending more time with family, no longer sweating the small things; and some people decide to change their lifestyles entirely, but very few dedicate themselves to God (if they haven't already). That is why I believe in Hell and Purgatory along with Heaven. I believe there is a condition in eternity which is Hell. I also believe it can be altered; that is, that one may escape it, but that those in Hell choose not to. That nothing keeps anyone in Hell but themselves. Purgatory is what it means. A way of purgation that takes however long it may before souls are in a condition to enter into the full communion of Heaven. In the same way that baptism does not perfect anyone and make them entirely whole and holy, so, too, neither death as a believer can render one perfectly fit for Heaven. There is work still to be done. A refining to be finished. posted by Mark Butterworth | 9:51 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
