My Intolerance

Jean Purcell

I admit that I have a streak of intolerance. I grew up in a household where cursing and hateful speech toward other people never happened. That rubbed off on me, and I am, whether silently or not, intolerant about profane and hateful speech, right and left. My parents, grandmother, and older brothers never commented on their ways of minding their own business. However, I suspect that their lack of anger or hatred came from quiet spiritual influences. Their kind of intolerance of wrongs affected how they lived.     

My parents lived for several years within a tough business environment where dishonesty sometimes reared its head, including through otherwise-trusted people. Mom and Dad, and my brothers, were intolerant of prejudice. They did not like words or actions against innocent people considered to be 'different.' 

For example, my dad employed people of different cultural, religious, and racial backgrounds, in the 1940s and '50s, in a small southern town. One summer, I heard at the dinner table that Dad had hired a young man with severe epilepsy. That was before improved medical treatments we know about today; epileptics had a lot of trouble getting or keeping jobs. 

The new employee had given assurances that his condition was under better control, and Dad hired him to be an announcer as a summer replacement at the radio station (which later, for a while, was an ABC affiliate). (WWGP has been sold and re-sold since Dad's time.) In those days, Dad's decision meant that an epileptic man would be "live, on air." Members of the staff learned what emergency action to take if a health emergency arose. Thankfully, no emergency ever happened.  

As I grew up, I took my parents' actions for granted; I thought everyone thought as they did. Eventually, I framed my intolerance in similar ways, after trying to think through what I observed as I moved out into the world more.  

That early influence in family surely affected how I see events and feel about them. I reserve others' and my own right to express opinions, beliefs, or views different from the PC or generally popular, without worry of being personally attacked. To debate points of view, however, is another thing, completely acceptable as part of communicating ideas. But over-hearing personal vitriol against peaceful individuals or groups stirs up my instincts to speak my mind. I believe that silence is not always golden; it can be dangerous. 

"A soft answer turns away wrath." That helps me. It says that a person may answer the anger of others; however, if they answer, they are wise to answer calmly. Think about it. That's the message that helps the most. Another saying: "Be sure your mind is loaded before you shoot off your mouth" is good advice!    

On a lighter-serious side, I have a highly personal intolerance for: sulfa drugs, full-strength aspirin, and rabid mosquitoes!

*****

Just in: Try not to charge a mobile phone's battery for more than four hours. Charging for more hours, including overnight charges, can reduce battery-life. 

Finished reading: The Racketeer by John Grisham, now in Jean's Hand-picked Books. Copyright (c) 2013 Opinari Writers-Jean Purcell

Good Friday-When Darkness Precedes the Light of Victory

The Friday that Jesus was crucified is called good Friday. Why, when the skies grew dark, the earth trembled, and it seemed that Christ had been defeated? In the gloom of Golgotha, called The Place of the Skull  and Calvary, the Lord Jesus was lifted up, nailed onto a heavy cross as a failure and a mockery of hope.  

     The Lord of all creation had been stripped, beaten, and spat upon. Lifted up, he bled and his tongue ached with thirst as soldiers gambled for his robe, untouched by the struggle above them. People below Him watched the stark exhibition of the grip of darkness. Or so it seemed, as the Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler of rulers, and Leader above all nations hung on display. 
     Others, obsessed by worldly matters, considered that Friday (if they noticed it at all) as good riddance of a growing and unsettling delusion. They thought it good that the Man would live no more to trouble anyone.   

  

The crucified ones would be pronounced dead before evening. Who knows how many crosses stood on the shadowy dung heap outside the city of Jerusalem? Considering three specific crosses, holy scripture tells that the Lord, the Center, hung below a sign nailed as an after-thought: "Behold, the King of the Jews." 

     At one side of Jesus hung a criminal who denounced Him in sinister rebuke.

     On the other side, a thief clung to a personal hope: "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

     The suffering Savior answered: "... this day you will be with Me in Paradise."  The willing, though dying, criminal would be redeemed, by faith in the Lamb slain for the sins of the world.

     
On Sunday, Resurrection Day, followers of Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, would rejoice in the light dawning upon them on that third day. Joyous Easter followed a dark and hopeless  "good Friday"; the victorious radiance of God in Christ had defeated death forever...for any who would believe on Him, Jesus. 
     When good appears to be defeated, believers scan gloomy skies for rays of hope that God will reveal in His timing. Thanks be to God! Believers have on any dark day a "good day." We live in the goodness of Christ on the Cross. 

    

   

Copyright (c) 2013 Opinari Writers- Jean Purcell

New Year's Relief for Citizen Newshounds

A new globe icon in the Ambox style (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

January 1, 2013

If we do not need to follow news and analysis for professional reasons we can drastically change the landscape of our thinking for the better in 2013. 
     The scope of frustration, even anger, experienced by regular people that zealously follow news makes the point. 
     Having lived under the influence of the nation's capital city for a long time, I have received most news from The Washington Post. Now it has become...well, an odd kind of challenge: the enjoyment has gone. In recent months I have realized that I find even the top section, A, to contain less news and more editorializing within news items. That's a significant drift; yet, I've continued to read the paper daily... almost religiously. 

Even a favorite WashPost book reviewer recently disappointed, barely questioning the reasoning behind a new book about the personal life of Charles Dickens that makes wild claims of exceptionally bad fathering and other personal weaknesses or differences. The question of why his children loved him and most did well in their lives, on their own, was not raised.         
     There are TV news programs to do without as well, unless one enjoys hearing what is spoken only for the benefit of those who agree.

What if we newshounds take a break from our unnecessary over-attention to reading or watching news reports for a while? We might take many deep breaths of relief. I have a deep suspicion that the life our our minds would improve under influence of increased meditative, appreciative, enjoyable, and peaceful thoughts ...rarely found in the news.
    Dear Reader, I hope you are having a good new year's beginning. Special thoughts to all who are in hospital. This includes, in our family, a loved one in Florida. Hoping for a good recovery soon. We continue to follow updates from family and friends.  


Copyright (c) 2013 Jean Purcell and Opinari Writers. If you enjoy this blog, join, tweet, facebook, like, or recommend it. 

What Christmas is about...Charlie Brown and friends

Snoopy and Charlie Brown (Image source: Amazon.com)

Charlie Brown is a famous little guy from the drawing board and wisdom of artist Charles Shultz. In 1965, the cartoonist permitted Charlie and friends to tell their Christmas story in "Charlie Brown's Christmas," where our little hero bemoaned the commercialism at  Christmas.

Recently, Colorado Springs, USA, drew attention to its own Charlie Browns and friends. The city labeled local Christmas workers of the Salvation Army "panhandlers" and pushed them off their usual Christmas cheer spot.

The Salvation Army remained ready and soon the downtown Wyndham Hotel heard of their plight. "There's room for you with us, on our property, at our inn,"  the Wyndham said.

As Salvation Army's bells and donation kettles moved to a welcoming place, lots of Christmas hospitality extended again, around Colorado Springs, through the bell-ringing, kettles, and generous donations of shoppers. Many proud recipients of that hospitality will enjoy especially prepared holiday warmth, food, and toys for the children among them. Many will enjoy the goodness of friends.

It's the Charlie Brown, Linus, and friends... thing to do.  

Here's to your Christmas joy no matter how small the tree or the gifts. Here's to your Christmas cheer no matter how many or how grumpy the cynics.  (watch-7 minutes, 24 seconds)

Copyright (c) 2012 Opinari Writers. Do you like this blog? Join, Tweet, FB, Like, or Recommend it? Thank you. 

CHURCH-STATE MATTERS AFFECT 2012 U.S. ELECTION

Executive Office of the President Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (from the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States). The popularity of "separation of church and state" does not rule out different interpretations of what this part of the amendment intended, when written.
     What's the problem? We know the framers of The U.S. Constitution fled powerful royal, political, and legal ties between governments or rulers (the State) and Religion. The new political landscape of the new republic must, the framers saw, maintain clear distance between the State and religion. One should not be allowed to co-opt the other. Any alliance or assimilation efforts would receive fast and furious push-back. 
     That's my take on it. 
      Voter instincts are on high alert now because it's a federal election year. We pay close attention to candidates' records and words. We want to know about candidates' vision of the country and government... and their words. How have they done in the past? What are specifics about how they intend to make things better nationally?
     U.S. voters heat up at signs we might slide, as a nation, in the wrong direction on the constitutional "separation of church and state" guarantees. I know, I know..."separation of church and state" is not a constitutional phrase. I get it. But we use shorthand all the time to name complicated affirmations. "Church and state" is our way of speaking about specific guarantees of freedoms that are in the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

Let's look at three seemingly small actions in February 2012 that deserve magnification: 

• A presidential mandate co-opted religious institutions to ensure contraception access to employees or persons in care, 

• A potential party nominee's beliefs about contraception clouded the mandate issue, 

• The incumbent president quoted words of Jesus as authority for controversial tax policies.        

     These matters seriously affect separation of religion and government, "church and state," "the sacred and the secular"--whatever terms we use. Trying to mix the two closely, intimately, makes voters think of the proverbial oil mixed with water, water with oil.    
     First, an executive office mandate to co-opt religion deals with providing contraceptives, regardless of moral and religious beliefs. President Obama issued the mandate, ordering religious institutions' hospitals and outreach programs to provide contraception access regardless of their religious beliefs. If carried out, this would affect Catholic and Jewish institutions, and others. The government mandate on religious institutions could face high court review. 
     Second,a potential Republican nominee's beliefs about contraception raise concern about how he might view the religion and the state separation clause of The Constitution of the United States. He could have handled the matter successfully without seeming to "preach beliefs" to voters. 
     Instead, Senator Santorum talked as much about the religious basis for his beliefs about contraception during interviews about the contraception-provision mandate. He thereby opened a door for voters to question if he might push his views using personal religious beliefs as his authority, when much more would be required of any president.  
     So I can't figure why the senator chose to speak as much or more about the matter of contraception than the matter of a mandate coercing religious institutions to make them available. He lost a terrific chance to elaborate on religion-state issues of the contraception mandate to religious institutions; he could have done that with strong legal arguments and conviction.   

     Finally, early in February at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said, paraphrasing Jesus' words*: "...'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required’" to give highest authority to his controversial plans for higher tax rates to "the wealthy" or "the rich" than to others. 
     But, the way the President used the scripture has interpretation and context problems: the biblical parable speaks of things given for a time (gospel of Luke 12: 40-48 has the details), while taxes deal with things earned, income worked for; Jesus' parable describes a relation between master and servant, the President's relation to citizens is public servant and the people, another big difference. 
     What is critically important about this is that Jesus was not even talking about taxes in Jesus' words the President quoted. Jesus was answering a question about the kingdom of heaven and the Lord’s return.

      We're human and we interpret religion-state and state-religion issues in the "separation clauses" differently, and many people disagree about the meaning. This mighty document, The Constitution of the United States, ensures there shall not be any church-state union; that, however, does not prevent efforts to get around the guarantee. 
     The framers of The Constitution affirmed human freedoms as God-given and sacred. We know why they drew the line at coercion of religion on government or government on religion: they had lived under government-religion alliances, and they knew of other examples too; they knew that extreme tensions, pressures, and even bloody conflicts arise over alliances or assimilation of religion and government.   
     Think about it: as fought-for democratic rights, current elections fulfill a guardian-of-freedoms tradition. Whatever American's think or believe about “how to govern," most agree that we want to have a say, as free people, in the continuing security of the freedoms and rights secured for everyone by The Constitution. Of course we want to guard God-given freedoms! It may sound corny to some, but we do put freedom and country before political parties. We are a religious nation with a national inheritance as a free people apart from government. 
     Americans used to wake up and rise up when national and individual freedoms, including religious ones, were put at risk. We see some of that spirit returning in this new century. We sense a treasured duty toward elections, candidates, and speech, plus religious and other freedoms, and politics...they're all part of "American DNA." 
  

______________________________________

*Source on context of Luke 12:48--For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more--is in verses 40-48:  

⁴⁰Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
⁴¹ Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
⁴² And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?
⁴³ Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.
⁴⁴ Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has.
⁴⁵ But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk,
⁴⁶ the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
⁴⁷ And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

⁴⁸ But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Context Scriptures-Source: New King James Version of the Bible published by Thomas Nelson; Biblegateway.com, Words of Jesus in a parable, the kingdom of heaven and the return of the Lord

Copyright (c)2012 Opinari Writers

Related articles to consider for yourself:

• Majority Of Americans Support Separation Of Church And State (lezgetreal.com)

By faith, to God

Jesus Christ is himself the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20)

Jean Purcell
Twitter @opinaripeople

When trying to write about faith recently I knew I might try to talk myself out of the undertaking. Faith's scope and implications are weighty. What prompted me to try is that faith is a word increasingly misused as applicable to religions that have little or nothing to do with Christ. I often return to this thought of the error of accepting any application of faith that insists on using this word apart from God and the prophesied Messiah.  
     "It is their faith" is a misdirection when it speaks of religion, dogma, or teachings, because faith is not an institution, philosophy, or religion.  I came to the point of wanting to assert that when we speak of faith we use a singularly original and weighty word whose meaning and use are established in early Judeo-Christian scriptures. The word faith has its roots unchanging, in truth. Faith is not a word that should be allowed to morph into a general, surface term. It is a word like the stone that must go at the corner, to stabilize. Its meaning and its specific reference do not  change with the times.  

    The church bears witness to "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." This refers precisely to one "tie" to God, which is the faith to grab onto in order to hold onto Christ. That is its chief relation. The history of this singular faith is seamless in this way.  

     The organizers of the Amplified version of the Bible used adhere to, cleave to, rely on, have faith in, and these words to express what is needed to continue to relate to God as revealed in the Son, Jesus. Jesus said, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, he who believes in Me [who adheres to, trusts in, relies on, and has faith in Me] has (now possesses) eternal life [John 6:47]. 
     Faith encompasses and lifts up the truth: Jesus is Lord, Savior, Redeemer of the world. Therefore, faith [the bond with the reality of the risen and living Lord] is not a faith, but the faith that makes us whole, in Christ.    

Copyright (c)2011 Opinari Writers

The Thinking Christian: Thought and Faith

by Jean Purcell

editor@opinebooks.com 

Follow on Twitter @opinaripeople

Commentary

Image via WikipediaTo be called "Christian" has to do with belief, which has to do with both heart and mind. The mind is inseparable from faith. Faith includes intention. Believers at the head of Christian times knew that mind and heart are one..."thoughts and intentions of the heart." They would never have put thought aside, or reason. They relied on both as gifts of God (e.g., "think on these things"-emphasis added). 

     Emotionalism unfortunately is misunderstood or used falsely and even theatrically in what we might call faux experience. Yet, feelings like jubilation and joy can be and are extremely real for those fortunate to know them. The results immediately following Pentecost come to mind..."they are drunk!" And so they seemed, being filled to overflowing with the nectar of the freedom of God's Spirit.

    This is cause for rejoicing over many things, including the freedom to choose, to believe, to act, and to think. Martin Luther knew this when he wrote, "the body they may kill," when the church was being persecuted, and by religious leaders, no less. "God's truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever" finished Luther's argument. Those who believe that Christ came, lived, died, rose, and is coming again...rely on truth through a knowing and hidden faith. The faith is hidden to those who resist it as so many, including myself for a long time, do. However, when the mind willingly opens even to the possibility of God being, then all sorts of unseen things can be very near being seen. Each step closer in thought, reason, and intention is earth-shaking. If only we want to see...with the mind and the heart...

Recommended books about faith:
Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
The Mourner's Comforter by C. H. Spurgeon
Faith by C. H. Spurgeon


Copyright (c)2011 Opinari Writers and Jean Purcell

Related articles

• God's Word Is The Source Of Faith (prhayz.wordpress.com)
• 2 Timothy (mybiblereadingplan.wordpress.com)
• What are some of the theses that martin Luther wrote against the catholic churches (wiki.answers.com)

Are They Changing Our Minds?

Image via Wikipedia

We know about mind-altering drugs. What about mind-altering attitudes, assumptions, beliefs, and emotions? What happens when a normal brain's chemistry is twisted by habitual emotions of anger, bitterness, envy, or revenge? What happens to the normal brain's chemistry when it is full of the love of God and mercy, forgiveness, love, and justice according to law?   

Each person's beliefs, thoughts, and emotions are affecting the chemistry of the mind. The question is: Are they--these beliefs, thoughts, and emotions--such that they are changing our minds for the better, or for the worse?
(c) 2011