Science and the Supernatural

Science and the Supernatural

By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor

Forcing Change, Volume 4, Issue 2, March 2010

http://www.forcingchange.org/

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/3-science-supernatural.htm

“In the past few centuries, science has made us aware that the universe is stranger and more interesting than our ancestors realised. It is an amusing thought that it may turn out stranger and more interesting than even the scientists are willing to admit.” – Colin Wilson, The Occult: A History, p. 33.

My family and I live in a very rural part of the Canadian prairies. Going shopping at a mall or big box-store is, literally, an all-day affair. Simply put, just driving to a community that’s large enough to have such shopping facilities can take longer than the actually time spent shopping. Trips to the doctor, theater, or library requires a concerted effort; when a roundtrip to the nearest volunteer-run theater takes the better part of 100 miles, you question whether the movie is really worth seeing!

But there are perks living this far out in the boonies. On any given night, we can walk outside and see the Milky Way in exquisite detail, with stars touching each horizon, all viewed without the aid of a telescope or a set of binoculars. Spectacular Northern Light shows, which set the sky on fire, are enjoyed to the fullest. As are the thundering wings of thousands of migrating geese, swans, cranes, and ducks each spring and fall.

We’ve seen the sun and moon play tricks in the ice-filled winter air: sun and moon-dogs, “glories,” unusual halos, and other surreal light phenomenon. We’ve also witnessed a multitude of other interesting natural phenomena: bead lightening, sky bands and light arches, funky mirages, giant whirlwinds, multiple tornadoes (that was wild!), and thousands of perfectly formed mini snowballs falling from the sky in the middle of a sweltering August afternoon. Over the years my family and I have witnessed a plethora of beautiful and unusual natural wonders.

Why am I telling you all this? Because Colin Wilson was right: the universe is a strange and interesting place. Moreover, our immediate world and the greater universe is still a place where human science can be utterly confounded.

Science, in its pure form, is chiefly concerned with what is observable, testable, and repeatable. It is restricted in that sense to the physical study of physical matter. But “pure science,” both in the past and present, has often had its fingers in another pie: metaphysics, the philosophical inquiry into the basis of reality – i.e., religion (it could be argued that all science has some metaphysical foundation, however, many secular humanists say that “pure science” operates independent of metaphysics; a debate that this article cannot rightly explore). What’s more, science has become increasingly interested in exploring the possibilities of tapping into the supernatural.

Take for instance a published report by Eric Davis of Warp Drive Metrics. This report, titled Teleportation Physics Study, was produced and paid for by the US Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base (contract number F04611-99-C-0025, public release date August 2004).

Technical in its nature, the report delves into aspects of quantum physics and its relationship to space and time, something that I find fascinating, even if I’m often lost by the complex terminology. The report also details another “science” – one that crosses over, into, and beyond the study of quantum physics; psychokinesis (the movement of objects though psychic channels).

Outlining this strange occurrence, Davis explained that Uri Geller, a well-known psychic, was able to bend a spoon without physically touching it during a talk he gave at the US Capital building. Furthermore, Davis elaborated on the deep interest that the US military/scientific and intelligence community has had, and continues to have, in the field of occult sciences – particularly remote viewing.

Remote viewing, which includes and combines elements of clairvoyance (seeing things in the future) and out-of-body experiences, has been especially intriguing to the intelligence community. For decades, a multitude of governmental agencies and corporate laboratories have been involved in remote viewing programs. Davis, laying out the historical context for military-scientific study within this field, explained the following,

“The reader should note that the very first U.S. military-intelligence R&D programs on psi, PK and mind control were conducted by H.K. (Andrija) Puharich, M.D., L.L.D during his military service at the Army Chemical and Biological Warfare Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland in the 1940s-50s. Puharich had an interest in clairvoyance and PK, and dabbled in theories for electronically and pharmaceutically enhancing and synthesizing psychic abilities. While in the Army, Puharich took part in a variety of parapsychology experiments, and he lectured Army, Air Force and Navy groups on possibilities for mind warfare. He was a recognized expert in hypnotism and microelectronics.” (Teleportation Physics Study, p. 55)

This is an amazing admittance. Already in the mid-point of the last century, the defense and intelligence community was involved in psychic and occult exploration, including clairvoyance – and had coupled this theoretical research with mind-bending drugs and electronic stimuli.

In the year 2000, W. Adam Mandelbaum, a former intelligence officer and practicing psychic, laid out a frightening futuristic scenario in his controversial book The Psychic Battlefield: A History of the Military-Occult Complex (St. Martin’s Press, 2000).

“Besides an end to privacy and manipulation of financial markets, a cadre of highly developed psychic warriors might start to think of themselves as a new Master Race. We have seen, in Eastern Bloc Olympic training, the widespread use of suggestion, imagery, and mental rehearsal to enhance sports performance. We will probably see this trend continue in the military of the third millennium to create Super Soldiers…The conscious creation of a superior military force will result in those participants becoming consciously aware of their superiority. Add ego to weapons access, mix with superior psychic spying skills, and Voila! we have a new SS that makes Himmler’s boys look like the Cub Scouts.” (The Psychic Battlefield, p. 235).

But the military and defense communities, including that of Russia and China, are not the only areas where science and the supernatural have combined. Psychic activity has also been used in the fields of archeology and criminology. Of these two, the use of psychics in criminology is probably the most widely known, fueled in large part by various television programs and publications that have highlighted the apparent successes and failures of criminal-clairvoyant investigations.

The use of occult powers in the field of archeology, however, is relatively unknown. Hans Holzer, one of the most prolific writers on parapsychology and spiritualism, detailed a number of psychic archeological experiments in his book Window to the Past. Through the use of mediums and the employment of such practices as telepathy, individuals were able to pinpoint archeological sites and document important historical events. Holzer, elaborating on the pseudo-science of psychic archeology, explained that,

“The expressions of mediums, no matter how genuine and detailed, nevertheless do not represent scientific fact in the accepted sense, but they can lead to investigations in areas where scientists might not have looked. If such follow-ups are undertaken free from all prejudice and preconceived notions, psychic clues can be among the most valuable tools of historical research.” (Window to the Past, p. 94)

Reincarnation, psychic healing, the development of super-consciousness, exceptional precognition, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing, and a host of other topics which dance along the razor’s edge of supernaturalism and occultism have all been topics of scientific thought and study.

Furthermore, scientific inquiry into psychic phenomena is often rooted in basic scientific orthodoxy, taking on aspects of repeatability, testability, and observation. However, this doesn’t negate its supernatural side, nor does it elevate psychic research into the echelons of hard science. But being testable, observable, and repeatable does give verification that psychic activity exists. To the skeptical “scientific mind,” however, the notion that this pseudo-science trespasses into the foggy world of occultism or supernaturalism is rarely accepted as a serious option.

But theology and human history says otherwise. From an historical and contemporary context, mankind has embraced occultism in an attempt to harness and utilize supernatural powers for individual gain – sometimes setting in motion forces that have destroyed both body and mind in the process. Worse still, history is rife with civilizations that have followed occult-based ideologies and philosophies, with death and destruction in close pursuit (Nazi Germany comes to mind; see The Occult Roots of Nazism by Goodrick-Clarke, and the 4-part video series The Occult History of the Third Reich).

Not ironically, noted occultist and “mother” of the New Age, Helena P. Blavatsky, warned against the dangers of supernatural/occult powers as a military/criminal device. The following was originally published in Lucifer magazine, 1891, and was re-published in a collection of Blavatsky’s writings titled Studies in Occultism.

“…if purely material implements are capable of blowing up, from a few corners, the great cities of the globe, providing the murderous weapons are guided by expert hands – what terrible dangers might not arise from magical occult secrets being revealed, and allowed to fall into the possession of ill-meaning people! A thousand times more dangerous and lethal are these, because neither the criminal hand, nor the immaterial invisible weapon used, can ever be detected.” (Studies in Occultism, pp.28-29).

Blavatsky then suggests that the occultist must “live the life” in order to properly handle the potency of supernatural powers. This is a twisted position, for the practitioner is obviously dealing with forces that go beyond the human capacity to understand or control. In other words, the individual is not “playing with the occult,” rather the supernatural is toying with the practitioner. This is evidenced through personal lives impacted by supernatural bondage, including insanity (see Tal Brooke, Riders of the Cosmic Circuit, 1986, and Elissa Lindsey McClain, Rest from the Quest, 1984).

At the societal level, occultism can add upon an underlying destructive worldview or become the foundation for a culture of terror. The German Nazi movement blended myth and occultism, pseudoscience and technology. And it’s no surprise to learn that it’s pan-pagan roots were firmly planted in the soil of Blavatsky’s teachings. Christopher Hale, in his book Himmler’s Crusades, sums it up; “Myth is never harmless.” (Himmler’s Crusade: The Nazi Expedition to Find the Origins of the Aryan Race, Castle Books, 2006).

The Bible itself warns against the pursuit of supernatural manipulation. Consider the words of Deuteronomy 18,

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord…” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12a).

Yes, the physical world is a marvelous wonder, filled with many transfixing and puzzling surprises. It still baffles man by its beauty and complexity. So too the non-physical universe, including mental and spiritual components, is a place of fascination. However, when dabbling and dealing with the supernatural – and the mind sciences that sometimes attempt to explain or exploit it—a mental, emotional, and spiritual minefield is encountered. And just as wandering into a physical minefield will destroy the body, so too will a spiritual minefield destroy the soul.  FC

---

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change, a monthly online publication detailing the changes and challenges impacting the Western world.

Benefits of Forcing Change membership...

Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.

Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.

Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.

Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $120.00 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to www.forcingchange.org

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada

R0J-1P0

For publications: Permission to re-publish articles found in Forcing Change is granted, providing that FC credit is acknowledged (preferably with the Forcing Change URL attached), and that Forcing Change is notified of the public article use.

http://www.forcingchange.org/files/1874178/uploaded/Volume4Issue2.pdf

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Census Is For Counting Not Prying

Census Is For Counting Not Prying

By Chuck Baldwin

March 19, 2010

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=969

The constitutional requirement for the Census is found in Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3. “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

The purpose of the Census is that of counting the US population in order to apportion among the states the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring or even suggesting questions regarding race, ethnicity, whether one owns or rents his or her home, income status, disability status, education, or anything of the sort. The only purpose of the Census is to count the US population.  Anything beyond that is nothing more than an intrusive government prying and snooping into our lives: something the federal government is doing with greater and greater frequency and intensity these days.

As to the phrase, “[As] they shall by Law direct,” Paul Galvin rightly notes, “This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the only pertinent information needed.”

See Galvin’s column at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/galvin2.1.1.html

In the original Census of 1790, the information requested was simply the number of persons in each household and the name of the head of each family. That’s it. Accordingly, when I filled out my Census form earlier this week, the only information I provided was my name (as the head of my household) and the number of people living in my home. The rest of it I left blank.

Furthermore, the idea that the information gathered about us via the unconstitutional and invasive Census form will not be shared with anyone is so ludicrous it is laughable. The federal government passes around virtually everything it learns about us to any number of departments and agencies. Does anyone really believe that all the information obtained with this unconstitutional Census form will be locked away in a vault somewhere, never to be used or shared? What a crock! Why, the federal government cannot even ensure that its own employees will abide by its own rules.

Consider the new full-body scanners that are being installed in airports all around the country. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) assures passengers that the photos of their naked bodies are not pornographic and will not be stored or shared. Of course, we can trust the federal government to tell us the truth, right?

First, are the images pornographic? You be the judge. Check out this online story. I caution you, however: there are actual images of naked bodies taken with an airport full-body scanner included in this story. But if you are offended at what you see, remember that this is potentially what TSA agents will be looking at every time you, your wife, your son, your daughter, or your father and mother board a commercial jetliner.

See the story at:

http://tinyurl.com/tsa-body-scans-worse

So, will someone please tell me how the scanned images taken of the naked bodies of small children by these airport full-body scanners do not constitute child pornography? Good grief! Some parents have been arrested for possessing child porn for something as innocent as taking photos of their small children in a bathtub. Yet, TSA agents will be photographing nude images of small children all day long in a private video booth at an airport check-in, and not only will they not be arrested, THEY WILL GET PAID FOR IT.

Beyond that, there are already documented cases where airport screeners have stored and shared the naked images of people. According to published reports, “Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/film-star-body-scans

Would you trust your neighbor—or your friends at church or work—with photos of your naked body or the naked bodies of your wife and children? Then, why would you trust an employee of the federal government? And why would you trust federal bureaucrats at the Census Bureau to keep private any and all information you give them via the Census form?

But whether you care or don’t care that the federal government sticks its nose into your private affairs—or that its employees gawk at your naked images—is really beside the point. The fact is, it is totally unconstitutional for the federal government to behave in such a manner, and those citizens who do not object to this unconstitutional conduct are facilitating the demise of their own liberties. They should be ashamed of themselves!

What is even worse is the number of churches that are cooperating with and facilitating the advancement of this unconstitutional Census. I see churches in my area advertising for their congregants to become Census-takers. Of course, each of these workers will be schooled in how to cajole or even coerce members of their communities to participate in an unconstitutional Census, and to give up personal information that is absolutely beyond the proper purpose and scope of the Census. Shame on those churches! Shame on those pastors!

I also include the following two links for readers to use in helping them to understand and fulfill their duties under the US Constitution. This one might be helpful when a Census worker attempts to harangue and threaten you with a $5,000 fine if you do not answer all his or her questions:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128409

By the way, should a Census worker come to my home and demand that I answer the questions I left blank, I will simply plead my 5^th Amendment/Miranda rights to “remain silent.” What are they going to say to that?

This one contains a sample letter that some have mailed back with their Census forms:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/52847.html

As for me and my house, along with the form completed as stated above, I put this note in the Census envelope (this was forwarded to me by an unknown source. I would give them credit, if I knew who it was):

“Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to ENUMERATE the number of citizens in order to apportion members of congress: ‘The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.’

“Enumerate means ‘to count, or determine the number of’. Congress can COUNT the number of citizens—but it can’t demand to know what race we are, how much we earn, how many big screen TVs we own, etc.  So when I get the census forms, I fill out the first question (the one asking how many people live at my home), then paste a copy of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution right below that, along with a statement that I have fulfilled my duty as a citizen by helping them enumerate, and I’m not required to answer any more questions.”

Participating in the national Census is an honor for every US citizen. Each of us should be thankful for the constitutional republic that was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. Under that Constitution, therefore, I am proud to have my household counted in the US Census in order to apportion among the states the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives. But, as I am expected to live under the laws and duties of the US Constitution, so is the federal government. Hence, I answered only those two questions that are constitutionally prescribed and refused to answer any and all others.

P.S. We have recently substantially upgraded our web site. You will find the site much sharper and much more professional. The new design also allows us to run paid ads from likeminded sponsors. I would especially like to see constitutionalist candidates for State office promote their candidacies on my web site. Therefore, if you, or someone you know, would like to utilize my web site as a vehicle to get out your message of constitutional government to thousands of Chuck Baldwin supporters, please contact my office about pricing and availability. The email address to use is:

admin@chuckbaldwinlive.com

And here is the web site url:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin 

---

NOTE TO THE READER:

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Tom Hanks: Stupid Is as Stupid Does

Tom Hanks: Stupid Is as Stupid Does

By Doug Giles

3/22/2010

http://clashradio.com/column.html

What the heck is wrong with Hollywood’s elite? Do they reach a certain monetary threshold, receive an Academy Award or a Golden Globe, and then get whisked away to a secret B. F. Skinner lab in Hollywood where “they” suck the brains out of their skulls and install the Michael Moore Crap-O-Matic, which programs the talented and successful abductee to think and say that America is the devil on any and all issues? Is that what happens?  

For an amazing actor and director, especially one who has focused so much on the World War II era, it’s clear that Tom Hanks has jumped the sane shark of historical reality and has landed, headfirst, in the rocky shallows of complete and utter revisionist bunkum with his latest comments on why America entered the war in the Pacific and why we’re killing Islamic combatants now. 

For those who do not follow the tripe which spews from Hollywood’s charmed and preening pie-holes, last week Tom told Time magazine during a presser promoting his new HBO miniseries, The Pacific, that the conflict in the Pacific during World War II commenced way back when, little kiddies, because Americans were a bunch of “racists and terrorists” who viewed the Japanese as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods.” 

Really, Tom? Garsh. That’s weird. My uncle, Orville, fought in the Pacific, was captured by the Japanese, experienced the Bataan Death March, and spent three years undergoing torture as a POW in Mongolia; he thought he went through all that hell because the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor and killed over two thousand of our personnel. 

And what’s weird, Tom old boy, is that not only did my uncle believe Pearl Harbor to be the reason why we stomped the Japanese into A-bomb submission, but so do the vast majority of Americans who can read and who do not live with their heads up Hollywood’s butt.

Hanks, not content to simply appear as a generic jackass but a super-sized, lying-through-his-teeth, are-you-kidding-me reality stylist went on to tell Time, “They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” 

Wrong again, Hanks my man. The reason we’re killing Achmed and his violent ilk is because of this event that the left would love for us to forget about or tremendously downplay: It’s called the terrorist attack of 9/11. 

Yep, señor Hanks, we’re not killing Islamofascists because they are different. America embraces diversity. In the U.S. you can pretty much be and do whatever the hell you want. Heck, look at Barney Frank and Lady Gaga. No, Tom, the reason we want them crushed by our finest is because these Muslim morons attacked and killed 2,973 innocent people-and not because they don’t like bacon. 

How in God’s name Hanks can make these amazing war movies and meet the great men and women who nobly fought and bled for our country and then come up with that kind of cockamamie caca eclipses my po’ little intellect. But then again I don’t live in Beverly Hills. Maybe Hanks is confused from that two-year crossing dress stint on Bosom Buddies. Who knows? Someone ought to check on Kip Wilson to see how he’s doing. 

Finally, Tom, your derisive diatribe about our diehard military men and women is one weird way to promo a WWII special on the Pacific War. I know I’m officially not watching that stuff. You might as well have called all of our mothers hookers. No wonder millions of Americans who love this country are truly beginning to hate Hollywood.

---

Sign up for a weekly dose of wit, wisdom, satire and righteous outrage. Doug sets his sights high and wide as he unleashes his unique pen on the absurdities within the Church and the inequities in the world. This weekly adrenaline jolt is a must for those who want to see righteousness exalt our nation. Expect hard hitting, provocative and humorous commentary as Giles dissects our current culture.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Beware the Fury of a Patient Man

Hello Everyone,

I had a brief but pleasant exchange with the writer of this article, Doctor (as in the medical kind) Stolinsky.  He has granted permission to use his article.  From what I read here he makes a lot of sense.

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Beware the Fury of a Patient Man

David C. Stolinsky, MD

March 22, 2010

http://www.stolinsky.com/news/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=697

The quotation is from John Dryden, but until recently I never thought much about it. The other night, I was surfing the Internet for the latest information on ObamaCare. The health-care bill was advertised as covering the uninsured, while leaving untouched those who are satisfied with their insurance − and saving money as well.

In fact, private health insurance will end, which is President Obama’s plan. Costs will be overwhelming, though estimates are still uncertain. In fact, no one knows what ObamaCare will cost. The bill consists of 2500 pages of dense legalese, plus thousands of pages of regulations yet to be written.

·        What is certain is that, like Medicare, it is sure to cost more than early estimates.

·        What is certain is that if illegal immigrants are included in ObamaCare, as seems likely despite the president’s promise, costs will be even higher.

·        What is certain is that much of what is said about the bill cannot be trusted.

·        What is certain is that the government will seize control of another one-sixth of the economy.

·        What is certain is that if the government pays for our health care, it will control our health care − and become even more intrusive.

·        What is certain is that the devious means used to push ObamaCare − including the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” the “California Water Follies,” “Gator Aid” and “Deemed to Pass” − make people suspicious and resentful.

·        What is certain is that those who understand that the Constitution gives the federal government only certain enumerated powers are even more suspicious and resentful.

Revealingly, members of Congress want to exempt themselves from the law and keep their current plan. Politicians don’t want their health care rationed.

If our health-care system is “broken,” why does America have the best cancer survival statistics? Britain’s National Health Service, with its waiting times and rationed care, produces lower cancer survival. And why is America responsible for the majority of advances in health care and over 60% of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine? So as I went to bed, I was troubled by the thought that instead of improving our current system, the Democrats plan to alter it drastically − based on erroneous assumptions.

I tried to sleep, but I was disturbed by Obama’s view of surgery for the elderly: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” I was troubled by Obama’s opinion of cardiac pacemakers for the elderly: “If we’ve got experts that are advising doctors that the pacemaker will save money...” And then, even the painkillers can be eliminated.

Of course, to save even more money, everyone should die soon after they start receiving Social Security and Medicare. So I slept fitfully, aware that under ObamaCare, my prospects for a long sleep are excellent. Mobsters call it a “hit,” while bureaucrats call it “cost-effectiveness,” but the result is similar.

But then I began to dream. People were sitting around a table.

There was a retired Army officer who had served in Desert Storm. He was told he had prostate cancer, but because of his age, “watchful waiting” would be the only treatment. He hoped to get curative treatment at a Veterans Hospital, but that system had been absorbed into the national system. As in Britain, politicians said, in effect, “Who needs separate hospitals for veterans when everyone gets government care?” He managed to control his famous temper, but he could not hide his leadership abilities.

There was a lean man with gray, crew-cut hair. He had been a Marine in Vietnam, but now he had a neurologic disease. Medication was relieving his symptoms, until bureaucrats decided that it was not “cost-effective.” The gunny now walked with a cane, but his eyes hinted that he was not a man to cross.

There was a computer expert who had a lymphoma. He hoped for a cure, but he feared that medical research would be slowed by oppressive regulations and removal of the profit motive. At least half of the increases in health-care spending results from medical innovations, so cutting spending will necessarily reduce innovation. Because of his work, he was able to hack into government computer systems.

There was a woman who was a prosecuting attorney. She worried about whether her aged father would continue to receive proper care. She did not understand how people could be so softhearted that they couldn’t bear to execute brutal murderers, yet also be so hardhearted that they remained silent when their president proposed leaving the elderly with broken hips and no pacemakers. Because of her work, she had friends in law enforcement.

There was a nurse whose mother had a stroke and required a feeding tube. The old lady enjoyed visits with her daughter, but she needed the tube to avoid choking on food. Then an anonymous committee decided that her “poor quality of life” required removal of the tube, so she would die slowly of dehydration and starvation over a week or two. Of course, the committee asked neither the patient nor her daughter their opinion of the now-standard Schiavo Treatment. Because of her work, the nurse had access to drugs.

There was a construction contractor whose older brother had broken his hip. But instead of surgery to repair it and allow him to spend his later years pain-free and walking, anonymous bureaucrats offered only pain pills. Of course, the bureaucrats asked neither the contractor nor his brother their opinion of the now-standard Obama Treatment. Because of his work, the contractor had access to heavy equipment.

There was a young woman whose grandfather had been on Social Security. He received government-mandated “counseling,” advising him of his “option” not to get medical treatment but just to die and save the government money. This made the old gentleman feel useless, so he killed himself and saved the government even more money. His granddaughter had access to no weapons − except her deep anger, which is the most dangerous weapon of all.

The retired Army officer led the discussion. Everyone contributed ideas on how to overcome the destructive effects of ObamaCare.

But no one could think of nonviolent methods to undo a system that had become entrenched. After attempts to repeal ObamaCare failed, people became addicted to it − and felt entitled to it.

No one could think of nonviolent methods to dismantle the vast bureaucracy that had grown like a cancer, infiltrating almost every aspect of society, while masking its deadly intentions in the camouflage of “health” and “fairness.”

No one could think of nonviolent methods to convince sheep-like people to give up their passivity, even when they were being led to the slaughterhouse.

No one could think of nonviolent methods to convince the “elite” to give up their privileged status, and their prompt access to first-rate medical care without waiting in line with us “common” people.

So the discussion turned to other methods. No one around the table was willing to sit idly while they and their loved ones were bureaucratized to death. But as plans were being formulated, I woke up.

Unexpectedly, I awoke with a smile on my face. There still was hope. Despite the socialist, statist daydreams of the self-anointed “elite,” most Americans are individualists.

People like that are unlikely to remain submissive as they watch the lives of their loved ones and themselves being sacrificed to the arbitrary rulings of paper-shuffling bureaucrats, penny-wise accountants and power-hungry politicians.

People like that are unlikely to remain passive as control of their health care is seized by bumbling incompetents who couldn’t even run a simple program like “cash for clunkers,” much less keep Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac from going broke.

Americans, even the disabled and the elderly, will not line up on railroad platforms to be taken away in box cars, either literally or figuratively. If politicians declare them to be “useless eaters” and “unworthy of life,” they just might return the favor. It is unwise to give people the idea that they have nothing to lose.

Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Our politicians are failing that test shamefully, and it is up to us to send them the report card. We hope they will get the message from the 2010 and 2012 elections, so that my dream will remain only a dream, and not become a real nightmare when the patient people lose their patience.

---

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com

First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

– Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

You are welcome to post or publish these articles, in whole or in part, provided that you cite the author and website.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

.

A Study On Christian Pacifism

Hello Everyone,

It is funny how things come around in a full circle.  Old stuff comes back new once more.  Way back when I was the gang officer at one of our state prisons, I went to an assortment of gang meetings as a part of my job.  I recalled a Gabe Suarez as one of the guys I met at one of the meetings.  I’m sure we must have exchanged cards and perhaps other information. 

A few days back a got an article from one of our members (thanks Manny) on an unrelated topic.  I saw the links at the bottom of article, and before you know it, I had another link to explore.  From all I could figure, it was the same Gabe Suarez that I recalled in a different way.  It goes to show that you never know how or when you may cross paths with folks. 

Anyhow, Gabe goes on to share his own perspective on Christian pacifism.  I agree that pacifism is not really a Christian doctrine.  It is a highly misunderstood concept that does not fit the lives or beliefs of a number of you on this list from what you tell me.  And I do believe you are correct. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

A Study On Christian Pacifism

Posted by: Gabe Suarez

01/09/10

http://www.christianwarriorministries.com/index.php?itemid=3

The Historical View

As we whistle through the first decade of the New millennium, we find ourselves embroiled in conflict with a new enemy. The previous century saw conflicts between city-states, between small states, large nations and even between regions. We saw a “cold war” between political ideologies. This new war is much more than that and before the final shot is fired, we will see its zones of conflict will span and traverse all boundaries whether political, social, or of faiths. Truly it is a struggle of faiths. Colored otherwise as it may be by politician and media pundit alike, it is clear that this is a struggle between Islam (the so-called religion of peace), and the Christian-based nations of the Western world, with its focal point being, as it has been for decades, the tiny nation of Israel.

So it is with this backdrop that I want to examine the Christian Doctrine of Pacifism. I and many of my colleagues do not believe such a doctrine is biblically correct. My objective then is to find whence it came into acceptance, who brought it, and possibly determine why. Knowing this we can make rational decisions about whether such a perspective truly is of God…or not.

I want to point out that I am a born again Christian. Yet, although I prefer living in peace, I am no pacifist. When I became a Christian, I was prepared to sell all my guns and knives and adopt whatever life the Lord put in front of me. But the spirit did not lead me to cast away my sword, only to put it in its correct place…specifically as a tool of justice.

I’ve killed men in combat and do not regret it for a moment. Moreover, if God puts me in the place of battle again facing men of evil, I will do so again without hesitation. I firmly believe that Jesus does not teach pacifism, but rather He teaches us to seek peace. There is a difference there. True Pacifism (peace at any price) and Seeking Peace (but not at any price) are separated by a wide gulf.

As much as depends on us, we are to try to live in peace with all men. But often, such things do not depend on us. We are entrusted with the world by God. Although we are to have a light touch on the things of this world while earnestly seeking Him, we are not called to ignore the world with an excessively lofty spiritual view of things. Rather good stewardship demands that we act well with those things (people) entrusted to us…just like the parable of the talents.

We are to provide for those entrusted to us (family, church, etc.). To deny this cross is to deny the faith and be worse than an unbeliever. Provision includes food, shelter, spiritual guidance AND safety. Some may say that that is why they pay taxes…so the government will protect them. Sorry, that won’t do it completely. Just as we would not expect the United States Government (and would in fact resist it if it tried) to provide us with food, housing, and religious teaching, neither can we abrogate the right and duty to provide for our own protection, and that of our families. To cause others to deny their cross this way (via incorrect teachings) is even worse, and the future of such are filled with waiting millstones.

We are all magistrates of God’s word and kingdom. Just as we would not allow unchallenged teachings of blasphemy and immorality to our churches and children, so must we resist (in love) unsound teachings. And similarly must we resist violent crimes, and terrorism as much as we are physically (and spiritually) able. Where the spoken word of prayer may be enough in one case, the threat of violent physical action via the readiness of the sword (or in our day the availability of the loaded pistol) will suffice.

We can make a good case, based on scripture, that peace at any price (Pacifism) is not sound doctrine. We did that very thing in this essay titled The Foolishness Of Christian Pacifism.

I will seek to find the first instances of pacifism in the writings of early church leaders. We will examine the social issues of the day as well as the dynamics of the Christian in society to see why such a stance may have been taken.

First I want to be clear about the definitions. A pacifist is a person who refuses to act in violence in any way, for any reason, or at any time. Such a person will die, and watch others die, before ever resorting to violent means to save himself or others. In contrast, one can love peace and seek it, but not at any price. A man can desire peace with a gun in his hand.

One thing I immediately noticed in my research was that the arguments for pacifism revolved around the propriety of Christian service in the Roman military. Nothing was written until much later about the physical resistance of brigands by individual citizens. Since almost every sin was elaborated on in the early writings, some that we had never even heard of, it is curious that individual violence in self-defense was conspicuously missing….perhaps in their minds one had nothing to do with the other. Perhaps it was due to the oath required for military service.

The Roman Military Oath

The First century world of the Christian church was ruled by the iron fist of Rome. Although the Gospel was being spread daily, paganism and idolatry were still very prevalent. In the roman army, they were the order of the day.

Whether Christian or pagan, inductees into the Roman Army were required to swear the oath of the Roman military. The roman soldier had to pledge allegiance in a sacred oath, known as the Sacramentum. This pledge included the idea that a position in the Roman military was of sacred importance. The oath was recited on enlistment, on the third of January, and on the anniversary of the current emperor’s reign. One of the main points of the oath is to whom the soldier pledged his loyalty: in the Republic, the commander of the unit received the pledge; while in the Empire, the emperor received the pledge. This change was enacted under Augustus, who believed the oath could be used by generals to place the power of the emperor over the soldiers.

Here is one version of it:

“I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus and by any other god I may hold in my heart to be holy, and by the majesty of the Imperator and by the Senate of Rome, which next to our gods should be loved and worshipped by the human race. I, swear to perform with enthusiasm whatever the Imperator and my Legion commander should command, follow all laws set forth by the Senate of Rome, never to desert, and not to shrink from death on behalf of the Roman State.”

I can see several points that any Christian, specially a 1^st Century one, would find objectionable. Add to this the fact that Caesar used the army to persecute and kill Christians, often sacrificing them to their gods, and you get a picture where it becomes untenable for a true Christian to be involved with them. Compare this to a modern illustration: A Christian being conscripted into the German SS during WW2, knowing they must deny God and serve Hitler, as well as knowing they will be ordered to commit atrocities. What kind of Christian would go along with that? A similar set of circumstances was taking place for the early Christians.

One of the early apologists was Justin of Caesarea, often referred to as Justin Martyr. He wrote in 140 A.D. – 160 A.D. His assertion was that the prophesies in Isaiah 2:4 with regards to the New Kingdom, were already here.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Isaiah was prophesying about the New Kingdom, not the kingdom still on earth. As we know, to this day, nations are still killing each other and the Lord has not yet come to institute His reign. Much less in Justin’s day. Great Christian apologist or not, he a man, and was wrong with his interpretation and timing.

Apologists who followed Justin Martyr, such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origin, and others prior to the Council of Nicea also referred to the Isaiah argument as their biblical justification against military service in the Roman army for Christians.

Tertullian was another apologist who wrote between 160 – 220 A.D. in North Africa. He noted, “There is no agreement between the Divine (sacrament) and the human sacrament (Roman Oath)”.

Furthermore, Tertullian writes, “Shall it be held awful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord preaches that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?”

Tertullian makes quite a leap here. First of all, Christ did not eschew the sword. Rather he taught the sword in its proper place, and that those whose only resource was violence would inevitably perish by it. In Luke 22:36-38 Christ admonishes us to be prepared to provide for our own security vis a vis the sword.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

We can argue about the meaning of this Scripture, but the fact remains that Christ told His men to arm themselves. When they returned to him with two swords, he did not correct them as He did at other times when they mistook His teachings, but rather told them that two was enough.

The sword was meant for physical protection against evil men in a fallen world. It was not to be relied upon exclusively, but rather kept in its proper place and for its proper use.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Luke 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

Luke 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

Moreover, Christ did in fact tell Peter the Swordsman that those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. But in what context?

Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword

Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Matthew 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Consider the context. Christ was being arrested and surrounded. It was His mission to give himself up and be sacrificed. If His men stood and fought at that moment they would have been killed. Those who took up the sword at that particular time would have certainly been killed by the swords of the enemy.

Christ would not tell His men to arm themselves and later contradict His teachings.

Tertulians reference to suing refers to Matthew 5:25.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Matthew 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Matthew 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Specifically this refers to suing a brother, or being in agreement with a brother (a fellow believer). Many of the courtesies described in Scripture refer to daily dealings between fellow believers. Thus we should seek remedies without resorting to suing and fighting between members of the Church.

In reading the context of Tertullian I see that he was trying to convince Christians to not serve in the military and was seeking scriptures to support that stance. In other words, if suing a brother was not becoming, how then could one persecute and murder a brother, even if ordered to do so by a military commander.

Cyprian, a disciple of Tertullian wrote, “ It is hypocrisy to proclaim a hero and valiant, the person who will destroy and devastate the life and property of innocent people in organized warfare when if the same occurs in peacetime, it is considered a crime”. The key words are “innocent people”, as distinguished from evil aggressors. One can hardly disagree with such a point.

The last Pre-Constantine apologist was Lactantius. He wrote a mammoth treatise named the Divine Institutes on or about 300 A.D. This is what he said, “ For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men”.

Although, like the others, Lactantius was no doubt well-meaning, his grasp of the scriptures was incomplete. God does not forbid killing (in fact He often requires it), but rather He forbids murder. The gulf between the two is wide and deep. And although defining and describing what each one is would be easy, it would take space which this essay does not have in surplus. In short killing is an act that can be justified or condemned based in the intent of the actor. Killing may be justified, murder is never justified.

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

Without the biblical prohibition against killing, Lactantius’ argument falls apart.

So we can summarize that Pre-Constantine apologists had objections to Christians serving in the Roman Army in particular, and because of that objected to all martial pursuits. They based their objections because of the demands of the Roman military oath that went in conflict with God’s law, and because of the military activity in the persecution of Christians in particular. Moreover, they based their “swords into plowshares” argument on the belief that the New Kingdom spoken about by Isaiah was here and now, and not in the future. Likewise a confused understanding of the difference between killing and murder supported a pacifistic view.

Constantine’s Conversion

Many years later, in 312 A.D., Constantine stood near a bridge in Italy preparing to battle Licinius for the city of Rome. There he had a vision. In the vision he saw the shape of a cross with the words, “Conquer By This”.

Constantine fashioned a cross of two spears and marched it at the front of his army, routing the enemy and capturing Rome.

In 313 A.D. Constantine granted freedom of religion to all and ended the persecution of Christians. It is argued by some that Constantine was never a Christian and that he was a pagan to his dying day. Nevertheless, the effects he had on the church were profound.

Since Christians would not be required to swear by an oath not acceptable to them, and since sacrifice and persecution of Christians was no longer required, Christians now saw themselves free to serve in the army of Rome, and the distinction between secular and spiritual virtually disappeared.

In 314 A.D. at a council in Arles, church leaders announced, “They who throw away their weapons in time of peace shall be excommunicated”. Excommunication was by far a fate worse than death to early Christians and usually reserved for the worst of the worst. Thus to cast away one’s weapons in time of peace was held right up there with witchcraft, sodomy, heresy, and all the other 4^th Century major crimes.

Athanasius and Ambrose, two Post-Nicene church leaders promoted the necessity of Christians to support the secular government via military service, and pronounced it as service to God.

Athanasius is one of the writers of catholic doctrine. On or about 350 A.D., he wrote, “Murder is not permitted, but to kill one’s adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy”.

Well!

Ambrose was more specific. He did not distinguish between a soldier in war or a citizen in peace. In 375 A.D. he wrote, “And that courage which either protects the homeland against barbarians in war, or defends the weak at home, or saves one’s comrades from brigands, is full of righteousness”.

Well! Well!

Ambrose is noteworthy in that he is the first of the early writer I am aware of that lists “soldier defending nation, policeman defending the weak, and armed citizen defending against brigands” in the same context of courage and righteousness.

Augustine was there in 409 A.D. when the Goths sacked Rome. He came to see the church as having the responsibility to provide for the welfare of the nation…specifically in the context of security.

Remember this scripture - 1Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.

It was Augustine who formulated the concept of the just war. A just war would be approved by God if the following conditions were met:

1.      War is declared by the sovereign of state.

2.      War is to be declared only after all peaceful means of accomplishing resolution have been exhausted. Inner love must be the motivation.

3.      The objective must be the punishment or prevention of evil, injustice, or atrocity.

4.      It must be directed to enemy forces, not to innocents.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) a definer of Catholic theology confirmed Augustine’s Just War Concept, as did Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

I believe that the early apologists advocated pacifism because of the odious requirements of Roman military service. And that once those specific requirements were no longer an issue, military service was not only acceptable, but desirable. Further, that the use of arms in personal defense was common in those days and differentiated from military service as always acceptable even when military service might not be.

Today, there are some who still believe that to be a Christian is to be a pacifist. I will submit that such a doctrine is not only ungodly, but may be immoral and sinful in many cases, if not simply cowardly. Some who advocate pacifism have, like the servant in the parable, buried their talent in the dirt rather than put it to good use. They believe that what takes place here on earth is not “of no consequence”. To the contrary, we are entrusted with this world and must show we have used our “talents” well.

Pacifism is immoral because the pacifist enjoys the security provided by the warrior without paying for it either physically or spiritually. He won’t die to protect his children, but expects you to do so in his stead. In essence, the pacifist is a coward hiding his cowardice in spiritualism.

It is clear that the argument over pacifism in the early church was predicated on the excesses of the roman military service, and the Military Oath in particular. Once such requirements ended, the pacifistic doctrine changed. I submit that there is no scripture in The Old Testament or New Testament that advocates a “peace at any price” teaching, and that teaching such a doctrine is not only selfish to the utmost, but as mentioned in Timothy – denies the faith.

As I concluded this study, I believe fully that the Gospel has never taught us to be pacifists, but rather that we are to, as much as we are able, to seek peace. But the context is clear. Not at any price.

This is reality, and to ignore it is both naïve and irresponsible, and smacks of an excessively lofty and spiritual view of things. There is a point where we must pick up the sword, so that we can continue to live in peace. Clearly, to have peace, one must often be willing to fight, to kill, and to die for it. To have peace, we must often enforce such a peace with the readiness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with complete disregard for our own safety. Whether in an airplane facing terrorists or in a dark parking lot facing muggers, it is the holy duty (and the cross put in front of us) of any able-bodied Christian man of God to stand strong with courage and righteousness and execute wrath on those who would do us evil.

Christ does not want a bunch of glad-handing, always-submissive, no-load-nice-at-all-costs pumpkin boys to lead His church. Let’s gather around our Lord as the Gadites gathered around David!!

Exodus 15:3 Jehova is a warrior – Jehova is His name

Jesus is a warrior – Jesus is His name 

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---