(Poem) Grace And Faith

Grace And Faith

 

Grace is shown in peace

Peace is given through faith

Faith is love, with-out question

Gifts of love are through His Grace

What have we learned from the breaths of today

 

How much time did we waste today

A couple hours of Pogo on the side

How much truth did I learn from reading

Were all the arguments all from one side

Did we walk through the doors of life today

 

To show much grace, is that not the face of grace, which is faith

For without faith, there is no chance that we can please Him

If we choose to shy away from His face, love and grace, we’re already dead

Only through His Grace and our Faith in Him can we understand His Love

For without faith we are dead and blind, infidels, a bunch of non-Believers

(Philosophy Poem) Lies, Spies And Cover Thy Ass Again

(Philosophy Poem) Lies, Spies And Cover Thy Ass Again

 

Our great Nations and Corporations to them we cower

They now have annualized every single thing about us

They know us, o yes, they do know us all so very well

But our own Government wouldn’t sell out all our people

Yet is it the truth when they speak to us, or just more lies

 

Our very own government, is it filled with half truth tellers

They had shot down a passenger jet, would our own government

Would our own government be as honest about this ‘mistake’

I pray that they would stand-up with the truth in their hands

Let us all know of their horrible mistake, be open about it

 

Rage is something easy to carry on and on from generations

Yet this one thing I do salute Iran’s government on honesty

There I said it, now Hell has frozen over in Iran and D.C.

Advantageous to tell the truth, better than a myth or a lie

No wonder most trust no-one to ever just tell them the truth

 

Life for a few is always a life about covering their own behinds first

Yet is everything we see or hear first filtered before it even gets to us

Would we know it if Good or Evil walked right past us this very day

Have we sold ourselves to the Madness of un-guaranteed tomorrows

Send Hate back in time, pray that we let God’s love and respect guide us

Revealed: An Arab prince’s secret proposal to sell the Western Wall to the Jews

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE TIMES OF ISRAEL)

 

Revealed: An Arab prince’s secret proposal to sell the Western Wall to the Jews

A quixotic overture by a courageous prince lay hidden in files at the UK Colonial Office for 90 years, where this author discovered it. Now it can proudly take its place in history

On August 29, 1929, Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha, the uncle and future regent to King Farouk of Egypt, walked into the British Embassy in Istanbul and hand-delivered a letter to British Ambassador Sir George Clerk. The letter was addressed to the British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir John Chancellor. The prince asked Ambassador Clerk to forward the letter to Chancellor in Jerusalem.

The prince had written and signed the letter less than one week after the shocking August 24, 1929, massacres in Hebron, following months of rising tensions at the Western (Wailing) Wall. The letter began by deploring the violence, with the prince expressing hope the Arabs and Jews could settle their differences peacefully. The prince then offered a stunning suggestion:

My proposal for a solution is that, instead of fighting or dealing unjustly by one party or the other, it would be infinitely better to come to an understanding. The Mohametans may be willing to accept a sum of money which would help them to do good for the community and as the Jews are rich, if this thing [the Wailing Wall] is so much desired by them, there seems no reason why they should not pay for it. If this could be done, it would avoid coercion and possibly injustice to one or other of the parties. Certainly I am sure the Mohametans and Arabs will not accept a small sum such as £10,000 or even £20,000 for a matter in which their honour is so far involved… Let them give £100,000 and I feel sure this would settle the difference.

This is the story of Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha’s surprise proposal to sell the Western Wall to the Jews, revealed here for the first time.

***

The Temple Mount and the Western Wall today represent the defining religious symbols of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same was true during the 1920’s, following the British conquest of Palestine. Muslims and Jews clashed repeatedly over the Wall throughout the 1920’s.

The Jews claimed rights of prayer at the Wall, the only surviving remnant of the ancient Temples and the holiest and most sacred site for Jews to pray. Jews had been praying at or near the Wall nearly continuously since the Roman conquest.

‘The Mohametans may be willing to accept a sum of money which would help them to do good for the community and as the Jews are rich, if this thing [the Wailing Wall] is so much desired by them, there seems no reason why they should not pay for it’

The Muslims, for their part, also regarded the Wall (or the Buraq, named for Mohammed’s steed whom the Angel Gabriel, according to Muslim legend, tethered to the Wall at the end of Mohammed’s celestial journey from Mecca) as an Islamic Holy site that had been dedicated as Wakf property nearly a millennium ago. The Muslims asserted absolute ownership of both the Wall and the narrow strip of pavement facing the Wall. Prior to 1967, as shown in the following photograph, the pavement was sandwiched between the Wall on one side and an area of small dwellings, known as the “Moghrabi Quarter,” on the other side:

The Western Wall and narrow strip of pavement, late 19th Century (Library of Congress).

The Muslims refused to accord the Jews any rights to pray at the Wall, for fear the Jews would use that as a wedge to encroach further on Muslim property and eventually seize control of the entire Temple Mount area. During Ottoman times the Jews would pay small bribes to bring chairs and benches to the Wall, even as the Ottoman authorities issued formal rulings banning such practices as late as 1911.

After the British captured Jerusalem in December 1917, General Allenby immediately pledged to honor the so-called Status Quo prevailing at the Holy Sites. Allenby’s pledge became embedded as a legal concept five years later in Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine, requiring the British to “preserve existing rights” at the Holy Sites.

The British soon found themselves caught in the middle between conflicting Jewish and Muslim assertions of rights and claims to the Western Wall and the pavement facing the Wall. The Mandatory authorities struggled to enforce the shaky Status Quo that had prevailed during Ottoman times, when Jews were allowed to utter individual prayers at the Wall, but not allowed to take any steps which could be viewed as asserting symbolic ownership of the Wall. Thus, the British enforced the Turkish ban on the Jews bringing chairs and benches to the Wall, as well as most other accoutrements of congregational prayer.

Jewish Legion soldiers at the Western Wall after British conquest of Jerusalem, 1917 (Public Domain)

The tensions led to controversy at the Wall during Passover 1922, Yom Kippur 1923 and Yom Kippur 1925. The most notable confrontation occurred on Yom Kippur 1928, when the British Deputy District Commissioner for Jerusalem, E. Keith-Roach, ordered the forcible removal of a screen (mehitza) the Jews had placed on the pavement in front of the Wall to divide men from women, causing the Jews to file an angry protest with the League of Nations. Tensions continued escalating during 1929 as the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, launched the so-called Buraq Campaign to galvanize Muslim and Arab Nationalist sentiment around the Wall dispute. The Jews likewise formed groups to “defend” their asserted rights to the Wall.

The tensions reached boiling point and exploded into violence in August 1929. On Tisha b’Av (August 15) 1929, a group of Jewish youth marched to the Wall, where they raised the blue and white flag, listened to a brief speech from one of their leaders, and sang the Hatikvah. The Muslims held a counter-demonstration the following day, the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday. The Muslim demonstration quickly turned violent, resulting in the murders of several Jews outside the Old City. The violence continued throughout the following week, culminating in the Hebron massacre of August 24, 1929, where approximately 60 Jews were butchered.

Jews flee the Old City of Jerusalem, August 1929. (US Library of Congress / Public Domain)

While the history of the violent clashes at the Wall during the 1920s has been told many times, less-known were various attempts by the Jews and British to strike a deal with the Muslims to buy the area in front of the Wall and the Wall itself.

Sir Ronald Storrs (Library of Congress / Public Domain)

In the spring of 1918, for example, Chaim Weizmann approached the British military government about buying the Wall and pavement area, along with the Moghrabi dwellings. The Military Governor, Sir Ronald Storrs, floated the idea with the Muslim community. Storrs reported the Muslims were offended, and “it would be a grave error of policy for the Military Government to raise the question at all.”

In August 1918, another British Official, Brigadier General Sir Gilbert Clayton, told the Muslims they might be able to secure “a large sum of money for a property which is to-day of little value.” The Muslims, however, opposed any such initiative, fearing it would be the first step toward Jewish encroachment on the Temple Mount.

In October 1918, Clayton notified London of an unauthorized Jewish attempt to buy the Wall, interfering with Clayton’s ongoing, quiet efforts to persuade the Arabs to consider selling the Wall:

“Up to quite recently signs were not wanting that the Moslem Dignitaries and notables were beginning to be impressed with the arguments explained to them at great length in favour of the scheme [for the Jews to buy the Wall]. The hopelessness … of obtaining the funds to put into effect … the restoration of the Haram es Sharif, the possibility of replenishing the Wakf coffers and so promoting Moslem education of a liberal scale, the comparative unimportance and squalor of the buildings and their [Moroccan] inhabitants in the precinct, the lurking fear that they might have one day to yield for nothing (as a City improvement scheme or otherwise) that for which they would now receive a very large sum of money – these and a variety of other considerations appeared to be modifying a ‘non possumus’ attitude into one of critical apprehension and fear of the effect on the local and general Islamic world. From the moment, however, that an attempt was apparently made by a Jerusalem Jew (doubtless without the knowledge of the Zionist Commission) to get into direct pecuniary contact with the Moslems concerned something approaching a panic set in, and from that day things have gone from bad to worse in so far as concerns the Zionist hopes in this respect.”

In 1926, a Jewish effort was launched to buy properties in front of the Wall as a first step toward acquiring the entire Moghrabi area and eventually the Wall itself. In early October 1928, Frederick Kisch, a Jerusalem-based Zionist official proposed, in a confidential letter to the Zionist Executive in London, that the Muslims be compelled to sell the pavement and the Moghrabi area to the Jews for £100,000, “in exchange for another suitable area in the Old City, with the inevitable addition of a cash payment for the benefit of the Wakf authorities.”

But these efforts, like those preceding them, went nowhere.

Three unique initiatives

Suddenly, however, in the days immediately following the Hebron massacre, three new initiatives appeared. While none of these new initiatives succeeded, their close proximity to each other and the dramatic nature of their presentation make them, especially Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha’s proposal, unique in the history of Mandate Palestine.

The first initiative came from a prominent Egyptian Jew, the Baron Felix de Menasce, the President of the Israelite Community in Alexandria. On August 26, 1929, only two days after the Hebron Massacre, Menasce walked into the British Embassy in Paris and met with Adrian Holman, the Second Secretary at the Embassy. Later that day Holman cabled the Foreign Office in London and reported as follows:

“[Menasce] explained to me at some length that the frequent cases of rioting at the Wailing Wall were due to the fact that the buildings surrounding the Wall were in the hands of the Moslems and had always been looked upon by the British Government as bearing a religious character. It had consequently always proved impossible for the Jews to buy the buildings in question and thus prevent troubles in the future. He maintained that the buildings were purely civil as opposed to religious and that the present moment might be an opportune one for the British Government to reconsider the possibility of arranging for the Jewish community to buy the buildings for demolition or other purposes. He was sure that if this were done, the Jewish community throughout the world would easily be able to find the necessary sum of money.”

George W. Rendell of the Foreign Office’s Eastern Division responded to Holman’s cable on September 7, noting the Muslims viewed the Wall as a religious site and would not be willing to sell the nearby dwellings to the Jews. Rendell poured more cold water on the idea, adding, “[t]he Colonial Office are, I think, familiar with the advantages and difficulties of a solution on the lines of the Baron de Menasce’s proposal, and seeing how overworked they are at the moment with a variety of Middle Eastern crises, I am not adding to their correspondence by passing the suggestion on to them.”

Dr. Chaim Weizmann. (AP Photo 1938)

Menasce sent a handwritten letter in French to Weizmann reporting on his meeting with Holman at the British Embassy in Paris. Menasce wrote, “J’ai la conviction c’est le moment psychologique de transfer tout l’argent necessaire, si jamais les Juifs deraint acheter ce Wakf …” (“I am convinced that if the Jews are ever going to buy this Wakf, this is, psychologically, the right time to find all the necessary money …”) No record has been found indicating whether Menasce had been acting on Weizmann’s behalf, or whether Weizmann ever responded to Menasce.

The second initiative came from Pinchas Rutenberg, the Managing Director of the Palestine Electric Corporation. On August 29, 1929, three days after Menasce’s meeting at the British Embassy in Paris, Rutenberg sent a letter to Lord Reading (previously known as Rufus Isaacs, a Jew and Chairman of the Palestine Electric Corporation), urging the British government to expropriate the entire area in front of the Wailing Wall to create “a suitable and dignified Jewish praying place.”

This was not the first time expropriation had been floated, but never at such a high level. Rutenberg was the preeminent Jewish businessman in Palestine and the future Chair of the Va’ad Leumi. Lord Reading took matters to the very highest level of the British Government, forwarding Rutenberg’s letter to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald the next day, with a cover letter of endorsement:

“I would therefore earnestly represent that the necessary measures should be adopted as soon as practicable to make a complete end of this cause of dispute by expropriating the more extended area, as suggested by Mr. Rutenberg in his letter to me. I understand that this could be accomplished without interfering with any part of Moslem ‘Holy Ground.’”

But nothing came of Rutenberg’s expropriation proposal. The Colonial Office reacted negatively, noting “the present time is not opportune for considering the question of compulsory expropriation… Quite apart from the legal aspect, such action would be intensely resented by the Moslems and we have taken the line hitherto that expropriation is out of the question.”

In addition, High Commissioner Chancellor had already told the Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) of the League of Nations in July 1929 that the first conclusion he came to after arriving in Palestine as High Commissioner and studying the Western Wall issue was that “there must not … be any attempt to expropriate, in favour of the Jews, the area of the pavement in front of the Wall.”

Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini (Library of Congress / Public Domain)

However, at that same PMC meeting, Chancellor disclosed he personally had asked the Mufti to consider selling the Moghrabi dwellings (“mean hovels,” as he described them) to the Jews, assuming the Jews would pay to relocate the Moghrabi inhabitants to superior accommodations elsewhere. Chancellor explained the Jews would be able “to make there a courtyard surrounded by a loggia where they could say their prayers in peace and in dignified surroundings.”

Weizmann embraced the idea and had £70,000 at the ready. But the Mufti rejected the plan, even after Chancellor suggested the Mufti consider an indirect sale, whereby the Mufti would transfer the property to the Mandatory Government as middleman, which would then complete the sale to the Jews, thereby allowing the Mufti to avoid looking as if he had sold Muslim property to the Jews.

An unprecedented proposal

The third initiative involved Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha of Egypt. Ali Pasha had built the famous Manial Palace on Rhoda Island on the Nile River in Cairo. The prince was the uncle of and future Regent to Farouk, the future King of Egypt. Those who knew Ali Pasha regarded him as a “very liberal-minded man,” with a “courtly bearing.” Storrs described Ali Pasha in his memoirs as “Prince Muhammad, afterwards Regent, with his great “lucky” emerald ring, the revived Oriental splendours of his Manial Palace, his courtly bearing and graceful entertainment; his fine devotion to his mother.” The Jewish, Alexandria-based lawyer Alec Alexander once described Ali Pasha as “the one person who could use his good offices to bring about peace between Muslims and Jews.”

Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha (Public Domain)

In an amazing coincidence of history, Ali Pasha entered the stage on August 29, 1929, the same day Rutenberg had sent his letter to Lord Reading, and only three days after Menasce’s meeting with Holman at the British Embassy in Paris.
On that fateful day of August 29, 1929, Ali Pasha, while on a visit to Istanbul, hand-delivered to the British Ambassador to Turkey, Sir George Clerk, a letter addressed to High Commissioner Chancellor in Jerusalem. The letter contained a stunning proposal from Ali Pasha for settling the Muslim-Jewish dispute over the Western Wall:

“Having heard about the troubles going on in Palestine between Jews and Mohametans, and having a certain knowledge of the Arab and Mohametan aspirations, I thought I might be of service outlining a proposal by which this quarrel might perhaps be ended peacefully.

The Mohametans and Arabs having been masters in Palestine for over one thousand years, they are fighting for their honour and do not want to lose anything which they have acquired as a possession. They fear that either through administrative channels or by force they will be compelled ultimately to relinquish rights they have held for so long.

Every one knows that in every country in law after the lapse of a certain period proprietary rights are established. In this case the rights of the Mohametans go back one thousand years.

My proposal for a solution is that, instead of fighting or dealing unjustly by one party or the other, it would be infinitely better to come to an understanding. The Mohametans may be willing to accept a sum of money which would help them to do good for the community and as the Jews are rich, if this thing is so much desired by them, there seems no reason why they should not pay for it. If this could be done, it would avoid coercion and possibly injustice to one or other of the parties.

Certainly I am sure the Mohametans and Arabs will not accept a small sum such as £10,000 or even £20,000 for a matter in which their honour is so far involved. In Zurich the Zionists have collected £240,000 for Palestine. Let them give £100,000 and I feel sure this would settle the difference.”

Although the letter does not specifically mention a “sale” of the Wall, Ali Pasha made clear in his meeting with Ambassador Clerk that selling the Wall was precisely his intention. According to Clerk’s contemporaneous recollection of their conversation, Ali Pasha “submit a suggestion which would, he thought, provide a solution to the question of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem;” specifically, “the idea of the Jews buying the Wall.”

Ali Pasha’s letter was extraordinary. No one in the Muslim world had previously – or ever since – proposed to sell the Western Wall to the Jews. Surely Ali Pasha never spoke a word of this to anyone in the Muslim world, as he lived peacefully for nearly three more decades

But Ambassador Clerk never forwarded Ali Pasha’s letter to High Commissioner Chancellor in Jerusalem. Instead, Clerk sent Ali Pasha’s letter directly to the Foreign Office in London, along with a cover note adding his own observation that “the idea of the Jews buying the Wall has long been considered and rejected, and recent events seem scarcely favorable to the idea of the Muslims accepting even as fancy a price as £100,000, supposing the Jews were prepared to offer that sum.”

The Foreign Office kept Clerk’s original cover letter in its files, together with a copy of Ali Pasha’s letter. The Foreign Office made the following file notation regarding the prince’s letter:

Foreign Office File entry, E 4557/204/65 (September 3, 1929; photo by the author).

W. L. Knight of the Foreign Office made a sarcastic handwritten file entry several days later:

“It would appear from the last para. of the prince’s letter that while the Jerusalem Arabs would scorn to sell their honour cheap, they would probably be prepared to do so for £100,000!”

Foreign Office File entry, E 4557/204/65 (September 10, 1929; photo by the author).

The Foreign Office later recorded the prince’s letter in its official index for 1929 as, “Suggested sale of wall to Jews by Moslems: proposal of Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha:”

Foreign Office Index, 1929 (photo by the author).

The Foreign Office sent the original of Ali Pasha’s letter, along with the calling card Ali Pasha had given to Ambassador Clerk, to the Colonial Office, where both items were tucked inside an envelope and filed away for the next 90 years.

The prince’s calling card, given to the British Ambassador to Turkey, Sir George Clerk, on August 29, 1929 (CO 733/163/5, British National Archives, London; photo by the author).

Ali Pasha’s letter was extraordinary. No one in the Muslim world had previously – or ever since – proposed to sell the Western Wall to the Jews. Surely Ali Pasha never spoke a word of this to anyone in the Muslim world, as he lived peacefully for nearly three more decades. Nor is there any evidence he had any authority from the Muslim authorities in Jerusalem to make the offer. But his letter nevertheless represents an extraordinary and courageous – if not somewhat Quixotic – step for a highly prominent Arab and future Regent to the King of Egypt to have taken so soon after the August 1929 violence.

The letter also seriously undermines Muslim claims regarding the holiness of the Buraq. Surely Ali Pasha would never have dreamed of proposing to sell any truly sacred Muslim shrines, such as the Dome of the Rock or the Al Aqsa Mosque, to the Jews. Clearly he did not regard the Western Wall as even a minor Muslim religious site. Indeed, no evidence exists of any Muslim prayer or veneration at the Buraq since the 7th Century Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.

Moreover, during a 1930 courtroom trial presided over by three League of Nations-approved judges, pitting Muslims against Jews regarding their respective rights and claims to the Wall, the Jewish side offered evidence that the Muslims had repeatedly defiled the Wall and the pavement. Dr. Mordechai Eliash, the Jerusalem-based lawyer representing the Jewish side, said the following in his opening statement (pages 53-54 of the transcript, the only surviving copy of which is located at King’s College, London):

“Evidence will be brought before you that time and again the Wall was desecrated by actually smearing human excreta on its stones. Filth and rubbish were always allowed by the Mughrabis to accumulate there, while time and again have Jewish individuals and organized communities paid for the sweeping and cleaning of the area in front of the Wall, and it will be shown to you that it was through Jewish intervention that a sewage drain was not laid close to the Wall …”

In any event, no record was found of any further action by Ali Pasha or the British Government regarding Ali Pasha’s proposal, nor is there any evidence in Chancellor’s files or his diary proving or even hinting he ever learned of the letter’s existence.

The original Ali Pasha letter, containing the only Arab offer ever to sell the Wall to the Jews, remained buried in the Colonial Office files for the next 90 years.

Prince Ali Pasha’s letter, August 29, 1929 (CO 733/163/5, British National Archives, London; photo by the author).

Prince Ali Pasha’s letter, August 29, 1929 (CO 733/163/5, British National Archives, London; photo by the author).

Two of Israel’s leading historians of the Mandate era, Professor Motti Golani of Tel Aviv University and Professor Hillel Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, examined Ali Pasha’s letter and the related documents at the author’s request last year. Both professors said they were unaware of Ali Pasha’s letter or of any prior publication mentioning it. Golani called it a “major discovery.” Cohen initially noted the absence of any specific reference to “selling” the Wall in the text of Ali Pasha’s letter, but after reading Clerk’s cover letter to the Foreign Office, Cohen acknowledged Ali Pasha’s letter indeed conveyed an implicit offer to sell the Wall.

One lingering question remains: is it possible Ali Pasha and Menasce knew of each other’s initiatives? Two very prominent Egyptians, one Muslim and one Jewish, within three days of each other separately approached the British Embassies in Istanbul and Paris to float the idea of the Jews buying the Western Wall and the surrounding area. Perhaps they had coordinated their efforts and stage-managed them as carefully as possible to avoid detection. Or perhaps neither had any idea of the other’s activity, and their visits to the British Embassies in Paris (Monday) and Istanbul (Thursday) of the same week were purely coincidental. We will leave that mystery for others to solve.

In any event, Prince Mohamed Ali Pasha’s letter stands as a remarkable testament to the bravery and creativity of this urbane and worldly Egyptian prince, who at great personal risk launched an initiative to bring peace to the Muslims and Jews of Mandate Palestine.

Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Steven E. Zipperstein

The prince’s letter, concealed in the files of the Colonial Office for the past 90 years, can now proudly take its rightful place in history.

********

Steven E. Zipperstein is the author of the forthcoming book “Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Trials of Palestine” (Routledge, March 2020), from which this article is derived. Zipperstein, a former United States federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA. He also teaches in UCLA’s Global Studies program and School of Public Affairs, and as a visiting professor at the Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University.

(Copyright Steven E. Zipperstein, 2020)

Tens of thousands pray at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem in Selichot (forgiveness) prayers, early on September 27, 2019. (Mendy Hechtman/Flash90)
READ MORE:
COMMENTS

Do Not Be Ignorant Enough To Take-Out Iranian National Monuments

Do Not Be Ignorant Enough To Take-Out Iranian National Monuments

 

The General that President Trump ordered the hit on a couple days ago surprised me, I didn’t expect it. This General was a founding block of the hatred from within parts of Shiite Islam. To many now, this mass murderer is now a martyr for millions. But if President Trump did this with any thoughts turned towards to create a crisis, to get peoples minds off of his impeachment, then what?

 

Lets get to the main topic, President Trump has been threatening Iran that he/we will hit at least 52 of their monuments, personally I believe this to be a horrible idea. You do this, take them out and you will unite all of the population of the Shiite believers against us. You do this foolish thing then retaliation against our own, is a certain. Iran and the believers of hard line Shiite believe that they are now in a Holy War against the West, especially against the U.S.. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq I believe it was just to one-up his Dad. A lot of people have died because of his tunnel vision. Then we bomb to bits Iraq’s infrastructure and at that time commit another huge miscalculation. W. and Mr. Dick rewarded a lot of great government contracts to American firms who hired Americans and Westerners which kept the people of Iraq unemployed and without basic fundamental services like electricity, running clean water, and food. Folks, we can’t go back into (military actions) in Iraq by doing the very thing that will unite those who hate us, against us in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq. The Government’s beliefs are the problems one may think, so do not take out our anger on their people, leave them alone. There is a difference in a mental state of war and a religion based mental state of war, the hate and the resolve are much deeper. We are going to now have to fight this Tiger with many Kittens as a part of our Nations new DNA. Taking out their National Monuments, is not a good idea folks.

Okay Christians; Your Idiot Has Gotten Us Into A War With Shiite Islam, Now What?

Okay Christians; Your Idiot Has Gotten Us Into A War With Shiite Islam, Now What?

 

The unexplainable, people who call themselves Christians have ordained a person to be our Leader, our President, who knows nothing of Christianity. The whole world knows that he is an ego maniac as well as idiot who is a total habitual liar. People, Christians, you know this, either that or you really are totally lost to reality. He is just like his Idol Mr. Putin in that he will do anything and I do mean anything, stoop to any level to make sure he stays President. The Father of an habitual liar is the Father of all liars so what kind of a result did you really expect to get with having this Fraud in Chief as our Leader? I never would have thought that U.S. Christians would have been capable of being so blind to the up front evil that is staring you in the face each time throughout history his ignorant mug is shown. The biggest fraud, the biggest idiot, is he going to lead us into this new expanded war, here on our homeland? Or, do we replace him with just another bought and paid for stick? What now world, what now?

Information About The Holy Spirit

Information About God’s Holy Spirit

 

As those of you who know me personally or through these commentaries I share with you here then you know that I grew up going to a local Church of Christ. It would be fair to say that I spent my growing up years there 10-17. But at 17 I made myself quit going. Through my own studies I came to realize that there had to be much more depth in many subject matters than the level that I had been taught.  Subject matters of Scriptures and Faith in which could not hold a blind eye to the fact of their differences. And to be totally honest, my hormones were pulling me toward another line of thought at this same time frame also.

 

One of their two Elders of the Congregation and I had several  Q & A about such things as The Holy Spirit, Spirits, Souls, Possessions, and Miracles. I decided on The Holy Spirit as the subject matter today partly due to these conversations I had with Him and with a few others I trust for Honesty as well as with Wisdom. The Church of Christ Doctrine does not believe in any type of Possession. When one hears the word Possessed, do not their minds go to the thought of ‘Demonic’? But, if it is possible to be possessed with an Evil Spirit, could you not also be possessed with a Spirit of Light? One of the last times that this Elder and I got to speak one of the last things he said to me was about not really understanding “this Holy Spirit thing”. I have thought about those words several times throughout the decades. Now I realize that there were a whole lot of Biblical meat issues that those local folks actually knew that they didn’t know. It is a sad thing that the Earthy Leadership of The Lord’s Bride (The Church) does not know what 1/3 of The God Head is? How was that possible? My experiences were many decades ago, hopefully things have grown in their faith and knowledge since my days.

 

(Matt: 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14)

After The Lords ascension back to Heaven from which He came, The Lord did as He said He would do. The Lord sent back to the Earth, to His Servants the Apostles, His Holy Spirit to empower them, the Holy Spirit, to Comfort them. For further understanding on this incident please read through the second chapter of the Book of Acts. Please, if your get the time and opportunity to do it please loiter threw it. After the chapter and verse given is a help word, a word of thought, about Who and What exactly is The Holy Spirit?

 

Gen. 1:2—Spirit of God

Matt. 10:20—Your Father

Zech 12:10—Grace

John 14:17—Truth

Romans 1:4—Holiness

Rev. 19:10—Prophesy

John 14:16, 26—The Comforter

Hebrews 9:14—Eternal

Matt 12:31,32—Sin against, Eternal

Acts 28:25—Speaks

John 14:26—Teaches

Acts 9:31—Comfort

John 16:8-11—Convicts men

Matt. 12:28—Miracles preformed by

Luke 4:1—Filled by

Romans 1:4—Raised by

I Tim. 3:16—Justified by

Acts 28:25—Speaks Within Prophets

2 Tim. 3:16—All Scripture is given by

Eph. 6:17—His Word

Romans 8:11—Indwells us

I John 2:20,27—Anoints us

Acts 2:17-41—Baptizes us

John 16:13—guides us

Micah 3:8—Empowers us

1 Cor. 2:10-16—give us discernment

Gal. 5:22, 23—Bears fruit

Acts 9:31—Comforts the Church

Romans 15:16—Sanctifies the Church

Joel 2:28-32—Promised

Acts 10:45—given to Gentiles also

Matt. 12:31,32—Can be sinned against

1 Cor. 2:12,13—Opens our Minds

Eph. 1:16,17—Opens the Mind

 

Folks, these are just a few of the many Passages concerning who and what the Holy Spirit is. The Body is the Tabernacle (dwelling place) of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit of Christ, to be possessed by Him, this is something that I wish for every human being upon the planet. Fore friends, this would be pure safety from the evil around us and the evil we are yet to see. Fore where the Light of God is, darkness cannot enter! Folks, the Devil and His kind may throw rocks at our homes (Tabernacles) all day long. But, like with any thief or bad person, their ability to harm us, our family, our friends increases greatly, if we allow them on the inside of our homes, body/Soul. True destruction often seems to come from when the inside walls grow weak, then the crumble, then the sound of our own destruction?

 

I hope that this letter was of some value to you. Please feel free to drop me a note, question, opinions or ideas if you wish too.

(Short Commentary) The ‘SUNNI’ States Of America?

The ‘SUNNI’ States Of America!

 

When I see that title my first thoughts were ‘I sure as Hell hope not’, but are we? Why would I have written such a thing? If you noticed there is no question mark after the statement. What I am saying here is that we as people of this country have via our Nations foriegn policies become aligned with the Saudi’s and their Sunni faith side of Islam over the Shiite side (Iran). Russia at this same time has been shoring up ties with Iran and the Shiite side. You know, Islam has been at Civil War with itself almost ever since it began 1,400 years ago. The Sunni’s seems to be about 80% and the Shiite’s about 20%. If the U.S. ends up in a hot war with Iran life as we all have know it will be over. Sooner not later this region is going to pop and when the smoke has cleared there will only be one dominate Islam. If this latest drone attack that killed a top end General is found out just to be another political stunt to draw attention away from the impeachment plus the reality is these are dangerous games being played, then we as a people need to take Mr. Trump and his yes men in the Senate and ‘lock them all up.’ This is a game where lives get lost and real blood flows. We all need to be sure of what we are fighting for.

United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split Over Same-Sex Marriage

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES)

 

United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split Over Same-Sex Marriage

Under an agreement to be voted on in May, a new “traditionalist Methodist” denomination would continue to ban same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian clergy.

Credit…Madeline Heim/The Winona Daily News, via Associated Press

A group of leaders of the United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the United States, announced on Friday a plan that would formally split the church, citing “fundamental differences” over same-sex marriage after years of division.

The plan would sunder a denomination with 13 million members globally — roughly half of them in the United States — and create at least one new “traditionalist Methodist” denomination that would continue to ban same-sex marriage as well as the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy.

It seems likely that the majority of the denomination’s churches in the United States would remain in the existing United Methodist Church, which would become a more liberal-leaning institution as conservative congregations worldwide depart.

A separation in the Methodist church, a denomination long home to a varied mix of left and right, had been brewing for years, if not decades. It had become widely seen as likely after a contentious general conference in St Louis last February, when 53 percent of church leaders and lay members voted to tighten the ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

“We tried to look for ways that we could gracefully live together with all our differences,” Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey of Louisiana said. After last year’s conference, she said, “it just didn’t look like that was even possible anymore.”

In the months following, Bishop Harvey and 15 other church representatives came together in an informal committee that determined separation was “the best means to resolve our differences, allowing each part of the church to remain true to its theological understanding.”

  • You have 4 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

The United Methodist Church is only the latest denomination to be roiled with intense and exhausting theological disputes over the place of L.G.B.T. members and clergy. Such fights have led to an exodus of congregations from Presbyterian and Episcopal churches in recent years, and pushed young evangelicals and Catholics to leave the pews as well.

Representatives from the Methodists’ wide-ranging factions, including church leaders from Europe, Africa, the Philippines and the United States, hammered out the separation plan during three two-day mediation sessions held at law offices in Washington. The negotiations largely centered on how to allocate the church’s significant financial assets and how to craft a separation process.

Once the agreement is written in more granular detail, it must be approved when the denomination meets for its global conference in Minneapolis in May. The initial response from some conservatives and liberals after the announcement suggests its passage is likely.

“The solution that we received is a welcome relief to the conflict we have been experiencing,” said the Rev. Tom Berlin, who represented groups that opposed discrimination against L.G.B.T. people in the mediation. “I am very encouraged that the United Methodist Church found a way to offer a resolution to a long conflict.”

Conservatives, who seemed to have the upper hand after the vote tightening a ban on same-sex marriage, would get $25 million once their new denomination is formed and incorporated. All current clergy and lay employees of the denomination, even if they affiliate with the traditionalists, will get to keep their pension plans.

“It is not everything that we would have hoped for, but we think it is a good agreement that gets us out of the decades-long conflict that we have experienced and enables us to focus on ministry in a positive way,” said Tom Lambrecht, vice president of Good News, one of the conservative groups.

The factions agreed to allocate $39 million to support “communities historically marginalized by the sin of racism,” according to the agreement. That sum includes $13 million the traditionalists contributed instead of receiving as part of their portion.

Despite the deep doctrinal disputes that led to the split, the negotiations were “largely secular: process, governance, finances,” said Kenneth R. Feinberg, the lawyer who helped craft the thorny settlements that arose from the 2010 BP oil spill and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“I’m the last person in the world who’s going to help the parties resolve their doctrinal differences,” said Mr. Feinberg, who assisted in the church’s mediation on a pro bono basis.

Local churches will choose whether to join any new traditionalist denomination or remain in the United Methodist Church. Several people interviewed on Friday believed that most American churches would stay, though there has not been any formal survey.

While a plurality of American Methodists consider themselves conservative, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study in 2014, six in 10 believe that homosexuality should be accepted and nearly half favor same-sex marriage.

At many of the church’s regional conferences this past summer — in states like Florida, Georgia and Texas — members responded to last year’s vote by electing delegates for the upcoming global conference who largely supported including gays and lesbians in the full life of the church.

“There was a clear message; it is almost like what happened in St. Louis was not reflective of the majority in the United States,” Bishop Kenneth H. Carter of Florida, the president of the church’s Council of Bishops and a member of the mediation team, said of the response to last year’s vote. “That church just awakened.”

Methodism in the United States dates to the early 1700’s, with a long history of valuing local congregations over a top-down structure. It has split many times, most notably over slavery before the Civil War. Membership is varied demographically and politically, counting as adherents everyone from Hillary Clinton to Jeff Sessions.

Americans make up a diminishing share of the United Methodist Church’s global membership, and are projected to soon be a minority, if they are not already.

While they are leaving the church, congregations overseas are growing rapidly, particularly in Africa; there are nearly 3 million members in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These groups tend to be more conservative than the typical American Methodist, which in part explains the vote in St. Louis, where more than 40 percent of delegates were from outside the United States.

Bishop Carter, the president of the Council of Bishops, said that while he had long advocated unity of the church, his own thinking shifted during the mediation process.

“It could not be a unity at someone’s expense,” Bishop Carter said. “There is a kind of unity that oppresses persons. It was just as obvious as we went along that we were going to look structurally different in the future.”

Though the traditionalists won the narrow vote in 2019, it is the progressives who will remain under the banner of the United Methodist Church. This was a topic of extensive conversation among the committee, Bishop Harvey said, though she said the conservatives seemed as if they had been making preparations to leave for some time.

The Wesleyan Covenant Association, a more conservative network of orthodox Methodist laity, clergy and churches, had been preparing for such a contingency for years, said its president, the Rev. Keith Boyette.

“People of all theological perspectives have grown very weary of the conflict and don’t have a vision for how it can end,” he said. And while he profoundly disagrees with the “centrists and progressives” on certain matters, he said, people cannot be compelled to leave the Methodist church. So the traditionalists are agreeing to do so voluntarily.

“I believe that our witness and message is much more important than a name,” he said, estimating that about a third of American churches could follow.

For those remaining, the future already looks different. After the vote last year to disallow gay clergy, candidates for ordination like Chet Jechura were devastated. Mr. Jechura, 30, who recently became engaged to his boyfriend and who serves at Foundry United Methodist in Washington, first felt the call to preach when he was 12, and he had spent years trying to find a church that would fully accept him.

When the plan was released on Friday, Mr. Jechura read it carefully and decided to take time to reflect on what it all meant. He thought of the spiritual practice he has started with his fiancé: naming one hope or joy every morning.

This day, he said, “I do feel hope for the people called Methodist.”

Methodists Split Over Same-Sex Marriage
United Methodists Tighten Ban on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Clergy

‘We Are Not Going Anywhere’: Progressive Methodists Vow to Fight Ban on Gay Clergy

Improper Voting Discovered at Methodist Vote on Gay Clergy

Elizabeth Dias covers faith and politics from Washington. She previously covered a similar beat for Time magazine. @elizabethjdias

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Methodists Agree to Split on Same-Sex Marriage. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

(Philosophy) Of Grace

GRACE

 

When one is full of grace or grace is given from one to another, what do you think of? In index in my Bible says this about grace—unmerited favor. I don’t think I have ever used those exact words for the depiction before but if you really think about grace from God The Creator toward the creatures He created in Their own image; undeserved kindness, yes, unmerited, unearned kindness. It is the Truth that we humans are saved by Grace. Absolutely this is true, for if we humans were not saved by the Grace of God, then most assuredly everyone of us would perish. There would be no hope for anyone of salvation. For no human of their own accord could live a perfectly perfect life for indeed a man’s righteous is but filthy rags to The Lord. (Is 64:6)

 

I hope that you don’t mind but I would like to put down on paper a few of the beautiful yet direct passages in their meaning. All Scriptures are given for our own understanding and knowledge sake. (Eph 2: 4-10)

4.) But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us.

5.) Even when we were dead in sins He made us alive together with Christ (by grace we are saved)

6.) And has reached us up together and made us sit together, in Heavenly places in Jesus Christ.

7.) That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Jesus Christ.

8.) For by Grace we are saved Through Faith and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

9.) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10). For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God had ordained that we should walk in them. Remember, without faith it is impossible to please God.

Romans 6: 14 For sin shall not have rule over you for you are not under the Law (Old Covenant/Old Testament)

John 1: 14 And The Word (Jesus) was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

John 1: 17 For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth cam by Jesus Christ.

Romans 5: 1-2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom we also have access by faith into grace where in we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

 1 Peter 3: 7 Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them (wives) according to knowledge, giving honor to your wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and being Heirs together in the Grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

I hope that I haven’t bored you with the way I laid out this letter to you. Personally I thought these were some  beautiful passages concerning and defining God’s Grace to us. But we all also have an obligation back to God. Some Christian religions teach that once saved always saved. Also that through God’s Grace we are saved so there is nothing that we really have to do in our own personal lives, these ideas are usually taught in unison with each other. But you see, there is a small problem, this is not what the Scriptures teach. Some will tell you that they were baptized (sprinkled) when they were 8 days old so now they can live what ever life style they want to. 2 Peter 3: 16b “they that are unlearned and unreliable twist, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

 

We are all saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ for without Jesus there is no salvation for anyone! But there actually are some other considerations. There are a few simple requirements of each of us like faith in Jesus, loving Jesus and doing the things in our life that Jesus asks of us. If we truly do love Him the we will walk our life in the love and strength of our Master. If we walk our life in darkness then we show the whole world and The Lord, that it is not God we serve, but Satan. As Jesus said to us all so plainly “if you love Me, then you will do the things of which I ask.”

(Short Philosophy Poem) UN-remarkable

UN-remarkable

 

How have I lived my life

How much good have I really done

Have I helped more than I hurt

When The Lord ask His Angel about me

How was the life that he has led

All The Angel could say about me—UN-remarkable