What Are You Celebrating This Week?

Since the Lord's saving me I've never felt right about celebrating a demonically inspired pagan "holiday". I know we have freedom in Christ, however we are also cautioned to not use our freedom as a license for sinning.  Putting a "Christian Face" on it by dressing Trick-or-Treaters as Esther or Jesus doesn't get my vote either, because it attempts to Christianize a pagan festival no matter how you slice it.

Some think the answer is having a "harvest festival" at church, so that the children can have fun in a safe environment and thereby won't be deprived of candy, fun, and games, as if those were the most important things children should learn to base their lives on, not that I'm against "fun" or "games", etc., but how many Christian families even know that the day we celebrate as "harvest festival" or "Halloween" , on the 31 of October in 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis protesting the abuse of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church?

To celebrate this pivotal time in history, let's not "celebrate" with pumpkins and ghouls and witches, but instead turn our hearts in prayerful remembrance of what the reformers went through to bring light to the world that was darkened by an almost Christian religion.

R.C. Sproul has an excellent series on this topic. I hope you will have the wisdom to take the time to listen to these lectures. These videos are packed with information, including some facts about Luther that surprised me, and helped me let go of some popular myths about this wonderful man.

The embeded link below will continue through all 10 videos, but if you desire to watch them separately, you can find them here:

Youtube link to Luther and the Reformation

A Spiritual Revolution

In the following videos Pastor R.C. Sproul gives a very helpful outline in understanding the times we are living in.






He delineates the difference between morals and ethics, today used interchangeably, however, the two are different in an important way, and help to show what is going on in North America.


In the next video Pastor Sproul explains the difference between following Jesus and legalism. The two often get confused for each other.








So, then, in order to avoid legalism, many fall into the opposite and equally wrong problem of antinomianism. What in the world is that???? you might be asking. Well, Pastor Sproul has a very good video that explains it as well :)

Is America a Christian Nation?... Was it a Christian Nation at it's Founding?

This short (30 minute) video is the first in a series given by a much younger (than he is now) R.C. Sproul. Although this was given many years ago, it is just as relevant today if not more so than the day he gave this. That to me is a testament to the truth of the content, that it has stood the test of time. Right at the beginning he cautions his listeners to the mistaken idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation. It is a nation that has been largely influenced by people that believed in the Bible, however having a Christian influence is other than being solidly Christian through and through. I hope you take a listen as he establishes his case for why he says what he does, and gives historical evidence to support these ideas.

The Donnellys

Last weekend my husband and I decided to go for a drive, spur of the moment.
It was a beautiful day out, perfect day really.

We drove by Grand Bend, home of Coco's...not familiar? Check out this review of their reality show:
http://www.theobserver.ca/2012/04/27/grand-benders-reality-tv-show-set-in-party-town

I didn't take any pictures there, too many people, too many cars, all we wanted to do was leave. One day we'll stop there and maybe even grab a burger at Coco's :)

As we slowly meandered about here and there, we found ourselves in Lucan. What's special about Lucan, you might ask...? Well it seems pretty ordinary at first glance. There was a little museum that did not look all that interesting from the outside...

My husband asked me "Have you ever heard of the Donnellys?"

My answer simply "No."

He grinned a huge grin and asked "Want to go into the museum?"

....ok...

First thing you see upon entering the museum is a huge replica of a tombstone. the Donnelly family tombstone. I didn't take a photo of the copy of the original, but I found a photo of the original one online:

http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/show.asp?id=93887&b=1

This photo only shows the bottom half

It's about 9 or 10 feet tall

The story goes that they had to remove the original because people came from miles around to take chips off of it for souvenirs. Now the graveyard has replaced the original with this one:

Chunks have been taken off this one too (mostly off the back, which I didn't get a picture of, guess you'll have to go visit it yourself if you don't believe me), so changing the tombstone did not discourage the pilferers. There were coins and odd little trinkets on top of the tombstone. And what was with the coins and trinkets on top of the tombstone? I've never seen coins on other tombstones here....another mystery that the Donnelly museum has the answer for! (the answer can also be found at link near the bottom of this post)

This is a photo that was taken of Jenny Donnelly. The Donnelly museum had this photo on display with this information attached; that she was born in 1856 and died just short of her 60th birthday in 1916, and that the tombstone where she is buried has the date of her death incorrect. I'll have to see if I can locate it (now that I'm this deep into their story) and see it for myself.

If you would like to find out what is so interesting about the Donnellys, you can find a bit of info here:
 http://www.donnellys.com/mainpage.html

 Excerpt from the website:
 donnellys.com was created in 1997 for anyone interested in the Donnellys, Canada's notorious family, that was murdered by a vigilante committee near Lucan, Ontario, on February 4th, 1880. 2014 marks the 134th anniversary of the Biddulph Tragedy, as it came to be known.

Find out the answers to some commonly asked questions about the Donnellys!

WHAT is so Official about this web site?
WHY were the Donnellys called the "Black Donnellys"?
WHERE is the original  tombstone today?
WHY do people leave coins on the tombstone?
WHO has made a movie about the Donnellys?

The answers can be found here: http://www.donnellys.com/Questions.htm

After such a nice day out and about, we had a very nice dinner, and the evening was just as lovely as the day was, so we decided to drive some more to our favorite ice cream shop for dessert...

A couple of shots of the evening sky...

There are so many interesting stories to be learned about the world around us, I would love to learn about them all.  Lord knows I won't learn about them all, however He has included the most important ones that we should learn about in His book, the Bible. I hope you enjoyed out little outing, and maybe you learned a little bit more about this interesting world we live in.

Happy Reformation Day! :)

October 31, 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on Wittenburg's door. It marked the beginning of The Reformation. A much nicer greeting is available to us on this day than the world gives on this day.

Check out this link:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/martin-luther-posts-95-theses

...and Happy Reformation Day!

Charlotte Iserbyt

Yesterday I spent a little time going over some things, a review of what has happened to this world over the last hundred years, and revisited Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. What a wonderful lady, stands strong by her principles no matter what the personal cost to herself. Charlotte worked as secretary of education under Ronald Reagan.

Whistleblowers today (well I guess they always have ) put themselves in extreme danger. Charlotte does, but doesn't care about her personal safety as she does about telling the truth about what goes on "behind closed doors". I know that things will grow worse and worse, and this world is not our home. We are just passin' through. It is good to know what is happening, to keep our eyes wide open to what is happening all around us, and to be faithful to tell the truth about the corruptions of this world, and the goodness of our Lord Jesus and what He has done to redeem us (chosen) out of it.

History: Charlemagne

In five parts, it will automatically go to the next part to the end of the video. It had me thinking about the coming antichrist, the joining of "the faith" with conquest and gaining the support and admiration of the masses. In this it is stated again and again that Charlemagne was a Christian and caused people to be baptized and to repent of their pagan religions. But this was to solidify his control over those that he conquered, to cause the oaths that were taken to have meaning that could be trusted to be genuine.

History: Oliver Cromwell

Passover

Passover (Feast of Unleavened Bread) 2013 

begins: in the evening of Monday, March 25
and ends: in the evening of Tuesday, April 2

 David Brickner executive director of Jews for Jesus explains the components of the Passover 
seder:

The Last Duchess of Russia

I watched about the story of Olga, the sister of Nicholas II today. I wanted to find out a little more about that time (I'm slogging my way through a book about Rasputin) ... so I  watched a series about the Romanovs on Youtube, and then this one, about Olga. The story about Olga is so beautiful! It has sorrow, intrigue, passion, pomp and ceremony, her humanity and simplicity, and her amazing talent as an artist! That and so much more! I hope you will enjoy this as much as I did:

The Information War

I love this series (Know Your Enemy) of Youtube videos. This segment gets into the translating of the Bible into the English language. It's interesting to me that the King James only people are so sure that the KJV of the Bible is "the only acceptable English translation" because at the time it came out, the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles were considered the acceptable versions and the KJV a new corruption backed by the Anglicans who were hostile to the Protestants. Lots of great info on this segment of the series:

Wars of Religion Part 2: It's a Matter of Opinion

After our last written assignment, my professor knocked off points (got 70% on the assignment, that is below a "C") and told me my opinion was wrong. Here are his comments and an email exchange that followed:

Prof's comments on my assignment:

You overlook the fact that the Scots actually start the fighting, and do so over a prayerbook. You also overlook the Irish flat out revolting over religion. Charles claims that all his actions are divinely ordained, clear religious activity, and the Parliament opposed these claims. How again is this not a war of religion? All the countries that had these official wars also had people using religion to settle old grudges. The fact that there were old grudges (decades of arguing about the place of King and Parliament) does not mean that religion was not the cause. If anything the fact that religion is where they finally spilled over from arguing to killing indicates that it was religiously motivated.

My 1st email response:

The fact that these people were all very religious in their own ways, I agree with. The fact that there were small skirmishes with the Irish and the Scotts and the fact that the king along with being power-hungry, attributed that to God's will, I also agree with. However, the book states:

"By 1642, the king (supported by many of the nobility, great landowners, and conservatives and moderate Anglicans) was at war with many of the parliamentarians (supported by lesser gentry and yeomen, the merchant classes, the large cities, and the Puritan) The English Civil War (1642-1648) consequently broke out. "
According to the textbook, it makes it look like it is upper classes (with the King)against lower classes (with Parliament) and some of those groups happened to fall within Anglicans (upper with king) and Puritans (lower class with Parliament).
This is the third (fourth?) time you have said to give our opinion, and then state my opinion is wrong. Did you want me to discover your opinion and state it? I'm just wondering. Great class, though, I've learned alot, and enjoyed it...and I think I've learned a little about your opinions ;-)

****(This is directly from what he asked of us for this assignment: After reading the article on the various wars of Religion. There is one famous war from that age not included - The English Civil War. Determine whether or not the English Civil War of the 1640's was a "War of Religion"? Be sure to include historical facts to support your opinion. )****

Prof's reply to my 1st email response:

In the online environment almost anything the professor says is immediately latched onto and repeated by students. This leads to a very poor form of education. Any time I state an opinion before an assignment is due all I get back is my opinion. All assignments in this class are left open to allow students the freedom to try their 'wings'. For the first few weeks there are no repercussions for being wrong to encourage students to be themselves. This does not mean that there are not right and wrong answers. Throughout the course most of the assignments do not have a "wrong" answer and whatever choice is made will result in full credit so long as historical support and explanation is included. If a student does the basics of supporting their thoughts with explanation and historical facts they still receive a passing grade, just not an "excellent" grade, or an "above Average" grade. Failure to appreciate the historical facts is a problem, but not the end of the world. By the way there were eight of these assignments during the semester. If you only went astray three times, you got it "right" more times than not, and better than most.
As to your specific questions for this assignment, The Parliament at this time was at the very least extremely rich, and almost all either Nobles, or about to be nobles. Thus when King and Nobles fights Parliament, it is King and Nobles fighting Nobles. Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places). When the people are in revolt in three of four of the main places it is rather poor form to ignore two of those three.
Does all this make sense?

My 2nd email response:

You do make me think alot deeper than what is given in the textbook, and I enjoy that very much...
Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places).
I understand, and also agree with you, that a person (or persons) who puts together a textbook will have their own opinions and own priorities on the things that they think are more important (leaving out what they think might not have influenced a situation as much as what they think were the main reasons, etc) because you do have to draw lines somewhere, not every issue and jot and tittle can be brought up, and different people will have different opinions on where the cut off points need to be. I often find myself in disagreement with authors of books, or professors on a certain point on a topic, and even so I learn through the experience. :)
Also, I go onto Christian message forums, and have disagreed with the majority on issues like whether Christians should kill Muslims in wars, whether that is being a good Christian. Most American Christians think in order to be a good Christian, one must support Israel, which to them means to kill Arabs. In my OPINION, being a good Christian means to "PRAY FOR YOUR ENEMIES" even while they are killing me, as Jesus did. I've been kicked off Christian message forums for saying this....(!!!???!!!) sheesh....
I understand that you want us to think about things "from our opinion" before giving us yours, and the reasons for your opinions which do make sense even when I still hold to my own (I can understand the logic although I come to a different conclusion), instead of giving us your opinions right off the bat, and what the textbook says as gospel truth. I agree that I, for one anyway, am learning alot this way, and do enjoy this teaching style better than the other way.

Not that I think it will change anyone's opinions (lol) but this web article also seems to say that although there were religiously motivated people involved in conflicting situations in England during this time, it was the problem of politics, money and power, that was the cause of the English Civil War:
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Civil_War/charlesi.htm

Wars of Religion

For this assignment we were to read about civil wars that occurred during the high middle ages. We were given an article, I tried to find the original location for this article, but it was removed...but found it here (with that Washington U link at bottom, which was removed)

Anyway...our assignment was to read this article, and then decide if the English Civil War ....(this article was not part of our assignment, but I don't want to type out all that our textbook had to say about it) was a religious war...

So what do YOU think? Was the English Civil War a "religious war"?

I'll edit this post later to add my paper and a dialogue of back and forth between my prof and I :)

*************************************************************************

EDIT

*************************************************************************

Ok, that sparked alot of interest, lol :)

Oh well, that's ok. This was an interesting assignment for me because it examined the reasons for people fighting and for feeling justified to kill other people. If you read the linked article it acknowledges the fact that many people in England were fighting about spiritual matters. They were fighting about a prayer book. They fought about the Catholic influence seeping into the Anglican Church. They were angry with Charles for taking a Catholic bride. However the article gives the long time bickering over whether the king should have all the power, or if Parliament (who had been getting used to making some of the decisions) got to share some of that power with the king. The king thought he should have all the power and control of England. Parliament disagreed with him. The people were divided, some backed the king, and some backed Parliament.

This is what I wrote for our assignment:

The religious wars of the 16^th and 17^th centuries were between Protestants and Catholics. It started out with no bloodshed, just a lot of bickering and arguing about whose religion was right, each accusing the other of heresy. But that peace was shattered when “Protestants and Catholics would (later) shed each other's blood in prodigious amounts in national wars and in civil wars.”(from the article: Discovery and Reformation; Reformation Religious Wars). In France it was between the Huguenots (Protestants) and Guises (Catholics). There was already animosity between these families, which were intensified with the spiritual conflicts. “It is important to understand that the rivalry between the Guises and the other two families was primarily a political rivalry; this political rivalry, however, would be swept up in the spiritual conflict between the Catholic church and the new reformed churches.” (Ibid.)
The Guises “understood what this religious tolerance was all about and quickly clamped down on it. In March, 1562, an army led by the Duke of Guise attacked a Protestant church service at Vassy in the province of Champagne and slaughtered everybody they could get their hands on: men, women, and children—all of whom were unarmed. Thus began the French Wars of Religion which were to last for almost forty years and destroy thousands of innocent lives.” (Ibid.)

By comparison, the English Civil War occurred during a time when there were religious factions that didn't like each other in England; the Puritans (Calvinists) and Anglicans. The Anglicans were of two main stripes: one that accepted many of the Catholic traditions minus a pope, and one that didn't accept any of the Catholic rituals. However England's civil war centered around a power struggle between the king and Parliament.

“The English Civil War started in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament – the classic ingredients for a civil war. ” http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civil_war_england.htm

It didn't help the king that he married a Catholic, it made a difficult relationship with Parliament even more difficult. It caused Parliament to trust the king even less than they already did. The king wanted absolute power, and the Parliament had gotten used to the fact that they had “enjoyed a real partnership with the royal government.” (Concise Survey of Western Civilization; Pavlac; ch 10 page 220) “In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King's powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far.

Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham” http://www.historyonthenet.com/Civil_War/charlesi.htm

It polarized the people to join either the king's side, or the side of Parliament.

This problem was all resolved in 1688. “In the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English established the basic system of republican and constitutional government that still exists today...they forced James to flee to France. Parliament then invited James' Protestant daughter Mary to be queen, with her husband William of Orange, as co-ruling king...The victorious Parliament generously approved a small measure of toleration for religious dissenters, both Roman Catholics and Presbyterian Calvinists” (Concise Survey of Western Civilization; Pavlac; page 222)

The way I understand it, this civil war was a power struggle between the king who only wanted a Parliament who would offer him suggestions and remain meekly in the background giving him absolute power, and a Parliament who had gotten used to being able to make some of the rules. It was therefore not a religious war. Religion became a contributing factor to the problem but was not the main issue. Our system of government here in the states today similarly shares a “balance of powers” so no one individual takes totalitarian control that can be abused. All those that make up “the balance of powers” have their problems, just as the king and his Parliament did during the time of England's civil war, but it is preferable to a power hungry absolute dictator. The side of the war I would have picked would be Parliament's side. I would be leery of a king that wanted complete power and was trying to control what the church did, by making it more Catholic to please his bride.

In a few days I'll add a surprising comment from the professor that led to a little email dialoguing back and forth....until then...:-) Be well

Iggy Pop and Ancient History

I have to admit that the two do not seem like they should go together...but... it came up as an assignment from my college history course this week, so I thought I'd share, since I found it very intriguing and maybe some of you might also.

Iggy Pop is a very disturbed, and disturbing, individual, I'm sure most of us will agree on that one.

This is what I wrote for a part of my assignment, it includes a link for the article which our instructor for this course referenced for this assignment:

*********************************
This was the article that we were to read prior to giving our thoughts/opinions about Iggy's thoughts:
http://www.ucd.ie/cai/classics-ireland/1995/Pop95.html
*********************************

and these are my thoughts on:

Iggy's Commentary on Ancient History

Before tonight I'd heard of Iggy Pop but I had never heard his "music" and I didn't know anything at all about him. After reading Iggy's thoughts about The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by the British historian Edward Gibbon, I felt I should familiarize myself a bit more with this Iggy. I found a few Youtube interviews:

Interview with Iggy
and
Iggy Pop and David Bowie on Dinah Shore part 1
Iggy Pop and David Bowie on Dinah Shore part 2
and his recording of:
American Caesar
To be honest, after seeing him in the above video clips, I am very surprised that Iggy can even read and retain any information he might encounter anywhere. He seems like a very likeable person, but the drugs he's abused have definitely done alot of damage. So it is very surprising to me that I found his thoughts about "Decline and Fall" to be very good, and similar to my own reasons for why I too enjoy looking back into the past.
In the article we had to read for this assignment, Iggy said:
"I feel a great comfort and relief knowing that there were others who lived and died and thought and fought so long ago; I feel less tyrannized by the present day."

I too find comfort in knowing that others who have lived before me have experienced challenges and had to fight for their existence.  Sometimes when I feel life too difficult, I realize that the Christians under Nero had it much worse than I do, and it makes me realize I'm being a wimp and it gives me a kick in the butt to get on with my life and quit sniveling.
Iggy also said:
"I would read with pleasure around 4 am, with my drugs and whisky in cheap motels, savoring the clash of beliefs, personalities and values, played out on antiquity's stage by crowds of the vulgar, led by huge archetypal characters."
Reading the above only makes me wonder what a genius Iggy might have been if he didn't pickle his brain with all those drugs and alcohol. It makes me very sad to think how much he has stunted any true abilities from developing as a result of the abuse he has inflicted on himself.
When Iggy said:
"America is Rome. Of course, why shouldn't it be? All of Western life and institutions today are traceable to the Romans and their world. We are all Roman children for better or worse."
I found myself in full agreement with Iggy. Our nation has borrowed much from the cultures of our past, particularly ancient Rome. It seems that our textbook also agrees with Iggy:
"Their (Roman's) efforts at romanization succeeded in making diverse peoples loyal to the empire. Likewise, they absorbed much from those they ruled over, laying the foundation of culture that has inspired us ever since. Through the Middle Ages, into the Renaissance of the fifteenth century, through the Enlightenment, and even into the twenty-first century, the culture of classical antiquity fostered by Rome can teach us about ourselves." (A Concise Survey of Western Civilization; Pavlac; Ch 5, page 87)
 I found watching Iggy "perform" very disturbing, but I have to admit that I like the way he thinks.

A History Lesson :-)

The book "We Two" is about Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. I purchased it on a recent visit to Canada after seeing the movie "The Young Victoria". Victoria wrote profusely, and although alot of what she had written was destroyed by one of her daughters who followed her mum's desire for them not to reach anyone else's hands, some of them did escape destruction. We also have letters that were written by Prince Albert, and also history that was generally known of events that occurred during Queen Victoria's reign.

In looking for more info on "Queen Vickie" I found this interesting bit (6 Youtube videos) on "The Jubilee Plot":

The Jubilee Plot was a failed assignation (sic: assassination) attempt on Queen Victoria during her Golden Jubilee which was held on June 20th 1887. It was intended to blow up Westminster Abbey, Queen Victoria and half the British Cabinet. The organizer of the assassination attempt was later said to be Francis Millen of Clan na Gael. However, he had been a spy in the service of the British authorities for several years (from 1885 under Edward Jenkinson of the of the Home Office with the approval of the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury), and was encouraged by them to draw in more Fenians, who could be captured. A bombing attempt of this order could also be used to discredit the increasingly troublesome (from the British governments point of view) Irish Parliamentary Party and other Irish Nationalists.
In June various newspapers reported that a plot to assassinate the Queen with bombs planted in Westminster Abbey had been discovered. In the following October a recently-deceased American was declared by the Assistant Commissioner of the police, James Monro, to have been the financier of the plot. Two Irishmen who visited Cohen, Callan and Harkins were arrested and charged with bringing dynamite into the country. In fact, both of them had been followed by police ever since their arrival in Britain in June. After their trial, Monro exposed Millen as the organizer of the plot but Millen was allowed to escape to the United States where he died in mysterious circumstances. Callan and Harkins were sentenced to fifteen years each in prison.
Earlier in the year The Times had begun publishing a series of features called Parnellism and Crime. All the letters had been supplied by Dublin journalist Richard Pigott and purported to show that Charles Stewart Parnell approved of violence by Nationalists. The letters were shown to be forgeries, written by Pigott and sold to The Times. The case against Parnell collapsed. Pigott committed suicide and in a subsequent libel action The Times had to pay Parnell £5,000 damages.

MumblesOg 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6