Translate

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

MENNONITES INTRODUCE SUNDAY SCHOOL REPLACEMENT FOR KIDS: ANTI-AMERICAN CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUAL FORMATION

WHAT APPEARS TO BE 
"CHILD FRIENDLY CHRISTIAN CURRICULUM" 
IS A SUBTLE INDOCTRINATION INTO IDOLATROUS 
CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUAL FORMATION PRACTICES
AND COLLECTIVIST/SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY

Shine: Living in God’s Light is co-published by Brethren Presspublishing ministry of the Church of the Brethren, and  MennoMedia, publishing ministry of Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada. Many know us for our longtime commitment to peace, service, and Christian discipleship. We’re the folks who have brought you the acclaimed Gather ‘Round and Jubilee curricula. We also publish Generation Why for youth.
We’re thrilled that a number of Christian denominations have chosen to promote Shine to their members. These partners include the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church in North America, the Mennonite Brethren, the United Church of Canada, the Disciples of Christ, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. In addition, our users include Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Friends (Quakers), Lutheran, Brethren in Christ, Evangelical Covenant, and nondenominational churches.

EXCERPT:
Shine:
  • calls children to experience the transforming power of God’s love.
  • nurtures trust in God and invites children to follow Jesus.
  • encourages imaginative, interactive biblical storytelling.
  • explores the meaning of the Bible within the gathered community.
  • cultivates the inner life of the Spirit through spiritual practices.
  • expresses faith through lives of compassionate peacemaking and service.
  • invites all ages to shine God’s light in the world.

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRzVwbS9nM
VIDEO: 

"The Shalom Arc: The Shine Curriculum's Approach to the Bible"

Comment: In this video you will see and hear that this is in no way the true gospel of Jesus Christ; hence it is devoid of the sinfulness of man, his depravity, and the way to salvation through repentance. It is a stripped down story telling version of Christianity offering an anti-American collectivist/socialist worldly viewpoint, maligning individualism, personal power, and accumulation of wealth as if these are intrinsically worldly, evil and anti-Christian. It emphasizes peace and wholeness over justification, regeneration, and sanctification. It mischaracterizes Jesus from an Anabaptist pacifist view. 
________________________________________________________________________

Contemplative Spiritual Formation in Mennonite Sunday School Curriculum

SEE: http://mennolite.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/contemplative-spiritual-formation-in-mennonite-sunday-school-curriculum/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The September issue of the Mennonite Brethren Herald[1] is promoting a long awaited new curriculum for children from age 3 to grade 8. Shine has been in the works for three years, and is now available and coming to Sunday School classrooms in a Mennonite church near you.
The new Sunday school curriculum Shine: Living in God’s Light for fall quarter 2014 is now available from MennoMedia and Brethren Press, the publishing houses of the Church of the Brethren, Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA.
New Anabaptist curriculum Shines
http://mbherald.com/new-anabaptist-curriculum-shines/
The article explains the importance of one of the aspects of this curriculum – the spiritual formation of children:
Why is spiritual formation for children important, and why do you call it that now instead of “Sunday school”?
Sunday school indicates a school model based on acquiring information. We certainly want children to become biblically literate, but we hope for something much deeper. Spiritual formation happens in vibrant communities of God’s Spirit. One of the things we try to convey is that children’s natural language of prayer is thanksgiving. They need to experience joy and hope. Children also need to know that God walks with us in difficult times. God’s love transforms our lives, so we can show God’s love and call others to follow the Prince of Peace.[2]
To find out what this spiritual formation for children looks like, a link provided to the Shine resource website[3] explains further what will be taught:
Spiritual practices help children to pay attention to God’s activity in their lives, and show them ways that they can shine their light to others.
Engage your children in the language and habits of worship through prayer, ritual, celebration, and silence. Each Shine session has a spiritual practice to teach your group. Student resources will reinforce these practices, helping your children to take these practices with them in their daily lives.
What are some of the spiritual practices that Shine sessions include?
Breath prayer . . . Centering prayer . . . Collage prayer
Examen . . . Giving . . . Grace at meals . . . Hospitality
Intercession . . . Labyrinth . . . Morning and evening prayers
Noticing God in creation . . . Prayer doodling
Reciting scripture . . . Sabbath keeping
Service . . . Silence . . . Solitude . . . Thanksgiving prayers
Walking prayer . . . Whole body prayer . . . Worship
One of the many Shine curriculum resources is a PDF guide for instructors and teachers on how to make a prayer path labyrinth for the children:
Prayer path (labyrinth)
A prayer path (labyrinth) is referred to in Spiritual practices of several teacher’s guides. Prepare one for your congregation or one per classroom.
The alarming truth is that many of these spiritual formation practices that children are going to be learning in the Shine Sunday School curriculum at Mennonite churches are rooted in mysticism and contemplative spirituality. For example . . .
Breath prayer
“…the practice of breath prayer involves “picking a single word or short phrase and repeating it in conjunction with the breath. This is classic contemplative mysticism.””
-Breath Prayer—Not Biblical Prayer
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/breathprayer.htm
Centering prayer
“Centering prayer is an unbiblical and dangerous practice. It can put a person in an altered state of consciousness and open him up to a spiritual connection that is not in harmony with Scripture.
Instead, we are to seek God in prayers that are non-repetitious, with a focus on God’s word and truth, with an active mind seeking to find the true and living God through the revelation of the Scripture and communion with his son Jesus.
In short, avoid centering prayer and avoid whatever church promotes it.”
– Centering Prayer
http://carm.org/centering-prayer
Examen
What is the Ignatian Examen?
Ignatian Examen is an occult visualization technique taught by Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Jesuits in the 16th century. His exercise teaches one to visualize oneself in the presence of Jesus and then interact with Him during his earthly events, e.g., “at the Last Supper and the Garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the cross, and laying Jesus’ body in the tomb.”6 This has one adding content to Scripture from his imagination and opens a person to demonic manipulation (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8).
-Evangelical Mysticism?
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6433
Labyrinth
“The labyrinth is just another way to perform contemplative or centering prayer.”
– Ray Yungen, LABYRINTHS, Prayer Paths That Promote the Occult
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/labyrinth.htm
Silence
“…like putting the mind in neutral. Contemplatives say it is like tuning into another frequency. New Agers call it different things like a thin place, sacred space, ecstasy; whatever it is called, both New Agers and Christian leaders are telling us we must practice silence and stillness if we really want to know God.”
-The Altered State of Silence
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/thesilence.htm
In conclusion, instead of practicing labyrinth prayer paths and the Ignatius Prayer Examen, perhaps it’s time for Mennonites to examine some very important questions. Where are the watchmen on the walls? How many parents dropping their children off at Sunday School in their Mennonite churches will be aware that the new Shine curriculum will teach them how to practice contemplative spirituality? What will become of each three year old child whose parents faithfully bring them to their trusted church to be trained in a 10 year contemplative curriculum? Is this what Sunday School teachers in Mennonite churches want to be teaching to the children in their care? Who will defend and teach the truth? Who will guard and teach the children?
______
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Lenin
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Mark 9:42
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6
___
Endnotes
RELATED:
Understanding The Jesuit Agenda and the Evangelical/Protestant Church
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=6844
The Labyrinth Journey: Walking the Path to Fulfillment?
http://www.forcingchange.org/the_labyrinth_journey



POPE FRANCIS & SHIMON PERES PLAN VEHICLE FOR ONE WORLD RELIGION TO END TERRORISM & EXTREMISM~AN INTERFAITH GLOBALISTS' DREAM TO END DENOMINATIONS, DOCTRINES & BORDERS

Pope and Ex-Israeli President Discuss “UN of Religions”


SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/19079-pope-and-ex-israeli-president-discuss-un-for-religions

EXCERPTS: During a meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican last week, former Israeli President Shimon Peres urged the Catholic pontiff to help build a United Nations-like organization for different faiths dubbed the “Organization of United Religions.” Peres also referred to his proposed entity for “interfaith dialogue” as a “UN of religions.” While the pope was reportedly open to the idea, his spokesman suggested that no commitment was made to necessarily pursue it. Numerous prophecy watchers and analysts, meanwhile, highlighted news of the proposal as an important development with potentially deep prophetic implications.
According to Peres, who retired recently after a long career in politics that included a leadership role with the radical Socialist International, the reason for creating a global outfit for religions is that so many conflicts are supposedly justified by proponents who cite their alleged faith. 
 “What we need is an unquestionable moral authority who says out loud, ‘No, God does not want this and does not allow it,’” the ex-Israeli president said.
Peres: "Perhaps for the first time in history the Holy Father is a leader who has the respect of many people as well as the most diverse religions and their representatives,”
___________________________________________________________
NEW BOOKLET TRACT: 
"Is religion to blame?"—
War, Religion, and the Interfaith 
Global Peace Agenda
SEE: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2014/newsletter20140908.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Is religion to blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda  by Carl Teichrib i is our newest Lighthouse Trails Print Booklet Tract. The Booklet Tract is 14 pages long and sells for $1.95 for single copies. Quantity discounts are as much as 50% off retail. Our Booklet Tracts are designed to give away to others or for your own personal use.  Below is the content of the booklet. To order copies of Is religion to blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda by Carl Teichribclick here.
“Is religion to blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda”
By Carl Teichrib
[A]ll modern trends point to the specter of a terrifying, bigger and more pitiless conformity.1—Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
If a global motto exists, it would have to be “Give Peace a Chance.”2 From every corner of the world, from every academy and institution, from every school, public office and even many churches, the cry for global peace is being sounded.
Peace is a noble idea; but since mankind has had a written history, we have never known true peace. The scattered, bleached bones of human history testify to this brutal truth—millions upon millions of times over.
So is mankind incapable of achieving ultimate peace on Earth? In a nutshell, yes. But accepting this reality doesn’t imply that we are to automatically embrace conflict and strife. If anything, it gives us a window into who we are and how we operate. Unfortunately, the view from this window isn’t very pretty.
How do we collectively respond to this sad state of affairs? By perpetuating a lie!
Religious Guilt and the Death Factor
It has been popularly said that religion is responsible for the majority of the world’s conflicts. Posted on a BBC News Talking Point discussion board on the relevance of religion, one commentator boldly asserted, “Just look around the world today. Religion is the cause of all war and hate.”3
Expounding on this line of thinking is an Internet petition seeking “world peace” by the outright banning of “organized religion.” This petition, which needs to be viewed for what it is—an exercise in dissent—makes it very clear that organized religion “in all its factions, is responsible for most of the worlds wars and the entire ‘War on Terrorism.’” A number of petition signers, some showing immense tolerance by resorting to obnoxious and crude language, repeat the mantra “Religion is the cause of all wars.”4
In a more serious fashion than this off-beat online petition, interfaith founder of the metaphysical Integral Institute and a contributor to BeliefNet.com Ken Wilber writes:
Throughout history, religion has been the single greatest source of human-caused wars, suffering, and misery. In the name of God, more suffering has been inflicted than by any other manmade cause . . . for every year of peace in humankind’s history there have been fourteen years of war, 90% of which have been fought either because of, or under the banner of, God by whatever name.5
Has religion really inflicted “more suffering” than any other man-made cause? Is this assumption, one shared by a large segment of society, an accurate notion? Certainly it’s a position that’s well ingrained.6 Demonstrating the imbedded nature of this popular impression, history professor Pat Johnson writes:
I challenge my classes to comment on the following statement: Organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause. Almost all the students raise their hands in agreement.7
Logically, if religion has been the major cause of the world’s wars and death, then religion should shoulder the burden of responsibility towards making peace. Today, this rationale underscores much of the global interfaith movement, including the 2005 United Nations Conference on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace.8
But can the finger of guilt really point to religion as the primary cause of war and strife?
The Killing Century
In analyzing this hypothesis of religion’s global war guilt, let’s examine the role of religion as the primary killing factor in the bloodiest century of all time—the last one hundred or so years. As Winston Churchill explained during the MIT Mid-Century Convocation:
Little did we guess that what has been called the Century of the Common Man would witness as its outstanding feature more common men killing each other with greater facilities than any other five centuries together in the history of the world.9
So was religion the prime death factor, the “single greatest source” of war and suffering, for this very cruel and brutal century?
In order to understand the answer to this question, let us take a look at  the major wars and human-caused genocides that occurred during this time frame. And in order to do this in the space allotted for this booklet, we need a lower stop-limit number—let’s say 1.5 million as a minimum death total.
Please bear in mind that this list will not be able to separate-out all examples. Some, such as the death figure for World War II, could be broken down into holocaust tabulations, single battle totals, etc.—but we’ll try to keep it simple.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that many historical conflicts and killings lack accurate death tabulations, and in some instances the numbers given in our list may actually be too low.
Other problems arise from the lack of concrete death totals. For example: the Mexican uprisings of 1910-1920 variably run between 750,000 and 2 million dead, likewise the decades-old Rwanda/Burundi conflict falls into this statistically difficult range. Because of the variance in accounting up to the 1.5 million mark, I will leave out these two examples along with many others that display complex numerical discrepancies up to the 1.5 million figure.
However, the following death-inventory will suffice for our brief review.10 Notice how few of these mass-killing events had classical religion as its central cause. And yes, religious factors do come into play in some instances, yet even in these examples there are other causes and motivations that go beyond religion.
Congo Free State (1886-1908): 8 million—with some estimates up to 13 million; control of colonial profit and power base.
Feudal Russia (1900-1917): 3.5 million; political control and consequences of political struggle.
Turkish Purges (1900-1923): 3 to 5 million; political control before and surrounding the Ottoman collapse, Islamic/ethnic factors within political/national expansionism—Pan Turkism.
First World War (1914-1918): 15 million; balance of power.
Russian Civil War (1917-1922): 9 million; political control.
Stalin (1924-1953): 20 million—with some estimates up to 60 million; political control.
China Nationalist Era (1928-1937): 3 million; political control.
Second World War (1939-1945): 55 million; German/Japanese expansionism, balance of power
Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945): 17 to 24 million; Japanese expansionism into China. Note: this number may or may not include the Henan Famine of 1942-43, which started as a drought but was horrifically accelerated by the Chinese government in Chongqing. If the numbers for the Sino-Japanese War do not include the Henan Famine, than add 3 to 4 million more dead. Furthermore, it must be recognized that the Sino-Japanese War blended into the Pacific Theatre of World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soviet Repatriations—Victims of Yalta (1944-1947): 1.5 to 2.8 million; end-of-war and post-war repatriation of “Soviet citizens” from Western Allied-controlled territory to the Soviet Union.
Post-World War II German Expulsions (1945-1950): 2.2 million—with some estimates at 5 million; post-war retributions and displacement actions of Germans from Eastern Europe, consequences of Allied policies and Soviet “reparations in kind.”
Yugoslavia (1941-1987): 1.5 to 4.8 million; political control, ethnic/religious issues play an important role. Note: The history of conflict, genocide, and democide in the Balkans is complex and the accuracy of the numbers are difficult to ascertain. That said, the numbers given represent WWII and up to the immediate post-Tito era.
Chinese Civil War (1945-1949): 2.5 million; political control.
Mao Zedong (1949-1975): 45 to 70 million; political control and consequences of collectivist policies. Note: Approximately 45 million perished during Mao’s Great Leap Forward alone, due to starvation, collectivized and forced labor, beatings, and executions. The higher number of 70 million would include the death toll of the Great Leap Forward.
North Korea (1948-today): 2 to 3.5 million; political control and consequences of collectivist policies. Note: The numbers may be much higher due to famine/starvation.
Korean War (1950-1953): 3 million; political control.
Second Indochina War (1960-1975): 2 to 4 million; political control. Note: The higher figure represents the expanded capacity of the Second Indochina War beyond Vietnam and into surrounding nations.
Ethiopia (1962-1992): 1.5 to 2 million; political control and the exasperation of famine conditions, ethnic issues come into play.
Nigeria-Biafra War (1967-1971): 1 million but up to 3 million due to starvation; political control, religion and ethnic issues played a role.
Pakistan-Bangladesh Genocide (1971): 1.7 to 3 million; political/economic and social control over East Pakistan, ethnic and religious issues come into play.
Khmer Rouge (1975-1978): 2.5 million; political control and collectivist policies.
Afghanistan (1979-2001): 1.8 million; political control, Soviet expansion, religion (Islam) and tribal/ethnic factors played a role in internal strife.
Second Sudanese War (1983-2005): 2 million; historical ethnic struggles, Islamic issues played a key role, resource control and usage.
Congo (1998-today): 3 to 5.5 million; political control and regional debasement, ethnic strife, resource and territorial control.
The sheer horror and brutality of mankind throughout the twentieth century cannot be properly demonstrated in a simplistic chart. However, it’s more than apparent that the principal causation of the majority of these awful events—especially those with death numbers more than five million high—cannot be laid at the feet of classical religion.
Remember Professor Johnson and his statement, “Organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause”? Professor Johnson just baited his students, and as the good professor tells us, “Almost all the students raise their hands in agreement.” He adds:
I then demand that they provide dead bodies as evidence. They usually mention the Crusades and one or two other religious wars they might have heard of but in none of their examples can they come up with a million deaths . . . I then point out that most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the 20th century and that most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies. I then ask them who is the ‘baddest’ of them all. Most guess Hitler. I then tell them that he is rated #3. Some then guess Stalin, and I inform them that most scholars place him at #2 with 20 million killed. Almost no one gets #1 who, of course, is Mao who starts with an estimated 45 million. I then point out that the top two were Communists, and Hitler was a radical proponent of Social Darwinism. All of these ideologies are based on atheistic systems.11
Matthew White, a librarian who has done a tremendous amount of study in genocide/war issues and is the author of the online Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, gives this Q&A response to the question of “religion”:
Q: Is religion responsible for more violent deaths than any other cause?
A: No, of course not—unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century—Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union—no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion.12
Major John P. Conway, studying at the US Army Command & General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, commented in an article “War and Religion: Is Religion to Blame?”:
Most times, it can be argued that religion may play a key and significant role in the conduct of warfare on a psychological and cultural level, but is it the cause of warfare? Do nations, states and kingdoms wage war over religion? Is religion a primary cause of conflict between governments? Many have argued that it is. Another popular statement is, “Religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor throughout history.” This is commonly accompanied by “people have been killing each other in the name of God for centuries.” Upon closer examination, these statements exude an element of mythology versus fact . . . A fundamental analysis of past wars commonly attributed to “religion,” as the causal factor, may reveal an uninformed and reactionary misjudgment. Throughout the course of history, the cause of warfare between sovereign states, kingdoms, and governments is attributable to many factors, but can rarely be attributed to “religion” as is so often the assertion.13
Major Conway continues:
[I]t becomes apparent that those who make the claim “religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history” may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing . . . Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain . . . Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can’t be laid at the door of religion.14
Certainly religion plays a motivational and ruse factor in various conflict scenarios. All kinds of pretexts can be used in inciting and snow-balling hostilities; in 1969, for example, soccer played a key role in exploding tensions between Honduras and El Salvador. But as a whole the main cause of the major genocides and wars of the last one hundred years lie outside of purely religious stimulus. Moreover, even wars that contain a deep religious element often have multiple causation, including economic, political, and territorial grievances.
None of this is to say that religion is innocent when it comes to strife. Historically, we can cite the Catholic Crusades and the resulting Reformation genocides, and the mass slaughters done in the name of Allah—such as during the Wars of Apostasy.15 In modern times, we can see the effects of Catholic-Protestant clashes in the British Isles, Hindu-Islamic hostilities in India, the Islamic-Christian slaughters in Sudan, Buddhist-Hindu warfare in Sri Lanka, Moslem-Christian fighting in Indonesia, and the constant struggle in the Middle East between Israel and her Moslem neighbors. Islam as a religious/cultural/political system does play a dominant role in many regional conflicts and localized tension-points. However, in terms of the largest concentration of outright killing capacity, communism, national socialism, and imperial expansionism—all power struggles based on centralist political methodologies—have been the grandest contributor to war and human-caused mass death. Nothing else comes even remotely close.
Clearly, to exert that “religion is the cause of all war and strife” demonstrates a severe degree of historical naivety or deeply distorted emotional blinders or the outright broadcasting of disinformation for an ulterior motive (see Major Conway’s previous quote).
For the students of Mr. Johnson’s class, naivety is the most probable reason for their belief in this religion-war mythology. But for others, ulterior motives exist.
Wrong Assumptions, Wrong Peace
When wrong suppositions are employed, wrong results are guaranteed.
As already demonstrated, the war/religion assumption is nothing short of faulty. While religions today and historically have been culpable (Islam is a prime example in both modern and ancient contexts16), religion has not been the prime cause in every instance of war and strife, not even in the most extraordinary cases of the 20th century. Embracing this mythology as fact, the quest for world peace already finds itself building on a shaky foundation.
But regardless of the incorrect nature of the above point of view, many religious authors and spiritual leaders hold to this assumption. Then, taking motivational cues from this war theory, a response is formulated around another faulty assumption.
In a nutshell, this line of reasoning goes as follows: As faith communities are to blame for the world’s sorrows, then religions need to unite under a common umbrella to ensure peace and security prevails. Therefore, by uniting faiths in the push toward world peace, the divisions that drive humanity to mass violence will be bridged. Today’s global interfaith movement takes this approach, as do many such as Ken Wilber.
Postulating this idea of religious unity under the assumption of religion’s historical war burden, Wilber states:
If humanity is ever to cease its swarming hostilities and be united in one family, without squashing the significant and important differences among us, then something like an integral approach seems the only way. Until that time, religions will continue to brutally divide humanity, as they have throughout history, and not unite, as they must if they are to be a help, not a hindrance, to tomorrow’s existence.17
So what does it mean to be religiously “united in one family”?
Marcus Braybrooke, president of the World Congress of Faiths, explores this theme in his book, Faith and Interfaith in a Global Age:
My hope—though certainly not the hope of all in the interfaith movement—remains that dialogue will eventually bring convergence or, at least, that theology will become an inter-religious discipline or “global theology.”18
German Catholic theologian Hans Küng describes a similar pan-spiritual unification:
[A]fter intra-Protestant and intra-Christian ecumenism we have irrevocably reached the third ecumenical dimension, ecumenism of the world religions!19
Küng and Braybrooke’s concept of interfaith or interspirituality is shared by a large assortment of spiritual thinkers and even some religions. John Davis and Naomi Rice—both connected with the Coptic Fellowship International—succinctly tell us:
[T]he ultimate objective is a fellowship of religions, and the gradual appearance of a world-faith, which in its broader concept will be able to encompass all humanity.20
Similarly, the Bahá’í International Community, the global representative of the Bahá’í faith, openly asserts, “The key to interfaith harmony and co-operation is to focus on the essential oneness of all religions.”21
To a global public sick of war and bloodshed, the above unification ideology becomes a very appealing venue. Yet this postulation flies in the face of anthropology, sociology, history, and theology. The belief sets of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Animism, Hinduism, New Age, and so on, are fundamentally and irrevocably disconnected from one another—including who God is (or is not), the constitution of Man, the problem of evil, and the redemption solution to humanities failed state. Furthermore, the concept that all religions are “equally valid” is logically inconsistent when their theologies are in opposition to each other.
If all religions are authenticated as valid, we must then admit each spiritual expression into this new “global religious club” as legitimate forms. Therefore, cults-of-death—such as the Aum Supreme Truth movement, which was accused of delivering nerve gas inside a Tokyo subway train—must be more than just tolerated; they must be embraced as legitimate sources of truth. Satanism too, along with any other anti-social belief system, no matter how disagreeable, must be accepted on par and received into this universal fold. In time, Bible-believing Christians will be singled out as unacceptable ingredients to this global ecumenical soup.
Clearly, this “world faith for world peace” assumption is also lacking in credibility. However, this shouldn’t come as a surprise; after all, this flawed unity concept is designed around the first fabrication—the guilt of war.
It can never be said that a House of Truth is built on lies, yet the perfect dream of world peace is being constructed on that very foundation. Waving the flag of tolerance and solidarity, religion is looking to re-invent itself to a new level of “planetary responsibility”—devoid of truth, logic, and reality.
Indeed, as mankind sacrifices truth in the pursuit of peace, the only peace gained will come at the sacrifice of liberty. Why? Because such a system, misdirected from the onset, can only coerce and enforce. And whenever man imposes a utopian peace design—that is, the “creation of peace” at the expense of reality—it inevitably becomes a “bloody utopian dream.”22
Paradoxically, by its nature, a “world faith,” world peace structure may actually become a type of self-fulfilling prophecy, ultimately raising the terrifying banner; “Peace is the destruction of all opposition.”23
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. (Luke 12 :51)
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.—Jesus (John 14:27)
To order copies of Is religion to blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda by Carl Teichribclick here.
Endnotes:
1. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (Arlington House Publishers, 1974), p.17.
2. The song “Give Peace a Chance” by John Lennon, recorded on May 31, 1969, has become a type of global anthem often sung at peace rallies.
3. BBC News Talking Points, “Is Religious Faith Still Relevant?” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1885779.stm, April 9, 2002).
4. Caution: some of the language is very foul and would not be suitable for young readers.
5. Ken Wilber, “Why Do Religions Teach Love and Yet Cause So Much War” (www.beliefnet.com/story/147/story_14762.html BeliefNet column).
6. See Carl Teichrib, “Casting Stones: Christianity and the History of Genocide” ).
7. Professor Pat Johnson, responding to an online Christian apologetics discussion regarding war as an excuse against Christianity (http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm).
8. The U.N. Conference on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace was held on June 22, 2005, in conference room #4 at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. A reading of the various speeches and documents that surround this event demonstrates the link between religion as a conflict force (and the guilt this implies) versus what religions can now do—unite under the banner of world peace and development.
9. Winston Churchill, MIT Mid-Century Convocation address, March 31, 1949.
10. Sources for this chart include the work of R.J. Rummel, Matthew White, and a host of other encyclopaedic resources.
11. Professor Pat Johnson, op. cit.
12. Matthew White, FAQ section on 20th century history (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-faq.htm).
13. Major John P. Conway, US Army Professional Writing Collection, “War and Religion: Is Religion to Blame?"
14. Ibid.
15. For more information on these historical conflicts and slaughters, see The Encyclopedia of Military History by R Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Age of Faith by Will Durant, The Crusades by Zoe Oldenbourg, Judgement Day: Islam, Israel and the Nations by Dave Hunt, Martyrs Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs by John Foxe, A History of the Jews by Abram Leon Sachar, and The Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis, etc.
16. See Dave Hunt, Judgement Day: Islam, Israel and the Nations (The Berean Call, 2005) and Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom (Regnery Publishing, 2003).
17. Ken Wilber, “Why Do Religions Teach Love and Yet Cause So Much War,” op. cit.
18. Marcus Braybrooke, Faith and Interfaith in a Global Age (CoNexus, 1998), pp.15-16.
19. Hans Küng, Preface to Willard G. Oxtoby’s, The Meaning of Other Faiths (The Westminster Press, 1983), p.10.
20. John Davis and Naomi Rice, Messiah and the Second Coming (Coptic Press, 1982), p.111.
21. Bahá’í International Community, “At the UN, Governments and Religious NGOs Convene a Peace Conference” (One Country, April-June 2005, p.14, http://www.onecountry.org/story/un-governments-and-religious-ngos-convene-peace-conference).
22. See the “Bloody Utopian Dreams” series by Carl Teichrib: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/teichrib/utopian-dreams-1.htm.
23. http://www.forcingchange.org/under_war’s_bloody_banner.
To order copies of Is Religion to Blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda by Carl Teichribclick here.

RETINAL OBFUSCATION GUN: NEW TOOL THAT BLINDS FOR MILITARIZED POLICE IF STUN GUNS AREN'T ENOUGH?


NEW POLICE “COMPLIANCE WEAPON” BLINDS TARGETS

"Retinal obfuscation" gun a new tool for militarized law enforcement
SEE: 
EXCERPT:
"Shield Defense Systems, LLC, a company based in Reno, Nevada, is currently developing the Z-RO “retinal obfuscation” gun. According to the firm’s website, the weapon, “Obstructs the target’s vision temporarily for up to 10-15 minutes via proprietary technology when deployed on engaged mark.”"

New Police Weapon Blinds Targets: