Those Who Can’t Handle The Truth…

Try To Silence Those Who Speak It.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Those Who Can’t Handle The Truth…

  1. Jax says:

    Said the guy who got banned from HotAir.

  2. John says:

    “Charity suffers long, and is kind; charity envies not; … is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth …”

    Where are you coming from, Jax He-Who-Would-Have-Us-Believe-He-Is-Also-Of-Christ?

    Why is it that I sense nothing of Christ in anything you have yet posted?

    Why have you implied (on another thread) that you are a member of the Lord’s Church? Or, if that is true, why do you seem so unlike Him?

    Something is not right here. Someone is (many someones are) not being honest.

    Why do you seem to me to be so similar to the one you came here to offer excuses for (i.e., not as advertised)?

    On even so serious a topic as this, have you nothing to offer but scoffing?


  3. John says:

    The point of this thread is well worth noting. We are not distanced from Holland in any meaningful way by a mere ocean or political boundaries. Especially with the Dhimmicrats holding all the reins of power in the “last best hope” of Lincoln’s humanity. This intolerance of truth is soon to be world-wide, and enforced by law, imprisonment, and worse. The rise of the embrace of tolerance for the ideas of the false prophet by secular politicians is but a temporary stage convenient to their goal, and has long been a strategic part of the over-arching plan for outlawing all religion. After they have given the followers of the false prophet entry into every community, where they can thereafter locally frighten everyone whenever they take offense at truth, the anti-religion zealots will then cite necessity to silence all mention of God-given truth. Of course, totalitarians know from experience that only the Christian will refuse to become silent about God when persecution is the result of that, which is why their strategy is being implemented in such a way as we have all plainly seen. The secularists have no worries about putting the genie back in the bottle when they are ready, which is why they do not fear the spread of the genie’s people. It’s Christ and His message that terrifies them–the purity of the New Testament and its message about the resurrection of the dead has real teeth when spoken by mouths innocent of suicidal murder. The power in even the name “Jesus Christ” is what makes them feel the need to sneak up on outlawing religion in this way. They will use everyone’s fear of terrorism to further this goal.

  4. Jax says:

    Wow. Uh… Red? This is the guy who’s on your side here. Care to translate that last bit?

    John, I honestly can’t tell if you’re clinically insane or the most talented troll in the history of trolling, but I’ll say this for you… you’re not dull.

  5. Ryan says:

    You feeling okay John? That post was seriously bat-shit crazy.

    There’s no rapture happening here – move along.

  6. Thomas Shawn says:

    The first oath of Hussein was flubbed, the second one was taken with no Bible present.

    Thus ends the speculation of whether Hussein would take the oath with the Bible or the Koran. Answer: neither.

  7. Ryan says:

    Hi Thomas,

    Can you please point me to the legitimate source that “speculated” that he may take the oath on the Koran?

    He took the public oath on the Bible in front of a billion people. The rearranging of the words does not make it “not an oath”.

  8. Ryan,

    As you can tell from my prior post (“And So It Is Done”), I, like you, thought the rearrangement of the word “faithfully” was not significant enough to invalidate the oath.

    But here’s the curious thing… Chief Justice Roberts appears to have thought differently. If there was no doubt in his mind that the public oath was valid, then he would not have administered the oath a second time.

    The irony here is that the second oath was intended to remove doubt that the oath had been administered properly, but instead it increased doubt.

    If the second oath was not taken with a hand on the Bible, then the second is not valid.

    The administration of the second oath implies the first oath was invalid.

    I don’t doubt that Obama and Roberts intended to do it right both prior times, but sadly, a third administration of the oath is required.

    Do it one more time, publicly (in front of TV cameras), with a hand on the Bible.

    Just do it and put this to rest.

  9. Rather than doing it one more time, publicly (in front of TV cameras), with a hand on the Bible, what is more likely is that this will degenerate into an assault on requiring oaths to be sworn on Holy Scriptures.

  10. Math says:

    The bible is not a constitutional requirement, there is quite a bit of precedent of presidential oath not being taken with a hand on the bible.

  11. Math says:

    Oh and the second one was made publicly too, just not as public as the first one obviously. So I don’t really see a problem with his second oath (not that there was a problem with his first one either I guess, but for sure someone would have sued otherwise)

  12. Jonah says:

    Theodore Roosevelt didn’t use a Bible, for instance.

    At any rate, I like to think of it this way: the first oath was good enough for God. His knowledge of grammar is infinite, so presumably He can tell when two sentences are semantically the same. The second one was good enough for the lawyers, who require no Bible since it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. Covering these bases should be sufficient. (If God and the lawyers are satisfied, I can’t imagine anyone else would have a legitimate complaint.)

  13. Frin says:


    Is it your stock standard approach to accuse everyone of lying and pretending every time they say something you disagree with?

  14. Jax says:

    Red? Anything? Third comment down. This is the guy you were giving a standing ovation to last night. Just… little help here. Could use some insight. What is he talking about?

  15. Jax says:

    No? Nothing?

    …a guess, maybe?

  16. Jax,

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  17. Ryan says:

    Mr Pill,

    Nobody is trying to silence you. We are all here making your Blog more popular in fact. Stop telling us we are trying to silence you just because we disagree.

    If I didn’t want to here your opinion, I would stop asking you questions. We were trying to figure out what John was saying, since his posts are a bit confusing. Does that sound like silencing to you?

  18. Ryan,

    My last comment wasn’t about you or Jax. Jax may mock my being banned from HotAir, but he misses the point about that (*) and he has no power to silence me here.

    You’re both welcome here. The only thing I have banned so far is profanity.

    My last comment was a summary explanation of the comment from John on January 22, 2009 at 12:57 am that Jax asked me to explain.

    (*) I was banned by the atheist Allahpundit, but not by his boss, Michelle Malkin. It would appear that Allahpundit’s intolerance of my viewpoint, and Michelle’s tolerance of it, only serves as evidence that those who can’t handle the truth, try to silence those who speak it.

  19. Ryan says:

    Ok, fair enough – I took it out of context. And I will try to avoid profanity :-)

  20. Jax says:

    Wait, your summary of his statement was… the title of your post? THAT’S what he meant? That sums up that 300 word rant with no paragraph breaks? That’s what you took away from a sentence like, “The secularists have no worries about putting the genie back in the bottle when they are ready, which is why they do not fear the spread of the genie’s people.”


    Look. Red. You had a few drinks. You posted on your blog that you gave a standing ovation to a crazy person. Please. Admit it. You don’t have to admit you like Obama or anything. Just… come on. There’s no way you read that post and said, “Yes. I agree with this. THIS… is right up my alley.”

  21. Jax,

    I’ll go slow for you…

    Jesus is the truth:

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

    John 14:6

    People who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

    Christians are often smeared as being “intolerant”, but consider this…

    When a person raised Christian converts to Islam, the Christian family usually tolerates that conversion.

    However, when a person raised Muslim converts to Christianity, the Muslim family usually does not tolerate that conversion. Frequently, around the world, that convert is killed by family members.

    The point of John’s comment was the silencing of Christians. I choose not to argue with you any further about someone else’s comment. If you want to discuss John’s comment with John, go ahead.

  22. One more thought…

    When people insult Christianity, Christians generally turn the other cheek. They aren’t known for issuing death threats against those who insulted Jesus Christ and His followers.

    When people insult Islam, Muslims generally call for the murder of those who insulted Mohammed and His followers.

    Lots of stories about tolerance.

  23. John says:

    One could be forgiven for not being surprised that chronic whiners are dumbfounded by the use of parables. I’ve heard rumors to this effect.

    “all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand.”

    Someone else will explain it to them. I’m tired of this inquisition.

    (It can sometimes be advantageous to a speaker that the enemies of truth do not hear it spoken. That’s as clue as you’ll get right now.)

    Suppose I don’t want you to know what I meant? What of it? So what if I don’t want you pinning me down and lashing me with my own words just because you don’t believe them? Poor dreary thing.

    Those who honorably seek the meaning of my words in search of true wisdom, can understand clearly enough what I said. No problem.

    You others can run along and snivel about something somewhere else if you haven’t yet emptied your spleens.


  24. Jax says:


    I’ll go slow… for YOU.

    First of all, you’re talking about someone whose point of view you heartily endorsed. Someone who YOU said… “I give you a standing ovation.” That person then chose to go off the rocking horse. At least own your mistakes.

    Imagine that Obama got onstage and gave a stream-of-consciousness, off-the-wall rant like John just gave. Word-for-word. Now, would someone like you, someone who parses every sentence, simply let that go? Or would you chase that down?

    Here’s someone who you support. He’s clearly quite insane. You’ve asked us to explain Obama. We’ve done our best. Now explain him.

  25. Jax says:

    Oh, Red… PLEASE.

    I guess you didn’t expect this:

  26. Jax,
    I guess you didn’t expect this.

  27. Jax says:

    Wow. I can’t even tell, did you get that I was referencing Monty Python there, or no?

  28. Jax says:

    I have 3 to 2 odds that John is actually Gary Busey. Seriously. Listen to Busey speak sometime. It’s John to a T.

  29. John says:

    What a gargoyle! Don’t you have anything better to do than mindlessly pounding the spittlemen of your half-eaten crayons into the floor?

  30. Jax says:


  31. Jax,
    I got the reference. Perhaps I should have simply replied “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Instead, I thought you’d prefer to see it on video, and might be surprised that I came back with that as my reply.

    On a more serious note, the Spanish Inquisition itself was neither funny nor Biblical. There are no Bible passages that are standing orders instructing Christians to torture and kill non-believers. It is my understanding that there are such passages in the Koran.

    To use a modern example, have you ever seen Christians calling for the death of a Muslim who named a teddy bear “Jesus”?

  32. thomas shawn says:

    “On a more serious note, the Spanish Inquisition itself was neither funny nor Biblical. There are no Bible passages that are standing orders instructing Christians to torture and kill non-believers. It is my understanding that there are such passages in the Koran.”

    Go ahead and add the Protestant Reformation .. waaaay bloodier, with the shots being called from the top of that church.

  33. Jonah says:

    “It is my understanding that there are such passages in the Koran.”

    Can you find me some quotes? Not to say that your understanding is wrong, but my understanding is that the Koran pretty explicitly prohibits violence except in self-defense. There are better policies of course (see the Golden Rule for instance), but this still seems a good deal better than “kill all infidels.”

    For what it’s worth, since no other liberals in this thread have addressed your original post, I think the idea of prosecuting Wilders for hate crimes is preposterous, and I agree that it’s a big blow to free speech. But just because the Dutch court is wrong, doesn’t mean that Wilders is right. His conflation of Islamist beliefs with Islamic beliefs is fundamentally wrong and hateful. But it should be legal.

  34. John says:

    All this astonishing trivialization shoots right past the fact that no one had mentioned the Spanish Inquisition until the one most practiced at asking pointed, leading, accusitive questions apparently took offense at an implication which only first was expressed by himself.

    With good reason, in all probability, we thus conclude. Who could know the darkness in his heart better than he does?

    He must have somehow sensed that a comparison was being made between the cruel, closed-minded, mean-spirited, accusitive demands for replies to the silly, pointless, and droolingly infantile leading questions of local inquisititors such as himself who have repeatedly proven themselves to be void of anything but their own malignant bile, and that singularly evil and murderous inquisition of historical record when in fact a comparison had merely been made, as can plainly be read above, between his numberless stupid questions and ANY similarly malevolent and relentless ourpouring of accusative bile.

    Perhaps he has reason more than we can know to identify his own incessant bullyings as most correctly comparable to the very worst examples of such in the history of human nature.

    TS seems only to have entered late and missed that point entirely, as in a game of Telephone, where the message is so garbled by the time it comes full circle that it is unrecognizable to the original speaker.

    But as long as we have gone off on that tangent, I should add, in bringing it back on topic, that there is nothing in the New Testament that teaches any man to stand accusing, tormenting, and berating others, which was my whole point to begin with, though it seems that some come here for no other reason than but to do only and exactly that very contemptable thing.

    Certainly it is the gravest matter when anyone who cites New Testament authority as the basis for their actions therefore proceeds to use that claimed authority to violate its explicit teachings. On that, I should think, all who revere the book would stand completely agreed. On a much smaller matter, the petty thing to which I first referred (though not, assuredly, without any intent to caution all of where such pettiness leads . . .) my point in knowingly using that particular if yet common noun was nowhere near so weighty.

    Jax, Ryan, Frin, et. al, my point was very simple: your incessant infantile mockery disgusts me, dishonors yourselves, and burdens all.

    I will not be answering any more of your billious harrangues.

    Henceforth, change your own filthy diapers!

  35. John says:


    Your understanding is wrong. This is a common and popular lie that has been widely spread, the media is complicit in the spread of this lie, and everyone with a fear of what moslems might do upon hearing the truth about their religion and its horrid book is afraid to correct this lie when they hear it.

    I have an English copy of the Koran, and have read as much of its blasphemous falshood as I can stand, which is not inconsiderable.

    The quotes you ask for are most certainly there.

    The spirit that permeates and pervades the entire Koran is a spirit of resentment and hate. It permeates almost every word of the book, even the words which talk of charity.’

    Consider: an English moslem leader was not long ago quoted as having justified his traditional role as necessary, even in England, as a leader in the moslem community by asking the reporter, concerning the Islamic obligation of giving of alms, the rhetorical question “who would punish them?” that is, if he did not. What he meant was that the moslem leaders were needed to supervise the ordinary people to insure that they were giving alms to the poor. Insure how? By punishing them if they did not do that.

    Do you not feel the wrongheadedness, the spirit of judgmental hostility in those words. This imam sees his role as being an agent of punishment on behalf of God. Punishment for someone having a lack of generosity. That’s downright wacko! How is it charitable if the money is given to avoid punishment? Punishment from a human supervisor judge? How can he know what is in another man’s heart or what that man’s own needs are? This narrow-eyed meanness is not of God. This is not godly charity and kindness. This is cruel judgmental man at his worst.

    In fact, Islam, a mindset that comes directly from the Koran, is full of this kind of preoccupation with punishment. The Koran is full of references to punishment, many of which are cruel and grotesque. There is an obsession with punishment in the Koran that cannot help but be transferred to the mind of all who read it as though it came from God.

    By contrast, the New Testament says only so little of the consequences of rejecting God as is necessary to make the point. It does not wallow in an orgy of horrible descriptions. It talks in a few places of an eternal fire. Because it is the truth, it is necessary to say it, but the little that is said is enough, and that is it.

    The Koran, on the other hand, goes into detailed descriptions of horrible sufferings its author obviously wants his readers to visualize, sufferings that are so gory and horrible that no godly person would want to dwell on them, nor could a godly person entertain such thoughts as though they were something amusing and pleasing to hear about, or even helpful to contemplate as is clearly the intent of its author for anyone who reads the Koran.

    Get a clue.


  36. Jonah says:

    Telling me that the quotes are in the Koran isn’t particularly helpful. (Where else would I expect them to be?) I’ve done some cursory searching and found nothing like what you claim, but I’d happily examine any specific passages either of you can drudge up.

    I generally agree with your comments on violent imagery, but my biggest problem with that aspect of the Koran is similar to my biggest qualm with Christianity, namely that both use fear of damnation as a recruiting tool. How else do you explain people like Pascal, who “choose” their religion as if it were a game theoretic exercise? Beliefs aren’t something you pick.

    As for your argument that many imams are hateful, evil people, I don’t dispute that either. A lot of religions (yours included) have a tendency to exacerbate the worst tendencies in their adherents. (They can also bring out the best, of course. I don’t pretend to know which is more common.)

    “How is it charitable if the money is given to avoid punishment?” Honestly, I don’t care about this, just as I don’t care for what reasons many Christians choose to help the poor. I like the effect of increased charitable giving, and I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

  37. John says:

    Moreover, the New Testament is clearly superior to every other religious text, because it prohibits all killing, even killing in self-defense.

    Those who disagree with that statment are misrepresenting the New Testament’s very clear teaching on this matter, so I will say it again.

    The New Testament prohibits the killing of a human being for any reason whatever, even in self-defense.

    Our example is Jesus, who, on His way to the crucifixion, told Peter to put up his sword because all who lived by the sword would perish with it.

    No person who believes in the resurrection of the dead has any need to preserve his life through self-defense. Indeed “whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake, shall find it.”

    This is what is meant by the scripture that says, “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

    In the coming new world order, declaring that Jesus is Lord will cost that person’s life. Those who do not believe in the resurrection will not be able to make that declaration when death by execution is its consequence. “believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead” necessarily means to believe that God raises the dead to life. Many say they do. Only the bravely honest faithful actually do. The coming ‘change we can . . . ‘ see for ourselves will force discovery of the difference beween these two.

    The totalitarian histories of the twentieth century should have made this clear to you, gentle reader. In case they didn’t, I have just done so.


  38. John says:

    If I had the time and that book were handy, I could give you the quotes.

    But those not being the case right now, that will have to wait.


  39. Jonah says:

    Just to be clear, since I know you’re itching to interpret my previous post this way, I do not in any way believe that Islam is a “better” religion than Christianity, nor do I think it deserves any more defense. My hesitation to trash to Koran is because I honestly believe that we cannot win the war on terror that way. You cannot make peace by telling billions of people that their religion is evil. By promoting good and sensible interpretations of the Koran, however, Islam can be on our side.

  40. Jonah says:

    (Sorry for the dangling participle.)

  41. John says:

    Just as the New Testament can be mis-used to justify killing, it can be mis-used in other ways. But the book says what it says, and for a reason.

    The need for a fear of hell has nothing to do with recruitment. Those to whom that is all it is useful for will not themselves endure the test to emerge from it worthy of the Name “Son of God.” It has to do with the severity of the test, and with other fears of lesser import.

    It is necessary to enduring the experience of hanging on the cross until by God’s choice the ordeal is over that a Son of God be forged in the fire of adversity to God’s satisfaction. To understand Him, we must go where He went, see what He saw, and feel what He felt. Were it not for a realistic fear of hell, the faithful person, who is destined to emerge from that test, that temporal fire, might quit too soon, abandoning the path to glory for what seems the immediate relief of self-destruction–a sore temptation to one suffering a death by crucifixion. So long as the penalty for abandoning the ordeal is understood to be greater than the hardship of remaining within it, the faithful person will endure the test, thus emerging when perfected by that fire as worthy of the eternal Glory of Christ as a son of God.

    This isn’t about membership in some petty earthly club for silly human motives, though some would make it so.

    This is the One and only Reality of Supreme Being, God Almighty, who has Authored an Eternal Life worthy of His Holiness to be shared with His Offspring Friends and the terribly high standard of excellence that He has established for determining eligibility for admittance to that glorious rank and title in the Realm of Infinite Heavens.

    The shallow, self-centered, and cowardly need not apply.

    Hell is for quitters. Heaven for kings.


    P.S. Pascal was simply pointing out that even a worldly point of view shows the atheist to be a fool. I doubt that this was his own reason for believing the terrible glorious truth.

  42. John says:

    “I know you’re itching to interpret my previous post this way”

    Not at all so.


  43. John says:

    I am not interested in winning any war on terror as understood by worldly people. That goal is unattainable, and corrupting.

    The person who fears has not been perfected in Love, for there is no fear in perfect Love. Terror has no power over one who does not fear.

    I don’t claim to have reached this point. But I am sure I will reach it someday, and for that reason, I am not going to travel generally in its opposite direction, even if I may stumble that way from time to time. I keep it in mind that I will die. I keep it in mind that I have been promised that even if I die, yet shall I live, and that so long as I live and believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, I wll never cease to exist, to be aware, to hear, to see, to know, and to remember that I am me.

    Perfect Love is the willingness to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. In that state of mind, a person cannot be terrorized, because death is not the loss it has been widely advertised to be by those most fearful of it.

    Those who know that life is eternal have no need of killing all the murderers in the world (an impossible task), but only the need to be courageous and loving and to bravely face the temporal death that is inevitable anyway.

    I know that isn’t the answer that governments want from us, but my eternal life is not dependent upon the needs of a human government.

    You see, if “freedom” isn’t free, then it isn’t really freedom.

    “If you continue in My Word, then are you my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

    Really free. Completely free. By simply knowing the truth.

    “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

    Eternal life, and the way to eternal life: all entailed in simply knowing the truth–all one and the same.

    “Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”

    This is the truth.

    The war on terror cannot be won in human ways. The only freedom of real value is freedom from fear of death. All other “freedoms’ keep us in the worst kind of bondage–to the fear of death.

    Suppose someone were to invent a weapon that kills only terrorists and kills all terrorists, and the thing were used, and all terrorists were gone for good. Would you then celebrate the winning of the war on terror? Why? Would you be celebrating because you no longer had to die?

    Christ came to deliver us “who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage.”

    Where no fear of death is, there is real freedom.

    A clue.


  44. Jonah says:


    You’re an interesting guy, even if (especially because?) your prose sounds like it was translated from Latin. Stick around.

    The answer to your hypothetical question is “no”, I wouldn’t celebrate. I don’t see “being a terrorist” as something intrinsic in any given person. I’m a nonviolent guy—I’d much rather see all terrorists rehabilitated, though this is of course difficult and most attempts so far have been less than fruitful.

    It looks like we sort of see eye-to-eye here. Where your philosophy (and Red’s, if I read it correctly) departs from mine is when it leaps from “don’t worry about death” to “don’t worry about others’ death.” Now I’m quite possibly incorrect in ascribing this to you, but I really feel that a lot of Red’s posts have been in this vain. Here, for instance, there’s this notion that giving money to the poor is actually less important than converting them to Christianity. Yeah, I get it: the rewards in the afterlife outweigh the “reward” of not living in poverty. But I really find it to be one of the more callous interpretations of Christianity I’ve seen.

    In the same vein, I agree that terrorism isn’t something we should personally live in fear of. (Of which we should live in fear?) But I certainly don’t think it’s something we should accept, either.

  45. John says:


    Preaching glibly to someone dying of starvation is callous indeed.

    This is why the Lord’s prayer says: “Give us this day our daily bread,
    and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive …”

    God knows which need we perceive as our frist priority, our physical need to stay alive, or our spiritual need for redemption. He gives us here a hint about how to spread His message.

    On the other hand the saying “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime,” is equally meaningful.

    If we abandon our focus on the eternity of life and the peace that comes from believing it, and merely become agents of free food distribution, we become like doctors who lose a patient to a heart attack while focusing too much on curing a rash.

    In my opinion, far too many churches have allowed themselves to be gagged into silence about the gospel by taking government money to provide services to the poor. That is always a bad exchange.

    But the opposite is also bad: preaching the gospel without any discernable evidence of a charitable motive for doing so.

    Each of us has the power to become a source of nourishment, not just a pathway, for both body and soul. We should not settle for being mere conduits limited by the whims of faithless givers upstream, however vast their resources may seem to be.

    Jesus fed 4,000 and 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish. There is no shortage of supplies. But our physical lackings bespeak a spiritual poverty. We have no confidence in our provider, and we want the wrong things.

    The widow’s two mites were of greater value to God than the abundant gifts of the wealthy, because the important thing in any of these transactions is the development of reliance on God to be the provider–reliance that increases until that reliance is strong enough to see the purpose of, yes, even temporal death as a necessary component of the education of one who has been promised an eternal life.

    “The poor you have always.” It’s a controversial point, but the truth is, very often the reason someone is poor and malnourished is because they are lacking in spiritual substance–in plain words: they are lazy or lack initiative, or are dishonest or wasteful. I, too, have been here, done this.

    Handing such people food for nothing for as long as they put their hand out is not always the best thing one can do for them.

    Showing a world-wide audience a real absence of the fear of death and and enduring confidence in the providence of God can be more valuable than feeding a whole nation for a day. But seeing someone starving and passing on by without helping is indeed callous. One person cannot take on the burden of all people everywhere. My neighbor is the person nearest me at any given time. This is why it is important that we retain the understanding that God looks on the heart, judges individually on motive and intent rather than results as measured by others. Organizations are impressed by large numbers. But God is God of the individual. Individuals go hungry. Individuals suffer and die. Organizations do not feel sorrow, do not thirst, do not need to be kept warm. Our message is from the individual to the individual, not from or to the mob.

    What the world–meaning the individuals in the world–needs most so desperately right now, is not food, but peace. Not the peace that comes from the silencing of the guns, but from the silencing of the nagging doubts about the existence and omnipotence of a loving God.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s