National Security and Worship

National Security and Worship

“The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter”, Retired

https://gadflyblog.com/tag/worship

4/28/2018

 

The purpose of this letter is to keep you in the loop of discussions concerning National Security and Worship.  I am presently in discussions with two groups: The Task Force at a local community church and a young pastor (with a college age son) connected with the Southern Baptist Convention.  In regard to justification for “Worship”, both these groups brought forward I Timothy (Paul passing the Gospel Baton to the much younger Timothy) as justification for “Worship”.

As a National Crises Troubleshooter for the past 55 years (with a short break for college where I graduated at the top of my class and received an offer to come to Livermore at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where I earned the reputation as “The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter”), my interests, of course, include national security.  I learned about national security of the Israelite nation while teaching fourth grade Sunday school at TC.  It appears the Israelites had a slight problem understanding the guidelines that were given to them that would have made their new nation successful.  It also appears the Apostles had a slight problem with understanding the instructions that the messenger (the Representative of the Creator of the Universe, or “RoCoU”) they called Jesus gave to them on His exit from this planet Earth.

The Time Line:

  • The Israelites took the Ten Guidelines for a successful nation as literal commands.
  • The Israelites actually made a religion around these Ten Guidelines they took as Ten Commandments.
  • The Israelites were overrun by their neighbors the Babylonians and their elites forced into exile.
  • While in exile, the Israelite elites recorded the first five books of the Old Testament, which included their Ten Commandments.
  • The Israelites were allowed to return to their destroyed homeland and rebuild.
  • The Israelites were conquered by the Romans.
  • The RoCoU came to Earth as a seed in a virgin called Mary.
  • He grew up in this Israelite community now controlled by the Romans.
  • On obtaining the age of about thirty, He took on his assignment to form a task force that would take his teachings throughout the world.
  • After about three years of teaching and forming this task force, He put into action the path to return back to his home somewhere in the universe.
  • To travel through empty space, His body had to change from matter into energy.  This new body form would enable Him to leave this planet and make His way back home. He had to die and resurrect from the dead to change into this new body form of energy. [i]
  • After His resurrection from the dead and before leaving this planet, He instructed his followers to: “Go then, preach the good news about the kingdom.  Do not lay down any rule beyond what I determined for you, nor promulgate law like the lawgivers or else you might be dominated by it.[ii]
  • What this RoCoU, who they called Jesus, taught his followers during his time on Earth would now be called a paradigm shift.  A new paradigm is not dependent on the old or existing paradigm but is entirely a new way of interpreting the exiting data. [iii]
  • The followers of the RoCoU – the Apostles including Paul (Saul) – could not separate this new paradigm from the old or existing paradigm and what they brought to the world was a hybrid of the old and new paradigm.  In other words, they put their own perspective (spin) on the teachings of the RoCoU.
  • The four books that are now available that present the teachings of the RoCoU without adding their own perspective (spin) to the evidence are: Mark, Luke I & II (also known as Acts), the Gospel of Thomas (thought possibly to be one of the “Q” sources, which was a hypothetical first century list of Jesus’s sayings referenced by both Mathew and Luke, (with a wide range of possible dates from the mid-first century to the fourth century), the Gospel of Mary (attributed to the teachings of Mary Magdalene, but probably written in the second century by non-Jews (Gentiles)). [iv]
  • Athanasius, The Archbishop of Alexandria, who sent out an Easter letter all over Egypt in the spring of 367, ordering believers to reject what be called ‘illegitimate and secret books’…. also included a list of twenty-seven books of which he approved, calling them the ‘springs of salvation’.  Strikingly, the twenty-seven books he names in this letter are precisely those that came to constitute the collection we call the ‘New Testament’ for which this letter provides our earliest known list.“
  • “But apparently some monks defied the archbishop’s order to reject all the rest; instead, they saved and protected over fifty texts from their library by sealing them in a heavy jar and burying them away from the monastery walls, under the cliff where they were found sixteen hundred years later[v] (1945).  Is this then a time capsule?
  • The books of I & II Timothy were evidently written by Paul while he was in chains in Rome. The aged Paul is passing the proverbial torch of the Gospel to the much younger Timothy, who Paul was quite familiar with through Timothy’s mother and grandmother.  Paul, in his first letter to Timothy in chapter 2 of the NIV Bible, is telling Timothy how he wants the women of the church to dress, wear their hair and accessories appropriate for “women to perform good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”
  • Considering our National Security is at risk I don’t think the mention of “worship” in I Timothy can justify not following the second of the Ten Guidelines: a successful nation should not be overrun by its enemies!
  • In general, Paul’s theology is that Christians sacrificing their bodies to God as workman for God. This is Paul’s new definition of “worship.”
  • Does this new definition of “worship” exempt us from the benefits provided by the second of the Ten Guidelines for a successful nation?  Or does this new definition result in a nation operating at such a low operating efficiency that their national debt becomes unpayable with their GDP?  As our second president John Adams stated, “There are two ways to conquer a nation: war and debt.”
  •  My personal experience is that people who place their life’s priority on worship cause much of the turmoil in the world.  It seems we cannot all agree on who or how we are worshiping and this results in discourse, both nationally and personally.  It looks as though worship creates “sacred cows” that must be protected to the death.
  • My high school girlfriend did not receive any of my letters when I came out west. She was brought up Catholic and I was brought up Lutheran, so those were justifiable reasons for someone who has a priority in protecting their “sacred cow” to intercept my letters.  When I got her on the phone, planning to attend a 35-year class reunion, the first thing I heard was, “You have a lot of explaining to do!”  She had been searching for me for thirty-five years!
  • When my wife of Catholic upbringing reacted to my joining a Baptist Church (a heretic church as she had been taught), she felt a great need to rescue the children from the heretics and filed and proceeded through with a divorce!
  • My daughter, who was twelve at the conclusion of these divorce proceedings, was in the full custody of her mother and no visitation rights to her father.  My daughter never received any of the half dozen expensive music boxes that I brought to her home with her mother for her birthday and Christmas gifts.  Was her mother protecting her children from the heretics?  What kind of worship do these actions represent?  Is the church of your youth a “sacred cow?”
  • Worship does not create cohesion of those who call themselves Christian, but worship causes discourse not only among Christians, but of non-Christians.
  • I have accounts of two Protestant churches that I’ve been involved with during the past thirty-eight years that illustrate the same point as the two above, and that is that worship creates “sacred cows” that must be defended at all cost even to the detriment of church members in good standing.
  • The Protestant churches have a major inertia problem preventing them from moving forward with new enlightenment.  That problem is professional Christians.  Professional Christians must “preach to the choir.”  That is they have to teach the children and adults of the church the same doctrine as their parents and themselves were taught or these church members will vote with their feet and leave that church for another church, taking their church contributions with them.  This leaves the professional Christians without an income.  Paul, as a tent maker, had the right idea. Paul being supported by the members of his churches was a good idea in theory, but not practical in execution.
  • Then there are those who worship God with a different name or in a different tradition than any of the Christian sects.  Some of these extremists are threating our own national security today!
  • Claiming that we can redefine worship to give a different purpose to our lives, as Paul intended, is well and good in theory but, in practice, the same results are obtained as if these were the worship of idols as stated in the second of the Ten Guidelines for a successful nations!
  • Worship is not mentioned or even given and honorable mention in John chapters 14 & 16.  The focus on the departure from this planet Earth is on the RoCoU sending us a personal advocate, counselor, Holy Spirit, etc. to guide us through this life on Earth.

Summary

 

In regard to national security, nothing that man has thought up could surpass this gift of a personal guide through life. There is no possibility that a “sacred cow” could be made of this gift and therefore not a threat to our national security or discourse within our nation among our citizens.

 

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the Ten Guidelines, Ten Codes of Conduct, or, as the religious demand, Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus chapter twenty were given to a new-forming nation that was given land to build their nation.  These Ten Guidelines, when followed, would give this new nation a high economic operating efficiency.   Their national debt would not be skyrocketing out of control, exceeding their capacity to even make payments on the interest to the loans from other countries.  They would be a stronger nation than their competitors’ nations and would not be overrun by their neighbors.  These Ten Guidelines are all about national security and influence to the world.

Q.E.D.

[i] Albert Einstein, “Theory of Relativity”, E=MC2; Energy and Matter are interchangeable

[ii] The Gospel of Mary, “THE NAG HAMMADI SCRIPTURES”, “THE REVISED AND UPDATED TRANSLATION OF SACRED GNOSTIC TEXTS,”, The International Edition, Edited by Marvin Meyer, 2007, P 742

[iii] Thomas Samuel Kuhn ; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996),https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

[iv] Ibid iI, pp133-138, p 739,

[v] Ibid iI, pp6-7

Advertisements

The SINS of the FATHER are PASSED DOWN to the THIRD and FOURTH GENERATION

The SINS of the FATHER are PASSED DOWN to the THIRD and FOURTH GENERATION

Ver. 1.0.4

The Top Gun National Troubleshooter, Retired

https://gadflyblog.com/tag/sins-of-father/

10/29/2017

Introduction

“The sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generation” is a quote from the Old Testament of the writer’s observations of history.  Although it is true for fathers and sons as in the case of alcoholism, drug abuse, dysfunctional aggressive communicators, etc. it is also true of the fathers of a nation (the leaders) whose citizen’s sons and daughters and their sons and daughters etc. will be subject to the sins of the fathers of their nation.

On September 11, 2001, democracy changed in the United States of America.  National policy of “We—Win, You—Lose” has been in place since the inception of our nation.  Even in our own Civil War it was “I–Win, You–Lose”.  Negotiating “Workable Compromises” was unheard of even until this day in 2017 with only a few notable exceptions.  Two of those exceptions were the Cuban Missile Crises with Russia during the John F. Kennedy administration when JFK stood alone against the Hawks that wanted to invade Cuba with USA forces and negotiated a “Workable Compromise” with the Russian leader Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, with the aid of the recently developed Polaris Submarine Missile. During the Richard M. Nixon administration when RMN signed a peace treaty with Ho Chi Minh’s representatives of North Vietnam ending USA’s long involvement in South Vietnam, RMN did not have to win the war as his predecessor LBJ proclaimed “He did not want to be the first president to lose a war”.  All other international conflicts have been “We–Win, You–Lose”.

The Peak of Democracy and Freedom in the USA 

September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the massive terrorism attacks, on the USA and European countries, that we are experiencing to day from large terrorists organizations.  These terrorist organizations such as ISIS and ISIL had their beginnings during the Bush Administration primarily involving the President, Vice President and the Secretary of State.  The Iraq leader appeared to be massing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).   A low ranking thud was evaluated to prominence in the Sunni Muslim Community by this Bush Administration and then, (the USA extinguished him). This prominent Muslim leader had a vision of an Islamic State.  The Secretary of State argued to the United Nations that a Preemptive strike was warranted against the Iraq Sunni Muslim Administration.  The Bush Administration warned the Iraq Sunni Administration of the planned invasion, the Iraq Sunni Administration responded with clearing Iraq of all evidence of WMD’s.

This was the first Preemptive Strike by USA forces in the history of the USA and set in place the Bush Doctrine ofPreemptive Strikes against Terrorism”.   Our reputation as Preemptive Strikers is now cast in stone on the international scene.  Other non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (non-NATO) Allies, now live in fear that the Americans will strike first and  are now justified in developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the shores of the USA.  The USA can no longer be trusted to hold their fire until provoked; The USA has established a policy of First Strike. These nations feel they must create equal forces to  protect themselves from the Americans.

Loss of Freedom and Democracy in the USA

This new “Preemptive Strike Policy” will not only encourage foreign, non-NATO countries to establish a nuclear threat, but terrorist activities against the USA, and Europe, can be expected to continue and increase; threatening the USA’s democracy and freedom, and the freedom of Europeans. The citizens of the USA will lose their freedom to more regulations and controls enacted to prevent terrorism.   The more regulation and laws we have the more Law Enforcers we will have to ensure compliance with these regulations and laws.  The citizens of the USA will become encumbered with more scrutiny from these Law Enforcers.

The Way Forward 

There is only one way forward for the USA and that is to admit to our mistake of a preemptive strike on Iraq and those organizations forming and following a mission to bring the USA to its downfall.   In effect the USA must repent from its sin of “First Strike” and make amends with the enemies created by this “Preemptive Strike Policy”.  The leaders and representatives of the USA must learn the skill of negotiating “Workable Compromises”; that is actions that are not “I–Win, You–lose”, but “I–Win, You–Win agreements or in other words create Treaties with our adversaries in the world.

This is the only action that will save the USA from destruction that has beheld those counties before us whom created a “Preemptive Strike Policy”.  There are too many countries to name in history that have created “First Strike Policy” to name a few: Germany WWII, Germany WWI, the South USA Civil War, the Romans, and the Persians against the Greeks etc., etc. all of these countries or empires were defeated eventually by their First Strike Victims.  The only way forward is for the USA to abandon this Bush Preemptive Strike Policy and start negotiating Treaties representing “Workable Compromises” throughout the world.

 North Korea

A Preemptive Strike on North Korea, which is developing ICBM’s capable of reaching major cities in the USA, will result in an immediate response by North Korea against South Korea, Japan and Guam, a USA territory and major Pacific US Air Base.  This is A NO-WIN SITUATION for all parties concerned.

North Korea is justified in their fear of a Preemptive Strike from the USA.  What do the North Koreans want (?), probably the same thing that Ho Chi Minh wanted in Vietnam, a unified Vietnam without the interference of the USA Military!  Can the USA prevent the North Korean’s from a preemptive strike against South Korea?  It is unlikely that North Korea would move against South Korea with a nuclear weapon and have no interest in a nuclear attack against Japan. The saber rattling, by the North Korean’s, against Guam is probably just that. The North Korean’s know that the USA cannot stop them from developing a nuclear ICBM capability and they are letting the USA see this for a fact!

Cyber-Attack

A cyber-attack to disrupt the production of weapons grade uranium has been used by USA allies against Iran’s centrifuge operations that produce weapons grade uranium.  To initiate a preemptive cyber-attack on North Korea, be its centrifuges or other infrastructure, would certainly result in cyber-attack retaliations by North Korea against the USA’s infrastructure notably the power grid.  North Korea has already demonstrated its ability to disrupt major businesses in the USA.

Restrained USA

The USA is caught in a Military No-Win Situation with North Korea there is no military solution to North Korea’s ICBM capabilities.  The best result will be obtained by negotiations and limiting the access to nuclear materials by North Korea.  In addition, the best result will be a Stand-Off and a long-term policy to improve the USA’s relationship with North Korea; the USA abandoning the Bush Administration’s First Strike Policy; and establish a policy of negotiating workable compromises.   

Q.E.D