To Have or Not Have, that is the question

Recently I have been accused of being a bigot and racist, a hater. Presumably because I disagreed with the political conclusions of people who intentionally ignored all testimony that disproved their positions. Now normally the race card does not work on me, as I received quite a bit of racism in my past. Absorbing that kind of treatment makes one immune to accusations that he is hurting others. For one thing, it makes you more sensitive to try to judge rightly. For another when you think others are wrong, you cannot be manipulated to agree to a position in order to avoid being labelled. The testing has strengthened you and made you able to stand alone. I am also more aware that groups frequently have anti-approaches that distance them from those who are not like them or part of their group. The subject of this has already been treated upon, and need not be repeated at this point.

But this accuser lived among Arabs and Muslims and strongly identifies with them. I do not know by how much since he uses Muslim names in addition to others. But due to this I have revisited the first letter of John,  known as I John. (It is at the back of the Bible, not the gospel also written by John.) Among other things it discusses love and the obligation to love. It also addresses how to recognize heresy. Apparently John considers it loving to be able to recognize this as well as how to give and forgive. So standing for truth does not have to be unloving.

Some of this has been discussed previously, but it has been a couple of years and perhaps is not readily accessible. I opened it to chapter five. It said whoever loves the Father, loves the child (born of him.) And how do we know whether we do or not?
"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. ...And who overcomes the world but he who believes tht Jesus is the Son of God?" That was verses 2 and 5, of chapter 5.

It declares that the Spirit gives testimony. "The witness of God is this, that He has borne witness concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the witness that God has borne concerning His Son." 9b-10

After reading to the end of ch.5 with its clarity, it provides promises to have prayers answered and indicates that it is ok to pray for someone who is in error or sinning. Then I read ch. 4. (Sometimes you have to read passages separately because you might be worn out by the time you get to them. Though it is also good to read in order, that you not take something out of context.)

 Now John is clear in the need to love one's brother. But he does not excuse error. He warns them on how to recognize heresy. "Do not believe every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are from God: because many false prophets have gone out into the world. V.1 of ch.4 -rightly printed as I Jn. 4:1.   "...Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (if not is spirit of antichrist.) Now Mohammed covered himself here because he said Jesus came and that he was Christ. But the messenger did not meet the rest of the requirements. V.9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Now propitiation means wrath catcher-as a sacrifice of a sheep or goat is to receive the wrath of the deity for a person's or family's sins. Who is this author who writes this? He says "and we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Jesus' closest friend, John, stood at the foot of the cross watching the crucifixion, to whom Jesus entrusted the care of his mother.

He wants us to know the love God has for us, and to be convinced of, know that we are forgiven. Verse 13 of ch. 5, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." A verse on the same page as chapter 4, the last line of chapter 3 says, And we know by this that He abides in us by the Spirit He has given us. That was part of v. 24. 3:23 declares "And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another just as He commanded us."

At this point I went back to chapter one, which is excellent but a bit mystical talking about the Word. However he points out he was sharing what he saw with his eyes, what he heard, and touched. He had been there for most every moment of Jesus' ministry and was known to be the closest of all the apostles to Him. Not for a moment does he speak of only a man, a mere mortal, but of the glory.

"The Word of Life-and the life was manifested and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was manifested to us, and what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you may have fellowship with us. And...with the Father and with His Son." parts of 1:1-3
Then he explains how it all works.

Fellowshipping with Him, He forgives our sins, washing us by the blood of Jesus His Son. Confessing our sins, he forgives and continues to cleanse us. "If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father." That translates to having an intercessor, a lawyer who argues our case before Him. That oversimplifies some of the greatest verses of all Scripture:  I Jn. 1:7,9 and 2:1. Verse 2 of chapter 2 explains "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

Besides urging us to live purely, and to love, the author explains the function of the Holy Spirit. "And this is the promise that He has made to us: eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you the anointing you received from the beginning abides in you ... His anointing teaches you about all things." 2:25-27. Then it instructs them to abide in Him so that when He returns we won't have to hide or be ashamed.

There are many promises that if what we seek is according to His will, then we will receive what we ask for. But the main thing we need to seek is to know Him. It is His commandment as well as desire. Another verse points out, "See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God. And such we are." 3:1.
The question is are you? If you have not the Son, you have not the Father. According to 2:23, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, and whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." Or as 5:12 says, "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." The life he is discussing is eternal life-per v. 11 right before it. "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

 So if the teachings you receive instruct that God has no son, you can understand why they claim they cannot know God. Because only by knowing the Son, can you know the Father. You CAN know Him, receive His love, and abide in Him. You just have to have the right advocate. Since that is something He wants to happen, you can be assured in any prayer you make asking Him to give you that relationship. Ask for wisdom if you need it, that also He has promised to provide.

Notes on Sura 5, about Jesus

Sura 5:68a 'Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come from your Lord."'
v.72 They do disbelieve who say "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But Christ said ... whoever joins other gods with Allah-Allah will forbid him the Gardens, and the Fire will be his abode."
No, He never said that. He said "I and the Father are one." And the Jews picked up rocks to stone him because He was making himself equal with God. (But he walked away.) He called himself the Son of God, as well as refering to Himself as the Son of Man. The Gospel of John calls Him the Word (of God) as well.

V. 73 They disbelieve who say:Allah is one of three (in a Trinity). V. 75 Christ and Mary had both to eat daily.
V.116 Allah will ask Jesus, "didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah'?" (I am copying the Koranic punctuation.) Which of course, Jesus denies. V. 117 "Never said I to them aught except what thou didst command me to say"... (worship Allah)

V.110 lists the favors Allah gave to Jesus and his mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit... I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel.
By the power of God, Jesus made a clay bird and when he breathed into it, made it alive ...he healed the blind and the lepers and brought forth the dead "by my leave."

v.114 And he asked for a solemn festival with  wine and bread (communion) and Allah protected him from Jews' violence, gave Jesus clear signs. (Summary)

It is incorrect to say Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary. Even among Catholics (or as some good Protestants say "Mary worshipping Catholics"), they acknowledge the Trinity as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
     Now Catholics do pray to saints and to Mary, but not as gods. They explain that these are mere mortals who are in heaven that pleased God, so they are just asking for someone with good connections up there to put in a good word.
But that would be unnecessary if they remember what the Christians told Mohammed.

"And they say they have an intercessor." Hebrews, along with many other books in the Bible, emphasizes that Jesus became a man, that He could better understand our needs. So, in addition to providing forgiveness for our sins, "he everlives to make intercession for the saints according to the will of God." He is always putting in a good word for us, asking for help or favors for us. When you've got the top person, the top card, why would you play a lower one? But they think they may not be important enough for Jesus' attention, so they hope the others help.
If he were only a man, they might be right. But as the Son of God, having the same nature as the Father, his resources are  unlimited.

So who is Jesus? The Koran says he was just a messenger, a warner, a  man who had to eat his daily meals. (That is, mortal.) But it says many other things about him as well.
And what kind of people were these Christians that Mohammed was talking to?

v.82 Men devoted to learning, men who have renounced the world, who are not arrogant.        (Some were hermits, monks.)
68b It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy.
So does he want them to stand by their Scriptures or not? For if they do, they will not repent or convert. The Bible is very clear on who Jesus is.


Sura 3 also has some things to say describing Jesus. In 3:45 He is a Word from Allah, Christ Jesus. (Christ meaning Messiah.) 3:59 another Adam (ours says Second Adam and explains why). 3:49 repeats list of signs for Jesus (clay bird, heal blind and lepers, raise the dead.)
3:78 said some kind of gibberish and then said that was from Adam. In 3:110 they (Muslims) were the best of people, similar to "holy priesthood" that Paul called the Church.
In 2:253 Jesus is strengthened with the Holy Spirit. 2:165 says they take for worship others besides allah as equal with allah, they love them as they should love allah. Men worshipped Jesus, loving Him as they did the Father. (After all, why should you love someone who suffered and died to set you free from sin?) But the Koran denies He did that.
I note that a word is the exprssion of one's thought, of the mind put out to be heard. The Holy Spirit is the divine ministering power to act among mankind, anointing and equipping to do the work. Both terms are used in both the Old Testament as well as the Koran, so they are not mutually exclusive to the New Testament. Why the Jews and the Muslims can get away with saying they worship only one god, while Christians are accused of polytheism, I do not understand.

We only claim Jesus to be the Word of the Father, the Son of God who came to express the Father and accomplish His will. I have in other places shown where the OT shows an expression of Godhood who came to visit Abraham, or was mentioned by David. The Koran also calls him the Word, and attributes the ability to create life or restore it. You do not have to believe Him to be the Son of God, or equally God- of the same essence. But you will be held accountable for being informed of it, even if it was denied, that that was what the claim was. Beyond that, I ask what kind of a god who can form universes could not be able to present himself? Or be able to make himself into a baby. Merry Christmas.

The Role of the Man in the Family

     For several years a serious reassessment of my culture and how we do things versus the approach of other cultures has taken place in my mind. First as a person with a degree in sociology, I have tried to have some sympathy to the problems encountered by persons from a variety of backgrounds who have decided to live in my land. Some of these thoughts have been previously documented so I will not belabor them. Noted has been differences of both hispanic culture as well as those from Middle Eastern, North African, or Indian locations.
     I have truly tried to be objective in seeing their side, and have given consideration to whether some of their approaches might be more useful. One area in which I have applied this was in the interaction of men and women. At first sight it might appear to an American that free mixing of the sexes might be more tolerant. Knowing that I have benefitted from the company and opinions of men from my church and house church, I felt superior to the walling off of women in the mosques. At least I felt free-er.
     Frequently, during early parenting I found the company of women completely drab in its offerings. The women were lovely people, devoted wives and mothers, but not career women or women who held notable opinions or had anything worthy to say. Probably my mistake in underestimating them, but I had gone from studying engineering 18 hours a day, around fascinating females who were ambitious and bold, and not afraid to tackle the type of courses or the prejudices that abounded then of what our abilities might be.
     So in honesty I was suffering withdrawal from one society to another of such a different type that I was not ready to face. Being able to walk from one room where the women were discussing their babies or gossip or some trivial thing into the other room where the men were having something more significant to discuss, whether theology or politics, or what not, saved my sanity, or at least helped me to adjust. I did totally value the importance of devoting myself to my children, and to developing them rather than sticking them in a nursery school where the help might change every couple of months.
      So really, had I stayed in another part of the city and surrounded myself with those other types that I desired, they would have been more formidable in my withdrawal into motherhood. I did learn to value, and respect each of those women in my housechurch. Furthermore, I learned the secret of bonding with other women: the motherhood club. No matter the difference of salaries or education, housing or background, one mother can easily interact with another because they understand how important one's child is to a parent.
     Truthfully I did not appreciate the Lord's graciousness in placing us in an environment where other mothers were also home. However, as I said the presence of other men to talk to besides my husband was helpful. Most of these I truly felt were brothers, and had the freedom to react as such. However, over the years there were times when I was aware of other reactions that were not as platonic. Mostly it made me feel uneasy, but I also learned we do not always choose whom we fall in love with. If we are placed around someone and have cause to interact with them on a regular basis, accidents will happen. That is not to say they must, or that they should be given into. Mostly it just means people should be on their guard. I will also note those men would not have been available to merely befriend me, had they not placed being a spiritual head of their family as a cornerstone in their priorities for their family life. I also benefitted from men at work, mentoring me, guiding me about engineering and life. (Most of those were not religious.)
     This is not what I was choosing to write about, but it is a necessary precedent. Because of those prior experiences I wondered whether the Muslim insistence in keeping the sexes apart were perhaps based on some remote wisdom in dealing with the reality of the power of sexuality. Furthermore, the whole covering issue was much less explosive to me than to most Americans. I just cover my body with fat to keep men from looking! However, the other problems of Islamic culture go so far out to prove their inadequacy that I have had to get off the fence. I can no longer stay neutral on this issue.
     What is wrong with Muslim men?! They think they have the right to go out whenever they want, without having to explain when or where or why they are going. To leave the women raising their children for hours and days at a time with no break, and then when they deign to return home, they are supposed to be greeted with joy and kindness and service. The wives are barely able to hold on, needing a break from kids asking questions, or toddlers talking, talking, always talking, or needing to go have fun when mom needs to go to the grocery store.
     As noted in an earlier post, when someone becomes scarce in being around a child, the child learns to live without them. Yes, it frequently is more fascinating to be around an adult with whom one can have an intelligent conversation or share interests rather than talk to a child about Barbie or trains or what not. However, in their defense, I have had many more interesting conversations with children whose clarity and innocence allowed a greater dependency on solid truth that similar talks with adults would not.
     The question is not whether one might be more stimulating, but what is required. When one has a child, he, yes he, is responsible to partake in its raising. The payment of time and of sacrifice is offset by the joy of how important you are in their eyes. While he may from time to time have to deny himself in order to further a career, the importance remains. And how can you have a marriage when you are not around?
     A long distance marriage offers little romance. And a father that is not home cannot build the sense of stability in a child's self-esteem that educators and psychologists tell us is so essential for both little boys and girls. Girls need it in order to establish respectable relationships with men, so they do not end up putting out in order to get attention. Boys need it so they do not get behind in school, get into trouble or go to prison. Those are statistically proven effects of being fatherless or virtually so. While the boys that had fathers or father figures enabled them to succeed more, go to college, etc. Although the military has had its share of rescuing many, but that adds up to further father figures stepping in helping a young man to find his way. Girls with strong relationships are more likely to have happier, more stable marriages. So, is it really more important to hang out at a coffee shop? To drink and be with friends, or to pick up some new young thing? What do you think she wants but the same thing your wife did, a home and family. And if you find that so boring, what do you have to offer her?
     Ultimately it comes down to, what do you live for-yourself or for helping others? Is your own amusement more important than the stability of those who have committed their lives to you, or who depend upon you?
     If this were about American or western men, and it can be, it would be labelled failing to mature, selfishness, or inability to commit. Mostly that is considered a failure in our society. But in one where it is expected, for a woman to ask a man where he is, where he is going, or when he will return is emasculating. Even for a female to dare to stand up and let her needs be known or those of the children, they are supposed to be subservient to the needs of the all-important husband. But whose husband- a man with multiple wives, and way too many children? A man who lets his sexuality lead him rather than his brain or his heart. The truth is the man makes his play more important than others around him. And his choices makes him more irrelevant to his family. How can they depend upon him if they do not know when or if he will be around?
     True, he has the payoff of having his freedom. How many wish they could go back to their teenage years or college years with little to no responsibilities, few people to whom they had to answer, and only the study of what they wanted, or the pursuit of whatever interests they had. But dreaming of it when life sometimes overwhelms you is not the same as walking away from those whose futures depend upon your presence.
     Ultimately this cultural thing is not merely an analysis of Morocco versus America. It comes down to what influenced the formation of the values on which these norms were based. The Bible and the Koran. In the Koran, a man is allowed four wives, and many sex slaves. The wives and slaves may have been other men's wives, taken by force, but I will give that issue a rest at least for this post. Everything is centered around him.
     In the Bible, the man is also the center. He is considered the head of the family, the head of the wife. He is to submit to Christ who is his head. Nevertheless, even as feminists object to the teachings of Christianity, they fail to note the servant role of the male. The man is to love the wife as Christ loved the Church. This means sacrificial giving of himself, his interests in order to protect her. He is to love her, and the choices he makes will cleanse her, purify her-not by beating her to make her afraid to disobey.
     But his love and protection brings out a humility and security that does not induce a wife to need to nag or harp. A woman who feels loved and appreciated does not need to feed her face or to comfort herself in food. Harassing her about weight defeats the purpose-if she is nurtured by her husband, she will be more interested and fed by the emotions of satisfying him. Not merely sexually but by whatever will bring benefit to him. The point is that they become one, not merely physically, but by living together they have grown together. They support each other through trials, facing the world together when all else seems to be against them. In fact, the Bible says a man should love his wife as he loves himself, nurturing and protecting her against all things. How can you do it if you are out chilling with your friends?
      Another verse points out that a man that does not uphold his wife will not have his prayers answered. While the Koran instucts to beat a woman, God tells men to love their women, and God will bless them by answering their prayers. We may not have a godly society. Probably never did, as there were always those present who were dedicated to their own goals. Nevertheless, as preachers performed the marriages, and as the sermons went forth about the establishment of marriages, the unity, the standards, the basis of family life in American society was the Bible.
     One consequence is the importance of taking care of women and children in our laws. Adultery is considered serious, as is mere neglect. I would have to argue there is no greater proof of the failure of Islam than muslim families-and consequently their societies. For as the families go, so goes the country, and the culture.

Eating spiritually

I learned yesterday that one of my children had resumed going to church, though I do not know his reasons for doing so. It may be for networking, or for a desire to provide some training for his children. I do not know. Even the level of Biblical teaching or what the theology of the place is, is unknown to me. The denomination is sometimes full of liberal theology which downplays the gospel, or reinterprets it. However, there are some locations wherein the gospel is preached.

What I do know is that they maintain some of the traditions of the Church-things that have been used in worship for centuries, and longer. The Gloria Patri, the Apostles' Creed, responsive readings. These hold the essence of the gospel. See below for the content of that creed.

Now I had been concerned for this child, man though he is. But when you do not eat, you should not complain of weakness. If you encounter an emaciated woman who starves herself, even if you respond with compassion, you must require her to eat if she is to recover. Though you have to trickle nourishment intravenously at first, you should not expect that without nutrition, your body will miraculously continue to function as if you fed it. Go for years and parts will start to fail, muscles deteriorate, and fatal events will rise.

In the same way, if you do not read the Bible to feed your spirit, as the bread of life, as milk and honey to your soul, as the meat you need to function, your faith will fade. Your strength will decline, your assurance disappear. Without prayer to maintain the communication, how do you think you will continue? The Bible tells us we need to wash our minds with the Word in order to cleanse us from the filth of the world, not to mention to renew our own minds which tend to the fleshful thoughts without the help.

So even if he sits and hears empty words from the sermon instead of wisdom, he will still hear the Bible verses read. He will hear the summary of orthodox theology in the creed, he will hear some worship in the Gloria Patri and in the hymns. And the complexity and simplicity of faith and a life walking with the Lord is thoroughly conveyed in the hymns of Charles Wesley. So, son, I leave you in the hands of the Apostles and Charles Wesley, not to mention of the Lord, firmly convinced you will finally have obtained some feedings. These will gradually increase your spiritual strength for having eaten.


The Apostles' Creed- roughly a version of the earlier creed known by the earliest church fathers and used for teaching. From memory, might have missed a part, haven't said it in a while.

I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only son, our Lord. Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. On the third day he rose from the dead, (descended into hell-some parts include this), ascended into heaven and from thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the holy catholic (small c = means universal) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everylasting. Amen.

Though the Nicene and Nicene/Constantinoplen creeds are even more detailed, they get too long for repetition. The Athansian creed is also good, and expresses theology Athanasius would agree with (who attended the Nicene council and a few years thereafter became bishop of Alexandria.) Though in and out of persecutions, he was exiled five times, he continued to defend orthodoxy against the Arians. The files that provided copies of these said it was unlikely to have been composed by Athanasius himself. Gennadius, a later scholar, actually named Georgius Scholarius I think, anyway he had a creed that was said to be used to answer Muslims. (Though the file said it really was more like the training used to help new believers before they could be baptized.) But that really may not help any one. Google creeds, the first three creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) sufficiently convey Christian doctrine that is Biblical.

The Gloria Patri.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen, amen.

The Promised first part of Psalm 32

1 Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered;
2 Blessed is the man whose sin The Lord does not count against him,
And in whose spirit is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent, my bones wasted away
Through the groaning of my spirit all day long.
4 For day and night the hand of the Lord was upon me
My strength sagged as in the heat of summer.
5 Then I acknowledged my sins to you,
I did not cover up my iniquity
I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,
And you forgave the guilt of my sin.
6 Therefore let the godly man pray in the day He may be found.
Surely in the mighty waters, he will not be reached.

(Another version says my strength was sapped....)


Recently I felt led to read this and memorize it. It had not yet really hit me, but I reread it several times. Hardly could I keep my mind on what I was doing for I worried about other stuff. But the next day I returned to it, determined to be obedient. I had at least gotten the first couple of lines, agreeing with the magnanimity of the Lord’s grace. And admitting the awesomeness of having a clean, undefiled spirit. Especially to oneself.

Sometimes I get so puffed up, that not only is it insufferable, but I am sure foul-smelling to others. But a clean one is important. Jesus said no one would reach heaven without a child-like, honest spirit. And the Bible records that David was a man after God’s own heart. He wrote these psalms. And though he wasn’t sinless, he was at least honest enough to admit it, to seek forgiveness. For the one who says, “I thank you that I am not like the others, that I am better, that I am righteous,” will not be forgiven. Jesus told us that.

My mother has osteoporosis, so I am aware of that condition and problem. Mostly I have been informed my bones are fine, but I do suffer from backaches and inability to stand for long times. So the next couple of verses struck me. When I kept silent, ie, did not confess my sins, my bones wasted away. I do not know how to describe this weakness other than to say, it feels as if your bones fail you, as if all the things you take for granted suddenly are too stressful.

During the last couple of years, especially right after my last child left the nest (happily) I just sort of collapsed for a while. No more did I have to have kids coming through my house who disregarded my values, sinned directly in front of me, or behind doors, and acted as if it did not matter. I did not have to tolerate evil or rebellion in order to give a kid time to grow up and keep him out of trouble.

What hope does a child without a high school diploma have in the world? Kicking him out after years invested raising them would destroy all the work of the previous years, and leave him with no future. So we tolerated the kids and felt defiled, ashamed. I did learn to understand the Lord saying he was weary of mankind.

I curled up and pushed out the world, seeking peace, prayer, cleansing, and sleep. Yes, I spent time usefully praying for others. Yes, I regained peace of mind and some self respect-we could control our home again. My spirit groaned all day long, as it had for the last few years built up of failure of my expectations. For years I had worked and thought I was a great parent, proud of the shaping of my children. Then, what could I say, over their teenage years, such rebellion and destruction hit them and our relationships, that it needed to be mourned. They also needed prayer, continued prayer.

They are good, sweet people. That much I knew and could console myself with. That much I had not failed in. But the directions they headed, the values they had, well, what devout parent would not have mourned? Yes, I rolled in self-pity. And literally I had no energy. Not only did I have back pain when I walked or stood up for very long, my strength was sapped.

I realize that this could easily be wrapped up and classified as depression. Many things can be, and yes it was. But it was more than that. My spirit had taken my body prisoner, and I could not function any more. Ads that spoke of adrenal fatigue caught my attention. I had already tried to address some needs through health foods and vitamins. These restored my strength so that I could at least get up and function for a few hours at a time. Even though I did not use them full strength as the weight loss medication it promised. Perhaps later. That and the later discovery of glucosamine to help with my back pain eased a lot of my mobility problems. When I am doing better, I stop taking it and then later remember my need.

It is now August and we have had a record string of 100+ temperatures. Our air conditioners in the car and house flounder, though they work well enough in the 90’s. Mostly I stay inside, but Ray comes in completely exhausted-sapped from the heat of summer! That is natural and will subside in a few weeks as September comes and goes. I am particularly aware of this, mostly for my husband’s sake, but also for yours. You do without water during your Ramadan fasts. A stupid but impressive thing.

Our fasts usually involve lack of food-a more complete lack, not having meals in the dark in the morning or evening. But a fast is whatever you agree upon with the Lord to purpose to do without that you may more fully seek Him. For instance, recently I purposed to fast with a breakfast drink in the morning and a juice or water at night, though with as much water as desired. I felt at the time when I was writing down the days not to go beyond four, but I wanted to do 30. (The breakfast drink was eliminated as it tasted disgusting, so I only had a couple of orange juices and water for four days.)

With blood sugar issues (rare instances of hypoglycemic not diabetic reactions) I was confident that I would not suffer. And it has been my experience that if I fast when directed by the Lord rather than a desire to be self-righteous that the power and freedom is there. I did not mention it to anyone, not even my mate for a couple of days. I only do so now to prove that I am not against fasting nor intimidated by others desiring to purify themselves through this purpose.

We do not have to do without water because it is the symbol of the Holy Spirit. And, as you know, we believe in the Holy Spirit as part of the Trinity your book directs us to disassociate from. “My spirit thirsts for you as in a dry and weary land,” one Bible verse says. No, we must have Him and it.

Sorry for that digression, but it actually fits in. You see, without Him we have no energy, no life. And without having our sins forgiven, we have no hope. So it not only informs us that the man who has received forgiveness is blessed, it tells us how to do so, and what happens if you do not.

If you keep quiet, that is, do not admit your own sins, then you will groan, have your energy sapped, and not be able to function. The world at some point will wear you down. But if you get over yourself, your pride, your belief that you are good enough, that you can make it on your own, then that is progress.

Sins, transgression, iniquity, sin. The first two are your actions and thoughts that you have done. Iniquity is your state of evil, that which comes out of your heart resulting in actions. Sin is the same. Singular it must be forgiven, the guilt for it forgiven as well. David confessed it all. Now I was struck with the humor of this. “I acknowledged my sin before you and did not cover up my iniquity.” As if our not talking about it hides it before the Lord’s eyes! Ridiculous. He is already well aware of what we do and say, what we think and are. We are only admitting it to ourselves and humbling ourselves before Him. But we do one more thing of significance. We ask for forgiveness and seek the shame to be removed, the guilt wiped away.

Now I do not know how to convey to those who do not believe any can know their sins are forgiven, or even that they will go to heaven, as well as not thinking they can know the God who speaks to men (all men.) But one can and does. John Bunyan described it as the weight of a man carrying a burden on his back, so large and formidable that he could barely walk, trudging up to the place of forgiveness. And the burden when released rolling off his back, down the hill, and even to the place of a tomb, buried. Where would one find such a magical place with that power? Is it only in fiction? No, it is available to all. The place is the cross of Christ. True, we no longer possess the physical one, though many tried to make icons or idols of it. The wood itself was not powerful. It was the person of Christ that accomplished the work, not the tree.

All we need do is picture a cross with a man upon it, an innocent but pure man who placed himself there for one purpose, to offer you this freedom-the forgiveness of your sins. (He allowed himself to be placed there out of a love for you and knowledge it was the only way for your need to be supplied.) And if you will speak to him and say, I am a sinner who needs to be delivered from the power of my transgressions, from my own iniquity. I do not understand how exactly you would do this, but if you are real, and this is true, then I ask you to apply that sacrifice of your own blood and life to me. And if he is real and true, and alive, powerful, then he will do so. There is not another way to describe it but to say that the burden lifts and you know you have received it. You know that you know. And all the other questions will be resolved as well. But once you have this, you have all. You are at the beginning of a new life. (I do not address the fact that He was more than a man here. That has been covered in much earlier posts.)

King David rightly admonishes those who desire this relationship to hurry, not to wait. For you should seek him while he may be found. When you wait until an emergency and then call to him, why should he answer your screams of desperation? You have already shown your contempt for seeking him earlier. I will not say he will not, as he is merciful. But many have tried in desperation, when they cared not when they did not need to be rescued. Seek him because you want forgiveness. Seek him because you want the guilt to be washed away. Seek him because you cannot go on without him, not because you need things from him. Things you value more than him.

I was looking through my old files for the first half of the psalm I posted about, when I found this other thing added to a file in order to save it quickly. It was of someone testifying before a schoolboard in protest of some Muslim protest trying to force shariah compliance onto our children. I do not remember the exact context, but it is still significant because it is universally true. Nothing more need be added.

Hamze before Broward County School Board


AUDIO COURTESY BROWARD SCHOOL BOARD RADIO 88.5 FM

I call beheading people "intolerant behavior."
I call gender apartheid "intolerant behavior."
I call ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims "intolerant behavior."
I call Islamic supremacism "intolerant behavior."
I called Hamas-tied CAIR's Islamic supremacist demands "intolerant behavior."
I call clitorectomies "intolerant behavior"
I call Islamic Jew hatred "intolerant behavior."

on straying from the title of my blog

Recently I have thought upon the problem that anyone visiting would expect more discussion of the Koran. Most of that was in the first couple of years, and you must go to old posts and look in 2007, 2008, etc. During the last year I was delving into the news after having avoided politics during the wars of the U. S. (and its allies) with Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of this was led by greater concern with the spread of Islam and my concern with the Islamification of my country along with that of Europe. My visiting of the Psalms and Biblical exegesis, such as it was, was motivated by a few issues.

One was to show how one should examine their holy book. Regarding the spirituality which one might be touched yes, but looking at the words. What do they say literally. What does that mean in relation to my life-how I might interpret it or understand because of situations I now or have dealt with. And spiritually what might I glean to apply to my life. The other issue is that the Koran challenges us (those who do not accept it as proof of your prophet's calling) to provide a better sura and verse. My understanding is that you are allowed to read the Torah, the Injel, the Psalms (you have another name for them), and some of the prophets (in the Old Testament.) But being given permission is not the same as having possession of these to read. So I provide that as well, though more concise copies are available online. If you can risk reading them without being caught.

At some point in the future I need to realign the blog so that the better postings are more available. But shortly I will again post some things that involve analysis of Koranic verses. I had held some out with the thought to publishing them, and to ensure they were not on the blog so no one could claim any ownership of them but me. But if these might reach someone who needs to hear it, then I will post here. (That does not mean I relinquish concern or copyright.) I mention this because I do want you to look at the words. Do not exalt yourself into some spiritual numbness and ignore what the letters add up to. A word translated or not means something. It cannot reasonably be ignored because it is inconvenient.

Also, someone was kind enough to share with me a site that told me where I might go to get verses of English versions that are tied to the arabic ones. Thus anything I quote will be referred to you in arabic. If you must see it in that language in order to believe it, then this will be useful to you. You will still have the option to ignore the information. But I had thought it sufficient to merely provide the sura number and verse. Though I discovered on comparison of two different copies of an Ali translation that rarely but sometimes the verse number might be off by one or two. Nevertheless if you are intellectually honest, locating the passage should be sufficient to be able to validate whether a passage says what I declare it does. That was, after all, the point of reading and studying it for myself, to make sure that those who quoted it were not taking it out of context. Not that I distrusted them, but to lessen any chance of error.

Another reason I had digressed was perhaps a concern for my reputation spiritually. I did not want someone who loved the Bible to think I was only reading the Koran. I needed to rewash my brains. Partly to remember and verify what it said, as to not misquote it, but also for my own spiritual needs. Reading the Koran can lead to verbal and emotional abuse, as if to use it as a weapon to prove my point. Becoming more confrontational or rude does not increase any desire for others to consider who my God is. Thus I needed to renew myself with a spirit of love and gentleness which I find in reading my holy book. Some of what I share is already written, and needs only be uploaded or retyped. Should I begin again to read the Koran for fresh items to discuss I need to have the balance to keep myself friendly (hopefully humble, gentle, and less rude.)
Also the reason this side is so empty while the other goes on for so long is that I wrote both sides together. However, instead of having the side article remaining with the post that was made at or close to the same time, they show all the ones on the right. Then they only reveal a number of posts and leave the rest blank. Those you have to look up under old posts. It might be more useful to go to the beginning and see what is posted at that time, if it is limited to a shorter list. If not, then I will have to completely redo it, to keep things together. This is another reason why I have considered printing it. It would have the additional benefit of having the earliest explanations at the beginning instead of having folks jump into the middle or end of a subject. I may have explained something well much earlier and I do not like to repeat myself. However, I have had to occasionally because it is a couple of years later and you might not be familiar with it.

Psalm 32

Part two
Having already spent an hour or so writing the first part but not posting it here, I skip to the next set of verses of it with the intent of returning to reprint part one later.
We stopped at "Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you while you may be found."

Surely when the mighty waters rise, they will not reach him.
You are my hiding place;
you will protect me from trouble
and surround me with songs of deliverance.
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go,
I will counsel you and watch over you.
Do not be like the horse or mule,
which have no understanding,
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or they will not come to you.
Many are the woes of the wicked,
but the Lord's unfailing love
surrounds the man who trusts in Him.
Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous;
sing, all you who are upright in heart.

Now I contemplated the part of verse six, "surely ...won't reach him." The him is not capitalized. The first thought was the water wouldn't reach to the heavens, the Lord is safe from disasters and always available. If it does not refer to Him, then perhaps it refers to the godly who has already connected to Him. He will be safe. The mighty waters won't reach him because the Almighty will have protected him. I choose this understanding, it fits well with the rest of the psalm. However, another thought reached into my consciousness.

When the mighty waters rise, the prayers of those who did not seek him when he may be found, their tardy cries will not reach him. Another psalm mentions our cries coming into his hearing, into his temple with the vehemance of the response to deliver his beloved child. So we know He is selective about which noises he allows to bother him, and which are filtered out. Though He is merciful, He does not force himself. But He is no fool. He knows who seeks Him and who merely desires to use Him to get what they want. I cannot say more because too many have cried out and found Him. Sometimes He allows things just to get us to the point where we will. So I do not discourage any from crying out whenever they feel so led. But earlier is better.

Some have made new songs out of the psalms, and we do not even know the tunes of the originals. But the next verse has been made into one. I cannot read it without the tune hitting me. "You are my hiding place... you surround me with songs of deliverance."
There are several relevent points to be made. He has gone from being nearly slain from depression. His bones sag, his strength is sapped, he groans all day long. He is silent. After he breaks his silence, and confesses his sin, becomes real with and before the Lord, he receives the peaceful release of having his sins forgiven. Now he has moved past that to experiencing deliverance, and being able to rejoice in it. In fact, he has had time to compose songs plural. And other people have too, for David was well known and his people kept track of his battles and victories.

During the trouble he had a hiding place, the Lord who protected him from trouble. He can speak of this now in triumph and with praise. His trial now offers hope to others with whom he can share and uplift who may be facing their own. The Psalm which started talking of any man who is forgiven, and then to personal testimony, now turns from David's experience to the Lord speaking to him. For a conversation is most useful when it is twosided.

"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go. I will counsel you and watch over you." For the one who comes to Him early, he offers private help. Not merely from godly individuals or those trained in theology, though those may be part of the help. The One who made the universe, who created us, and all the elements, as well as our foes, HE will teach us. So much for not being able to know the Almighty or having to depend upon another. He Himself will instruct.

Who better to know the thoughts of the Lord, what pleases Him and what does not. What He wants us to know of Him or His ways! He will teach us in the way we should go. Doesn't everyone want direction for his choices? A wise person gets tired of learning from mistakes and would just like to know ahead of time which way to go when facing a choice. His entire life's direction may completely change depending on the consequences of one decision.

He will give us advice-counsel not just an instruction as to a robot-do this because I said so. And in case we are stupid and still manage to mess it up, He offers private guard duty as well. He does not leave us alone or forsaken. He will watch over us, so if anything comes at us that somehow we have not expected or prepared for, He is there and ready to do something about it.

I mention this point because it radicalized the Church. During the Reformation it was explained to folks that they did not have to depend upon another, special person to go to the Lord for them. He wanted them to come on their own. They did not have to let someone else do all the thinking, they could have their own knowledge of what the Scripture said, and not have to hope the men were giving the whole truth to them. This knowledge had been available prior to this time, but over the years had been forgotten. (Not only was it available in the writings of the New Testament, as in the old, and in the writings of the early church fathers for the first couple of centuries AD. But it was recorded in the Koran, as well. And they say they have an intercessor -in heaven. It was one of the reasons they did not need a Messenger.)

This was important because when an economy develops wherein others profit for your lack of knowledge, and they know you depend upon them for information, they do not want to lose control over you. They might lose a job or the extra money they got when you came for help. In fact, you did not have to learn a foreign language (Latin) or have the scriptures read in language you did not fully understand. Or be told if you did not comprehend something, it was beyond your ability to grasp it unless you were an intellectual trained in this special language. They printed the Bible in the common languages of German and English, which caused a lot of controversy with those who tried to suppress it in order to maintain their control. Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther were all persecuted, and the first two died for it.

The Lord offered private tutoring along with forgiveness because He wanted a relationship with you. That is all He asks. He tells you all He offers, but warns that He doesn't want to have to jerk you around on a string or with external controls. He wants you to choose to seek Him, to obey Him, to look to Him, and to rest in His provisions.

Do not be like the horse or mule ... who will not come to you without being forced. Because God requests our cooperation and willfull choice. He will teach us what we do not know (instruction) and guide us in the right ways. His advice is available as is his protection to watch over us. Such a guard is unbeatable. But he does not force Himself on others. You need to not make Him drag you around! Nor use trials to make you cry out to Him.

Those who opt out of the offer, who do not want a relationship with Him, will have many problems. How can they not if they are going the wrong direction or not following the instructions the Creator gives? Many are the woes of the wicked, but the one who chooses Him- he gets special protection.

"The Lord's unfailing love surrounds him who trusts in Him." Not to say you won't have trials, but how can you have deliverances of which to sing, if you do not face them. The choice may not be the wicked have trials, the righteous don't, though certainly if they make the right choices some of the unnecessary ones will be avoided. But you trust the Lord through them. He protects you, and as you go, or afterwards you can honestly sing praises about your victories. Do you think the wicked are singing about their failures? Not unless they like the blues or country music, but they are certainly not rejoicing in their triumphs. Because they have less of these.

Before we address the singing and rejoicing, remember it is his unfailing love we contemplate. Sometimes we do not see the answer soon enough and we doubt. But the longer you have tried this way of life, the surer you become by sheer number of times it has worked. He is faithful. He has guided, instructed, watched over us. And His love that does not fail has surrounded us-which means nothing can get to us.

So let the righteous rejoice. Rejoice in Him, not luck, not because you waited something out, but because of His protection. Be glad. It is a choice, not easy some times when we look at our situations. Instead of worrying, pray. And afterwards sing. It lifts our spirits and gives us strength to continue. Besides shouldn't those who see us know that this way to live provides joy, not merely serious obedience and some stoic self-control? And singing increases our faith as well as letting the enemy know he is not winning against us.

Eusebius and Gibbon

A few weeks ago I finished reading The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire vol. ii and Eusebius' book on Ecclesiastical History. He details the martyrdoms and sufferings prior to Constantine's conversion. The continuation of the ministry from the apostles through the church fathers who were discipled by them. How the documents became considered to be authentic or not for the New Testament. The myriad methods of torture and suffering, the names of those so honored and where they were from. Those who were tortured but did not die who were also labelled as heroes for their confessions. (By not denying the Lord under pain, they were called confessors.) Eusebius also details the differences of theology and wherein schools of thought arose, who supported or opposed them, and how that interacted -the authorized bishops of God with the rulers. It ends prior to the council of Nicea with an addendum reporting on what transpired there. The Rise and Fall also gave accounts of this, with much less detail, but went before and after-past the crusades to the Ottoman takeover of Constantinople and the desecration of the mighty cathedral of Santa Sophia into a mosque.

Details have long since eluded my short-term memory, and I would not suffer any to have to learn all of that. I direct those interested to those two classic tomes available from most any large library. However, as I read of the mighty stands for righteousness by the Alexandrian bishops and other priests, Athanasius and his predecessor Alexander, of the many before and after-though granting a few others such as Arius crept in with whom they were forced to debate, I had to grieve that so much of what shaped early church history was formulated in now Muslim lands. In Damascus, Antioch, Alexandria, the places listed in the Bible that are usually lesser known outside of there, mostly in Turkey, but Greece, Syria, Egypt, etc., etc. Gibbon covered the time past the first council, in fact of almost all of the councils. Augustine as well. So much was established in your lands before the gospel was brought to us.

It saddened me for you to not know your heritage. Perhaps it has been mentioned before, but a man from Cyrene helped carry the cross of Jesus. He was merely on a trip, and surely returned to testify of what he saw. Saint Augustine was from Hippo. Some list this as in Tunisia, others I believe said Algeria. He moved to several places on both sides of the sea. Whatever, the effect of his teaching reached across to Europe, was debated and studied in Rome, and other provinces around the Mediterranean. Without the faithfulness of your forebears, we would not have the testimony that we do. As my faith is a consequence of the missionary zeal and determination of those from your part of the world, thank you. And may it return to you that your lands not lose the content, just as missionaries from Africa now come to share the gospel in Europe and America to repay their debt to us.

Mohammed's new book

The major point of Islam, distinguished from others who believed in one God, was that Mohammed was his prophet. The ones who wanted to deny him but acknowledge the Creator were condemned. After all the suras had been recorded, sides taken, battles fought, as he lay dying, he requested more paper to record a new book with instructions to his followers. This was denied him so that it did not confuse those who would follow the Koran. And what he had recorded or spoken as he lay in Aisha's hut suffering the result of that poisoning was destroyed. This to me is reprehensible.

If he is after all, god's messenger, how dare his followers deny him anything! His messages as he spoke in Mecca were recorded. The things written as he weakened for Ali to share were passed on, what he gave at his last ministry in the mosque was treasured. If his ultimate revelations were consistent with those, they would not be obscured. Confiscated, obfuscated. What was the basis for silencing their leader? He had to have made statements, ranting in his delirium that discredited the messages or the consistency of them. And what was he finally acknowledging that the others did not desire to be heard?

These were to be his terminal instructions that the ones he had spiritual authority over would have to look to after he was gone. He knew he was dying. Asked special permission to stay with Aisha in comfort instead of passing from one after another of his wives' beds. His final wishes should have been fulfilled. If he recanted a bit of his claims, aware that he would soon have to face the Almighty and answer for his plans or if he gave more radical instructions of how to serve Islam, whatever, they should have been recorded.

However, the message comes down from Muslim historians-for only his closest intimates were around. Aisha and Ali one or both in the room on whose breast he died, depending upon which source you believe. Abu Bakr and others were close by. Uthman and Omar, as two of his father's in laws as well as close confidants, were there too, though not in the room constantly. I will have to check my bio of him to see if Muawya was there too. Anyway, those are the first four declared caliphs-Ali being declared before having to fight for it and losing to Muawya. Abu Bakr,Omar, Uthman, Ali. What right had they to overrule Allah's Apostle, the Messenger, of anything?

It is related that he wanted to supplant the Koran, to dictate a new book, though this one was mostly still verbal, with parts memorized, written on various fragments, and so on, though Omar's daughter had a written copy of all the suras that she guarded. But if he denied the Koran, repudiated it, should they not have listened to their spiritual leader? Should they not receive even part of a new revelation before their source died? For if anything were wrong, surely they would want to know it. And if they did not, why not? What if it pointed them back to the Bible, corroborating more of its authenticity? Shouldn't that make a difference in what their future actions should be? And should not these future leaders of their people care for what was best for their flocks (of people-leaders are called shepherds of the flocks in Christianity.)

Moreover when these scholars led the move after his death to call for all the bits of written suras, copies of Korans around Arabia and Persia, the entire Middle East, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa, shouldn't they have taken into consideration those items they knew he renounced? For if Mohammed renounced even part of the Koran wanting to replace it, what right did they have to foist old, out of date information on the ummah? (Body of believers/the world of Muslims in conglomerate as the Church, the Body of Christ is united by name to signify the entirety of its followers.)

And since these compared and contrasted the variety of recordings noted, they destroyed those that did not fit the form they wanted published. They sat in committee with Zaid ben Thabit who supervised the work. Of course, most of them had been present with their leader when he had had these revelations, or at least repeated them and taught them to others. The hadiths note all the stories which they revealed to others about what he said when, and where he was, and how he did it. In short, these had to be consistent with what the eyewitnesses remembered as accurate to their training from the master. What he taught being separated from what he merely said conversationally. They knew what was revealed to be considered as the Word of God, of Allah. A further purging occured later when more Korans were found with discrepancies, which were again destroyed.

As a side issue, I note from recent study that this was exactly the criteria used by Christians when deciding which letters and writings were Scriptural -to be placed in the New Testament, or which were merely worthy of being read (such as a devotional or story but not included in the Bible,) and which were not. Had they apostolic origin- could they be traced to the teachings of the apostles who had been present during the ministry of Christ? If they were authorized from those He had appointed, or were related by them to others who recorded them, that gave authenticity to them. They not only had to be consistent with those teachings, but they had to have been used and accepted by the disciples of the disciples, who had been carefully trained to gain position in order to protect from error creeping in. Then they had to divine whether these writing had been indeed considered Scripture and accepted by the Body for a couple of generations. This was not difficult for the multitudes of writings of the church fathers both in their devotionals and in their doctrinal defense against what they considered heresy, they quoted or referred to certain passages in order to refute or make a point. They had recorded sermons as well.

If the writings to be evaluated were merely interesting reading, the equivalent of being used as a hadith instead of a sura, then they were not granted the authority as being holy writ. Because those who more fully knew the Lord, being actually anointed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost would have discerned fraud or error, or lesser quality. If they taught from it and granted it authority, as they did all of Paul's letters from the beginning, then that was proof that they fully embraced, confirmed, and submitted to its teaching. And their disciples were aware of their legacy.

Whether the apostles had used them led into how the church had received them, so the acceptance of the Body over generations was the third issue. They were equally zealous and concerned for authenticity as those composing the authoritative Koran. Perhaps more so. For they had no denial by Jesus at the last minute, "oops I was wrong about this. Let's try again. Throw that other out, and begin anew." As I have noted in the former posts I have questions about what was thrown out by this committee. How do we know what was published is what he truly said? The evidence of other comments has been discarded. And you have only to trust the character and commitment of these caliphs and his servant that what they produced was accurate.

Probably not a difficult thing for you. But if they were so committed to Mohammed and his discernment, why did they suppress what he wanted to inculcate before he died? You say, well, Mohammed was out of his head. Yes, but they had been with him when he was in trances before. If he cared about teaching others, he must have been lucid enough and concerned for his spiritual responsibilities. Why discount him now? It was his final chance to show his love and mercy on his followers.

This is of paramount importance. Deathbed confessions, statements, instructions of all kinds including wills, are taken very seriously in the west. These are not required to be notarized if in their writing, because of the significance of the dying one being allowed to disperse his truth, his home, his money, his conscience before it is too late. And their accusations are admissible in court. Therefore what they verify and deny is, forgive the term, deathly serious.

Of course, there is also the possibility that accuracy was not their primary concern, but rather continuity of message, of the work that they had based the significance of their lives on, which led to positions of power they were continuing to gain, and had expectations of increasing with Mohammed leaving them. Right or wrong, they would not lose what they had invested years in building up, even if it were false. And if it were not discernably true, what does it say of their actual confidence in their spiritual leader? Did it matter any more if Mohammed was Allah's Apostle if they were gaining tributes and booty, women, and alliances with other countries extending their power?

In fact, I would say the New Testament had a greater clarity of examination by those studying its passages. They had a greater standard of a smell test. A greater number of those involved who held to the objectivity of those standards. As anyone knows pleasing a committee is more difficult than an individual or a small group of people. Those parts of the New Testament that took longer to ascertain, or were left out failed because of those issues. The epistles of the Apostle Paul were not among those, for the Apostle Peter confirmed them as scripture. Saul/Paul went to Arabia and for three years was taught by visions and/or the appearances of Jesus to him.

Not having been among those trained during the three years ministry of the Savior-either as one of the twelve, or of the seventy, or those who followed listening to his preaching, he nevertheless submitted himself for examination by Jesus' brother James, to Peter, and even to a church council headed by those two. They agreed that his teachings were consistent with what they had been taught, and authorized him to continue. And, as mentioned, Peter acknowledges the writings of Paul as Scripture. They were spread to other churches to be read and studied, not merely kept as letters from one visitor to an individual church.

Furthermore we did not destroy other writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas, which reading can illustrate why it was not accepted. The quality is not the same, and the theology not fully consistent. Anyway, I object to your claim that the accuracy of your message has been retained, is unquestionable, and that mine has not been. I find the situation opposite to reality. Again, I would ask, if there are questions, will you examine them, rather than merely hating me for bothering to bring them up?

Also, some have suggested that the bishops were intimidated to agree. However these men who were the bishops had over their lifetimes been proven "confessors." They were those who had suffered torture for their faith and had only in the last year or so been delivered from their trials. They had lost houses and churches, positions, and refused to merely sacrifice to the false god of emperor worship, and to other idols. That had been offered to them if they would only go through the motions, they could avoid torture and loss of wealth.

Yet these had suffered hunger, wandered about forests, mountains and deserts rather than deny the truths they lived for. They had also, many of them served and observed their brethren who after torture became martyrs by dying from their injuries. Thus they were not easily awed or influenced. And they had denied their positions rather than serve emperors and others who required heresy. Thus the accusation of political intimidation demeans the proven nobility of their faith. Read Eusebius of Caesarea's book, Ecclesiatical History, for details of their sufferings if you do not believe me. And let me state that to such men the importance of orthodoxy was essential. They would not have suffered for something transitory or unsure. And after having risked their lives for it, they had a right to protect from lesser men that which they knew to be true.

Part of obedience and submission is facing the consequences of what your revealed truth imparts, not denying it, suppressing, or ignoring it. So again I ask, if Mohammed was Allah's Messenger why did they not publish what he had to say? And why do you follow that which Mohammed wanted to replace?

Nigeria: Muslim Hordes Mass Slaughter Christians - Atlas Shrugs

Nigeria: Muslim Hordes Mass Slaughter Christians - Atlas Shrugs
There is supposed to be a picture of dozens of bodies laying on ground, with machete wounds that were charred because the Christians outnumbered the Muslims and dared to elect a Christian president.

Fighting the Civil War

I had a revelation in the last few days, which was somewhat humbling. It is always embarrasing to see yourself do something for which you have judged others. Seeing yourself more clearly can be hazardous in areas of pride.

For several decades my mind and soul have been overwhelmed by/deluged with the presence of those who refight the American Civil War in their minds. Reading many tomes about specific battles, they examine the battle tactics, the choices of the generals, and so on and so forth until they convince themselves that they could have won if only. Then they deny the evil inherent in their side's position, that they were fighting in order to subjugate others.

States' rights they declare. Yes, one may grant but rights to do what? To own slaves is the historical answer. Our Congress fought over this in the 1850's to grant new states the rights, but balanced how many of which type each state could be so that they would not overwhelm the strength of either side. Finally, one has to say, do you not comprehend that the Almighty made a judgment, that your side must lose. The blood and lives lost purged our country of the evil it had done. And freed many from oppression that it not continue. If it seems that incontrovertible evidence is that a general should have won, but lost, does it not seem likely that God must have willed it?

Anyway, as much as I have abhorred those who cannot accept their side lost, I have at times wanted to scream your side lost, deal with it. (In truth, my great grandfather was named after the president of the losing side, so I know what side my family embraced.) That is not to say that I do not believe righteous men were on the losing side as well as the one that won. Yes, some were Christian believers of such faith that they were described with much good will and loyalty for their behavior.

Nevertheless they lost. While I do NOT believe that every side that wins is righteous, this particular time I do. It has happened in history, and was even prophesied in the Bible that God would use wicked nations, fierce and practicing hideous ungodliness, to chastise the godly who had slipped in following all His ways. It was to cause them to repent, to seek Him, to more fully obey.

Anyway, as I was writing about the Kafar, about their trials, about the evil of the Muslim raids and invasions, I realized that this was my Civil War. My war that was so unacceptable that I studied the battles. If the Muslims were so outnumbered for so long, how did they win? How could the Almighty have allowed it. Certainly the evils described in the Koran imposed upon those who would not convert, were also hideous. The oppressed called out for justice.

My writings, my arguments wrestle with these issues. I want to influence those who do not see them. How can you be so blind I want to ask. The answer I come to is this, the arguments are already out there. If you read your Koran, you are responsible to know that some say they have an intercessor, who is Jesus. That we claim Him to be the Son of God. That He was sinless, and did great deeds, miraculous ones to prove His authority.

If you can read that it is okay to take a man's wife and make her your concubine, and your conscience doesn't worry over that, then you are responsible for chosing to agree with evil. If you can punish one whose conscience does not allow submission by enslaving his children, after killing him, or read about it and not cringe, then you have problems. I do not have to write further. Perhaps I will, but it is unnecessary.

So for me, I have to question, do I have to wrestle with battles, and suras? Does it change anything? It does not change the past. Whether it will change the future, remains to be seen. But this frees me. I do not need to repeat the frustrations of the descendants of the Confederates. I will free my soul by refusing to be burdened down. It happened. I will have to trust the Lord's wisdom in allowing it.

I have discovered that some of the monks traveled as a result to European sites. The Lord Jesus told his disciples to take the message to the rest of the world. Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world, they were told. And He also told them that oppression would come. Not just to them, but to Israel because it had rejected Him. A couple of decades later, the fall of Jerusalem did occur. But before then, the Christians had been forced to flee.

Persecution enabled the Church (the Body of Christ) to accomplish its mission. The Romans had, because of the Pax Romana, been a conduit of spreading the gospel over the known world. But they had suffered attacks by pagan tribes, and were still under assault in the parts that had not yet fallen. But the Near East and Northern Africa were repositories of Christian faithful who for centuries had fought for orthodoxy. By spreading them, He allowed the message to return to the west what was being lost.

I also discovered that two of the most formidable enemies of Mohammed, Abu Sufian and his uncle Abbas, ended up having their descendants take over the movements. The first were caliphs in Damascus, the other in Baghdad. The men who fought because they did not want the trade hurt by the fanatics, ended up with their descendants having much greater trade, and their tribes expanded.

Abu Bekr and others made rules, not to attack or afflict the monks as the Muslims spread their faith. Not all followed those teachings, but some protections were supposed to be there. Christian tribes were to be left alone if they paid the jizyah. These also have been ignored from time to time, including horrible oppression in the last few years. But there has been some protection over the years, so cooler minds did work at times. This helped me to accept the Lord's decisions.

Anyway, it is what it is. Now it is time for me to love. For fighting does not always produce benefit, but love always does. Won't say it was a catharsis, but it did lighten the burden. I do not need a civil war to fight.

and now libya

Do we support democracy, that is the question. Yes, or republics with representational governments that have legislatures, instead of mere mob rule-majority over minority with no protections for the weak, the few. If it is merely a question do we desire that those living under oppresion should be free, that is a no-brainer. Of course. But that is not the only question. Do we want to interfere in a foreign government to help replace it with another oppresive one? No.

Yet the freedom loving army in Egypt has marched on and destroyed part of a monastery, sending several monks to the hospital. Those in authority deny any wrongdoing, but the video proves otherwise, and the men present in the hospital speak louder than the denials. The police that had been assigned to protect the place vacated their posts during the recent riots, leaving the holy men with no protection. After that, they built a wall to keep out rioters and other Islamists that fail to respect others' right to worship differently.

The army came with tanks and of course, bullets to tear down and try to scare off the opposition. Because anyone who doesn't believe as they do are their enemies. If this were merely limited to Egypt, it would be an isolated incident. But it is not. From Indonesia to Morocco, all over the world, Islamic states oppress Christians and Jews, and any that do not follow their teaching. In fact, they oppress little girls, making them marry for the benefit of dirty old men. They fail to protect their women, allowing them to be raped, unless they foresaw the problem and had four male witnesses-who presumably stood by and watched. Because if they did not, if they tried to stop it, the rape wouldn't have occurred.

Foreigners may be allowed to worship in a church, but a church cannot expand its facilities to accomodate them. It cannot replace structures that need repairs, even if it is an ancient site of hundreds of years. And under no circumstances may those believers expound their beliefs to the citizens of the country, allowing them to convert. So, should the soldiers who would bring freedom to a place desire to visit or live in said "democracy", they themselves would experience no freedom. Thus, the question of whether we in the west should intervene to prove our dedication to liberty, begs the question of whether there would indeed be freedom there. It is more, should we expend our monies and extend our debt, injure or kill our sons for another form of oppression? To which I have to exclaim, no. Not only no, but hell no.

Our president has praised the soldiers of Egypt and Libya who failed to obey their leader's instructions to shoot on their people. To do so would be a heinous sin. What would those men face before the leaders are replaced? They face charges of disobedience, of treason. Our president approves of this. So, I would tell our military, follow his values, be a traitor to this president who would send you to overthrow another government, to step into another country's fight.* Not that we approve of their leader. But a people who embrace oppression have no right to ask for help in replacing one form of oppression with another. Not our job.

If we send our men, let it be to establish freedom. If they come home wounded for life, minus a limb, with post-traumatic stress syndrome that destroys their family life or ability to work, let it be to send liberty throughout that country. Otherwise let those who embrace oppression wallow in it. And let us pay off our debts, including those for liberating a country who had incredible resources but left us to handle our own problems, rather than share their oil. For those who want to have roadside bombs rather than voting for their countrymen, education for their women, burkas for the females rather than freedom to move or see or work or travel where they desire. Are we to pay twice the amount for oil for a different oppressive government? Not a wise move if we think of our own interests. Throw off your dictators yourselves.

This is indeed a problem to me. For I do not want to be misconstrued as supporting Ghaddafi. Partly I have indulged a smugness over those who tolerate oppression-whether in the Middle East, North Africa, South or Central America, even Mexico. WE, I tell myself, overthrew the greatest army of our time. The British were a formidable force to reckon with. My ancestors faced them along with the ancestors of many other Americans. We pride ourselves on their courage, as well as that of other generations who threw off Nazi's, Japs, and other oppressors around the world. This includes the folks in Morocco who captured one of our citizens. Teddy Roosevelt sent in the Marines at Tripoli to attack from the east, transversing Libya and Algeria to get there.

If others want freedom, I say, they must gather their courage and face their oppressors before they can earn the right. But it is bluster, and I admit it. Without the presence of the French at a momentous time, we would have failed. Perhaps to win it later, but who knows. Without a Prussian general, who trained us, the army at Valley Forge would not have been the force George Washington needed. But then again, our hunting rifles could outshoot them. Our guerilla warfare similar in fact to tactics of terrorists- hiding within the civilian population and behind trees rather than out in the open as an army. The British did not own automatic weapons or bazookas, that facing would have been suicide.

So do we owe this to another people, to enable them as they have shown the courage to fight? I think after the last two world wars, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf I and II, we do not owe anyone anything. But still, is it true to our values? Might we hope that a people owning their own rights might discover what freedom is? Even if they start with an Islamic state, might they learn that Islam doesn't work, as Iran has, and decide that is not what they really want? Perhaps. And would a world several decades from now be a better place? Don't know, but would the deaths required to get there be a worthy investment of American blood and resources? If we are not positive, then let us wait until we are. (They must decide for themselves, and have, the worth of their own lives.) I speak here as an American, not as a Christian. Because if the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, the losses of Christians might be justified to free an entire country, region, peoples of their delusions. But neither should they be minimized.

*Disclaimer. I do not advocate treason against America. I would hope the Pentagon would have its own leaders who would protest if Obama used our troops to further Islamic issues. However, I have full confidence in our military that they would do their duty, and would not listen to someone such as I who has the right to say whatever I think because of their courage. Whether the President has American issues at heart, or not, I think our country is strong enough to withstand his mistakes and stupidity until the next election. Though it would be nice to think if a group of us decided to stay in some square complaining about the incredible problems he has caused, that he would have the same sensitivity to step down that he has preached to others.

And though there are those who would object saying, "But we support him," an understanding person might add, "yes, well surely there were many in the places where protests were taking place that supported their leaders, or at least were happily going about their lives in peace and safety that a riot or revolution would put in jeopardy." Not that I expect any of this to occur, but neither do I believe we have the right to demand a leader to step down merely because some group or combination of groups coordinated their efforts to embarrass their president. Those would be, per witness testimony: Islamists, socialists, communists, and unions, but I repeat myself. It is pompous, presumptious of us to announce who should have the right to lead in a country not our own. Surely we heard this enough in the war in Iraq. Or is that a sentiment expressed purely to manipulate a situation when it is not going the way others want?

The Dilemma

Wrestling with how fervently to speak out lest I be taken for one bigoted against others simply for being different, I desire to show love and appreciation for peoples who share a faith so similar and yet so opposite what I believe, that I stagger under the weight. This is not the first time I have been gripped by the needs of a group that deserve respect and concern, while strongly disagreeing with the methods by which those are attained.

As a young adult, I was touched by the sorrows and prejudices faced by the homosexual community. Due to personal contact I was allowed to see some of their trials and joys even while not accepting the validity of the lifestyle. I was perhaps the only evangelical I knew who had spent so much time in their company. (Of course, others with greater ministries did far more, but not where I lived. Mine was not a ministry, it was merely friendship.)

While raising my children, living in their neighborhoods, and being involved in the schools, I was gripped by the dilemma of the illegals. Many of the mothers and children were so sweet, that I could only recognize that these would be good citizens, and make good contributions to our society. Of course, I also saw significant downsides. Many of the older kids seemed to flash signals with their hands which I could only assume were gang signs. (Occasionally they would admit it.)

With my home over the fence from local apartments, we heard sirens at any time of day. Sometimes shots would ring out. A walk through the woods between us and the park revealed sofas, makeshift tents out of plastic, the remains of burnt out fires, along with wrappers and cans from meals shared there. Chauferring children home from school or scouts led to hearing stories. Neighborhood kids growing up quickly led to a surprising abundance of unplanned pregnancies for teenagers who still seemed children to me.

News reports of crimes by those here illegally natually led to concern over the integrity and safety of my country. Frustrations of employment concerns amid neighbor's reports of problems when their sons worked with groups of hispanics arose. Being singled out, not hired because we did not speak their language, being screened by bilingual workers who did not hire us although being well qualified, and who continued to advertise for the spot, these led to occasional resentments and more frequent doubts about human resources commitment to fairness.

During that period I spent an inordinate amount of time subbing for bilingual teachers, some who did not share the same commitment to education as did I, yet were not only receiving teacher's pay (far superior to a sub's) but also a bonus of ten thousand dollars or more for speaking Spanish, even if their English was lacking. (How were they to teach children our language properly?) Some made the kids take extra-long naps so as not to have to teach them in the afternoon. Again I was torn between fighting to protect my own group and rights while wanting to acknowledge the problems of these people. It was not that I could not make up my mind on the issues. It was that the issues were complex, as were the needs of both sides.

People want you to decide which side you are on. Being seen with a group other than those you would naturally belong to raises eyebrows. Defending the rights of others also lends to misunderstanding and suspicion. They demand complete loyalty, which I cannot give. And those you would reach out to, also have expectations. If you cannot provide that, you fail in their eyes as well. I did not seek out these situations, mostly. People I knew and loved brought some of this into my pathway, obstructing my efforts to walk my own path and mind my own business. Perhaps these were just so prevalent that encountering them was inevitable, but somehow most of my neighbors and family managed to avoid entrapment. Yet in all the struggle to understand others and cope with whatever the situation, I have grown as a person. (I note that my body has grown substantially as well, perhaps the result of the stress.) Anyway, I appreciate the many people I have encountered over the decades of my life, and hope that you will show some tolerance for my struggles as well, knowing the love and concern I have tried to show.

The next segment-the rescue

16 He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
he drew me out of deep waters.
17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.
20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I have not done evil by turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.


According to the notes before this Psalm it was written after David had been delivered from Saul and his enemies. Since Psalm 51 and others are songs of confession, it is not that David is delusional about himself. But many of those are from later in his life when he had made some bad decisions, as well as having faced up to bad habits and the consequences to his family. At this point in his young life, however, anyone would have to admit that he had behaved exceptionally righteously, beyond expectation of how one would treat their enemy.

When Saul had repeatedly chased him, intent on killing him, he had crossed over into enemy lines, left a spear right by King Saul's sleeping body. When David returned to safety, he called to them, to point out that if he had had the desire to hurt the sovereign, he could have done so. David respected the Lord's anointed king, and would not hurt him to further his own career. Though Saul was jealous because the people sang of Saul killing his thousands and David his ten thousands, David had patience to wait for God's own timing. The prophet Samuel had long since anointed him saying God was replacing Saul with David, but David still faithfully served Saul and his family.

These and other stories of the kings of Israel, and of David are in I and II Samuel, I and II Chronicles and I and II Kings. (The various prophets also reveal some content of the historical periods. They are known as the large and small prophets for the size of the books- example Isaiah and Jeremiah are large and Malaki is small.) Though like the Koran, sometimes they repeat some of the tales, they are coherent stories of many chapters rather than merely a few verses. Anyway, he praises the Lord for his deliverances, because without them, he- a shepherd boy, would not have been raised to king. For us, these are like poetic verses describing the depths of the love we hope He would show us in desperate times. However, as many are the chapters that chronicle David's adventures out in the mountains and all over Israel, it is probable that he actually had storms that came and pushed his enemies back.

More of Psalm 18

7. The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because He was angry.
8. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.
9. The Lord parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
10. He mounted the cherabim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.
11. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12. Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced, with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
13. The Lord thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.
14. He shot his arrows and scattered the enemies, great bolts of lightning and routed them.
15. The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of breath of your nostrils.


Having decided to spare any reader my thoughts, interpretations or applications of meditating on this passage, I do note that this appears a very straight-forward description of the Almighty coming to the rescue in a personal battle for one He loves. He does not have angels or others doing his work, he has more than enough from his own abilities to accomplish it. His very anger explodes. He has light and fire within with which to make earthquakes or lightnings. Clouds march towards the battle (advance-as a military term) and lightning becomes his arrows. At the very end, the last verse seems out of place.

I wondered whether he was thinking back to when the Lord had worked for Moses and the children of Israel, but it does not mention them. However, I decided it had more to do with the reaction of something that had occurred previously. God's first reaction is fuming anger which causes the earth to quake. While it goes on to speak of what he does for David's deliverance, a later effect of an earthquake is a tsunami, or rearrangement of waters. (The possibility of the opening of the reed sea for Moses has been explained as a plausible aftereffect of an earthquake, according to some scientists quoted on tv.) Therefore the verse is there for a reason. God acts and the results continue though we may not see them for awhile.

Reminding the reader that his own study should be more than just a peripheral reading. Observation of what words are used is followed by interpretation. What connotations do these words have to oneself, one's language and culture? The application of how one can/should use these to better serve the Lord, obey or correct one's life, follows. Any special words that need further study can be pursued with a word study using a concordance, dictionary, or topical index. If a specific word is not used in a passage but it relates to the subject, a concordance will not bring it up but a topical index will. However, the concordance is the best place to start.

Also, a good study Bible such as a Ryrie's or any other that is labelled a study Bible, will have footnotes with explanations as well as introductions to each book, outlines of the book, etc. It should be noted that these comments reflect the theological slant of the writer and do not necessarily have the authority of Scripture to back them up. (For example, many of the study Bibles have a pretribulation slant, and sometimes a dispensational view. If you do not know those terms, do not worry about them, just note that notes should be taken with a grain of salt, and reflect only a man's opinion.) Maps at the end are standard for most any version as well. And most Bibles have reference columns that point one to other verses in the Bible that are similar, usually these are noted by alphabetic footnotes rather than numerical. They can be on the sides, in the middle, or at the bottom of the page. I have noticed that some Korans hold similar study helps, so this should not be hard to follow.

Meditations can be different than a Bible study. Perhaps more leftbrained than right, it allows one to soak up rather than analyze the Scripture. I have found that memorizing forces me to concentrate more on the words used, so that more things jump out at me. Repeating them to myself after I have stored it may bring new considerations to mind that never occurred to me when I was first examining the passage. And it also brings people or applications to me to pray over as I claim the Scriptures for living.

Psalm 18

Again I am working at memorizing Scripture. It has been healing to me and brought much peace and insight. This is only the first six verses of a very long piece.

1) I love you, O LORD, my strength.
2) The LORD is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
3) I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies.
4) The cords of death entangled me; the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me.
5) The cords of the grave coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me.
6) In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple he heard my voice, my cries came before him, into his ears.


Battling life, people who seek your destruction weary a soul, God only can provide actual strenth. (Other bases are temporary refuges that leave one weaker and unprotected.) Gibralter is a rock, a fortress. But even it can be bridged. That is how it got its name Jebel Tariq, when it was mounted by Tariq the Muslim conquerer sometime during the 800 years Muslims occupied Spain. A deliverer is needed to maintain one's safety. He is our rock in which to find safe refuge.

A shield. A Christian woman well versed in Hebrew traditions informed me that the Star of David is actually called the shield of David. So when I read that the shield of David is the Lord, it made me understand that the shield is the LORD, the protector of His people. I had been wearing a Star of David, so that made that sign a better symbol to me-more of the Lord than of remembrance of the Jewish people.

I grew up in the culture of the 1950's, when westerns were a daily affair. Three or four hours each evening were saturated with watching the good guys fight with the bad guys, the cowboys fight the Indians. Wagon trains which were almost destroyed, battles that were nearly lost, were reassured by the call of the bugle. The calvary came to the rescue. Sometimes bagpipes substited for them. Thus, "the horn of my salvation" brings to mind the call of the army that is coming to my defense, who will win the day. The army of the Lord, his heavenly hosts, or just the Lord himself.

My stronghold. Many Christian books speak of strongholds of the enemy where we have given ground due to our sin, fears, or sins of our fathers. We are to take authority over them, rebuke the devil and he will flee from us. But with the Lord as my stronghold, I am safe. I call and I am saved. Cause and effect, dependable. Such a Lord is worthy to be praised.

What threatens us? Death, destruction, the grave, enemies who want to put us there. Such poetic language here, grasps the horror he went through. He had Saul frothing over him, though he had given no reason to the king to oppose him. He had his son take allies and remove him from power for awhile. He had to flee and hide in order to survive. Though we may not have actual armies out hunting us, or kings seething over us, yet we face death, disease, destruction. Cords tie us up. Yet this is progressive. Entangles me becomes coils around me.

Torrents speak of flooding waters with such power the currents are impossible to withstand. David was overwhelmed, as we all are by things that face us. Death is final, but the grave leaves no room for rescue, no hope for resurrection except in the Last Day. The snares of death confront us-where some item takes us and holds us and will not let us escape. At that point we must face it for we cannot avoid the situation further. Whether it is physical death we face, such as by cancer, we all have items in our life we are confronted by and that we must confront. So what does the psalmist do?

In his distress he called to the Lord. He cried to his God for help. Now many a person cries to God, but not all receive help. The other day my cat was meowing, as she does daily. Sometimes she can be quite obnoxious in her determination. It is not as if she is not taken care of. But sometimes even with food, she complains. We open the door but she will not go out. At times we must ignore her plaintive cries if we are to concentrate on anything else. It occured to me that we were like cats. The Lord hears all our constant complaints, and sometimes just shuts them out. After all, the praises of the cherabim and seraphim, thousands upon thousands of angels, compete against all the prayers of the saints, and the growlings of the unbelievers. Not that He doesn't hear them, but they may not have the same urgency to Him as they do to us.

But for David, the Lord recognized his voice. Just as a mother can hear, even in her sleep, the cries of her baby. Anyone can hear it when it is loud, but a special attachment is in her hearing to recognize the calls of her child. Because He heard the voice of one belonging to him, he allowed the cries to come before him, into his ears. Come before signifies a throne room in which the needs are brought before a soverign. Not just everyone can barge in, it is a privilege to be heard.

I saw the ruins of such a room in Marrakech. Barely the floorplan remained, and a few walls, of this centuries old ruler's domain. Nevertheless, it was impressive. One could imagine the envoys from other lands passing the garden (orchards of tangerines) or the subterfuges of this or that messenger trying to be heard. The waiting rooms, the family rooms (the harem for women and children) and private chambers. It was wearisome just walking the distance. And the heat without air-conditioning or electric fans would have been stifling. Of course, in old movies one sees slaves whose job it is to fan with feathers so that the privileged do not suffer much. They have iced drinks. With the city being not too far from the High Atlas mountains, the snow run off provided cool spring water even though it is only a couple of hundred miles (? or less) from the Sahara. Clearly the luxuries of the Lord's court and temple, are far below that of the Moroccan king, whose name I cannot even remember. But if the terror and power of such a man in an obscure place was so great, how much more impressive is that of the Lord?


Now you may not believe this psalm to be a better sura, but I do. While the Koran speaks of God's help with peoples, his believers as a group, it declares no one can know God. This passage clearly indicates a relationship exists of such intimacy and individual protection that that premise is refuted. The next verses show such power in how the Almighty responds, that it is overwhelming. But that must wait for another day and another post, after I have put to memory those verses and meditated on their meaning.

(I also note that when I quote the verses, though I might want to capitalize words, I do not unless they are written thus in Scripture. And when I use the word Scripture I mean the Bible, as when you do, you probably mean the Koran.)