Thought Power

By Jesus, speaking in prophecy

Download Audio (6.2MB)

Pray without ceasing.1

Turn your thoughts into prayers. If you want to know how to pray more and how to get more things done, transform your thoughts into prayers. Think of all the things you do throughout the day, all the things you think about, all the thoughts that run through your head! So many thoughts—sometimes running wild! Now ask yourself, where are your thoughts running?

Watch your thoughts. Consider your thoughts. Size them up, take stock, analyze, weigh them up, and ask yourself: What are your thoughts accomplishing? Where are they going? Are they headed in the right direction or in the wrong direction?

How do your thoughts fare? Are they accomplishing good? Or are they sitting idle? Are you transforming your thoughts into power that will bring about changed lives and improved conditions for loved ones in their hour of need?

If you want to do more in prayer, consider your thoughts. Thoughts are real things. They can bless or they can curse; they can help or they can hinder. They can provide comfort and peace, or they can emit emptiness—all according to how you turn them.

By turning your thoughts into prayers, you turn them into creative power. If you turn your thoughts into prayers, they will accomplish that which is good.

Burden or blessing—to which do your thoughts attain? Are they helping to sustain a soul in need?

If you want to know how to accomplish more, how to meet the need in prayer, watch your thoughts. Evaluate your thoughts. Organize your thoughts. Ask yourself, “What are my thoughts accomplishing?” Are you directing your thoughts to where they can do some good and make a positive difference?

Thoughts are powerful, because thoughts can be turned into prayers, and prayer is powerful! If you want to know how to pray more, consider your thought power.

I have equipped each of you with this great gift, therefore learn to use it. Learn to wield it. Learn to convert your thoughts into powerful prayers. Thought power turned into prayer will materialize into My blessings, My intervention, My protection, power and strength, My healing balm poured out on those for whom you care.

If you will learn how to direct your thoughts in the way of powerful prayer, in this lies one of the secrets to great strength, great victory, and great accomplishment.

Thoughts are always running through your head, but it's how you direct them that makes a difference. Catch some of your thoughts, bring them before Me, and commit what you are thinking about into My hands.

All day long, no matter what else you're doing, you're thinking thoughts, but it's how you direct them and filter them that can make a difference. What you decide to do with those thoughts and where you direct them is what counts. Send them on to where they can genuinely accomplish something.

In the solitude of your thoughts you can turn them to prayers. Even in the busyness of your schedule, what you do with your thoughts can make a difference. Even in the course of your busy day, you can take the thoughts that come to you as a result of what you see all around you, and you can turn those thoughts into prayers. Therefore you should not just reserve this habit for your quiet times or prayer times, but you should try to get in the habit of capturing your thoughts and turning them into prayers at anyopportunity.

You can take some of the thoughts that come to you as a result of watching the news, watching a movie, listening to music, talking with others, or having exercise, and you can direct those thoughts to Me, turn them to Me in prayer. Capture some of your thoughts and make them work for you and others for good through prayer.

If you let the sights and sounds around you trigger positive thought patterns, by turning them into prayers to Me, you'll be able to intercede for those in need.

You can choose how you want these outside variables to influence your thoughts. You can catch the sights and sounds around you and allow them to run wild in your head, or you can catch the sights and sounds and bring them to Me. Shoot up an instant prayer. Turn them into prayers, turn them into good, turn them into something that will last.

*

Although I know you won't always achieve the goal of turning your thoughts into prayers, I knew if I gave you the challenge to try and reach the goal, even if only partway, it's worth it!—Because it's progress, and you'll be doing much better and accomplishing more by activating the power of heaven than if you don't ever try.

So try it! You'll like it! And it will certainly do you and others a lot of good. But don't worry or get under condemnation if all of a sudden you realize you haven't been praying. Don't criticize or condemn yourself, because I won't be criticizing or condemning you. I'm happy and thankful for each prayer that you do pray. So don't worry about all the prayers that you forget to pray or don't pray. Don't let the Enemy point out your lack and criticize you for what you haven't done. Look on the bright side and focus on the prayers you did pray and the good that you have done, and that you can do more good through your prayers tomorrow!

Remember the anecdote about the man who told the Devil to stop criticizing his small potatoes. The Devil was hanging around being negative and murmuring to the farmer, trying to get the farmer to murmur against God for his small potato crop that year. But the farmer just told the Devil that he was thankful for his Father's small potatoes, because when the Devil was in control he didn't have any potatoes!2

So when the Enemy comes around to criticize and condemn you for not praying enough, just tell him that I'm thankful for your prayers, because if he were in control, you wouldn't be praying any prayers!

Originally published October 1997. Updated and republished September 2012.
Read by Simon Gregg.


1 1 Thessalonians 5:17.

2 We are told that Billy Bray, the Cornish miner, was noted far and near for his piety. One year his potato crop was almost a failure. As he was digging the potatoes, Satan said, “There, Billy, isn’t that poor pay for serving your Father the way you have all this year? Just see those small potatoes!” “Ah, Satan,” said Billy, “at it again talking against my Father? Bless His name! Why, when I served you I did not have any potatoes at all. I thank my dear Father for small potatoes.” Those who thank God for the little things soon find their blessings multiplying. (From Good Thots 2, page 1609, #172.)

Read More

Lessons of Love

By M. Fontaine

Download Audio (11.6MB)

I have always been quite work-oriented, but I took it to an even higher level when my immediate co-workers left to attend a conference and were gone for about two months, as I had a lot of time to myself to both work and pray. I was very satisfied with all the hours I was able to put into doing both.

I worked almost from the time I woke up until the time I went to bed. I worked during my exercise (as I could listen to audio files). I worked during my meals, which I ate privately. I counseled briefly during the day with one co-worker, and the rest of the time was taken up by my work, and of course prayer.

I was having a wonderful time in fellowship with the Lord and with those whom I heard from via reports and letters. I was almost proud of myself for being able to get so much accomplished, although I probably wouldn’t have expressed it quite that way at the time!

There was a newer member of our office staff who had been helping with some of the paperwork and administration while my teamworkers were at the conference and with whom I had been communicating instructions via audio, and occasionally by intercom. I had tried to dictate any work notes as much as possible because I knew that communications via the intercom would require lengthier two-way discussions covering more than just the bare bones of the matter. I would have to spend more time instructing him and discussing situations if I used the intercom, and I was determined not to be delayed in my work. I was streamlining my work and making sure things ran efficiently and that everything was moving along as quickly as possible.

However, the Lord started to get through to me that even though I might not consider it the best use of my time, time spent talking to this new co-worker would be important to him. So I relented a bit and decided that it wouldn’t take that much more time to talk to him on the intercom.

A week before my teamworkers were to arrive home, the Lord spoke even more strongly to me. He said, “Here you have this man on your staff that you’ve never had any in-depth contact with, who doesn’t really know you personally and whom you don’t know. This may be your last chance to spend time with him, to talk to him and to hear from him, and to train him in the work realm, because when your teamworkers get home, there will be many other demands on your time.”

My, oh my, what a fuss I put up! I said, “Lord, I have too much to do! I do not want to get involved with any counseling matters or work. What I’m doing in my work communications is far more important than taking my time to interact with this individual. Please, Lord, You know how much I have to do, and how physically weak I am and how big my workload is and how it takes all of my time and strength.”

I kept telling the Lord, “You know I’m trying to do Your work and I think it’s very important that I stick to it. And, when I do get into talking with people and fellowshipping with them, I like it, and it’s easier than having to work on all these difficult written communications.”

Finally the Lord got through to me and I very reluctantly invited this new staff member for some discussion. During my first two sessions with him, I gave him a prolonged lecture on how important my work was and how I was spending this time training him in his work at great sacrifice to my work. I pointed out that the hours that I was now prepared to spend with him were precious and he should regard this time very highly; that I was going to do it because I thought it was necessary, but that I was very concerned about sacrificing my time.

The worst thing about all of this was that I didn’t even realize how arrogant I was being by so strongly implying that everything else was much more important than he was. I sounded so sure of myself and so certain of the Lord’s will, so “righteous.” My attitude must have made him feel quite “small,” and rather belittled and demeaned.

During that week, as I spent time talking with this new co-worker, I began to see that this time had been much more for the purpose of teaching me lessons than for training someone else. The Lord started zeroing in on me and exposing some areas where I was not on target in my thinking. Finally He managed to convince me that this all-encompassing involvement with my work needed to be stopped long enough to get involved with a real live person.

In other words, the Lord showed me that I needed to get myself out of the “laboratory” for a while and start living His love. He wanted me to not only preach His love but to practice it. My work was very important, but how could I preach love to others unless I practiced it myself? Now He was providing an opportunity to have to put into practice everything that I had been preaching.

The whole world may need help, but where does it start? It starts right where I can see the need, right where I am. If I don’t love the brother or sister whom I have right here in front of me, how can I love many others whom I cannot see?

The Lord spoke to me and said, “You’re acting just like those who say, ‘Please don’t make me go witnessing, as I have too important a job. I can’t take the time to go out looking for people to share God’s love with.’ Or ‘I can’t be bothered by stopping to witness to someone.’”

The Lord showed me that if I had been one of those on the road to Jericho I probably would have let the poor Samaritan man remain—naked, wounded and dying—until someone else came to help him, because I had too many “important” things to take care of. My attitude was, “After all, there are a lot of people waiting for me in Jericho that I have to communicate with, very important matters that I have to get involved with.”

I was saying, “Please, Lord, don’t upset my schedule and my plan that is working so well and so efficiently. I’ve got it all down now and I’m really making progress, so don’t let me get behind, and please don’t deter me with people. I don’t want to get involved in anybody’s life and care about their heart or their feelings. I’d rather not think about them, and that way I don’t have to be obligated. I don’t even want to know about them, because then I’ll have to do something about it. I’ll have to comfort, I’ll have to encourage, I’ll have to care, and that takes too much time and effort.”

In addition to the Lord dealing with me about my wrong attitude, He had many other lessons to teach me in this short time. The Lord wanted to emphasize to me theimportance of the individual and how the Lord cares for hearts one by one.

He also wanted to show me that my attitude had not been right, and that even though my work of spiritually ministering to many people around the world was extremely important, it was not so important that I could not stop and care for the individual. David, my late husband, never failed to do this. No matter how much paperwork he may have had, he was never too busy for us, his little family, his teammates, right where he was. He was never too busy to show love, or to witness, whether it was to us or to those he met while out. And from those hands-on experiences, he was able to gain valuable lessons that he would in turn share with others.

He was willing to set aside his work in order to have us share a witness with total strangers, and would at times cease his whole ministry as a shepherd to the Family in order to spend hour after hour talking to little “nobody” waiters and waitresses. He would always put the individual first. He put love first.

There were a lot of lessons I learned that week—mostly things about myself that I didn’t like, things that showed me how far short of the mark I was falling. I thought I had been doing pretty well in the love department. After all, hadn’t I been admonishing others that they needed to have love and telling them how to show it? The Lord showed me that I didn’t know as much as I thought I knew, and that I didn’t love as much as I thought I loved, and that I wasn’t as righteous as I thought I was, and that I wasn’t as humble as I thought I was! I got so exposed just by being put in a situation where I had to interact with someone else, where I had to teach them and be confronted by theirproblems. What it did was to show up mine!

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something to someone when necessary, but when you forget your own shortcomings and have gotten to feeling that you are better than others, you can get pretty hard in spirit and your standard can be your own standard and not God’s standard. Or when you are going against the Lord’s will, you can get pretty self-righteous without realizing it. While I was praying, I heard my husband David speaking to me from the spirit world, saying, “Don’t put the doorknob too high for others! Don’t put it higher than the Lord does! I didn’t do it with you; don’t you be that way with others!”

Also, I became aware that, for all my honesty and sharing my weaknesses, in the back of my mind I had a rather condescending attitude. The Lord gave me a verse which I at first mistakenly thought was for the purpose of showing my new staff member how sweet the Lord was being to him in giving him this time with me. The Lord said, “I have not called you a servant, but a friend!” Afterwards I realized that this was an admonition to me, that the Lord was trying to instruct me on how I should look at this dear man—as a friend! I was not superior just because I was his overseer.

I thought that simply by my communicating so honestly and openly that I was fulfilling the scripture the Lord had given. I thought that I was treating my staff member as a friend. However, in the back of my mind I was still very much the superior teacher with the inferior student who had to be trained.

As I pondered these things, I realized that what the Lord was saying was that if He had not called me a servant but He had called me His friend, the obvious implication was that I was to look upon this man as a friend, not just someone who was working for me. If Jesus would actually stoop to call me His friend, there was absolutely no excuse for me to do otherwise. The Lord was virtually saying, “Stop this condescending, supercilious attitude.”

As so often is the case, I didn’t realize that this attitude was in my heart until the Lord brought it to light. I had interpreted that verse entirely differently. I was exuding superiority, a self-righteous, condescending attitude.

The Lord not only dealt with me about my self-righteousness but also about some of my judgments of people that were not righteous judgments. They were not righteous because I had not gotten down to business and asked the Lord about them, but instead had based them on things that I had heard.

What this new friend said in our conversations showed depth and conviction and loyalty and love for Jesus and others. And getting to know him helped me to see this whole other side, which I wasn’t aware of before.

The Lord drove home several very major points to me through this:
The hurtfulness of labeling.
The importance of not jumping to conclusions or blindly accepting what you hear about someone, or even think you know about someone’s past, either years in the past or a week in the past.
The importance of fully listening to the individual and finding out firsthand where he stands; how he sees things now, as well as the things he has gone through in the past.
Most important of all, the importance of asking the Lord what He thinks and how He sees the person.

As always, the most important lesson was love—that we must have His love for each other or we fail in the job He has given us to do. We fail Him, we fail others, and we fail ourselves. If we don’t see things through the eyes of love, then we don’t see them accurately, but only with distortions and misinterpretations.

The only way we can have that love is to ask the Lord for His wisdom and His compassion. We must ask Him how He wants us to see things, how He sees someone. And only then can we be sure that we are seeing things clearly.

Originally published February 1995. Updated and republished September 2012.
Read by Bethany Kelly.

Read More

"War Is Horrible, but . . ."

By Robert Higgs, The Independent Review, Fall 2012 issue
Anyone who has done even a little reading about the theory and practice of war—whether in political theory, international relations, theology, history, or common journalistic commentary—has encountered a sentence of the form “War is horrible, but … .” In this construction, the phrase that follows the conjunction explains why a certain war was (or now is or someday will be) an action that ought to have been (or still ought to be) undertaken, notwithstanding its admitted horrors. The frequent, virtually formulaic use of this expression attests that nobody cares to argue, say, that war is a beautiful, humane, uplifting, or altogether splendid course of action and therefore the more often people fight, the better.

Some time ago—in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, for example—one might have encountered a writer such as Theodore Roosevelt who forthrightly affirmed that war is manly and invigorating for the nation and the soldiers who engage in it: war keeps a nation from “getting soft” (Morris 1979). Although this opinion is no longer expressed openly with great frequency, something akin to it may yet survive, as Chris Hedges has argued in War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002). Nowadays, however, even those who find meaning for their lives by involvement in war, perhaps even only marginal or symbolic involvement, do not often extol war as such.

They are likely instead to justify a nation’s engagement in war by calling attention to alternative and even more horrible outcomes that, retrospectively, would have occurred if the nation had not gone to war or, prospectively, will occur if it does not go to war. This seemingly reasonable “balancing” form of argument often sounds stronger than it really is, especially when it is made more or less in passing. People may easily be swayed by a weak argument, however, if they fail to appreciate the defects of the typically expressed “horrible, but” apology for war.

Rather than plow through various sources on my bookshelves to compile examples, I have availed myself of modern technology. A Google search for the exact phrase “war is horrible but” on May 21, 2012, identified 58,100 instances of it. Among the examples I drew from the World Wide Web are the following fourteen statements. I identify the person who made the statement only when he is well known.

1. “War is horrible. But no one wants to see a world in which a regime with no regard whatsoever for international law—for the welfare of its own people—or for the will of the United Nations—has weapons of mass destruction.” (U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage [2003])

This statement was part of a speech Richard Armitage gave on January 21, 2003, shortly before the U.S. government unleashed its armed forces to inflict “shock and awe” on the nearly defenseless people of Iraq. The speech repeated the Bush administration’s standard prewar litany of accusations, including several claims later revealed to be false, so it cannot be viewed as anything but bellicose propaganda. Yet it does not differ much from what many others were saying at the time.

On its own terms, the statement scarcely serves to justify a war. The conditions outlined—a regime’s disregard of international law, its own people’s well-being, and the will of the United Nations, combined with possession of weapons of mass destruction—apply to several nations. They no more justified a military attack on Iraq than they justified an attack on Pakistan, France, India, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, Israel, or the United States itself.

2. “War is terrible, war is horrible, but war is also at times necessary and the only means of stopping evil.”

The only means of stopping evil? How can such singularity exist? Has evil conduct never been stopped except by war? For example, has shunning—exclusion from commerce, financial systems, communications, transportation systems, and other means of international cooperation—never served to discipline an evil nation-state? Might it do so if seriously tried? Why must we leap to the conclusion that only war will serve, when other measures have scarcely even been considered, much less seriously attempted? If war is really as horrible as everyone says, it would seem that we have a moral obligation to try very hard to achieve the desired suppression of evil doing by means other than resort to warfare, which is itself always a manifest evil, even when it is seemingly the lesser one.

3. “No news shows [during World War II] were showing German civilians getting fried and saying how sad it was. It was war against butchers and war is horrible, but it’s war, and to defend human decency, sometimes war is necessary.” (Ben Stein [2006])

Ben Stein is a knowledgeable man. He surely knows that the U.S. government imposed draconian censorship of war news during World War II. Perhaps the censors had their reasons for keeping scenes of incinerated German civilians away from the U.S. public. After all, even if Americans in general had extraordinarily cruel and callous attitudes toward German civilians during the war, many of them had relatives and friends in Germany.

Stein appears to lump all Germans into the class of “butchers” against whom he claims the war was being waged. He certainly must understand, however, that many persons in Germany—children, for example—were not butchers and bore absolutely no responsibility for the actions of the government officials who were. Yet these innocents, too, suffered the dire effects of, among other things, the terror bombing that the U.S. and British air forces inflicted on many German cities (“Strategic Bombing” n.d.).

To say, as Stein and many others have said, that “war is war” gets us nowhere; in a moral sense, this tautology warrants nothing. Many people, however, evidently consider all moral questions about the conduct of war to have been settled simply by their having labeled or by their having accepted someone else’s labeling of certain actions as “war.”

Finally, Stein’s claim that “to defend human decency, sometimes war is necessary” is at best paradoxical because it says in effect that human indecency, which war itself surely exemplifies, is sometimes necessary to defend human decencyIt is difficult to think of anything that consists of as many different forms of indecency as war does. Not only is war’s essence the large-scale wreaking of death and destruction, but its side effects and its consequences in the aftermath run a wide range of evils as well. Whatever else war may be, it surely qualifies as the most indecent type of action people can take: it reduces them to the level of the most ferocious beasts and often accomplishes little more than setting the stage for the next, reactive round of such savagery.

4. “War is horrible, but slavery is worse.” (Winston Churchill as quoted in Dear and Foote 1995, xv)

Maybe slavery is worse, but maybe it’s not; it depends on the conditions of the war and the conditions of the slavery. Moreover, if one seeks to justify a war on the strength of this statement, one had best be completely certain that but for war, slavery will be the outcome. In many wars, however, slavery was never a possibility because neither side sought to enslave its enemy. Many wars have been fought for limited objectives, if only because more ambitious objectives appeared unattainable or not worth their cost. No war in U.S. history may be accurately described as having been waged to prevent the enslavement of the American people. Some people talk that way about World War II or the Cold War, if it be counted as a war, but such talk has no firm foundation in facts.

Some may object that the War Between the States was fought to prevent the ongoing slavery of the blacks then held in thrall. But however deeply this view may be embedded in American mythology, it is contrary to fact. As Abraham Lincoln made crystal clear in his letter of August 22, 1862, to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, he had not mobilized the armed forces to free the slaves, but only to prevent the seceding states from leaving the union: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” When Lincoln brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation—a document carefully drawn so that at the time of its promulgation it freed not a single slave—he issued it only because at that time it seemed to be a useful means for the attainment of his “paramount object,” preserving the union. The slaves, including those in states that had not seceded, were ultimately freed for good by ratification (at gunpoint in the former Confederate states) of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, which is to say as a ramification of the war, which itself had not been undertaken in 1861 in pursuit of this then-unforeseen outcome.

5. “You may think that the Iraq War is horrible, but there may be some times when you can justify [going to war].”

Perhaps war can be justified at “some times,” but this statement itself in no way shows that the Iraq War can be justified, and it seems all too obvious that it cannot be. If it could have been justified, the government that launched it would not have had to resort to a succession of weak excuses for waging it, each such excuse being manifestly inadequate or simply false. The obvious insufficiency of any of the reasons put forward explains why so many of us put so much time and effort into trying to divine exactly what did impel the Bush administration’s rush to war.

6. “War is horrible, but sometimes we need to fight.”

Need to fight for what? The objective dictates whether war is a necessary means for its attainment. If the objective was to preserve Americans’ freedoms and “way of life,” the U.S. government certainly did not need to fight most of the enemies against whom it waged war historically. Oddly enough, the only time the enemy actually posed such a threat, during the Cold War, the United States did not go to war against that enemy directly, although it did fight (unnecessarily) the enemy’s less-menacing allies—North Korea, China, and North Vietnam. In the other wars the United States has fought, it might well have remained at peace had U.S. leaders been sincerely interested in peace rather than committed to warfare.

7. “Of course war is horrible, but it will always exist, and I’m sick of these pacifist [expletive deleted] ruining any shred of political decency that they can manage.”

Many people have observed that wars have recurred for thousands of years and therefore will probably continue to occur from time to time. The unstated insinuation seems to be that in view of war’s long-running recurrence, nothing can be done about it, so we should all grow up and admit that war is as natural and hence as unalterable as the sun’s rising in the east each morning. Warfare is an inescapable aspect of “how the world works.”

This outlook contains at least two difficulties. First, many other conditions also have had long-running histories: for example, reliance on astrologers as experts in foretelling the future; affliction with cancers; and many others. People eventually overcame or continue to work to overcome each of these long established conditions.

Second, even if nothing can be done to stop the periodic outbreak of war, it does not follow that we ought to shut up and accept every war without complaint. No serious person expects, say, that evil can be eliminated from the human condition, yet we condemn it and struggle against its realization in human affairs. We strive to divert potential evildoers from their malevolent course of action. Scientists and doctors continue to seek cures for cancers that have afflicted humanity for millennia. Even conditions that cannot be wholly eliminated can sometimes be mitigated, but only if someone tries to mitigate them. War should belong to this class of events.

Finally, whatever else might be said about the pacifists, one may surely assert that if everyone were a pacifist, no wars would occur. Pacifism may be criticized on various grounds, as it always has been and still is, but to say that pacifists “lack any shred of political decency” seems itself to be an indecent description. Remember: war is horrible, as everybody now concedes but many immediately put out of mind.

8. “Every war is horrible, but freedom and justice cannot be allowed to be defeated by tyranny and injustice. As hideous as war is, it is not as hideous as the things it can stop and prevent.”

This statement assumes that war amounts to a contest between freedom and justice on one side and tyranny and injustice on the other. One scarcely commits the dreaded sin of moral equivalence, however, by observing that few wars present such a stark contrast, in which only the children of God fight on one side and only the children of Satan fight on the other. One reason why war is so horrible is that it invariably drags into its charnel house many—again, the children are the most undeniable examples—who must be held blameless for any actions or threats that might have incited the war.

Even if we set aside such clear-cut innocents and consider only persons in the upper echelons of the conflicting sides, it is rare to find only angels on one side and only demons on the other. In World War II, for example, the Allied states were led by such angels as Winston Churchill, who ordered the horrific terror bombing of German cities; Josef Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers of all time; Franklin D. Roosevelt, of whose moral uprightness the less said the better; and Harry S Truman, who took pleasure in annihilating hundreds of thousands of defenseless Japanese noncombatants first with incendiary bombs and last with nuclear weapons. Yes, the other side had Adolf Hitler, whose fiendishness I have no desire to deny or minimize, but the point is that the overall character of the leadership on both sides sufficiently attests that there was enough evil to go around. As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities.

So it is far from clear that war is always or even typically “not as hideous as the things it can stop and prevent.” On many occasions, refusal to resort to war, even in the face of undeniable evils, may still be the better course. When World War II ended, leaving more than 62 million dead, most of them civilians, and hundreds of millions displaced, homeless, wounded, sick, or impoverished, the survivors might well have doubted whether conditions would have been even more terrible if the war had not taken place. (The dead were unavailable for comment.) To make matters worse, owing to the war the monster Stalin gained control of an enormous area stretching from Czechoslovakia to Korea; and because of the defeat of the Japanese Empire, the monster Mao Zedong would soon take complete control of China and impose a murderous reign of terror on the world’s most populous country that cost the lives of perhaps another 60 million persons (as many as 73 million, according to one plausible estimate).

9. “I grant you the war is horrible, but it is a war, after all. You have to compare apples to apples, and when I do that, I see this war is going well.”

This statement about the U.S. war in Iraq exemplifies what some call the “not as bad as Hamburg-Dresden-Tokyo-Hiroshima-Nagasaki” defense of brutal warfare. If we make such pinnacles of savagery our standard, then, sure enough, everything else pales by comparison. But why should anyone adopt such a grotesque standard? To do so is to concede that anything less horrible than the very worst cases is “not so bad.” In truth, warfare’s effects are sufficiently hideous at every level. What the Israelis did in Lebanon a few years ago bears no comparison with the February 1945 Allied attack on Dresden, of course, but the sight of even one little Lebanese child dead, her bloody body gruesomely mangled by an explosion, ought to be enough to give pause to any proponent of resort to war. Try putting yourself in the place of that child’s mother.

10. “[Certain writers] all agreed that war is horrible but said the Bible gives government the authority to wage war to save innocent lives.”

For almost two thousand years, biblical scholars have been disputing what Christians may and may not do in regard to war. The dispute continues today, so the matter is certainly not resolved among devout Christians. Even if Christians may go to war to save innocent lives, however, a big question remains: Is the government going to war for this purpose or for one of the countless other purposes that lead governments to make war? Saving the innocent makes an appealing excuse, but it is often, if not always, only a pretext. “Just war” writers from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to Grotius to the latest contributors have agonized over the ready availability of such pretexts and warned against the wickedness of advancing them when the real motives are less justifiable or even plainly immoral.

The invocation of biblical authority really doesn’t get us very far: the enemy may be invoking the same authority.

11. “War is horrible, but thank God we have men and women who are willing and able to protect our people and our freedom.”

These men and women may be willing and able to supply such protection, but do they? Our leaders constantly proclaim that their wars are aimed at protecting us and our freedoms—“We go forward,” declared George W. Bush, “to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (Bush 2001)—but one has to wonder about the truth of that proclamation, considering that in the entire history of warfare, each major U.S. war (with the possible exception of the War for Independence) left the general run of the American people with fewer freedoms after the war than they had enjoyed before the war.

In my book Crisis and Leviathan (1987, 123–58, 196–236), I document this ratchet effect in detail for the two world wars. After World War I, the government not only kept taxes far above their prewar levels but also retained newly court-sanctioned powers to conscript men for foreign wars, to interfere with virtually any private transaction in international trade and finance (Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917), and to suppress free speech in a draconian manner (Sedition Act of 1918). After World War II, the government again kept taxes much higher they had been before the war, retained for the first time a large peacetime military apparatus, created the CIA as a sort of personal presidential intelligence and quasi-military group, continued to draft men for military service even during peacetime, and engaged much more pervasively in central management and manipulation of the private economy. The people, for their part, gained the privilege of living with the very real threat of nuclear holocaust hovering over them for four decades while the U.S. government kept the Cold War pot boiling.

The so-called war on terror has struck deeply into Americans’ rights to privacy by vastly enhancing the government’s surveillance activities and virtually gutting the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches and seizures. It has also led the government to create an agency now empowered to commit acts in U.S. airports that if committed by others would be prosecuted as sexual assault and battery and as criminal molestation of children. This “war” has also served to justify one of the greatest military-spending run-ups in U.S. history, leaving U.S. military-related spending—if correctly measured—greater than the comparable spending of all other nations combined. Nevertheless, Americans are no safer because of these sweeping infringements of their liberties, many of which have been de facto pork barrel projects and others of which have been nothing more than security theater. War, whether real or make-believe, serves to justify huge increases in government spending, taxing, borrowing, and exertion of power over private affairs, and such government surges attract opportunists galore while doing little or nothing to improve people’s real security or to protect their freedom. Indeed, in the war on terror, the government has added fuel to the fire of Muslim rage against Americans in the Middle East but achieved nothing positive to compensate for this heightened threat.

Every time the rulers set out to protect the village, they decide that the best way to do so is to destroy it in the process. Call me a cynic, but I can’t help wondering whether protection of the people and their freedoms was really the state’s objective, and after fifty years of thinking about the matter, I have come up with some pretty attractive alternative hypotheses. One of them is that, as Marine General Smedley Butler famously expressed it, “war is a racket,” but I have other alternative hypotheses, too.

13. “War is horrible, but whining about it is worse. Either put up or shut up.”

Some people always reject the denunciation of any familiar social institution or conduct unless the denouncer offers a “constructive criticism”—that is, unless he puts forward a promising plan to eliminate the evil he denounces. I admit at once that I have not discovered a cure for the human tendency to resort to war when much more intelligent and humane alternatives are available. I am trying to convince people that on nearly all such occasions they are allowing their rulers to bamboozle them and turn them into cannon fodder for purposes that serve the rulers’ interests, not the people’s. I am getting nowhere in this effort, but I am going to keep trying.

14. “Of course, war is horrible, but at present it’s still the only guarantee to maintain peace.”

This statement as it stands is self-contradictory because it affirms that the only way to make sure that we will have peace is by going to war. Perhaps, if we are feeling generous, we may interpret the statement as the time-honored exhortation that to maintain the peace, we should prepare for war, hoping that by dissuading aggressors from moving against us, our preparation will preserve the peace. Although this reworded policy is not self-contradictory, it is dangerous because the preparation we make for war may itself move us toward actually going to war. Military suppliers may use their political influence to foster international suspicions and fears that otherwise might be allayed. Wars are not good for business in general, but they are good for the munitions contractors. Certain legislators may develop an interest in militarism; perhaps it helps them to attract campaign contributions from arms contractors, veterans’ groups, and members of the national guard and military reserve organizations. Pretty soon we may find ourselves dealing, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower did, with a military-industrial-congressional complex, and we may find that it packs a great deal of political punch and acts in a way that, all things considered, diminishes the chance of keeping the country at peace.

From the foregoing commentary, a recurrent theme may be extracted: those who argue that “war is horrible, but …” nearly always use this rhetorical construction not to frame a genuinely serious and honest balancing of reasons for and against war, but only to acknowledge what cannot be hidden—that war is horrible—and then to pass on immediately to an affirmation that notwithstanding the horrors, whose actual forms and dimensions they neither specify nor examine in detail, a certain war ought to be fought.

The reasons given to justify a war’s being fought, however, generally amount to claims that cannot support a strong case. They often are not even bona fide reasons, but mere propaganda, especially when they emanate from official sources. They sometimes rest on historical errors, such as the claim that the armed forces in past wars have somehow kept foreigners from depriving us of our liberties. And the case for war usually rests on ill-founded speculation about what will happen if we do not go to war.

People need to recognize, however, that government officials and the media, among others, are not soothsayers. None of us knows the future, but these interested parties lack a disinterested motive for making a careful, well-informed forecast. They have, as the saying goes, an agenda of their own. “The best and the brightest” of our leaders and their kept experts generally amount to little more than what C. Wright Mills called “crackpot realists,” and on occasion, specifically since September 11, 2001, they do not meet even that standard. Hence, these geniuses, equipped with all of that secret information they constantly emphasize their critics do not possess, have recently put forward forecasts of a “cake walk” through Iraq, a “slam dunk” on finding lots of weapons of mass destruction there, and liberal-democratic dominoes falling across the Middle East—forecasts that fit more comfortably in a lunatic asylum than in a discussion among rational, well-informed people.

The government generally relies on marshalling patriotic emotion and reflexive loyalty rather than on making a sensible case for going to war. Much of the discussion that does take place is a sham because the government officials who pretend to listen to other opinions, as U.S. leaders did most recently during 2002 and early 2003, have already decided what they are going to do, no matter what other people may say. The rulers know that once the war starts, nearly everybody will fall into line and “support the troops.”

If someone demands that the skeptic about war offer constructive criticism, here is my proposal: always insist that the burden of proof rests heavily on the warmonger. This protocol, which is now anything but standard operating procedure, is eminently judicious precisely because, as we all recognize, war is horrible. Given its horrors, which in reality are much greater than most people appreciate, it only makes sense that those who propose to enter into those horrors make a very, very strong case for doing so. If they cannot—and I submit that they almost never can—then people will serve their interests best by declining an invitation to war. As a rule, the most rational, humane, and auspicious course of action is indeed to give peace a chance.

Read More

What Should Homosexual Christians Do?

Question:
Dear Dr. Craig

Firstly I would like to point out, that personally I admire you and your work, and would like to take this moment to thank you in leading me to regain my faith in God.

I would also like to say, that I am a Catholic homosexual male, living in the UK. Having heard yourpodcast regarding the issue of being a 'Christian and being Homosexual' I cannot help but say I have issues, and indeed some questions.

The outlining of prohibition of homosexual acts to be found in the moral Old Testament laws is fully understood, in addition to this I understand the idea that for two such homosexual men to be considered 'married' would be a twisting of the structure of marriage as outlined within the Bible.

I quote you in saying we must 'live a chaste life' in order to not commit the moral sin of the homosexual act. And I can understand that this is the argument that would be put forward by many if not all Christians in terms of this issue, but what I fail to understand is the idea that all homosexual men - and I would assume women - must be forced to live such a life, and not enjoy sexuality. This of course is due to the fact of sexuality existing within the bounds of marriage. Furthermore I quote you in asking as a response 'what man doesn't?' to the question about men having the urge of sexuality. This obviously applies to homosexual men as well, and to myself in particular who currently lives on a university campus, thus being of an age where sexuality is almost constantly on my mind, thus making it extremely difficult for me to balance this prohibition with my faith, especially so when I consider both being a homosexual perfectly fine, and hardly ashamed to say I enjoy the act. So, in such a situation what am I to do, to remain chaste for the rest for my life, avoiding something I like, and live in an orientation I cannot help without sexuality in order to affirm my faith in God?

Another point to add would be the idea of monogamy amongst the homosexual community, and as being a witness, am in full knowledge that such a thing exists. It is indeed something I search for in life, and step away from such a thing as promiscuity. And then there is the idea of love. If I am to love a person of the same sex, and then work toward and eventually attain a monogamous relationship, are we still to abstain from the act, despite being in love, and living unmarried but almost identically to a heterosexual married couple?

This is quite important to me Dr. Craig, and I would be so incredibly gratuitous if you helped me in this struggle and balance between life/sexuality and faith, when I consider this to be the only hurdle in sticking to my church.

Thank you,

Haydn

- United Kingdom

Dr. Craig responds:

I’m so glad to hear that you’ve come back to Christian faith, Hayden! From your letter, I gather, however, that your Christian discipleship is not yet consistent, since you are unmarried and yet apparently sexually active. The Scripture warns against such behavior in no uncertain terms (I Corinthians 6:9-10). Living a chaste life as a single person is a part of Christian discipleship, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual in your orientation. God asks no more of you than He does of any other single young man: to abstain from sexual activity and to keep your thought life pure.

Look to the Lord Jesus as your model. He was a man of flesh and blood like us and felt sexual urges just as we do, but in the power of the Holy Spirit he lived a pure life before God. As his disciples we are to follow his example.

So what should you do? First and foremost, you need to align your thinking with God’s. When you say that you consider being a homosexual to be “perfectly fine,” I’m not sure if you’re talking about yourorientation or the activity. I agree with you that it’s no sin to have a homosexual orientation. That’s probably something you didn’t choose and aren’t responsible for. But you can choose and are responsible for how you act. The Bible is clear that sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral and therefore to be shunned. It’s impossible to resist engaging in a pleasurable activity if you consider that activity to be perfectly fine. So you need to remember that sin is abhorrent to God, severs your fellowship with Him, and takes you astray, out of His will and into pitfalls. You need to stay on the straight and narrow path to avoid disaster. If we keep in mind that sin is an affront to our Heavenly Father, who loves us and sent His Son to die for us, that sober realization can give us strength to stay on the path.

Second, I’d encourage you to seek Christian counseling to help you deal with your homosexual orientation. You may never completely shed your homosexual desires, but the testimony of many persons like yourself who have sought help is that one can reshape one’s orientation to a considerable degree. There is hope of change.

Third, you should hope to marry a Christian girl that God has in mind for you. You don’t have to live a life of sexual abstinence. Even given residual homosexual desires, through marriage you can still enjoy sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. Forget the unbiblical idea of finding some other man with whom you can build a monogamous love relationship. Not only is that a fantasy that will lead you only to heartache and profound disappointment, but, more importantly, it is contrary to God’s will for your life, as we know from Scripture. Why would any follower of Christ flout his perfect will (Romans 12.1-2) and choose to forge one’s own path contrary to his will? Indeed, how could such a person be truly called a follower of Christ, since he is pursuing a path other than Christ’s?

Finally, Haydn, be sure that your return to Christian faith was more than just a change of mind intellectually. Coming to believe Christian truth claims is essential, but true conversion is much more than just an intellectual change. You need to be sure that you have experienced the regenerating power of God in your life. It is only through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit that we can hope to live a life holy and pleasing to God. Lived in the power of our fallen human nature alone, the demands of Christian discipleship would become unbearable and noxious. We need to draw daily upon the power of the Holy Spirit if we are to live victorious and joyous Christian lives.

Read More

America – and Western Civilization As a Whole – Was Founded On a Conspiracy Theory Posted on September 23, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

The Constitution, Magna Carta and Democracy Itself Are Based on the Idea that – Without Checks and Balances – Those In Power Will Take Advantage of Us

America was founded on a conspiracy theory: that Britain’s King George was conspiring against the colonists by all his actions.

The Declaration of Independence recites a series of conspiracies:


When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism … The history of the present King of Great Britain [and others working with and for him] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

***


He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

***

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

***

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

***

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

***

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

***For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

***

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

***

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenariesto compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

The American concept of “separation of powers” is also based on the conspiracy theory that those with unchecked power will abuse it. By creating 3 branches of government, the Founding Fathers hoped to reduce abuse of power.

Political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith has documented in a soon-to-be-released book that conspiracy theories were considered as American as apple pie all through American history … up untilvery recently.

The father of modern economics – Adam Smith – also believed in conspiracy theories. As the New York Times notes:


Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power …


***


He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers ”always and everywhere” to keep wages as low as possible.

But the centrality of conspiracy theories in Western civilizations goes back much further …

The Magna Carta – signed in 1215 – was based on the conspiracy theory that the claim of the “Divine Right” of the king and his men to do whatever they wanted was false and oppressive.

Indeed, the entire idea of democracy – going back to ancient Greece – is based on a conspiracy theory as well: that leaders who make decisions without input from the public will not treat the people as well as if they have a chance to vote. This is another form of “separation of powers”, as it creates checks and balances between the decision-making power of the government and that of the people.

Arguably, Western civilization would never have gotten off the ground with the core idea that those in power need to be checked and reined in, or they would abuse the people.
But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories Nutty?

You may have heard that conspiracy theories are nutty. But the truth is that conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:


Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.

But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.

Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw. Specifically, I got the following message:


“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.

So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).

Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.

Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.

Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).

Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.

Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.

In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.

Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.

Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.

Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, thisand this.

Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:


Some financial market conspiracies are real …

Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.
But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That

While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:


Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of
terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….
But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:


It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:
One hundred and thirty thousand (130,000) people from the U.S., UK and Canada worked on the Manhattan Project. But it was kept secret for years
A BBC documentary shows that:




There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”, and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover up lasting several decades
Governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry. Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having to report violations
The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials saythat the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy

Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:
Supporting terrorists to promote geopolitical goals
Supporting false flag terror

The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.

These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an idealogue.
Conclusion

The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.

Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.

On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:


Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.

The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.

Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.

We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.
Posted in Politics / World News | 2 Comments

Read More

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship

Albert Mohler, September 20, 2012
The whole world changed on Tuesday. At least, that is what many would have us to believe. Smithsonian magazine, published by the Smithsonian Institution, declares that the news released Tuesday was “apt to send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.” Really?

What was this news? Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced at a conference in Rome that she had identified an ancient papyrus fragment that includes the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” Within hours, headlines around the world advertised the announcement with headlines like “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife” (The Telegraph).

The Smithsonian article states that “the announcement at an academic conference in Rome is sure to send shock waves through the Christian world.” The magazine’s breathless enthusiasm for the news about the papyrus probably has more to do with advertising its upcoming television documentary than anything else, but the nation’s most prestigious museum can only injure its reputation with this kind of sensationalism.

What Karen King revealed on Tuesday was a tiny papyrus fragment with Coptic script on both sides. On one side the fragment includes about 30 words on eight fragmentary lines of script. The New York Times described the fragment as “smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.” The lines are all fragmentary, with the third line reading “deny. Mary is worthy of it,” and the next reading “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” The fifth states, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The papyrus fragment, believed to be from the fourth century, was delivered to Professor King by an anonymous source who secured the artifact from a German-American dealer, who had bought it years ago from a source in East Germany. As news reports made clear, the fragment is believed by many to be an authentic text from the fourth century, though two of three authorities originally consulted by the editors of the Harvard Theological Review expressed doubts. Such a find would be interesting, to be sure, but hardly worthy of the international headlines.

The little piece of ancient papyrus with its fragmentary lines of text is now, in the hands of the media, transformed into proof that Jesus had a wife, and that she was most likely Mary Magdalene. Professor King will bear personal responsibility for most of this over-reaching. She has called the fragment nothing less than “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”—a title The Boston Globe rightly deemed “provocative.” That same paper reported that Professor King decided to publicize her findings before additional tests could verify the fragment’s authenticity because she “feared word could leak out about its existence in a way that sensationalized its meaning.” Seriously? King was so concerned about avoiding sensationalism that she titled the fragment “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”?

This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. One British newspaper notes that the claims about a married Jesus seem more worthy of fans of Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code, than “real-life Harvard professors.”

Professor King claims that these few words and phrases present a different story of Jesus, a different gospel. She then argues that the words should be read as claiming that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was likely his wife. She argues further that this is evidence that the question of Jesus’s marital status, even as she asserts that this does not mean that Jesus was actually married. More than anything else, she is arguing against the claim that Christianity is a unified body of commonly-held truths.

Those familiar with Karen King’s research and writings will recognize the argument. Her 2003 book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, argued that another text from the era presented Mary Magdalene as the very model for apostleship.

The thread that ties all these texts and arguments together is the 1945 discovery of some 52 ancient texts near the town of Nag Hammadi in Egypt. These texts are known to scholars as Gnostic literature. The texts present heretical narratives and claims about Jesus and his message, and they have been a treasure trove for those seeking to replace orthodox Christianity with something very different. Several ambitions drive this effort. Feminists have sought to use the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that women have been sidelined by the orthodox tradition, and that these Gnostic texts prove that women were central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to the men. Others have used the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that Christianity was a diverse movement marked by few doctrinal concerns until it was hijacked by political and ecclesiastical leaders, who constructed theological orthodoxy as a way of establishing churchly power in the Roman Empire and then stifling dissent. Still others argue that Christianity’s moral prohibitions concerning sexuality, and especially homosexuality, were part of this forced orthodoxy which, they argue, was not the essence of true Christianity. More than anything else, many have used the Nag Hammadi texts as leverage for their argument that Christianity was originally a way of spirituality centered in the teachings of a merely human Christ—not a message of salvation through faith in a divine Jesus who saves sinners through the atonement he accomplished in his death and resurrection.

Karen King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels, has argued that the politically powerful leaders who established what became orthodox Christianity silenced other voices, but that these voices now speak through the Nag Hammadi texts and other Gnostic writings. Writing together, King and Pagels argue that “the traditional history of Christianity is written almost solely from the viewpoint of the side that won, which was remarkably successful in silencing or distorting other voices, destroying their writings, and suppressing any who disagreed with them as dangerous and obstinate ‘heretics.’”

King and Pagels have both rejected traditional Christianity, and they clearly prefer the voices of the heretics. They argue for the superiority of heterodoxy over orthodoxy. In the Smithsonian article, King’s scholarship is described as “a kind of sustained critique of what she called the ‘master story’ of Christianity: a narrative that casts the canonical texts of the New Testament as a divine revelation that passed through Jesus in ‘an unbroken chain’ to the apostles and their successors—church fathers, ministers, priests and bishops who carried these truths into the present day.”

King actually argues against the use of terms like “heresy” and even “Gnostic,” claiming that the very use of these terms gives power to the forces of orthodoxy and normative Christianity. Nevertheless, she cannot avoid using the terms herself (even in the titles of her own books). She told Ariel Sabar of Smithsonian, “You’re talking to someone who’s trying to integrate a whole set of ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history.”

Those who use Gnostic texts like those found at Nag Hammadi are attempting to redefine Christianity so that classic, biblical, orthodox Christianity is replaced with a very different religion. The Gnostic texts reduce Jesus to the status of a worldly teacher who instructs his followers to look within themselves for the truth. These texts promise salvation through enlightenment, not through faith and repentance. Their Jesus is not the fully human and fully divine Savior and there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Were these writings found at Nag Hammadi evidence of the fact that the early church opposed and attempted to eliminate what it understood to be false teachings? Of course. That is what the church said it was doing and what the Apostles called upon the church to do. The believing church did not see heresy as an irritation—it saw heterodoxy as spiritual death. Those arguing for the superiority of the Gnostic texts deny the divine inspiration of the New Testament and prefer the heterodox teachings of the Gnostic heretics. Hauntingly, the worldview of the ancient Gnostics is very similar, in many respects, to various worldviews and spiritualities around us today.

The energy behind all this is directed to the replacement of orthodox Christianity, its truth claims, its doctrines, its moral convictions, and its vision of both history and eternity with a secularized—indeed, Gnositicized—new version.

Just look at the attention this tiny fragment of papyrus. Its few words and broken phrases are supposed to cast doubt on the New Testament and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. A tiny little fragment which, even if authentic, dates from the fourth century, is placed over against the four New Testament gospels, all written within decades of Jesus’s earthy ministry.

“The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”? Not hardly. This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. Nevertheless, do not miss what all this really represents—an effort to replace biblical Christianity with an entirely new faith.

Read More

Catholic official worried about Israel attacks

By Josef Federman, AP, Sep 20, 2012
JERUSALEM (AP)—After a series of attacks by vandals on Christian holy sites in Israel, normally tight-lipped Roman Catholic officials are beginning to speak out, publicly appealing to authorities to take a stronger stand against the violence.

The Rev. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, one of the church’s top officials in the Holy Land, said he is worried about relations between Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. He believes the blame can go all around.

“I think the main atmosphere is ignorance,” Pizzaballa told The Associated Press in an interview.

Because the local Christian population is tiny, “we do not exist for the majority … They have other priorities,” he said. “On the other side, we as a minority maybe didn’t invest enough energy and initiatives” to reach out to Israeli Jews.

That may be changing following this month’s attack on a well-known Trappist Monastery in Latrun, outside Jerusalem. Vandals burned a door and spray-painted anti-Christian graffiti on the century-old building with the words “Jesus is a monkey.” Suspicion has fallen on extremist Jewish West Bank settlers or their supporters, who are believed to be behind a series of attacks in recent years on mosques, Christian sites and even Israeli army property to protest moves against settlements.

In response, the church’s top officials, including Pizzaballa, the “custos,” or custodian of Catholic holy sites, to issue a rare “declaration” calling on Israeli leaders to take action.

“Sadly, what happened in Latrun is only another in a long series of attacks against Christians and their places of worship,” the Catholic leaders said. “What is going on in Israeli society today that permits Christians to be scapegoated and targeted by these acts of violence?”

It said authorities should “put an end to this senseless violence and to ensure a ‘teaching of respect’ in schools for all those who call this land home.”

The monastery was targeted shortly after Israel evacuated an illegally built West Bank settler outpost. In recent months, two other monasteries and a Baptist church were vandalized. It is not clear why the vandals have targeted Christian sites. For years, Christian clergymen also have been spat at by ultra-Orthodox seminary students in Jerusalem’s Old City.

There are about 155,000 Christian citizens of Israel, less than 2 percent of its 7.9 million people. About three-quarters are Arabs, and the others arrived during waves of Russian immigration over the past 20 years. They are split between Catholicism and Orthodox steams of Christianity. Tens of thousands of Christian foreign workers and African migrants also reside in Israel.

Pizzaballa said Israelis have little understanding about modern Christianity or “the reality of the Christians in the country.”

The West Bank has seen its Christian population dwindle over the years to roughly 50,000 people today, less than 3 percent of the population, the result of a lower birthrate and increased emigration in search of a better quality of life. Just one third of Bethlehem, the traditional birthplace of Christ, is Christian today, down from 75 percent half a century ago.

Read More

Afghanistan: "It's Just Damage Limitation Now"

By Mark Thompson, TIME, September 19, 2012
Briton Ben Anderson is a documentary filmmaker (the BBC, HBO, the Discovery Channel), but he turns to the written word in No Worse Enemy: The Inside Story of the Chaotic Struggle for Afghanistan. The book offers a gritty—and grim—assessment of the war.

Anderson embedded with U.S. and British troops for months in the southern part of the country from 2007 to 2011. He details corruption, incompetence, fear—by both allied troops and Afghan civilians—and a Groundhog Day kind of existence., where a battle fought for days has to be fought again, later. Most distressingly, he argues that the American and British publics are getting a misleading picture of progress on the ground. Battleland conducted this email chat with Anderson last weekend.

Why did you write No Worse Enemy: The Inside Story of the Chaotic Struggle for Afghanistan?
I’d been travelling to Helmand for five years, first in 2007 with the Brits, then later mostly with the U.S. Marines, covering every major operation since the war in the south was taken seriously.

Despite new troops, extra resources and new polices, it kept getting worse.

It was more dangerous for me and the troops I was with, Afghan security forces didn’t seem to be improving, and perhaps most importantly, locals were not being won over but instead were complaining of civilian casualties, damage to their homes, being inconvenienced and disrespected, or preyed upon by the Afghan police.

Yet in the second half of 2010, statements from Kabul, Washington and London kept talking of progress, goals being met and the Taliban being on their last legs.

This was the exact opposite of what I had been seeing, so I felt that I had to write this book.

I felt compelled to create a simple, honest and accurate portrait of what the war really looks like, on the ground, on the frontlines, where the policy met the Afghan people. I wanted to show how vicious the fighting was—veterans of Fallujah told me it was worse in Helmand…

I also wanted to show that the troops weren’t the violent automatons they are often thought to be and that they are often the exact opposite. There were plenty of guys who just wanted to kill anyone that looked like Taliban, for sure, but I also met many men who were thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent and even hilarious no matter how bad the situation was. Most of the men I met were also willing to question what, if anything, they were actually achieving, which really impressed me.

What is the book’s bottom line?
Despite the incredible hard work, bravery and suffering of our troops, despite the massive Afghan civilian casualties, despite the hundreds of billions spent, we have not achieved our goals in Afghanistan.

Essentially, we’re supposed to be clearing an area of insurgents and then persuading locals to choose us and our Afghan allies over the Taliban. Most areas where we are based have not been cleared of the Taliban and even if they had been, we’re fighting to introduce a largely unwelcome government.

The Afghan army cannot provide security on its own, the Afghan government is spectacularly corrupt and the police are feared and hated, for good reason.

So even if the military part of the strategy goes perfectly to plan (and it never does) the locals don’t want what we are offering.

It’s a hard pill to swallow, but I’ve been told countless times that locals prefer the Taliban to foreign forces and the Afghan government, particularly the police. I should point out that I’ve spent most of time in Afghanistan in Helmand and Kandahar, where the war has always been fiercest.

How different is what you saw on the front lines compared to what we’re being told back home?
It’s completely different.

Operation Mushtaraq in Marjah was a prime example.

General [Stanley] McChrystal’s claim that the operation was “Afghan-led” is one of the most ludicrous claims I’ve ever heard. It depressed me that the claim was accepted.

The same thing happened when Defense Secretary [Robert] Gates said that the Taliban had been routed from their homeland in Kandahar and Helmand. This claim was repeated by journalists I had once respected and followed. Again, it was the exact opposite of the truth.

You’re British: how does the mood about the war in the U.K. differ from that in the U.S., if it does (and if you’ve been in both places long enough to make a fair comparison)?
It’s the same in both countries. The vast majority of the public seems to have no idea how rough it is in southern Afghanistan, for our troops and the Afghan people.

People seem to want the troops home, and have no interest in anything beyond that. The last U.S. Marines I was with—3/5 in Sangin, suffered horrendous losses: 35 killed and 140 seriously injured, and I’m talking about double, triple and even quadruple amputees. Yet no one in the U.S. even seemed to know about it.

It’s the same in the U.K. now. I’d be surprised if one in 20 people here or in the U.S. could begin to explain why we are still there.

U.S. and allied generals tells us things are getting better inside Afghanistan, and they believe that by the time allied combat troops leave by the end of 2014, Afghanistan’s own security forces will be able to defend the nation. Do you believe them? Why or why not?
I’ve seen no evidence to suggest the ANSF are ready to take over.

You have to understand that it’s not a national security force. It’s the Northern Alliance, the historical enemies of the southern Pashtuns and the Taliban.

In the rush to get to Iraq, we handed control of the army, police and intelligence agency to the Northern Alliance, and the same old warlords whose behavior had led to the Taliban’s rise to power in 1996.

I think we were doomed to fail from that moment on. Southern Pashtuns often see the security forces we’re supporting as being almost as foreign as us and there for vengeance.

I was in the Arghandab valley in 2010 and the 101st Airborne were very nervous about clearing a village called NMK because they knew it would be laced with IEDs.

A few days before the operation, some Afghan soldiers ran into the village alone, and came back a few hours later, delighted. “How did you do it?” asked the American captain, astounded. “Did you offer the locals $50 for each IED they revealed, like we trained you?” “No,” said the ANA captain, excitedly, “we told them `show us the IEDs or start digging your own grave’.” That sums up the situation pretty well. Sadly I think that the phrase “transition” is a euphemism covering up our failures.

When were you last with US troops in Afghanistan? What was their general mood and morale?
January 2011, with 3/5 in Sangin. There were so many IEDs you had to watch every step and literally walk in the footprints of the guy in front of you.

The Marines were leaving trails of bottle tops or sweets to mark cleared paths. I didn’t see a bullet fired in anger, it was just IEDs.

Marines love to fight, but no one wants to go out on eight-hour patrols every day, through ice cold mud, when nothing ever happens apart from occasionally seeing one of their buddies get blown up.

Surprisingly though, morale wasn’t that low. I don’t think most troops in Afghanistan are fighting to achieve anything anymore. They’re just fighting for each other, trying to get themselves and their friends back in one piece, and maybe get some revenge against someone who may have killed or maimed one of their colleagues.

What was the worst thing you witnessed in Afghanistan?
I can still remember the exact expression on the faces of too many different families, either terrified of the fighting going on in and around their homes, or traumatized by the loss of their loved ones.

I’ve seen many Afghans who have lost almost their entire families to errant air strikes or rocket attacks. Some were given huge wads of cash as condolence payments, some actually showed me the corpses of their brothers, sisters or children.

You can only say “I’m sorry we killed your family, but we’re here to help you” so many times…

If you were in charge, what three changes would you make in Operation Enduring Freedom?
I think it’s just damage limitation now.

There is no silver bullet, there hasn’t been for at least five or six years.

People are worried about civil war after we leave. I think it’s already started.

I’d like to see some honesty used on the rare occasions when Afghanistan is discussed. And while the military effort draws down, I’d like to see a serious long-term commitment to the kind of development projects we should have started back in 2001.

What is going to happen to Afghanistan beginning in 2015?
I think the Taliban will be in control of many districts in the south almost immediately. I think that various warlords will once again have their fiefdoms and that this will be exacerbated by the reduction in foreign aid.

I think Afghanistan will disappear from our newspapers and will remain one of the poorest, most violent and corrupt countries on earth.

Paradoxically, the withdrawal gives me a tiny bit of hope that the insurgents in the south will stop fighting and laying IEDs once we’re no longer providing them with targets. But it’s a damning indictment of our efforts if the best thing we can do is leave.

Read More

A Question That Changes Everything

By Michael Hyatt, Sept. 17, 2012
In 2003, I was named President of Thomas Nelson. It was an extremely busy time. I made some major changes to my executive team and had two vacant positions. As a result, I essentially had three jobs.

One morning on my way to work, I grabbed my computer case in my right hand, a fresh cup of coffee in my left, and headed downstairs to the garage to leave to work. Four steps from the bottom, I slipped on the carpet. Without a free hand to grab the stair-rail, I tumbled forward. The next thing I knew, I was flat on my fanny on the landing.

I wasn’t immediately aware of any pain. However, my dress shirt and tie were soaked in coffee. I remember thinking, Shoot! I’m going to have to completely change my clothes. This was particularly frustrating, because I was already running late, and I had a very busy day ahead of me.

My wife Gail heard me fall and came running. “Are you okay?” she asked as she raced down the stairs to help me up.

“I’m fine,” I assured her. “However, I’m afraid I’ve made a mess.”

“Don’t worry about it,” she offered as she helped me up. “I can clean this up while you get changed.”

When I put my weight down on my right foot, I let out a yelp. “Oh my gosh! I think my ankle is sprained.” As it turned out, it was more than sprained. It was broken.

My day was, of course, scuttled. In fact, the next ten days were scuttled. I had to have surgery, including a plate and six screws to repair the damage. In addition, for three months I had to wear a therapeutic boot (in lieu of a cast). This couldn’t have happened at a worse time.

At this point, I could have asked myself several questions:

Why am I so clumsy?
Why did I have both hands full?
Why does this have to happen now?
Why did I have to be in such a hurry?
What did I do to deserve this?

The problem with these questions is that they are completely unproductive and disempowering.

They are natural, of course, and probably even necessary. It’s all part of the process of grieving a loss. But ultimately there are better questions.

One of the best questions you can ask when something negative happens is this:

“What does this experience make possible?”

Do you see the subtle shift? Suddenly, your attention moves from the past—which you can’t do a thing about—to the future.

It is also an acknowledgment that nothing happens by chance. Everything has a purpose. Even the bad things can have a positive impact, when we open our hearts and accept them as “part of the plan.”

In my particular case, a broken ankle had several positive benefits:

I couldn’t go to work for a week, so I got some much-needed rest.

I had time to set up a new blog and start writing on a regular basis.

I got to board first when flying and usually got to upgrade to first-class—for free.

I learned first-hand about the challenges you face when you are in a wheel-chair or on crutches.

I was forced to slow down and “smell the roses.”

I saw my colleagues take more initiative and gained a new appreciation for them.

I got to meet several people I would have otherwise never met, including an amazing surgeon who gave me a whole new perspective on what it means to integrate your faith with your profession.

I had a ready-made conversation starter, when I met people I didn’t know.

The bottom line is this: you can’t always choose what happens to you. Accidents and tragedies happen. But you can choose how you respond to those situations. One of the best ways to begin is to ask yourself the right question.

Read More