The guy was paid to kill, so he did his job. So what is th problem? This is a Law-Washing.
Certification is just club membertship. The problem is what the guy was doing.
“…he said, the clinic used another doctor as a consultant so it could receive a license to perform abortions in 1979.” Get the other doctor for fraud.
This sounds like a third-world story. Granted, abortion is a hot topic and lots of it is going hiden from the public to cover-up activities, that is nothing new. But, women and children had been dying, and the government/city officals did nothing about it. Could this show that abortion means licent to kill, to preserve ideology.
These were not first trimester babies where the baby is barely complete; or second trimester abortions, where the baby has very little chance of survival; these were late term abortions. Chldren have lived after the fifth month. However, this mob were killing crying babies living on their own.
Even the DA is beig appologetic for enforcing the law. They should get a real district attorney.
All of this really ammounts to hypocracy from the government’s standpoint. So much hyperventilation about women’s rights and child abuse, and then reality comes: It is all about money and ideology.
Money and ideology are more important than women and children, acording to those government officials’ irresponsibilty and neglect, even though at lower level. This has been going on for almost ten years. They knew about it since 1993. Shame on those public officilas. Failure to do their job cust people their lives—accessory to murder.
A moment
"I think, therefore I am"
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Israel giving-up East Jerusalem, must be a Russian joke.
The only serious appearance about the Russian president’s help, is the fact that Medvedev was there in person. The rest appears to be over-obvious formality.
First, East Jerusalem is firm on Israel’s hand, and they will never let go—only fools would. Second, the fact that the meeting involved Russina interests on Jordan’s oil, proves that the meeting was not about peace; rather it was about oil—“memorandum”. Third, in the picture, the very posture of Medvedev, appeared not serious. The president is not even at attention like his counterpart.
As a president of a great nation, it is almost guaranteed that Medvedev knows how to address color-guard, especially when pictures are taken—of course he was the guest.
Perhaps there is a subliminal message about all of this. Russia’s over-suggesting may be the very clue hinting that the formal political visit was not about peace.
First, East Jerusalem is firm on Israel’s hand, and they will never let go—only fools would. Second, the fact that the meeting involved Russina interests on Jordan’s oil, proves that the meeting was not about peace; rather it was about oil—“memorandum”. Third, in the picture, the very posture of Medvedev, appeared not serious. The president is not even at attention like his counterpart.
As a president of a great nation, it is almost guaranteed that Medvedev knows how to address color-guard, especially when pictures are taken—of course he was the guest.
Perhaps there is a subliminal message about all of this. Russia’s over-suggesting may be the very clue hinting that the formal political visit was not about peace.
Republicans replacing Democrats against freedom.
While using the typical euphemism to deceive the public, Republicans are doing precisely what they have been accusing the Democrats of—forcing their will on the citizens. The Republicans forcing the poor to buy insurance is another ploy to help the capitalist sector with more revenue at the expense of the desperate.
Have the republicans ever consider why the poor have no insurance? No, they have note. Rich people have no idea about how it is to be poor. Ironically, the so called social safe-net programs only work for those who have nothing or are good with fraud.
The person who is working and is trying to keep a house, are those who will be ripped by Romnism. Mitt Romney forced MA citizens to buy health insurance. Did all the poor in Massachusetts buy health care. Well, those who already had a tight budget, got it tighter by the Mitt Romney’s concept. Because, the euphemism called incentives means that those who did not have enough to buy health insurance because of the punishment trickery designed into the project.
Those in poverty, already have health insurance from government programs. It is those who try to be off the welfare system that get punished by Romnism. The money that would normally keep the house barely warm and the milk on the table will be going to the banking account of insurance companies. Poor people not in welfare have to choose; otherwise they loose their property-homes to taxes.
If Mitt Romney was serious about helping the people, he would have proposed something in the area of having doctors who get mega federal help in education to return some percentage of the time in the form of free or reduced services to the poor. The same could be done with the pharmaceutical companies with research.
Giving back something back is not a sin or a crime. It is a duty. However, a program like that would not bring more money to the capitalist-vultures. It would not bring up the stock market either. It would just help the citizens—Not a capitalist goal. Unfortunately, Romnism
Is synonymous with Sovietism or forced communism, where the government ruled by forcing the people into whatever pleased the tyrants. Romnism is un-American.
If the GOP is bringing this up knowingly that they can not override the veto, they the Republicans are simply misusing their time and our money to show that they can. We will vote again.
Have the republicans ever consider why the poor have no insurance? No, they have note. Rich people have no idea about how it is to be poor. Ironically, the so called social safe-net programs only work for those who have nothing or are good with fraud.
The person who is working and is trying to keep a house, are those who will be ripped by Romnism. Mitt Romney forced MA citizens to buy health insurance. Did all the poor in Massachusetts buy health care. Well, those who already had a tight budget, got it tighter by the Mitt Romney’s concept. Because, the euphemism called incentives means that those who did not have enough to buy health insurance because of the punishment trickery designed into the project.
Those in poverty, already have health insurance from government programs. It is those who try to be off the welfare system that get punished by Romnism. The money that would normally keep the house barely warm and the milk on the table will be going to the banking account of insurance companies. Poor people not in welfare have to choose; otherwise they loose their property-homes to taxes.
If Mitt Romney was serious about helping the people, he would have proposed something in the area of having doctors who get mega federal help in education to return some percentage of the time in the form of free or reduced services to the poor. The same could be done with the pharmaceutical companies with research.
Giving back something back is not a sin or a crime. It is a duty. However, a program like that would not bring more money to the capitalist-vultures. It would not bring up the stock market either. It would just help the citizens—Not a capitalist goal. Unfortunately, Romnism
Is synonymous with Sovietism or forced communism, where the government ruled by forcing the people into whatever pleased the tyrants. Romnism is un-American.
If the GOP is bringing this up knowingly that they can not override the veto, they the Republicans are simply misusing their time and our money to show that they can. We will vote again.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
A TREE HOUSE --- Poem
Margie, Michael, and Miguel
Started their stories to tell,
It was all about home stuff
And none thought it rough.
My tree house is great,
My dad built from a crate,
I had lots of fun,
Just like everyone!
A tree house?
Is it for mouse?
Is it for a bird?
Or, am I absurd??
Go on your back yard green!
Use scrap, as you have seen!
We don’t know what y’a mean,
We can only go to the screen.
Do you live in a jail?
Or are you a snail?
I live on a block,
With no tree or rock.
Me too, on a block,
The door we must lock,
We only come to school,
We don’t have pool.
And, equal we all are,
We could really go far,
If we could buy a car.
by DFF Leonardo
Started their stories to tell,
It was all about home stuff
And none thought it rough.
My tree house is great,
My dad built from a crate,
I had lots of fun,
Just like everyone!
A tree house?
Is it for mouse?
Is it for a bird?
Or, am I absurd??
Go on your back yard green!
Use scrap, as you have seen!
We don’t know what y’a mean,
We can only go to the screen.
Do you live in a jail?
Or are you a snail?
I live on a block,
With no tree or rock.
Me too, on a block,
The door we must lock,
We only come to school,
We don’t have pool.
And, equal we all are,
We could really go far,
If we could buy a car.
by DFF Leonardo
Male Bashing? Is Religion Destroying Families?
The family is under attack from all sources, especially from the very sources claiming to be defending the family—religion among other institutions. As an adult, I attended over 21 congregations, in different religions or sects Christian and non-Christian. From the layman’s viewpoint, I am surprised by what I have heard in different congregations, in the media, and in academics.
However, it is not appropriate to mention any particular church or religion among over 4,000 religions. It would be unfair to mention a few churches while other religions or sects would appear to be OK.
Sometimes, I attended different religions simultaneously at different schedules—once this happened for over two years. I was looking for knowledge, and I am continuing to search—knowledge is infinite.
The interesting paradox about religion is that it seems to be doing the feminist’s work by claiming to be building the family while bashing husbands—thus, bashing fathers also. Such bashing, creates contention in the family. In feminism “man’ is removed from society using the euphemism “neutral” or “neutrality” as (political correctness). A nasty source neutralizing men, or fathers, or husbands is Tele-Evangelism. I learned to shot off the radio.
According to Professor (Emeritus) Louise Forsyth, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, at a workshop in feminism at the Federal University of Goias (UFG), in Goiania, Brazil in 2010, “neutrality” and “play of words” is what conveys the message [feminism].
The question is: What is the logic for the family which every Sunday at church or on the radio hears about the husband–thus the father being indirectly pictured as in need of being a better person? Should we expect the mother/wife to view the husband/father any differently? The wife and mother at home relates to her husband—the father of her children, in the same way that she learned in church.
How about the children? What image can the children have of their father when the children hear only negative things about “men” husbands, thus-fathers too?” The children will not think much about their fathers. Thus, will these children have the desire to be fathers when they grow-up? It does not seem logic. The children simple follow the rhetoric they hear in church, in the media, in school, and in films, and from their moms. Children see dad as the dummy, regardless of any good things dad may do, the picture is set by default. Then, if unemployment hits home, the father’s image is absolutely negative.
Here is a classical example: Recently a husband prepared a dish high in protein and vitamins. It was something of his creation. Since the husband and wife have different cultural backgrounds there is a bit of the wife’s resentment about the husband’s cooking, or rather the spices he uses—shelf ingredients. Nevertheless, she enjoys the food when she is not aware of such ingredients. This is a wife who did not know how to prepare eggs for breakfast, when they married.
As the wife arrived home one day, the husband greeted her with “We have a new dish high in protein, vitamins, and fiber, and low in carbs, and no cholesterol.” The wife’s simple response was “Hum.” Sometimes such news is met with “Another invention!” She ate and had seconds on the “Hum” dish. But, one of the children simple said: “No way” without even tasting it. Criticizing dad’s sequence or amount of ingredients is mom’s routine.
Some of this family’s dishes that this good wife brags about are based on the dummy’s creation—the husband’s. It has gotten to the point that any food this husband prepares, is rejected by the children without them tasting it, or seeing, unless mom prepared it first. When dad prepares food, the first question from the children is “What is in it?” The only exception to this antagonism is bread and plane-pizza which is mostly done by the father. Both spouses have university degrees.
A former friend invited me to attend one of his church’s services in central Massachusetts. It was pretty sad. The message implied that men are evil; it repeatedly admonished men while omitting the same from women, as if women were perfect. The subliminal message was that men are the problem at home.
The religiofeminists know that at times in the bible men have been commanded to follow their wives’ counsel, and wives also have been commanded to follow the husband. Thus, biblically, each spouse must listen to the other spouse. But the relegiofeminists want to mold men to be submissive to the wives. To be straw figures, without input at home.
The irony from these pulpit bullies is that feminism excludes God. Yet they are on the feminists’ side. Religionists can not be honest to the scriptures they are teaching from, if simultaneously they take both sides on the same issue.
On one side, they say that God created the family, and a man should preside, provide, and suffer for his wife and even die for her. On the other side they imply that men are no-good. Such teaching is against statistics that show about equal numbers in both genders starting domestic violence.
Male bashing is not an easy topic to discuss. Even scholars may have some catching up to do. A few years ago while taking a journalism course at UMass Amherst, I presented a take where men are just as much victims of domestic violence as women. I was surprised by the reception from my Professor B. J. Roach. ‘’You are going against the grain.” She said.
My bibliography was not sufficient. I had to bring in the books and a magazine in family relations. No other student was required to bring in the evidence to support their articles. Nevertheless, this professor was honest. After she made some of her own research, and after consulting with other professional journalists—according to her, she told me that she learned that “Men are being short-changed”.
At a religious gathering for singles, a mid aged woman told me that women were smarter than men—she cited a religious leader for such knowledge. In another instance, after joining a congregation, my wife at that time, told me that men were “no good” and that God would compensate for women. The women in church had taught her that, she said. That teaching, may have contributed to our divorce. Nevertheless, each person is responsible for his or her deeds.
In the same congregation, after a heavy dose of male bashing in a men’s class, in private, I approached the leader who had taught the class. He was the leader of spiritual leadership management group; thus, someone of more weight. I told him that the problems a home are attributed to both spouses. Instantly he replied “Do you do the dishes? As I started to answer to him that I not only do the dishes, but the laundry too, and cooked when conditions permitted, That spiritual leader walked away without saying a single word.
At another congregation very rich in culture, where most of the regular attendees have Master’s degrees, and some have PhDs, there was a culture shock. In the women’s poster board appeared a monthly poster with a humor section as usual. However, this particular poster stayed up for about two months. These nice women in leadership saw it appropriate in humor to bash men with what they would cry to be offensive if the reverse had been said. The local leaders had to see that poster; for they had to pass by the yellow 8.5 x 11 poster paper in their way to the services.
Once, a newly installed local leader who was new to the congregation, had a meeting with me at my request. During our exchange of information I stated that I had never hit my ex-wife. That leader reacted with high tone voice saying “You better not!” Yet, after I stated that my “ex” had hit me, he disregarded my comment, as if wives beating husbands was tolerable. This leader was a physician by trade.
One of my wife’s friends told my wife that her daughter-in-law brook a foot trying to kick her husband [this woman’s son] as he moved way from her—the wife. Mom advised him to divorce to avoid such routine abuse. After a while, as jobs force people to move, that man by chance ended-up in the same congregation as his “ex.” Soon after his arrival at the new congregation, he was “invited” by that congregation’s leaders to move out of the congregation, because his “ex” was uncomfortable.
There are two other cases of my knowledge where local church leaders “invited” the man to leave the congregation, because the “ex wife.” In two of these cases, children were involved. In all three cases the wife had been the violent party.
These religious leaders did not ask for details, nor show any concern for the children involved. The weekly contact of father and children got weakened. Afterwards, the children only saw their dad two weekends a month. Religion is supposed to care for the children, yet they separate children from their fathers to empower divorced moms. Some of those children abandoned both the religion and their father.
These religious leaders’ audacity is shocking, when they are asked about bias against men. At a church conference, a speaker (non-professional) started his discourse by stating “I will be pulling the brothers’ hears.” His talk was only about how much men should support, and listen to, and love their wives. He did not even put men as parallel to women—by implication men were put down. As usual, he quoted scripture to support his point; but, he quoted only the 1st half of verse 33 in Ephesians 5th chapter.
Afterwards, while I was in the rest-room, the area-leader used the facility too. I took the opportunity of privacy and while the topic was still fresh in our minds, I expressed my hurt to that leader. Even though he acknowledged that during the speech, women had not been reminded of needing to listen to their husbands, he claimed to see nothing wrong with the speech.
One of his replies was unbelievable. As I reminded him that the only reason he supported the discourse was because his wife must not have hit him yet. “I don’t give her, a reason to”, he answered. I was devastated.
A few days later, I learned that I was not alone. Also, after going home, I came across that verse: Ephesians 33: “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the awife see that she breverence her husband.” After checking the church’s website I got the following summary from the chapter relative to the topic: “Husbands and wives should love each other.” In the same page, an interpretation of “reverence” = Courtesy; Respect.”
A few years ago at another place after a church meeting with similar tones of male bashing, a man from the congregation in a soft voice told me “I get it at home, and then I come to church and get more of the same.” I don’t recall seeing that man in church again, even though I attended there for a few more months.
Contrary to the anti-family groups, men do have feelings, and men do cry, and men get low self-esteem, and men get hurt when their wives use verbal violence. Men do get hurt when people for prestige, or for profit, or for self-glory imply that domestic problems are only men’s fault.
The sacredness about the patriarchal title “To lead by example, full of love and sacrifice” becomes as a figure-head stained and mocked. Meanwhile, wives are getting indirectly encouragement to use absolute power, emotional control, and judicial liberty by all segments of society.
Destroying the patriarch’s purpose, is the focus of the feminism movement. The term patriarch is referred to with disdain in academia, especially in literature studies. Therefore, religionists and secularly aggressive groups alike are destroying the very family that they preach of being sacred. So, where is the family? The family is under attack and disintegrating quick. Nevertheless, our children are still better with religion than without it; as it has been reported so.
The good part about my observation is that not all religionists are bias. I know of two cases where influential religious leaders stated that both spouses are responsible for peace at home (Paraphrasing). They also stated that women too, need to improve in being less aggressive.
The local and immediate clergy and pastors and other religious and civic leaders have much progressing to do in preaching equality for both genders. I still attend church, and thus I have a voice; and I can help my children to distinguish between what people teach and what the scriptures really say.
I am not persuading people to leave religion, even though many churches are simply capitalist enterprises, using the name of God as bait. Some of these career preachers have financial goals to meet, and they have comfortable salaries well above their congregation. However, without religion this world would be a real jungle in worse condition.
I attend church because it sets an integrity base for the children and for adults as well, even though, many times I disregard the speakers when they start male-bashing. If a person is dishonest enough to condemn all men without knowing each man’s situation, that speaker looses all his or her credibility. Why listen to biased people, can anyone believe a biased person?
When there is no male-bashing, I enjoy being reminded of what God expects of me; and I even become more alert to things that I had not paid much attention to in the bible. Thus, I grow by attending church. And of course what my children learn about integrity is absolute priceless. But above all, I attend church because I know that God is real, and I know that there is a purpose in living, and I know that at some point in time I have to answer to my Creator.
However, it is not appropriate to mention any particular church or religion among over 4,000 religions. It would be unfair to mention a few churches while other religions or sects would appear to be OK.
Sometimes, I attended different religions simultaneously at different schedules—once this happened for over two years. I was looking for knowledge, and I am continuing to search—knowledge is infinite.
The interesting paradox about religion is that it seems to be doing the feminist’s work by claiming to be building the family while bashing husbands—thus, bashing fathers also. Such bashing, creates contention in the family. In feminism “man’ is removed from society using the euphemism “neutral” or “neutrality” as (political correctness). A nasty source neutralizing men, or fathers, or husbands is Tele-Evangelism. I learned to shot off the radio.
According to Professor (Emeritus) Louise Forsyth, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, at a workshop in feminism at the Federal University of Goias (UFG), in Goiania, Brazil in 2010, “neutrality” and “play of words” is what conveys the message [feminism].
The question is: What is the logic for the family which every Sunday at church or on the radio hears about the husband–thus the father being indirectly pictured as in need of being a better person? Should we expect the mother/wife to view the husband/father any differently? The wife and mother at home relates to her husband—the father of her children, in the same way that she learned in church.
How about the children? What image can the children have of their father when the children hear only negative things about “men” husbands, thus-fathers too?” The children will not think much about their fathers. Thus, will these children have the desire to be fathers when they grow-up? It does not seem logic. The children simple follow the rhetoric they hear in church, in the media, in school, and in films, and from their moms. Children see dad as the dummy, regardless of any good things dad may do, the picture is set by default. Then, if unemployment hits home, the father’s image is absolutely negative.
Here is a classical example: Recently a husband prepared a dish high in protein and vitamins. It was something of his creation. Since the husband and wife have different cultural backgrounds there is a bit of the wife’s resentment about the husband’s cooking, or rather the spices he uses—shelf ingredients. Nevertheless, she enjoys the food when she is not aware of such ingredients. This is a wife who did not know how to prepare eggs for breakfast, when they married.
As the wife arrived home one day, the husband greeted her with “We have a new dish high in protein, vitamins, and fiber, and low in carbs, and no cholesterol.” The wife’s simple response was “Hum.” Sometimes such news is met with “Another invention!” She ate and had seconds on the “Hum” dish. But, one of the children simple said: “No way” without even tasting it. Criticizing dad’s sequence or amount of ingredients is mom’s routine.
Some of this family’s dishes that this good wife brags about are based on the dummy’s creation—the husband’s. It has gotten to the point that any food this husband prepares, is rejected by the children without them tasting it, or seeing, unless mom prepared it first. When dad prepares food, the first question from the children is “What is in it?” The only exception to this antagonism is bread and plane-pizza which is mostly done by the father. Both spouses have university degrees.
A former friend invited me to attend one of his church’s services in central Massachusetts. It was pretty sad. The message implied that men are evil; it repeatedly admonished men while omitting the same from women, as if women were perfect. The subliminal message was that men are the problem at home.
The religiofeminists know that at times in the bible men have been commanded to follow their wives’ counsel, and wives also have been commanded to follow the husband. Thus, biblically, each spouse must listen to the other spouse. But the relegiofeminists want to mold men to be submissive to the wives. To be straw figures, without input at home.
The irony from these pulpit bullies is that feminism excludes God. Yet they are on the feminists’ side. Religionists can not be honest to the scriptures they are teaching from, if simultaneously they take both sides on the same issue.
On one side, they say that God created the family, and a man should preside, provide, and suffer for his wife and even die for her. On the other side they imply that men are no-good. Such teaching is against statistics that show about equal numbers in both genders starting domestic violence.
Male bashing is not an easy topic to discuss. Even scholars may have some catching up to do. A few years ago while taking a journalism course at UMass Amherst, I presented a take where men are just as much victims of domestic violence as women. I was surprised by the reception from my Professor B. J. Roach. ‘’You are going against the grain.” She said.
My bibliography was not sufficient. I had to bring in the books and a magazine in family relations. No other student was required to bring in the evidence to support their articles. Nevertheless, this professor was honest. After she made some of her own research, and after consulting with other professional journalists—according to her, she told me that she learned that “Men are being short-changed”.
At a religious gathering for singles, a mid aged woman told me that women were smarter than men—she cited a religious leader for such knowledge. In another instance, after joining a congregation, my wife at that time, told me that men were “no good” and that God would compensate for women. The women in church had taught her that, she said. That teaching, may have contributed to our divorce. Nevertheless, each person is responsible for his or her deeds.
In the same congregation, after a heavy dose of male bashing in a men’s class, in private, I approached the leader who had taught the class. He was the leader of spiritual leadership management group; thus, someone of more weight. I told him that the problems a home are attributed to both spouses. Instantly he replied “Do you do the dishes? As I started to answer to him that I not only do the dishes, but the laundry too, and cooked when conditions permitted, That spiritual leader walked away without saying a single word.
At another congregation very rich in culture, where most of the regular attendees have Master’s degrees, and some have PhDs, there was a culture shock. In the women’s poster board appeared a monthly poster with a humor section as usual. However, this particular poster stayed up for about two months. These nice women in leadership saw it appropriate in humor to bash men with what they would cry to be offensive if the reverse had been said. The local leaders had to see that poster; for they had to pass by the yellow 8.5 x 11 poster paper in their way to the services.
Once, a newly installed local leader who was new to the congregation, had a meeting with me at my request. During our exchange of information I stated that I had never hit my ex-wife. That leader reacted with high tone voice saying “You better not!” Yet, after I stated that my “ex” had hit me, he disregarded my comment, as if wives beating husbands was tolerable. This leader was a physician by trade.
One of my wife’s friends told my wife that her daughter-in-law brook a foot trying to kick her husband [this woman’s son] as he moved way from her—the wife. Mom advised him to divorce to avoid such routine abuse. After a while, as jobs force people to move, that man by chance ended-up in the same congregation as his “ex.” Soon after his arrival at the new congregation, he was “invited” by that congregation’s leaders to move out of the congregation, because his “ex” was uncomfortable.
There are two other cases of my knowledge where local church leaders “invited” the man to leave the congregation, because the “ex wife.” In two of these cases, children were involved. In all three cases the wife had been the violent party.
These religious leaders did not ask for details, nor show any concern for the children involved. The weekly contact of father and children got weakened. Afterwards, the children only saw their dad two weekends a month. Religion is supposed to care for the children, yet they separate children from their fathers to empower divorced moms. Some of those children abandoned both the religion and their father.
These religious leaders’ audacity is shocking, when they are asked about bias against men. At a church conference, a speaker (non-professional) started his discourse by stating “I will be pulling the brothers’ hears.” His talk was only about how much men should support, and listen to, and love their wives. He did not even put men as parallel to women—by implication men were put down. As usual, he quoted scripture to support his point; but, he quoted only the 1st half of verse 33 in Ephesians 5th chapter.
Afterwards, while I was in the rest-room, the area-leader used the facility too. I took the opportunity of privacy and while the topic was still fresh in our minds, I expressed my hurt to that leader. Even though he acknowledged that during the speech, women had not been reminded of needing to listen to their husbands, he claimed to see nothing wrong with the speech.
One of his replies was unbelievable. As I reminded him that the only reason he supported the discourse was because his wife must not have hit him yet. “I don’t give her, a reason to”, he answered. I was devastated.
A few days later, I learned that I was not alone. Also, after going home, I came across that verse: Ephesians 33: “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the awife see that she breverence her husband.” After checking the church’s website I got the following summary from the chapter relative to the topic: “Husbands and wives should love each other.” In the same page, an interpretation of “reverence” = Courtesy; Respect.”
A few years ago at another place after a church meeting with similar tones of male bashing, a man from the congregation in a soft voice told me “I get it at home, and then I come to church and get more of the same.” I don’t recall seeing that man in church again, even though I attended there for a few more months.
Contrary to the anti-family groups, men do have feelings, and men do cry, and men get low self-esteem, and men get hurt when their wives use verbal violence. Men do get hurt when people for prestige, or for profit, or for self-glory imply that domestic problems are only men’s fault.
The sacredness about the patriarchal title “To lead by example, full of love and sacrifice” becomes as a figure-head stained and mocked. Meanwhile, wives are getting indirectly encouragement to use absolute power, emotional control, and judicial liberty by all segments of society.
Destroying the patriarch’s purpose, is the focus of the feminism movement. The term patriarch is referred to with disdain in academia, especially in literature studies. Therefore, religionists and secularly aggressive groups alike are destroying the very family that they preach of being sacred. So, where is the family? The family is under attack and disintegrating quick. Nevertheless, our children are still better with religion than without it; as it has been reported so.
The good part about my observation is that not all religionists are bias. I know of two cases where influential religious leaders stated that both spouses are responsible for peace at home (Paraphrasing). They also stated that women too, need to improve in being less aggressive.
The local and immediate clergy and pastors and other religious and civic leaders have much progressing to do in preaching equality for both genders. I still attend church, and thus I have a voice; and I can help my children to distinguish between what people teach and what the scriptures really say.
I am not persuading people to leave religion, even though many churches are simply capitalist enterprises, using the name of God as bait. Some of these career preachers have financial goals to meet, and they have comfortable salaries well above their congregation. However, without religion this world would be a real jungle in worse condition.
I attend church because it sets an integrity base for the children and for adults as well, even though, many times I disregard the speakers when they start male-bashing. If a person is dishonest enough to condemn all men without knowing each man’s situation, that speaker looses all his or her credibility. Why listen to biased people, can anyone believe a biased person?
When there is no male-bashing, I enjoy being reminded of what God expects of me; and I even become more alert to things that I had not paid much attention to in the bible. Thus, I grow by attending church. And of course what my children learn about integrity is absolute priceless. But above all, I attend church because I know that God is real, and I know that there is a purpose in living, and I know that at some point in time I have to answer to my Creator.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Religion Litmus Test --- Edited
With a few thousand religions preaching about God, could they all be true? Could no religion be true? Or, could some, or at lest one religion be true. At lest we know that not all religions are true’ for they contradict themselves. That leaves us with the possibility of them all being false; or some, or at lest one religion being true. However, we must remember that normally each church preaches some truths; including churches based as enterprises. The aspect of true or false is based on the concept of God’s purpose that each person has the opportunity to return to him.
The scope is wide. When we try to look into religion, we see that it would be impossible to focus on all religions at this level. From the 15 main religions and predominant churches in the West, we are mentioning only three here: Christianity, Jewish, and Muslim; not focusing on the sects that run into the hundreds. Therefore this article is general, except in the predominant area of Christianity; for, most of this audience is Christian.
There are possible obstacles. Your scriptural knowledge is your map to navigate among the thousands of religions. Also, you need to be aware of the possibility of being fooled, because: Some professional spiritual leaders are 100% fraud. Some religions are offshoots of other religions, thus they carry many parallels with their origins. Some religionists use scripture to terrorize people. The task is not easy, but anyone can do it, and it takes more than a few months, unless you get Godly revelation about your inquiry.
It is easy to over react. Be careful with spiritual experiences, or revelation. A revelation is something personal; and it may fool you. According to scripture, not all spiritual experiences are from God. Poets and others also claim having spiritual experiences. So, it is a good idea to keep a journal to review your progress. Remember that the prophets had specific instructions from God. And Moses did not take the Angles’ word lightly. He reasoned with God.
Also, at times there were false prophesying according to the bible, and Jesus said that more false prophets would come. So don’t think that because you may get a spiritual experience that you are prophet. Many people have hear voices and have dreams and see the supernatural, however that does not give them the authority from God to claim prophetship.
Danger in expectation. There is another danger in asking God for something and expecting the answer to come to you according to your plan. Balaam had his greatest spiritual experience in the most unexpected way. When Jesus appeared to his apostles after his resurrection, it was not buy appointment, it was when they did not even expect Him.
God wilt not guide you or anyone against the scriptures. Even tough times have changed God is still the same, it is people that wish God to be different, to suit their needs. The key to your progress in knowing if your religion is true or false, is based on your understanding of knowledge from your Bible, Koran, or Torah, or all of them.
Confusion can cause drags and detours. Some areas cause confusion because of similarities in churches such as the Catholic Church and its offshoots. The difference among some of these religions or churches is very small, because their rituals and believes are identical. In the protestant religion the same is true. The Muslim and the Jewish religions also have offshoots from their main believes.
The numbers are obscure. We hear of Muslim Shiites and Sunnis, but there are more than a dozen more Muslims sects. Likewise the same is true of the Jewish religion with its Orthodox and liberal ideologies with at least 10 different groups. Mormons too have Dozens of offshoots based from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
You need to have an organized plan. You need full access to your source book and write notes on it, and underline or highlight it as you need to, for reference. The book is not sacred, rather it is the information contained on the book that is sacred. Afterwards, analyze why you participate in your religion. Remember that your focus is your spiritual salvation.
If you have a social cause for church going, such as to make friends and to form a habit, any entertaining church will do. However, there are repercussions with such entertaining churches; because, in entertaining churches, the focus is not God or your life after death.
The drawback. Such social churches are just like trivial clubs, in the name of God. The friends you make in a smooth congregation are not focused in the spiritual search for truth and integrity. That is why we see so much crime from false religious leaders. In other words, social churches do not have a priority of guiding you to find your way to your Heavenly Father.
On the other hand, if your purpose to attend your religious services, is because you believe in the Creator, or you are concerned with your eternity, than you need to take your research seriously, and be ready to change. Otherwise you will never find your inner peace. The key is wanting to change, or repenting from worldly habits and traditions.
• Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Some steps. Based on the scriptures, you may want to make a list of what you expected God to be like, and what would God want you to learn to return to him. There has to be preparation and a process; otherwise, God would be a hypocrite. Afterwards, you can evaluate the church that you attend, and see if your church is focusing on your eternal salvation. If the focus in that church is in anything else other than God and your eternal salvation, that church is off the mark; its time to search in another church.
Also, schedule a personal daily reading of your religious source—avoid the modern versions, because the more rewriting of any old record, the worse it gets. For Christians, the source would be the bible; starting at the Old Testament and going forward into the New Testament.
It can be a bit of a challenge. At the beginning of your scriptural reading, it seems a bit confused because you are reading from the perspective of other cultures of long ago, and under different conditions than we have today. After a while it all starts to make sense to you.
Do as the prophets did. Talk to your Heavenly Father and ask Him about what is in your heart, and be ready to listen to the arriving thoughts. After a bit of trial and error, you will recognize your feelings, and you will be able to identify if it is inspiration or temptation.
Be aware. Remember that the Devil can use the scriptures to tempt people as he tempted Jesus, according to Mathew 4: 5-6
“5a Then the devil taketh him up into the bholy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6aAnd saith unto him, bIf thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
If what you hear is inspiration, the feeling is in parallel to the holly book, for you to live, and to help others, and to be kind, and be in control of your destiny, and have peace and self control. In temptation the feeling or thought can be anything and it is accompanied by an emptiness feeling, rather than pleasant, and it is without God’s qualities.
Change and perimeters. Be ready to make changes in your life. Each change you make is a steppingstone into your next phase. If you read the scriptures you will see God’s personality as being full of forgiveness and love, waiting for His children to repent, and learn how to return to Him. Remember, violence, illegal behavior, self hurting, or self destruction is not of God.
-----------------------------------------------
Clues
Look for clues in mundane and spiritual activities in the church that you attend. If you read the bible you will notice that professional preaching is not of God:
Mathew 10:8
“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
Jesus here is talking to His apostles. It is obvious that the only thing that the apostles received freely and can freely give, is knowledge and understanding about eternal life and how to get there to the Father. Such knowledge and the preparation for eternal life is what preachers, pastors, priests, and every other spiritual leader is supposed to do for each person in his congregation without money. Salvation is free.
Nevertheless spiritual leaders are human, thus they need food and clothes and have other needs. Such need is no excuse for salaries and luxury as many live on. For humble living, Jesus said:
Luke 22:35
“… When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.” Therefore spiritual leaders ought not to live off their congregations.
The Obvious clue: Some churches charge for services such as baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Their religious leaders say it is free; but, they also say you can make an offering. They are selling the work of God by using euphemism. Some churches use the hat or basked during the service to have you give them your money. Tithing is differently, it is a commandment from the scriptures.
I attended a church that collected tithing; and also, had at least two collections during the services; sometimes three collections. “For different charities,” they said. I know of people who were told that their church would not participate in their relative’s funeral because the dead person had not paid tithing. Ironically, the same church preached that each person at his or her funeral needs such services for salvation.
The rose-garden clue: It happens when the preacher only teaches pleasant things—what the congregation wants to hear. That is an obvious hint that the preacher is protecting his or her job. Some preachers have been fired for preaching against the congregation’s desires. The spiritual leader’s job is to help people to help themselves in finding their way to God.
The classism clue: Some churches want to keep the audience in ignorance by teaching the congregation not to read the source—the bible; the congregation “would not understand to evaluate the bible”, they leaders said. A friend of mine a few years ago was escorted out a cathedral in NY in New York City because he did not have appropriate attire. He did not have a jacket on. He told me.
Political clue: When spiritual leaders get involved from the pulpit, in persuading people to vote for certain candidates or political parties.
Hate clue: It is when a church directly or indirectly instigates hate or violence. Pulpit-hate, is common, especially against other churches. It is used as protection to retain membership, thus retaining employment insurance.
From basic clues, you may have enough evidence to evaluate your religion, and determine if it is actually true or false. One essential part of your investigative work is to check the origin of your church. A church’s history will give you clues on how that church started, and why, how it evolved. Also, you can compare the doctrines being taught in comparison with the scriptures. Make a list of your findings, compare them with the scriptures, and see how that church functions based on the focus of God and your salvation.
Look for omission, and also look for additions that are not related to scripture. Learn how the decisions are made. Be aware of decisions made to sustain that church or its leaders rather than supporting the cause of God and the salvation of your soul. After all, remember that Jesus teaching was based on quality in the source choices. And if a church is not focused in on guiding the congregation to find God, then that church is not helping you or its members. If the source is not good the outcome cannot be good.
Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Before you decide on any church, study it in your mind and ask for the Creator’s guidance.
If you decide in not deciding on anything, you have given yourself understand to be a better person, thus having better self control, and feel more confident of where you are, and where you are going.
The scope is wide. When we try to look into religion, we see that it would be impossible to focus on all religions at this level. From the 15 main religions and predominant churches in the West, we are mentioning only three here: Christianity, Jewish, and Muslim; not focusing on the sects that run into the hundreds. Therefore this article is general, except in the predominant area of Christianity; for, most of this audience is Christian.
There are possible obstacles. Your scriptural knowledge is your map to navigate among the thousands of religions. Also, you need to be aware of the possibility of being fooled, because: Some professional spiritual leaders are 100% fraud. Some religions are offshoots of other religions, thus they carry many parallels with their origins. Some religionists use scripture to terrorize people. The task is not easy, but anyone can do it, and it takes more than a few months, unless you get Godly revelation about your inquiry.
It is easy to over react. Be careful with spiritual experiences, or revelation. A revelation is something personal; and it may fool you. According to scripture, not all spiritual experiences are from God. Poets and others also claim having spiritual experiences. So, it is a good idea to keep a journal to review your progress. Remember that the prophets had specific instructions from God. And Moses did not take the Angles’ word lightly. He reasoned with God.
Also, at times there were false prophesying according to the bible, and Jesus said that more false prophets would come. So don’t think that because you may get a spiritual experience that you are prophet. Many people have hear voices and have dreams and see the supernatural, however that does not give them the authority from God to claim prophetship.
Danger in expectation. There is another danger in asking God for something and expecting the answer to come to you according to your plan. Balaam had his greatest spiritual experience in the most unexpected way. When Jesus appeared to his apostles after his resurrection, it was not buy appointment, it was when they did not even expect Him.
God wilt not guide you or anyone against the scriptures. Even tough times have changed God is still the same, it is people that wish God to be different, to suit their needs. The key to your progress in knowing if your religion is true or false, is based on your understanding of knowledge from your Bible, Koran, or Torah, or all of them.
Confusion can cause drags and detours. Some areas cause confusion because of similarities in churches such as the Catholic Church and its offshoots. The difference among some of these religions or churches is very small, because their rituals and believes are identical. In the protestant religion the same is true. The Muslim and the Jewish religions also have offshoots from their main believes.
The numbers are obscure. We hear of Muslim Shiites and Sunnis, but there are more than a dozen more Muslims sects. Likewise the same is true of the Jewish religion with its Orthodox and liberal ideologies with at least 10 different groups. Mormons too have Dozens of offshoots based from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
You need to have an organized plan. You need full access to your source book and write notes on it, and underline or highlight it as you need to, for reference. The book is not sacred, rather it is the information contained on the book that is sacred. Afterwards, analyze why you participate in your religion. Remember that your focus is your spiritual salvation.
If you have a social cause for church going, such as to make friends and to form a habit, any entertaining church will do. However, there are repercussions with such entertaining churches; because, in entertaining churches, the focus is not God or your life after death.
The drawback. Such social churches are just like trivial clubs, in the name of God. The friends you make in a smooth congregation are not focused in the spiritual search for truth and integrity. That is why we see so much crime from false religious leaders. In other words, social churches do not have a priority of guiding you to find your way to your Heavenly Father.
On the other hand, if your purpose to attend your religious services, is because you believe in the Creator, or you are concerned with your eternity, than you need to take your research seriously, and be ready to change. Otherwise you will never find your inner peace. The key is wanting to change, or repenting from worldly habits and traditions.
• Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Some steps. Based on the scriptures, you may want to make a list of what you expected God to be like, and what would God want you to learn to return to him. There has to be preparation and a process; otherwise, God would be a hypocrite. Afterwards, you can evaluate the church that you attend, and see if your church is focusing on your eternal salvation. If the focus in that church is in anything else other than God and your eternal salvation, that church is off the mark; its time to search in another church.
Also, schedule a personal daily reading of your religious source—avoid the modern versions, because the more rewriting of any old record, the worse it gets. For Christians, the source would be the bible; starting at the Old Testament and going forward into the New Testament.
It can be a bit of a challenge. At the beginning of your scriptural reading, it seems a bit confused because you are reading from the perspective of other cultures of long ago, and under different conditions than we have today. After a while it all starts to make sense to you.
Do as the prophets did. Talk to your Heavenly Father and ask Him about what is in your heart, and be ready to listen to the arriving thoughts. After a bit of trial and error, you will recognize your feelings, and you will be able to identify if it is inspiration or temptation.
Be aware. Remember that the Devil can use the scriptures to tempt people as he tempted Jesus, according to Mathew 4: 5-6
“5a Then the devil taketh him up into the bholy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6aAnd saith unto him, bIf thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
If what you hear is inspiration, the feeling is in parallel to the holly book, for you to live, and to help others, and to be kind, and be in control of your destiny, and have peace and self control. In temptation the feeling or thought can be anything and it is accompanied by an emptiness feeling, rather than pleasant, and it is without God’s qualities.
Change and perimeters. Be ready to make changes in your life. Each change you make is a steppingstone into your next phase. If you read the scriptures you will see God’s personality as being full of forgiveness and love, waiting for His children to repent, and learn how to return to Him. Remember, violence, illegal behavior, self hurting, or self destruction is not of God.
-----------------------------------------------
Clues
Look for clues in mundane and spiritual activities in the church that you attend. If you read the bible you will notice that professional preaching is not of God:
Mathew 10:8
“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
Jesus here is talking to His apostles. It is obvious that the only thing that the apostles received freely and can freely give, is knowledge and understanding about eternal life and how to get there to the Father. Such knowledge and the preparation for eternal life is what preachers, pastors, priests, and every other spiritual leader is supposed to do for each person in his congregation without money. Salvation is free.
Nevertheless spiritual leaders are human, thus they need food and clothes and have other needs. Such need is no excuse for salaries and luxury as many live on. For humble living, Jesus said:
Luke 22:35
“… When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.” Therefore spiritual leaders ought not to live off their congregations.
The Obvious clue: Some churches charge for services such as baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Their religious leaders say it is free; but, they also say you can make an offering. They are selling the work of God by using euphemism. Some churches use the hat or basked during the service to have you give them your money. Tithing is differently, it is a commandment from the scriptures.
I attended a church that collected tithing; and also, had at least two collections during the services; sometimes three collections. “For different charities,” they said. I know of people who were told that their church would not participate in their relative’s funeral because the dead person had not paid tithing. Ironically, the same church preached that each person at his or her funeral needs such services for salvation.
The rose-garden clue: It happens when the preacher only teaches pleasant things—what the congregation wants to hear. That is an obvious hint that the preacher is protecting his or her job. Some preachers have been fired for preaching against the congregation’s desires. The spiritual leader’s job is to help people to help themselves in finding their way to God.
The classism clue: Some churches want to keep the audience in ignorance by teaching the congregation not to read the source—the bible; the congregation “would not understand to evaluate the bible”, they leaders said. A friend of mine a few years ago was escorted out a cathedral in NY in New York City because he did not have appropriate attire. He did not have a jacket on. He told me.
Political clue: When spiritual leaders get involved from the pulpit, in persuading people to vote for certain candidates or political parties.
Hate clue: It is when a church directly or indirectly instigates hate or violence. Pulpit-hate, is common, especially against other churches. It is used as protection to retain membership, thus retaining employment insurance.
From basic clues, you may have enough evidence to evaluate your religion, and determine if it is actually true or false. One essential part of your investigative work is to check the origin of your church. A church’s history will give you clues on how that church started, and why, how it evolved. Also, you can compare the doctrines being taught in comparison with the scriptures. Make a list of your findings, compare them with the scriptures, and see how that church functions based on the focus of God and your salvation.
Look for omission, and also look for additions that are not related to scripture. Learn how the decisions are made. Be aware of decisions made to sustain that church or its leaders rather than supporting the cause of God and the salvation of your soul. After all, remember that Jesus teaching was based on quality in the source choices. And if a church is not focused in on guiding the congregation to find God, then that church is not helping you or its members. If the source is not good the outcome cannot be good.
Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Before you decide on any church, study it in your mind and ask for the Creator’s guidance.
If you decide in not deciding on anything, you have given yourself understand to be a better person, thus having better self control, and feel more confident of where you are, and where you are going.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Male Bashing? Perfect example of prevailing maleophobia
Reference to Wall Street Journal Jan 12 2011
Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer.
By LENORE SKENAZY
My comment:
Perfect example of prevailing maleophobia; the feminist movement has accomplished its first task. However, Ms. Skenazy in her article appears to be addressing malephobicness as a normal accurance. Thus implying that the phobia is natural or real due to facts—thus helping to compoud the problem.
It would not take a PhD degree to make a bit of reasearch and see that men-hatting is a artificial problem caused by the feminist movement, ranging from religionists to politicians and almost all in between. By looking in the news, anyone can see crime by boh genders. Also, while male crime is decresing, female crime is increasing. So where should te fear be put—which gender is bad? Actually evil actions is by both, not a gender problem, as the feminsts and liberals imply. We can even reference the bible where both male and female genders are identified, each being good, and each being evil.
The core of the problem is capitalism and bigotry. It starts in the court system to protect women with free range to rule over men, for that money that the welfare sytem aknowleged as being a scam. It as a big scam in part. So the government switched the burden of pleasing women from the instution to the male.
The problem is also from the imfamous EEOC which started well for a good reason and then became abused; thus, making men the second class citizen.
Afterwards malebahing became a fashion. If malebashing is all we get in the office, in the radio—including religious talk-shows, in tv, and films; then why shoul society not be afraid of men? Malephobia was created to elevate women at the expense of men—purely chaucism.
The author however summarized very well: “We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.” By Ms. Skenazy a public speaker and author of the blog and book, "Free-Range Kids"
Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer.
By LENORE SKENAZY
My comment:
Perfect example of prevailing maleophobia; the feminist movement has accomplished its first task. However, Ms. Skenazy in her article appears to be addressing malephobicness as a normal accurance. Thus implying that the phobia is natural or real due to facts—thus helping to compoud the problem.
It would not take a PhD degree to make a bit of reasearch and see that men-hatting is a artificial problem caused by the feminist movement, ranging from religionists to politicians and almost all in between. By looking in the news, anyone can see crime by boh genders. Also, while male crime is decresing, female crime is increasing. So where should te fear be put—which gender is bad? Actually evil actions is by both, not a gender problem, as the feminsts and liberals imply. We can even reference the bible where both male and female genders are identified, each being good, and each being evil.
The core of the problem is capitalism and bigotry. It starts in the court system to protect women with free range to rule over men, for that money that the welfare sytem aknowleged as being a scam. It as a big scam in part. So the government switched the burden of pleasing women from the instution to the male.
The problem is also from the imfamous EEOC which started well for a good reason and then became abused; thus, making men the second class citizen.
Afterwards malebahing became a fashion. If malebashing is all we get in the office, in the radio—including religious talk-shows, in tv, and films; then why shoul society not be afraid of men? Malephobia was created to elevate women at the expense of men—purely chaucism.
The author however summarized very well: “We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.” By Ms. Skenazy a public speaker and author of the blog and book, "Free-Range Kids"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)