Oz Author? Wicca? Trans-gender?

A thread has been posted asking for info on the author of the Harry Potter series.

I am interested in the sort of accusations that were made about the Oz series and their original author, L. Frank Baum.

In the first book, Oz was ruled by four witches (and a bogus wizard).

In the second book a good witch has magically transformed the infant rightful sovereign of Oz, Princess Ozma, as a boy in order to protect him/her until he/she comes of age and can be magically transformed into a girl.

The worst I have read about the author is that he supported the theatrical arts and perhaps certain actresses.

But it is of interest to compare the reception of fictional witches one hundred years ago with today.

The rise of the charismatic movement during the same time period has, of course, made contemporary spiritual miraculous events, whether good or evil, more acceptable to many.

The movie, "The Exorcist" and the interesting book, "Hostage to the Devil", were influential in extending this popular acceptability to demon possession and harassment.

I have a suspicion that it is this cultural change, and not greater spiritual discernment that has given rise to the explosion of prejudice against Harry Potter.

I have read the first Potter book. And nothing in it made me think that it was more evil than other contemporary fiction. From the points of view of ordinary morality and good writing, it is head and shoulders above most contemporary fiction.

Jane Fonda Goes To War

I knew there was something missing from the major armed conflicts of the last few decades.

No Jane Fonda in the capital of the enemy encouraging their anti-aircraft gunners to shoot down more of our aircraft.

CNN reporting live from Baghdad is not the same. No matter how much support they give the enemy.

From a Town Hall article, See Jane's Magical Mystery Tour :

Kathleen Parker / July 27, 2005

Like millions of Americans, I heaved a sigh of relief upon reading that Jane Fonda finally is going to speak out against the war in Iraq. Where has she been?

On book tour promoting her autobiography-in-progress, "My Life So Far." We might have guessed a real-time sequel was in the offing.

Fonda says that, having met some veterans and their families while on tour, she's decided to break her silence. "I've decided I'm coming out," she told an audience in Santa Fe, N.M. "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that."

That baggage includes the now infamous photo of Fonda in 1972 sitting atop a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of that country. Many Vietnam vets do not forgive Fonda for what they view as treason and for making their lives harder, especially prisoners of war who were tortured in her name. To her limited credit, Fonda has apologized.

Still, her newest foray into antiwar territory feels like a cartoonish parody of her former self. Jane Fonda playing Jane Fonda. In her newest version of Me, Myself and I, Fonda will segue from book tour to antiwar tour via a cross-country trip on a bus that runs on vegetable oil. Slick. But is it canola? […]

We knew that World War II was serious when Lucky Strike green went to war. Similarly, Jane Fonda has made the war on terror a serious business.

(Lucky Strike cigarettes changed the color of the pack from green to white. Proclaiming to the American people that this wartime sacrifice was because of the scarcity of a chemical used in the dye that was critical to the war effort. Later it was learned that their research had determined that white would sell more cigarettes.)

Intelligent Design Dialogue

{{_ >>It seems to me to be very logical to believe in true science except when it is contradicted by the Bible.>

{{_ Have you read 1 cor 15:35? reconcile that with science. }}

We have no duty to reconcile that which is beyond us. Where there is apparent contradiction between the Bible and science, I believe the Bible. After all, the Bible claims to be absolutely true. Science does not. There may or may not be helpful harmonizing conjectures. This is secondary.

There are apparent contradictions within science. Is light basically a ray, a particle, or a wave? But we have faith in the application of the correct analogy according to the immediate practical problem.

There are apparent contradictions in the Bible. Most get resolved with prayer and study and meditation and Providence and the indwelling Spirit. Some remain to remind us of our weakness and dependency upon God. Some are clearly beyond us. Scripture clearly and strongly teaches both an absolutely sovereign God and human moral responsibility. The harmonization of this is clearly beyond us. But those that have been give the faith that is born of God (1 John 5.4-5), that have persistent inner assurance to two impossible things,. that one is a child of God despite defects, and that a Man rose from the dead, also are able to believe strongly in those things strongly and plainly taught, despite apparent paradox. From the point of view of the Creator there is evidently no paradox in this case.

{{_ >>It seems to me to be very illogical to believe in the Bible except when it is contradicted by science.

{{_ Joshua held up his arnm and the Sun and moon remmained stationary for a whole day. Would you say the earths rotation stopping is anti-science? }}

No. I would say that God is not to be limited by human knowledge. There is an interesting conjecture about this. Science no longer looks at time as an absolute. The simplest way for this miracle to take place would be for time outside of the vicinity of Moses to stop.

{{_ >>After all, the Bible claims to be eternally true, science states that it can change.>

{{_ Being fixed like astrology is not a basis for expanding knowledge. }}

(I did not know that astrology has a sacred text. Astrology has been used since Galileo to bash the Bible, but this is discredited foolishness.)

The sureness of knowledge is due to the sureness of its base. The base for some is eternal unchanging values of truth, beauty, moral goodness. The relative unchanging nature of language and the absolute laws of mathematics add to this base. Some believe in these things through God-given saving faith. Others have the great classical systems of philosophy and reason. Others cling to them as they seem to need them to keep from drowning in unreason. This is called building on a rock, sand, and quicksand, respectively.

{{_ >>Evolution as a theory of origins of life and species is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.>

{{_ Evolution is how life evolves the begining of life is a seperate area, As I stated creationists magazine say only 16000 animals entered the Ark 4000 years ago, and from that we have todays over i million veriations, and no one notice horse giving birth to Zebra or Tigers giving birth to Puma who gave birth to mountian lion who gave birth to lepoards. }}

The important, real life, present day, illusion that is leading the vast majority of educated mankind astray is the notion that life, and separate species or kinds evolved through random variations.

These spiritually impoverished souls, be they elect or reprobate, are ignorant of the God-affirming and Bible-affirming truth: that all this is a myth and the antithesis of true science.

Evolution as taught and believed is the world's new astrology.

And the various brands of creation science taught as science are even more arcane astrology.

{{_ >>Creation science faces the horrific task of proving its theories both from science and scripture.>

{{_ IThey don't actually do science, they do reviews. }}

Then why don't they call it "Creation Reviewing"?

The answer is plain. The "creation scientists", like the evolutionists, wrap themselves in the flag of true science for propaganda purposes.

The extraordinary material benefits of the application of true science have made science even more than patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels, and the first cloak of faulty thinking.

{{_ >>At the heart of true science is the reproduceable experiment.>

{{_ I suggest past events can't be reproduced. }}

Some can. Some cannot. Those that can, like the apple hitting Newton's head, are the basis of true science. Those that cannot, like the evolution of life or species, are the basis of conjecture.

{{_ >>Evolutionary science has failed to evolve a new species.>

{{_ If they did would you stop believing in a god?}}

No. If science contradicts scripture, I believe scripture. Why believe something that admits it changes, when the Lord has affirmed the unchangeableness of scripture?

Particularly when one is given the inner witness of the Spirit that God is true.

{{_ The area of interest would be genetics. }}

Are you serious? The main area of interest for many would be Bible bashing.

{{_ >>Or to produce a reasonable conjecture about the evolution of cellular life in terms of today's micro-biology.>

{{_ I have no idea what you mean. }}

Today, microbiologists know a lot more about how the cell works than Darwin and his contemporaries did. No qualified scientist has published even a conjecture of how cellular structures could have evolved on their own.

{{_ >>And the creation scientists have been of use in pointing these things out.>

{{_ They use other scientists findings, edit to suit and just post those that agree with their religious stance. As you said "After all, the Bible claims to be eternally true". So they are only about evanglising and profit. }}

They and the people who support them believe the effort to be worthwhile. And small arms used against the fortress of evolution at least get peoples attention.

But the big guns are the honest scientists. (Note: Behe links at Amazon not working. Anti-Behe links are. Usual suspects, one supposes. Swift Boat Vets had problems there too.) But Google gets: Darwin's Black Box link.

{{_ >>Itelligent design appears to be the best scientific conjecture these days

{{_ I have been to ID forum. same old arguments.}}

Get mostly the same old arguments on all forums. Intelligent Design lacks the excitement of "Bible bashing" or "Standing up for the Creator through Science", but it is as far as true science can take us.

"Suiciders": Brain-Washed Or -Rinsed?

There seems to be more and more evidence that a substantial majority of those who are termed "suicide bombers" are merely dupes who really wanted to survive.

There seem to have been a lot more brain-rinsed pseudo-suiciders than brain-washed real suiciders.

They were told that the "button" started a timer and that they would have time to get clear of the package or vehicle before it exploded. Or only told to drive to a certain place and await instructions.

Or, in other cases, a minder attends the suicider until the last approach to the target. (And perhaps has a timed or wireless detonation backup.)

Terrorist chieftains do not only rely upon the efficacy of their brain washing to override a young person's will to live. Craftiness and deceit also play a part:

From: Sunday Telegraph interview with Walid Shoebat, onetime brain-washed real suicider.

It was an opportunity Walid embraced. After he was released from prison, he was given a bomb hidden inside a loaf of bread. "I was told to be at the door of the Leumi bank in Bethlehem, carrying the bomb, at 6pm. At five minutes to six, I was there. As I stood waiting for my contact on the steps of the bank, I saw a group of Arab children playing on the street. They were laughing and smiling. I thought: 'These children are going to get killed by my bomb.' And, all of a sudden, I just couldn't do it. I didn't want to kill those kids."

Walid threw the bomb on the roof of the bank and ran away. He heard the bomb explode. "It went off at 6pm - exactly the moment that, if I had obeyed my orders, I would have been holding it on the steps of the bank. I hadn't realised that I had volunteered for a suicide mission - that I would have been killed had it gone according to plan."

Did he feel angry that he had been duped? "No, not at all. I was willing to die. I wanted to kill Jews. I didn't trust the man who recruited me after that, though. And I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb."

Having seen both sides, Walid Shoebat, has a rather refreshing, clear eyed view of the best future for the people and land of his birth and his youth:

So how does he think the conflict between Israel and Palestine will be resolved? "There is no solution," he says gravely, "except a military one: the crushing defeat of all Palestinian military groups, and then the imposition of a new system, like that which was imposed by the Americans on Japan at the end of the Second World War. You see, the people I grew up with were not interested in achieving peace with Israel. They believe that God has given them the right to destroy Israel. They are searching for the power to do it. And my experience is that they cannot be negotiated with. They have to be defeated."

One of many articles expressing the view that ,the London perps were brain-rinsed pseudo-suiciders is cited below. This one is of special interest because of the references to brain-rinsed pseudo-suiciders in IRA and 9/11 atrocities.

From a Chicago Sun-Times article, Perhaps London bombers were dupes, not suicidal.

July 19, 2005 / BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN

[…] But the fact is that this question [London perps: rinsed or washed?] actually worries the British government, police, intelligence services and ''chattering classes'' even if most ordinary Brits take the attitude of the medieval pope who ordered ''Kill them all -- and let God decide.'' It is not too much to say that the elites desperately hope the bombers will turn out to be ordinary terrorists [rinsed, not washed] (or, as the BBC would put it, ''militants''). This hope does not rest on an easy confidence that Britain handled conventional terrorism before and knows how to do so. IRA terrorists murdered 2,200 people over 30 years, and as part of the Good Friday agreement, they were released to wander about the streets, intimidate their neighbors, kneecap dissenters, run rackets, and in general live like semi-retired Mafiosi in a lax witness protection program.

But the IRA faced one great difficulty: Its terrorists wanted to live. They wanted to plant bombs and get away. And if you want to get away, that complicates the difficulty of exploding the bomb. It has to be detonated either by a timer or by remote control; it has to be left lying around. These difficulties explain the IRA's ingenuity in inventing more and more ways of planting bombs without being caught. They explain why IRA ''experts'' are sought by less experienced terrorist groups like the Colombian FARC to train their operatives. It is no exaggeration to say the IRA pioneered almost all the modern methods of terrorist murder: car bombs, pub bombs, remote control detonators, even suicide bombers.

In the IRA's case, however, the suicide bomber was involuntary. They took a hostage, packed him with explosives, drove him to a British Army checkpoint, and threatened to murder his family unless he approached the soldiers. The poor man tried to warn the soldiers -- God rest his brave soul -- as he drew near and was blown up. Now, the fascinating theory has emerged in British intelligence circles that the four young Muslim [London] terrorists may have been ''suicide'' bombers of the same involuntary kind.

Here is the evidence: They bought return railway tickets. Their bombs were not strapped to their bodies but carried in knapsacks as if to be left behind on the trains. None of them was heard to shout the customary ''Allah Akhbar'' before the bombs exploded. Unusually for suicide bombers, they left identification on their bodies. And surveillance videotapes show them laughing and joking casually -- rather than grimly determined or prayerful -- as they caught the Underground train.

These little pieces of circumstantial evidence suggest the possibility the [London] bombers were duped. Maybe they were told by their controllers that the bombs were timed to go off five minutes after being detonated rather than immediately. It would not be the first time that al-Qaida had deceived its devotees: Osama bin Laden revealed that not all the 9/11 hijackers were aware that the planes were to be flown into buildings. And the bombers' ''suicide'' would protect the terrorist network against the chance that they might be caught and persuaded to talk. […] [my emphasis throughout]

Political Impact of Witches and Their Fans

{{_ So what is the actual witch population in the U.S. [?]}}

I have no idea of the witch population.

The reported poll was of the fans of witches.

There are plenty of these, 6.9 million copies of the witches latest adventures were sold in 24 hours.

The fans of witches having a known huge population are the group targeted by sensible politicians.

Gov. George Corely Wallace, of happy memory, made a huge mistake by attacking the pseudo-intellectuals.

He would have been better advised to attack the intellectuals.

Demographers have differing opinions, but at the time there were between six and twenty million pseudo-intellectuals among American voters.

And only a few hundred intellectuals. The intellectuals were obviously the people to attack.

{{_ and how can the democrats target them & make sure they get the vote? :)...}}

I am sure that the witch vote is, and will be, solidly Democratic.

It is the Democrats and the liberals who have done so much to establish all sorts of special protections for groups that ordinary people do not like very much.

The situation among the fans of witches seems to show that a 53% majority favor red state values.

On the other hand, Bush has slightly higher negatives than Senator Clinton.

From the article cited in .1 above:

Other findings: Of the four mythical houses at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, 41 percent of adults saw themselves in Ravenclaw, where intelligence and wit are the most valued attributes. [typical blue state virtues]

Thirty percent of Americans saw themselves in Gryffindor (loyalty and courage) where Harry Potter lives; 23 percent chose Huffelpuff (patience and hard work); [two important sets of red state virtues] and only 2 percent saw themselves in Slytherin, where cunning and ambition characterize the residents. [these would be the professional politicians, perhaps]

However, 52 percent of those polled placed President George W. Bush in Slytherin and 50 percent said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would live in Slytherin.

We should all be studying more of the literature that guides the thinking of this important group of American voters.

Hillary May Win Witch Fans

57% of the fans of witches prefer a female witch for U. S. President

From a Cybercast News Service (CNS) article, Hermione for President? […]:

Hermione for President? Harry Potter Fans Express Political Views

By Susan Jones / CNSNews.com Senior Editor / July 18, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A Zogby Interactive poll on J.K. Rowling's latest Harry Potter book finds that Hermione Granger, described as a "pint-sized witch," would easily be elected president over both Harry Potter and his pal Ron Weasley.

According to Zogby, 57 percent of the books' fans would elect Hermione president while just 25 percent would choose Harry, the book's leading man. Just five percent would vote for red-headed Ron, the poll found. […]

Things are looking up for Senator Clinton in the next presidential race.

Important Lessons I Have Learned

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to expound on things that I have learned through much study over the last decade or so.

If I am picking on you, I believe it to be in a good cause.

Your statements reflect the views of many, perhaps of most. And they reflect these views in a concise, precise, and cogent way.

They thus provide a lot of good starting places to discuss how my present understanding differs from the traditions that many or most of us have received.

{{_ Well it appears that plainly the gospel wants us to allow our fallen self to die,}}

If one is an unbeliever, he is told to deny or disown himself, and to confess that his sins deserve crucifixion and an eternal place in the lake of fire, and to be willing to have Jesus as Lord and Savior.

KJV Matthew 16: 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Believers have done this. God is now the owner of their earthly bodies, possessions and obligations. Any control that they may have is as God's stewards. (The translation of Phil. 3.8 below is based on the Greek and on the sense of Col. 1.13 and 2nd Cor. 5.17 - the second and fourth verses quoted below.)

Eclectic Philippians 3:8 But surely I count also all [earthly] things to be liabilities on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: through whom all [earthly] things have been taken from me (and I do count them but dung) that I might have Christ as gain,
NAS Colossians 1:13 For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son:

{{_ so man can be born again}}

"May" is preferable to "can". It is not man's ability to be saved, but the availability, to the willing, of so great salvation, that is revealed in scripture.

KJV Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

{{_ as a new person}}

The change is complete, spiritual and eternal. The "person" may or may not be markedly changed at first. Except that the change in his spiritual state is generally apparent to those of like precious faith.

NKJV 2nd Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

{{_ through Grace.}}

It is preferable to say "on the basis of grace". The unmerited favor of God toward the believer is the basis or ground of salvation. The instrument of salvation is God-given saving faith, not grace. It is "through faith" as the instrument of salvation and "by grace", understood as "on the basis of unmerited favor".

{{_ I believe it is a vary straightforward idea.}}

It is. But New Testament salvation is much, much, better than the statements of it that have come to all of us through our various traditions. To paraphrase Lincoln: all of the noted translators and interpreters have been fooled some of the time, and some of them have been fooled all of the time. Those not born again are particularly susceptible to folly.

{{_ And the basis of Grace,}}

This seems a bit backward. The unmerited favor of God is the basis or grounds or foundation of the salvation of the individual, not the reverse.

{{_ Pefection}}

The teaching of "perfectionism", the capacity of some believers to walk without sin, has caused a number of scandals.

I believe that the perfectionists may be part right. (False teachings often arise because a similar true teaching has been neglected.)

In this case we have neglected the biblical definition of "sin" as a spiritual coming short of the glory that God intended for man.

KJV Romans 6:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And have substituted through shoddy preaching and teaching throughout church history the now universal sense of sin as a term for anything that is evil.

Otherwise the term "perfection" might have its biblical senses. Spiritual perfection now, absolute perfection after resurrection. Both accomplished through the perfect sacrifice that has established these perfections beforehand.

And we might interpret John naturally when he states three times in his first epistle that believers do not commit sin. (It is sin in the flesh that is responsible for any evil in the walk of a believer.)

{{_ and The New Order.}}

"New Order" has a governmental sense, and would seem to be applicable to the millennial rule of Christ, not to the present condition of the believer. New creation and new man are used to describe the present condition of the believer and his continually spiritually refreshed soul.

{{_ The question is not so much is it valid}}

Reason can only go so far. But reason guided by careful study of scripture and by the indwelling Spirit has the capacity to see through the traditions of men. And recover the greatness of what God has provided for those who have received or who are willing to receive, the only true salvation.

{{_ to believe in it,}}

True saving faith is the gift of God, and is born of God. Man's part is to acknowledge his sin and helplessness and to be willing to accept the gift of saving faith in order to have Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

{{_ but will man do this thing,}}

It is not a matter of doing, but of being willing to let God do it. Anything else is inordinate (and possibly deadly) pride.

{{_ become new creatures}}

"New creation" is the better translation. Each believer is part of the second creation which began with the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and will be completed after the old heaven and earth flee from the face of the One on the White Throne and all spiritual, eternal evil is disposed of in the lake of fire.

{{_ and start to follow the commands of Y'shua.

The New Testament commandments are a temporary measure. They are designed to ease the journey of the faithful remnant of Israel who were born under the law into the better salvation which includes being dead to the law. Actually dead to the principle of law, any necessity to follow rules now that walking in the spirit is available.

{{_ In other words, the method is lined out.}}

Yes, perfectly in scripture, imperfectly in our various traditions.

{{_ Now it comes down to application.}}

The word of Jesus that seem to apply to the post-apostolic church are:

KJV John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
KJV Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Note the use of the future tense in these verses. The New Testament church is told that Lord is at the right hand of God in heaven, not at the door or making an abode on earth. These verses refer to a time beginning shortly after the Revelation to John.

Note that it is "keep my words" in John 14.23.

"Words" not "commandments".

"Keep" not "do" or "fulfill" or "obey" or "walk according to".

Much damage has been done by the notion that "keep" in regard to commands or words has the specialized sense of "obey". This is rampant and universal and deadly crypto-Galatianism, received by tradition, not through the spirit and study of scripture.

The natural primary sense of "keep" in regard to commandments or words is to study and remember them, and to guard them from error.

And this is apparently the way that scripture uses the word "keep" in regard to commandments and words.

How can we "do" His words if we do not know them?

And the imperfections in our knowledge will result in imperfections in our prayers, meditations, speech, writings, and walk. If not in something much, much worse.

London Attack: SOoaQiE Fits

SOoaQiE, pronounced "sue-ah-que-eye-eee", also known as the "Hog Callers", also known as the " Secret Organization of al Qaeda in Europe ", is now more definitely tied both to the KKK and to the London attack.

To borrow and distort the familiar statement of a noted barrister:

If the cross fits, you must not acquit.

From a Washington Post article, Police Widen Probe Of London Bombings:

British investigators believe Hussain might have tried to board a Northern Line subway train at King's Cross station Thursday but given up because of severe delays on the line, said an official who insisted on anonymity. He instead boarded a double-decker bus, where he detonated his explosives nearly an hour after the three other blasts.

Had the original plan worked, the four bombers would have created a flaming cross of attacks radiating north, south, east and west from King's Cross. This fits the original assertion of responsibility by a group calling itself the Secret Organization of al Qaeda in Europe, which said in a Web site posting that "Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters." [my emphasis]

"Scientific" Evolution Not Catholic

Something we all should know, but sometimes are fuzzy about. A Cardinal clarifies. It is good to know that the Roman Church is firmly on the side of reason, true science, free enquiry, and (to a large extent) scripture in this case.

From a New York Times article, Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution:

July 9, 2005 [/] By CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.

Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.

American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some sort.

Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution. […]

Links to Mr. Ryland's very readable works on the subject follow:

. "Intelligent Design" Challenges Evolutionary Theory: The complexity of creation itself is evidence of a higher power at work. Darwin? Not a chance
. The Evolution Debate: Myth, Science, Culture, Education.

From Cardinal Schönborn's New York Times op-ed, referenced in the Times article above, Finding Design in Nature :

July 7, 2005 [/] By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN [/] Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It's Still the Saudis

From a New York Post article, IT'S STILL THE SAUDIS : By STEPHEN SCHWARTZ:

A GROUP calling itself "the Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" has claimed "credit" for Thursday's deadly bombings in London. Some refer to the perpetrators of this latest horror as "an unknown group." But there is nothing mysterious about the background of the London atrocities.

First, and foremost, there is nothing secret, unknown or hidden about the prime source of financing for the terrorists: Saudi Arabia.

As the leading Saudi human-rights activist, Ali al-Ahmed, of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, puts it, "all the roads lead to Riyadh."

The Saudi kingdom continues to channel money and recruits to terror operations in Iraq and everywhere else that al Qaeda, its allies, its imitators and other supporters strike. Saudi clerics, devotees of the cult known to its critics as Wahhabism, continue to preach jihad against the world, targeting non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

Our own country has taken significant steps to curb the Saudi dedication to Wahhabi terrorism, but a great deal more remains to be done.

When she visited the desert kingdom not long ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice correctly protested against the repression imposed on democratic dissidents in that country. But she drew back from calling directly for major changes in Saudi Arabia, such as purging the educational system and state-run media of extremism and cutting off the Wahhabi clerics from state funding.

Paradoxically, Britain, although gallantly committed to the war against terrorism in Iraq, has fallen short of the United States in its investigative and judicial response to Islamist terrorism. The existence of a larger and more openly radical "Wahhabi lobby" in British Islam has led London to greater caution rather than vigilance and severity in dealing with the enemy. Not only is there no British Guantanamo, the Blair government actually intervened to get our military to release five of nine British subjects from the camp in Cuba.

Yet Britain has much greater problems with radical Islam inside its borders than the United States has. Only two weeks ago, British newspapers reported that dozens of Muslims from the United Kingdom had gone to Iraq to participate in the terrorist campaign there. (By the way, the majority of the murderers whose ranks they joined are Saudis.)

The bulk of British Muslims are Pakistanis and Arabs. While many members of both ethnic groups are peaceful, loyal residents of the country, their mosques have long been dominated by Saudi-funded radical rhetoric — and open recruiting for jihad and paramilitary activities. Although it is seldom noted in Western media, Pakistan remains the No. 1 frontline state after Iraq, in terms of bloodshed between Wahhabi-inspired extremists and other Muslims.

There is no puzzle in the dissimulation practiced by most European governments about Islamist extremism: Europe has a history of preferring peace to freedom.

Most European leaders — Britain's Tony Blair being the outstanding exception — would rather arrive at an accommodation with the terrorists than defend the freedoms under attack by violent fanatics. In this, they follow the pattern set during the 1930s, when Europeans preferred peace with and submission to Nazism in place of early and consequential resistance.

A devotion to peace over freedom is also reflected in the common cliché, heard on our shores as well as abroad, that fighting terrorism in Iraq simply breeds more terrorists. Well, opposition to Hitler led the Nazis to recruit more countries and peoples to their cause but only in the short term. Major conflicts always produce serious opposition; that is why they are called wars and not misunderstandings.

Nazism and Japanese imperialism vanished as threats once they were significantly defeated; fighting them did not strengthen them, once the real battle was joined. But inflicting an authentic defeat on the terrorist enemy means carrying the struggle to its heartland in the Middle East.

The answer to the crime of London will come in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries where Islamist extremism perverts the Muslim mind, and it will come through force no less than reason. There is no other path.

London Attack: SOoAQiE Responsible?

From a World Tribune.com article, London bombings called workof Al Qaida's new generation :

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM [/] Friday, July 8, 2005

LONDON — A series of blasts that rocked the British capital was believed to have been carried out by a new Al Qaida network based in Western Europe and trained in such places as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq.

An organization called "The Secret Organization of Al Qaida in Europe" claimed responsibility for the blasts, in which 700 people were injured.

Western intelligence sources said the group appeared to represent a new generation of Al Qaida operatives aided by at least two major organizations based in Algeria and Iraq. They said the attacks were meant to disrupt the G8 summit in Scotland. [/] At least 50 people were killed in three explosions in London's subway system during rush hour on Thursday in a strike that resembled the train bombings in Madrid in 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. A fourth explosion destroyed a double-decker bus filled with people. [/] Over time, the cornerstone of Al Qaida's religious and political rhetoric has remained consistent:

Muslims should view themselves as a single nation and unite to resist anti-Islamic aggression on the basis of obligatory defensive jihad,

- a Congressional Research Service report, entitled "Al Qaida: Statements and Evolving Ideology," authored by Christopher Blanchard, said.

Non-Islamic government is unacceptable, and Muslims should join Al Qaida and other sympathetic groups and movements in opposing those seeking to establish secular democratic governments or maintain existing governments deemed to be insufficiently Islamic,

- the congressional report, published in June 2005, said.

Al Qaida employed at least 20 people from the organization's sleeper network to carry out the bombings, the intelligence sources said. They said operatives maintained surveillance on London's mass transit network for at least six months to determine vulnerable points.

Since 2002, British authorities disrupted plans to twice attack the London subway system, the sources said. They said they believe the attacks, including Thursday's strike, were organized by Al Qaida, including operatives loyal to Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, the most lethal insurgent in Iraq.

[…] The sources said "The Secret Organization of Al Qaida in Europe," which claimed responsibility for Thursday's bombings, appeared to be part of a new Al Qaida network established in the continent in 2003. The sources said the network could have included planners or operatives involved in the 2004 train bombings in Madrid in which 191 people were killed. […]

Their acronym would appear to be SOoAQiE. Possibly pronounced, "sue-ah-que-eye-eee". Although, on second thought, that might be too close to the sound employed in hog calling contests for the group to be very comfortable with it.

Update: 7/9/05 7:15a edt - New York Post reports the new group's name as "the Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe". That would make the acronym SOoaQJiE. Possibly pronounced, "sue-ah-que-jie-eee". Sounds even more like hog calling.

Choose Dishonor, Get War!

You had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor. You shall have war.
- Winston Churchill (on Chamberlain's yielding to Hitler's demands)

From a New York Times (registration required) article:

If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution : By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN [/] Published: July 8, 2005.

Au contraire, dear sir:

KJV Genesis 4: 9And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: ,Am I my brother's keeper?

KJV Romans 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Voters in a democracy have a responsibility to elect those who will " execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.", particularly upon those who do the evil of indiscriminate mass murder to the voter's fellow citizens in their own country.

[…] Yesterday's bombings in downtown London are profoundly disturbing. […] That would be deeply troubling because open societies depend on trust - on trusting that the person sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite. [/] The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.

Poor us, our comfort zones are shrinking.

[…] But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations.

Poor Muslims, their comfort zones may be effected.

[…] That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies - particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America - look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.

The "great gulf" has always been there.

It is the resistance to closing the gulf by the dictators of the Islamic world that is responsible for the continuation of the barrier to the full blessings of modern Western civilization.

And the need of the dictators to find an external enemy to blame for their own faults that has, via oil profits, funded jihadist preaching, education, training, supplies, bribes, salaries, life insurance, weapons, etc.

[…] Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.

Mr. Friedman would have us avoid any "rough, crude way[s]". This, to him, is much, much, worse that the continuation of the slaughter of thousands of human beings.

[…] The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.

Mr. Friedman would have us remain at their mercy.

Rather than to do the honorable and just thing: to intelligently use all available weapons against the doers of obvious and egregious evil.

"Retaliation for Massacres"

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000884.php
London Blasts Claimed by Al Qaeda
Today's blasts in London have been claimed by Al Qaeda's European chapter, Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. A statement has been posted on a site often used by Qaeda agents, www.qal3ati.com. The statement follows (translated by one of my staff here in Baghdad):

Translation of posted claim follows:

Announcement on London's Operation 7/7/2005

Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group)
Organization of Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe

In the name of God the most merciful...

Rejoice the nation of Islam, rejoice nation of Arabs, the time of revenge has come for the crusaders' Zionist British government.

As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London.

And this is Britain now burning from fear and panic from the north to the south, from the east to the west.

We have warned the brutish governments and British nation many times.

And here we are, we have done what we have promised. We have done a military operation after heavy work and planning, which the mujahideen have done, and it has taken a long time to ensure the success of this operation.

And we still warn the government of Denmark and Italy, all the crusader governments, that they will have the same punishment if they do not pull their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So beware.

Thursday 7/7/2005
Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group)
Organization of al Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe.
Posted by Christopher at July 7, 2005 03:47 PM

The Importance of Death

KJV Romans 5:9-10 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Two things are in the past.

One. "[B]eing now justified by His blood,"

Two. "[W]e were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,"

The blood refers to His suffering, both spiritual and physical. It is the "blood of sprinkling", not the "shed" or poured out blood which was the proof of his death.

His spiritual suffering, separation from the Father and the Spirit, was at an end when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).

He then lay down His life, no man could take it from Him. In John, the Gospel of the Son of God, He, literally, handed over His spirit to the Father.

This was His physical death, which the words "cross" and "crucify" are used to symbolize in scripture.

The blood signifies the suffering, which makes the believer righteous or justified in God's sight.

It is the cross, the death of the Lord, which reconciles the believer to God.

In "tast[ing] death for every man", the Lord experienced both physical and eternal death.

In His suffering He experienced eternal death, the "second death" in the "lake of fire", complete separation from God, so that the believer would not have to experience it. (Save as the "conviction" of being eternally lost in sin that frequently explicitly precedes conversion.)

In His physical death, the believer is said to have died with Him. And in this manner is reconciled to God.

The believer is said to be dead to sin and to the law.

The believer is said to have been crucified with Christ.

And specifically, the believer's "old man" has been crucified. The believer has crucified the flesh. The believer has been crucified to the world, and the world to the believer.

That is the reconciliation brought about by the cross, by the death of the Lord.

And those who have no share in that death and reconciliation, have no share in resurrection and the present newness of life that has been given through the glory of the Father to them that believe.

Non-Rock Star: "Stop the Aid!"

African Economist: Please Stop the Aid!

DER SPIEGEL 27/2005 - July 4, 2005

Interview with African Economics Expert

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem. [...]

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid. […]

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical. [...]

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

Meaning Change Since 1611 (KJV)

{{_ The spelling would not be the same, but the meaning has not changed.}}

Not changed, of course, in the sense that "Jesus Christ [is] the same, yesterday, today and forever". And in the sense, that the same Spirit indwells and guides believers.

But the English language has changed (and the King James Version language was archaic when it was written).

And the understanding of the Greek has changed with the nineteenth century discovery of the oldest New Testament manuscript copies, and the discovery of many contemporary Greek writings.

An advantage that King James' men had is that their living conditions were much, much, closer to those of the writers of scripture than ours are.

Too often we look at the figurative use of "walk" as behavior in general.

I believe that the meaning to those who lived before generally available mechanical transportation was more "habitual, willed behavior". The stuff we do by automobile or bus today.