27 June 2009
25 June 2009
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
500
Just back from Ohio, to clear out the apartment and finalize our move to that great state. Just checked and 500 people have viewed my complete profile since I started this blog last year!!!! I am honored that so many have taken the time to read my blog and my profile!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
11 June 2009
Stop Leveling the Playing Field
Geoff's Take:
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
08 June 2009
07 June 2009
Good vs. Evil
Geoff's take:
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
02 June 2009
We found a house!!!!
With the uproar this weekend with the Tiller murder ( did anyone remember that a Muslim terrorist killed an Army recruiter Monday?. but Governor Palin, bless her heart, did- didn't think so), I forgot to post that we found a house!!!! Geoff and I have become weary of hotel living, after six months of it to date, and since we know that we are here for the the next few years, we went ahead and started house hunting. (The company still hasn't made the official offer, and we are now in month four of that wait), but Geoff wanted to get a head start ,since this is prime moving season. We looked at several houses on Saturday and Sunday, but we knew at the second one we saw Sunday. We went back after seeing the remainder of the houses, and that was it- contract written up, negotiated and offer accepted today. Geoff had foudn another listing, which we had viewed SAturday, and the agent willingly worked with us on Sunday. He is fantastic!!! His name is John Stevens, with Howard Hanna, and he knows Medina County inside and out. What a joy- he never made us feel incompetent or inadequate and had a feel for exactly what we neede. So, the kitchen does not have a built in dishwasher right now- but, it will by Christmas!!! Geoff has the perfect room that will doulbe as his office/Great Train Room. I think, when I first saw that particular room, I knew it was home for us. We should be moved out of our NY apartment by the end of the month (YEAH!!!!!!- I hate paying rent and utilites for a place not lived in) and, with God's grace, will close on 15 July!!!!
01 June 2009
Get Over It!
Geoff's take:
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)