*edit, February 9, 2017 – I corrected a very few typos. Content is absolutely not changed. I probably shouldn’t correct typos in comments I’ve posted online, but I can’t help myself.
It’s a free universe, truly. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t rules and there are no consequences to choices we make. I think that even rejectors of a Creator have that view.
If I choose to believe in an actual Creator God, that others choose to disbelieve in, then am I bad when that’s what I try to teach as fact? I will be honest with you. I don’t think people believe that I’m bad for trying to teach that there is a Creator God. But what people think, passively, is not always what they think actively. If someone has chosen to believe (or in his, or…, view, honestly believes) that there is no Creator and he finds me trying to convince others that there is, he will find himself in the position of having to resist me (publicly) even if he does not think he should. Logically, If I’m teaching what others (Your community?) consider to be darkness, then I’m evil or whatever term or terms you want to use (if you don’t want to use terms that you think may call into being a discussion of a non existent God and a non existent Satan).
You see, There’s a social dimension to it. As long as we don’t have a problem with the community we feel ourselves a part of, then we will endeavor to be accepted and approved by it. But how far will you go in trying to prove your truth, which I consider a Lie (1. force belief, which posits that everyone and everything is connected by radial energy [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest who taught biological evolution, gave it that term] and everyone, living and dead, has a good side and an evil side to them and 2. biological evolution), and in trying to get your community’s acceptance and approval? The Christian Bible reveals that soon, the secular realm of this dark world will turn upon the religious realm. And not just in disagreement. That offensive will be hostile and violent. For a brief period, the UN, depicted in the Bible as a scarlet colored (denoting war) beast, will be given full authority by the greater wild beast (that I call corporatocracy) to ‘deal with’ organized religion. Babylon the Great (harlot of global organized religion, all denominations) will be devastated (which is something that she does a great deal to bring upon herself with her violence and lies and irrationality). Then God himself, through his appointed representative, Jesus Christ, will finish off this dark world and usher in a new world. See Revelation chapter 17. (As an aside, I find the parts of the Christian Bible that use such incredible imagery as we see in Daniel and Revelation to be more revealing, trustworthy and persuasive than the bare words. I have problems with quite a bit of the written word. I’d be lying if I didn’t tell you that. Make of that what you will.)
“Moreover, I say to you my friends, Do not fear those who kill the body and after that are not able to do anything more. But I will show you whom to fear: Fear the One who after killing has authority to throw into Gehenna… I say to you, Everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But whoever disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God… And everyone who says a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven.” (Luke 12:4-10)
An excerpt from the top of post linked-to article by Daniel Lazare follows:
=========== == =
With President Obama down to less than two weeks in office, everyone is busy assessing his legacy. So let’s begin with the Arab world. Not since the Vietnam War, we can safely say, has an administration left a region in ruins the way Obama has left the Middle East (although it’s true that George W. Bush contributed mightily to the mess)…
How did someone so charming and seemingly so progressive wreak such havoc? The answer is through a combination of weakness, complacency, and taking the easy way out. Obama is the sort of cool and laid-back individual who adapts effortlessly to whatever institution he finds himself in, whether it’s the Harvard Law Review, the Illinois state legislature, the U.S. Senate or the White House.
The writer Edward L. Fox argues that, during his childhood in Indonesia, he soaked up the Javanese doctrine of halus in which a king “does not conquer opposing political forces, but absorbs them all under himself.”…
Yet, Obama – with his Javanese penchant for reconciling opposites – has shown a strange combination of vision and blindness throughout the debacle. He spoke up in favor of human rights. But at his first meeting with Saudi King Abdullah, he bowed deeply and apparently kissed his hand, a curious gesture for a young progressive encountering one of the world’s greatest despots but it was a sign of hypocrisies to come.
= == ===========
My two online responses to the top of post linked-to article follow. The second comment was a response to a poster (Walt Miller) who said “Obama I would guess wouldn’t or couldn’t cross the Dark State. We have got [to] break it’s hold on this country. The DS loves the Saudis when they should be our number one enemy.”:
———– — –
I’m reading Seymour Hersh’s “The Killing Of Osama bin Laden” right now and in that book Hersh has a lot to say about those who cry “Fake news!” The Pakistanis were so miffed at Obama’s double dealing, in connection with the operation that saw Osama bin Laden murdered, primarily in order to boost Obama’s re-election prospects, that they turned their backs on the US for some time afterward. The fake heroics of mentally and spiritually ruined soldiers (Navy Seals) who slaughtered, with glee, a defenseless, crippled, old Osama bin Laden were bad enough. But the lies, beginning with Obama’s frantic efforts to capitalize on the premeditated murder of bin Laden multiplied rapidly and in pretty short order [and] it was impossible for the admin, and those hitching their wagons to it, to win over those they were lying to. For example, Obama promised to wait two weeks to announce to the American people that they had taken [out] bin Laden and so the killer Seals, who didn’t expect a presidential address and a particular version of events, were bragging about shredding bin Laden. There was no body to bury at sea.
Anyway, The hiatus in American-Pakistani good relations led to a rise in (other) terrorist activities by assorted terrorists, including IS, to the point where Pakistanis [felt] so in danger that, despite their dislike of the Americans and Obama (who they are just like), they returned to cooperating with them.
As one informant Hersh talks to notes, the Obama admin knows how to kill and destroy and that’s all. There’s no vision.
What kind of vision does he suppose we might get from that neoliberal/neoconservative crowd? I think they are having tremendous success – by their standards. Destabilization is the name of the game, Isn’t it? Destabilize and appropriate.
That’s it of course. No one who knows the score, who also lacks principles and therefore possesses a willingness to sell his services in return for personal gain, would, for no reason, cross the “dark state.” For others, who are principled and haven’t discarded their humanity and sense of justice and who therefore feel outraged by the exploitation and violence happening, not just because it’s a violent world but also because our ‘leaders’ are down with inequality and violence, They ‘have to’ speak truth to power, even when they know that it may cost them. That’s how it is, for now, in this dark, upside down world in which Obama, who is totally down with chaos, inequality and deceit (just read Seymour Hersh’s “The Killing Of Osama bin Laden” to get an idea about the level of deceit that that man is capable of) is president of the most powerful nation on earth and Julian Assange, who tells the people what those who purport to act in their name are doing is stuck in an embassy, without sunlight, that he can’t leave ever, or else.
– — ———–
Both Daniel and Seymour look at Obama’s legacy and both, like countless other writers/investigative journalists/researchers, including (probably mostly) writers on the Left (or outside the Right), avoid references to evil, especially when the references might be to a person. Hersh, to my surprise, thinks that Obama’s Obamacare, from his first term, was “on the plus side” and will be part of his legacy. Why does Hersh think that praising single payer (which is Canada’s model, which is under siege) and then explicitly ruling it out, as part of his health care reform, is a good thing? What’s good about not only rejecting single payer, but pointing out beforehand that it’s the best? I call that perverse and evil. And I call Obamacare (which isn’t even original or Democratic Party, as others have noted) evil. US citizens who are not able to afford the health insurance that the law now says they MUST have, are not only out of health care, but they are penalized for it! Obama again (Remember the obscene Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?) pretends to be a friend of the people who he kicks in the teeth.
See “Obamacare And Single Payer” by Russell Mokhiber
Seymour Hersh (pgs 48 & 49 of “The Killing Of Osama bin Laden”):
It was inevitable that the Obama administration’s lies, misstatements and betrayals would create a backlash. “We’ve had a four-year lapse in cooperation,” the retired official said. “It’s taken that long for the Pakistanis to trust us again in the military-to-military counterterrorism relationship – while terrorism was rising all over the world… They felt Obama sold them down the river. They’re just now coming back because the threat from ISIS, which is now showing up there, is a lot greater and the bin Laden event is far enough away to enable someone like General Durrani to come out and talk about it.”
Hersh, who does a lot of good work, is clearly establishment. Or at least his mind is not as independent of establishment thinking as much of his work would suggest it is. He makes no mention of the fact that the US, and it’s allies in the region (such as the Gulf Cooperation Council), are all funding terrorists who they think (like US planners think) can destabilize the region (outside of their borders and palaces) just enough for the Sunni forces throughout the region to dominate. They hope that the Sunni forces allied with Iran and Syria can be wiped out and rendered unable to resist the extremist Sunnis allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel and the US. Uncle Sam gets what he wants (more of the world), while those who (unwisely) work with him also get what they want. Of course, What monsters want doesn’t make sense. But then again, They’re monsters. Terrorism is bad no matter where it takes place. And the greatest source of terrorism in the world is the United States.
See also James Petras’s “Not By Terrorism Alone.” I have no idea about the title, but the article reviews how the US and other countries work with ISIS at times and attack ISIS at other times.