Iesvs. Consider the fact that the letter "J" didn't exist in Latin and the letter "v" was used the same way that the letter "u" is. Hence the word "virtue" would have been written "virtve". That being said Lets go to today's topic Iesvs or as we spell it today "Jesus".
When ever you turn on your TV 24 hours a day there is someone telling you about Jesus. Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and was followed by a loyal group of guys (one of whom betrayed him) where upon he was crucified and became the basis of first a faith then a religion.
What's the difference? A faith is a belief, a religion is simply a set of actions that are repeated faithfully.
That being said whenever I turn on my TV someone or something is telling me that Jesus is my lord and savior. That's a pretty positive message. Do I believe it? Yes I do. Men and women are on my television telling me that Jesus not only loved me but died to redeem me in the eyes of the almighty father/creator of all. Do I believe this. I actually do. These men and women (a majority of whom seem to be from the American south) are telling me 24 hours a day that Jesus talks to them and wants them to spread his word and apparently (if these men and women are to be believed) enrich themselves in the process. They wear tailored Italian suits, wear $100,000 Rolex watches, ride around in limos and private jets, and surround themselves with body guards.
I find that an interesting paradox given that the disciples who actually traveled WITH Jesus while he walked the earth didn't have a horse, chariot or wagon between them. The apostle Peter who was left to spread the Gospel after Jesus ascension into heaven wasn't clad in the finest silk or traveling with body guards. If he had been maybe the Romans wouldn't have captured, imprisoned and eventually crucified him huh. Maybe televangelist do it that way because they're learning from Peter's mistake right?
Now from what I've read the book of Revelation tells us Jesus shall return in glory and usher in the apocalypse. I say...GREAT. But I have to ponder a few things. What will happen to the televangelist? Will Jesus simply take over all of their Christian broadcasting companies with a "thank you...you rewards shall be in heaven?" As they say they're doing it all "for the lord" will they relinquish their mansions, leer jets, expensive wardrobes, limos, Rolexs and other trappings that to the skeptic merely appear to be "bling" and "excess?" As they've said it's all about spreading God's word, I'm sure they will.
Will the son of God tell these men and women to walk from town to town in their geographic areas (Jesus and his disciples walked every where even though there were horses, wagons and chariots) and spread his word (without collection plates) to all who can hear them? I'm sure he would. Jesus said that following him was NOT an easy path and that his followers would be persecuted and their faith would be tested.
Would the men and women who've dedicated their lives to appearing on TV in mega-churches simply let Jesus have what they claim they built FOR him and "render onto God...that which is God's"? Of course they would. After all, they've been saying these many years that they were doing it all for Jesus Christ and his teachings.
Think of it, these men and women would be rewarded in the greatest way possible, they would be able to remember what Jesus said to a rich man about selling all he had and giving the money to the poor. They would earn the title of disciple and would live in the same poverty in which Jesus' ORIGINAL disciples did! And the best part is, all of these men and women would be both happy and honored to do so! We know this because each has told us as much. Unless of course they're liars and hypocrites who're only in it for the money, and we all know THAT isn't the case right?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The South Shall Rise Again?
While perusing the United Press International web site for some of my daily news I noticed something curious. Governor Robert McDonell of Virginia has decided to declare April Confederate history month. He claimed it was to "bolster tourism" and to "make many aware of the sacrifices of soldiers and leaders of the confederacy."
From 1861 to 1865 The United State of America was divided into two separate nations. One calling itself the United States of America, the other the Confederate states of America. Many Americans like to think that the war was effectively about slavery when in fact the war had been raging for an entire year before U.S. President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation which in THERORY freed slaves in the Confederate States. Effectively the Emancipation Proclamation said to the south 'If we're victorious...we're freeing your slaves.'
The causes of the American civil war had nothing to do with Americans in the north caring about the freedom of Slaves, but rather had more to do with economics and politics which have been the root of every war. The south's agrarian economy relied on slave labor to cultivate and harvest, tobacco, sugar and cotton just as the north's economy counted on a steady stream of immigrants from Ireland, southern and eastern Europe who were willing to work for pennies a day. The issue was not free men versus slaves but rather the congressional representation that the Southern states received from 3/5th of each state's non voting slave population.
Southern Agrarians could easily capture a majority in congress by simply purchasing or breeding more slaves. Northern industrialist who opposed slavery did so because slavery offered their Southern agrarian competitors a political advantage and not because of of some romanticized love of freedom as many revisionist historians would have us believe. Abraham Lincoln himself once said during the famed Lincoln/Douglas Debates "If I can preserve the union by freeing all the slaves, I shall do that. I can preserve the union without freeing a single slave I shall to that."
Rich men on both sides of the Mason Dixon line convinced the poor men who would fight the war of some sense of duty. Northern Industrialist talked of "Freedom" Southern Agrarians talked of a large central government interfering with "popular sovereignty". But the end result was the bloodiest conflict to take place on American soil with 620,000 Americans dying in the end.
When the smoke cleared America mended it's fences as best it could but there were resentments that simply wouldn't die. Were you to talk to the descendant of a Union Soldier he/she would talk of how his/her ancestor fought to preserve the Union. Were you to talk to the descendant of a Confederate soldier you would hear of the courage of his/her ancestor in fighting a tyrannical government bent on imposing it's will upon an angry populace. Were you to talk to the descendant of a slave they would either consider the Union heroes and the Confederacy racist, or simply view it as yet another war between men who simply saw their ancestors as chattel.
Whatever one's point of view it has to be said rather someone is a hero or villain is determined largely by geography and ideology. Should Virginians celebrate the "glorious Confederacy?" It could be said that those who wish to should be allowed to but to be true to the spirit of the Confederacy those who choose not to...should not have it "forced upon them by a tyrannical government."
From 1861 to 1865 The United State of America was divided into two separate nations. One calling itself the United States of America, the other the Confederate states of America. Many Americans like to think that the war was effectively about slavery when in fact the war had been raging for an entire year before U.S. President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation which in THERORY freed slaves in the Confederate States. Effectively the Emancipation Proclamation said to the south 'If we're victorious...we're freeing your slaves.'
The causes of the American civil war had nothing to do with Americans in the north caring about the freedom of Slaves, but rather had more to do with economics and politics which have been the root of every war. The south's agrarian economy relied on slave labor to cultivate and harvest, tobacco, sugar and cotton just as the north's economy counted on a steady stream of immigrants from Ireland, southern and eastern Europe who were willing to work for pennies a day. The issue was not free men versus slaves but rather the congressional representation that the Southern states received from 3/5th of each state's non voting slave population.
Southern Agrarians could easily capture a majority in congress by simply purchasing or breeding more slaves. Northern industrialist who opposed slavery did so because slavery offered their Southern agrarian competitors a political advantage and not because of of some romanticized love of freedom as many revisionist historians would have us believe. Abraham Lincoln himself once said during the famed Lincoln/Douglas Debates "If I can preserve the union by freeing all the slaves, I shall do that. I can preserve the union without freeing a single slave I shall to that."
Rich men on both sides of the Mason Dixon line convinced the poor men who would fight the war of some sense of duty. Northern Industrialist talked of "Freedom" Southern Agrarians talked of a large central government interfering with "popular sovereignty". But the end result was the bloodiest conflict to take place on American soil with 620,000 Americans dying in the end.
When the smoke cleared America mended it's fences as best it could but there were resentments that simply wouldn't die. Were you to talk to the descendant of a Union Soldier he/she would talk of how his/her ancestor fought to preserve the Union. Were you to talk to the descendant of a Confederate soldier you would hear of the courage of his/her ancestor in fighting a tyrannical government bent on imposing it's will upon an angry populace. Were you to talk to the descendant of a slave they would either consider the Union heroes and the Confederacy racist, or simply view it as yet another war between men who simply saw their ancestors as chattel.
Whatever one's point of view it has to be said rather someone is a hero or villain is determined largely by geography and ideology. Should Virginians celebrate the "glorious Confederacy?" It could be said that those who wish to should be allowed to but to be true to the spirit of the Confederacy those who choose not to...should not have it "forced upon them by a tyrannical government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
