Morning Reading: Acts 10.9-23 NLT – made clean by God

Reading: Acts 10:9-23 NLT

The next day as Cornelius’s messengers were nearing the town, Peter went up on the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, and he was hungry.

But while a meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds.

Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat them.”

“No, Lord,” Peter declared. “I have never eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean. ”

But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” The same vision was repeated three times. Then the sheet was suddenly pulled up to heaven. Peter was very perplexed. What could the vision mean?

Just then the men sent by Cornelius found Simon’s house. Standing outside the gate, they asked if a man named Simon Peter was staying there.

Meanwhile, as Peter was puzzling over the vision, the Holy Spirit said to him, “Three men have come looking for you. Get up, go downstairs, and go with them without hesitation. Don’t worry, for I have sent them.”

So Peter went down and said, “I’m the man you are looking for. Why have you come?”

They said, “We were sent by Cornelius, a Roman officer. He is a devout and God-fearing man, well respected by all the Jews. A holy angel instructed him to summon you to his house so that he can hear your message.”

So Peter invited the men to stay for the night. The next day he went with them, accompanied by some of the brothers from Joppa.

Prayer:Lord Jesus – Forgive my tendency to rely on religious rules and traditions rather than a living relationship with you. Holy Spirit – Break into my slumber with visions of freedom and deliverance. Heavenly Father – May your Kingdom come in me and through me. Amen.

Spiritual Song: “I Am Free” – Newsboys
______________________

30 June – Hundreds of thousands in Cairo for anti-Morsi protest – France24

30/06/2013 – France24

Hundreds of thousands of protesters massed in the streets of Cairo on Sunday to demand Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s resignation one year after he first took office.

__________________________
Huge turnout at Egypt’s Presidential Palace protest
__________________________

___________________________

Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians flooded into the streets on the first anniversary of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi’s inauguration on Sunday to demand that he resign.

Waving national flags and chanting “Get out!”, a crowd of more than 200,000 had massed by sunset on Cairo’s central Tahrir Square in the biggest demonstration since the 2011 uprising that overthrew Mursi’s predecessor, Hosni Mubarak.

“The people want the fall of the regime!” they shouted, echoing the Arab Spring rallying cry that brought down Mubarak – this time yelling it not against an ageing dictator but against the first elected leader in Egypt’s 5,000 year recorded history.

Many bellowed their anger at Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood, accused of hijacking the revolution and using electoral victories to monopolise power and push through Islamic law.

Others have been alienated by a deepening economic crisis and worsening personal security, aggravated by a political deadlock over which Mursi has presided.

As the working day ended and 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit) heat eased, more protesters converged through the eerily deserted streets of the shuttered city centre, while smaller crowds protested in several other areas of the capital.

The veteran leaders of Egypt’s secular, liberal and left-wing opposition, including former chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei and leftist presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi, joined protest marches in Cairo.

A Reuters journalist said hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters marched through the Mediterranean port of Alexandria, Egypt’s second city, and a military source reported protests in at least 20 towns around the country.

Mursi, an engineering professor propelled to power by the Muslim Brotherhood, was monitoring events from the heavily guarded Qubba presidential palace, where an official spokesman appealed for the demonstrations to remain peaceful.

“Maintaining the security of Egypt is the common responsibility of everyone,” presidential spokesman Ehab Fahmy told a news conference. “Dialogue is the only way to reach mutual understanding and to reach national agreement around the different issues of our homeland.”

Legitimacy

Security sources said three Brotherhood offices were set on fire by demonstrators in towns in the Nile Delta – the latest in more than a week of sporadic violence in which hundreds have been hurt and several killed, including an American student.

More than 20,000 supporters of Mursi congregated outside a Cairo mosque not far from another suburban presidential palace, where protest organisers planned a sit-in from Sunday evening.

Interviewed by a British newspaper, Mursi voiced his determination to ride out what he sees as an undemocratic attack on his electoral legitimacy. But he also offered to revise the new, Islamist-inspired constitution, saying clauses on religious authority, which fuelled liberal resentment, were not his choice.

He made a similar offer last week, after the head of the army issued a strong call for politicians to compromise. But the opposition dismissed it as too little to late. They hope Mursi will resign in the face of large numbers on the streets.

“We call on Mohamed Mursi, who has completely lost the legitimacy of his power, to quickly respond to the clear will of the people which is plain today in all corners of revolutionary Egypt,” the June 30 movement, which organised a nationwide petition demanding his resignation, said in a statement.

Some Egyptians seem to believe the army might force the president’s hand, if not to quit then at least to make major concessions to the opposition.

In Cairo, demonstrators stopped to shake hands and take photographs with soldiers guarding key buildings. At least six high-ranking police officers took to the Tahrir Square podium in support of demonstrators, a Reuters witness said.

The armed forces used military helicopters to monitor the protests in Cairo and Alexandria and a military source said chief-of-staff and Defence Minister General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was following the situation from a special operations room.

Mursi and the Brotherhood hope the protests will fizzle like previous outbursts last December and in January. If they do not, some form of compromise, possibly arbitrated by the army, may be on the cards.

Violence

Both sides insist they plan no violence but accuse the other – and agents provocateurs from the old regime – of planning it.

The U.S.-equipped army shows little sign of wanting power but warned last week it may have to step in if deadlocked politicians let violence slip out of control.

U.S. President Barack Obama called for dialogue and warned trouble in the most populous Arab nation could unsettle an already turbulent region. Washington has evacuated non-essential personnel and reinforced security at diplomatic missions.

In an interview with London’s Guardian newspaper, Mursi repeated accusations that what he sees as entrenched interests from the Mubarak era are plotting to foil his attempt to govern. But he dismissed the demands that he give up and resign.

If that became the norm, he said, “well, there will be people or opponents opposing the new president too, and a week or a month later, they will ask him to step down”.

Liberal leaders say nearly half the voting population – 22 million people – has signed a petition calling for new elections, although there is no obvious challenger to Mursi.

The opposition, fractious and defeated in a series of ballots last year, hope that by putting millions on the streets they can force Mursi to relent and hand over to a technocrat administration that can organise new elections.

Army role

Religious authorities have warned of “civil war”. The army insists it will respect the “will of the people”, though the two sides have opposing views of what that means.

Islamists interpret that to mean army support for their election victories. Opponents believe that the army may heed the popular will as expressed on the streets, as it did in early 2011 when the generals decided Mubarak’s time was up.

Having staged shows of force earlier this month, the Brotherhood has not called on supporters to go out on Sunday.

Among the Islamists in Cairo, Ahmed Hosny, 37, said: “I came here to say, ‘We are with you Mursi, with the legitimate order and against the thugs’.

“This is our revolution and no one will take it from us.”

At Tahrir Square, banners ranged from “The Revolution Goes On”, “Out, Out Like Mubarak” to “Obama Backs Terrorism” – a reference to liberal anger at U.S. support for Mursi’s legitimacy and criticism of protests as bad for the economy.

“I am here to bring down Mursi and the Brotherhood,” said Ahmed Ali al-Badri, a feed merchant in a white robe. “Just look at this country. It’s gone backwards for 20 years. There’s no diesel, gasoline, electricity. Life is just too expensive.”

The army, half a million strong and financed by Washington since it backed a peace treaty with Israel three decades ago, says it has deployed to protect key installations.

Among these is the Suez Canal. Cities along the waterway vital to global trade are bastions of anti-government sentiment. A bomb killed a protester in Port Said on Friday. A police general was gunned down in Sinai, close to the Israeli border.

There are some similarities with Turkey, where an Islamist prime minister with a strong electoral mandate was confronted in the streets by angry secularists this month. But Egypt is much poorer, its economy is crumbling rather than booming and its new democracy was born in a revolution just two years ago.

For many Egyptians, all the turmoil since 2011 has just made life harder. Standing by his lonely barrow at an eerily quiet downtown Cairo street market, 23-year-old Zeeka was afraid more violence was coming.

“We’re not for one side or the other,” he said. “What’s happening now in Egypt is shameful. There is no work, thugs are everywhere … I won’t go out to any protest.

“It’s nothing to do with me. I’m the tomato guy.”

It’s Time to Tell the Truth About the ‘Peace Process’ – Barry Rubin Re-Blog

by Barry Rubin, pjmedia.com / June 27th 2013

“He who tells the truth is driven from nine villages.” — Turkish proverb

It’s time for the absurd paradigm governing the Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflict — as well as the “peace process” — to be abandoned or challenged. This narrative has become increasingly ridiculous. The following is close to being the official version:

The Palestinians desperately want an independent state and are ready to compromise to obtain that goal. They will then live peacefully alongside Israel in a two-state solution. Unfortunately, this is blocked either by a) misunderstanding on both sides, or b), per the recent words of the Huffington Post, “the hard-line opponents who dominate Israel’s ruling coalition.” Israel is behaving foolishly, not seeing that — as former President Bill Clinton recently said — Israel needs peace in order to survive. One reason, perhaps a leading one, why Israel desperately needs peace is because of Arab demographic growth. Also, the main barrier to peace is the Jewish settlements.

This interpretation has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with reality. People on both sides know this, even if they rarely say so publicly.

For the Palestinian side, the pretense of peacemaking — which every Palestinian leader knows — obtains them money, diplomatic support, popular sympathy, and brings pressure on Israel. Here’s the dirty trick involved: if anyone in Israel raises concern about whether a “peace process” can actually bring peace, or raises concern about how it would be implemented, or raises concern about the documented experience of Palestinian behavior in the past, the response is that “Israel doesn’t want peace.”

The actual arguments and evidence about these problems are censored out of Western mass media and distorted in terms of political stances.

Is the peace process, after 40 years (if you count from its origins) or 20 years (if you count from the time of the “Oslo” agreement), at a dead end? Of course it is. That should be obvious.

The vast majority of Palestinian leaders favor establishing no Palestinian state unless it can continue the work of trying to wipe Israel off the map. They are in no hurry. They do not want to negotiate seriously. And of course, in the case of Hamas, which controls or has the support of about one-half of the Palestinians, this violent and genocidal intention is completely in the open. You can’t negotiate seriously with those who are not — to recall the old PLO slogan — the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. I say this with deep regret, but it is the truth.

On the Israeli side, the pretense is kept up because there is already enough Western hatred or real and potential hostility to what is required for its own self-defense. Israel offered deep concessions and took great risks continually through the 1990s. The judgment on the year 2000, the revealing year of the “peace process,” was that this Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution proved that they didn’t want one.

Now, every few days Abbas comes up with a new trick. The latest one is that he really desperately wants to meet with Netanyahu, but the Israeli prime minister must first meet his latest preconditions — which keep changing.

Every time Israel starts closing in on matching one of his demands, he just changes them.

Kerry gives Israel no credit for that on the peace issue, though it does help U.S.-Israel relations in other ways. For example, Israel will be the first country allowed to deploy the new F-35 warplane, and is getting advanced munitions that could be used to hit Iranian nuclear installations. The only condition on these weapons is — of course — that they not be used to hit Iranian nuclear installations. Still, they might be handy some day. And that is precisely the reason Israelis play along and pretend that Kerry might have a better chance at making peace than he actually does have, which is about a zero chance.

Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that there is a freeze on government permits for construction on settlements, but Abbas doesn’t care.

Speaking of Iran, it contributes to a regional situation that ensures anyone on the Israeli, Palestinian, or other Arab side would have to be crazy to make compromises or concessions for peace right now. At a time when Iran is proclaimed suddenly moderate, and when the genocidally intended Muslim Brotherhood is now a U.S. ally, and when even the Taliban is being declared acceptable, why is it that Israel is being portrayed by many of the same people as intransigent and the source of problems?

Israelis generally — not just those on the left — want peace and a two-state solution. Israelis generally — not just those on the right — do not believe it is possible at present, and they can offer much proof on this point. Moreover, given the region’s rapid movement toward revolutionary Islamism, the atmosphere is totally unwelcoming to any progress toward peace.

Even if the Palestinian Authority wanted to have a different policy, it knows that the hegemony of anti-peace Islamists makes such a move suicidal. Just turn on your radio or pick up a Palestinian newspaper and you can find the hatred, incitement, and rejection of Israel’s existence, the indoctrination of young people to carry on the conflict for decades, the celebration of terrorists and especially suicide bombers.

A situation in which anyone who believes in moderation and compromise better keep his mouth shut or face the end of his career — or even death — is not one where a compromise peace can be made and implemented.

This is common knowledge in Israel.

You’d be amazed by the names of left-of-center Israeli political figures who in private make clear their view that there is no two-state solution at present, no political solution — but that they should keep saying the opposite in public to avoid claims that Israel doesn’t really want peace. As an example, one well-known left-wing leader whose name is associated closely with the peace process said privately that Arafat was an SOB who destroyed the peace process.

Another famous dove said that nobody thinks peace is possible, but that we must still pretend otherwise.

There are two phony arguments raised by those who believe Israel obstructs the peace it desperately needs: settlements, and demography. It should take only a moment to dispel this nonsense. These arguments must be pushed out of the mainstream debate by ridicule and insult.

Can settlements be blocking a successful peace process? Of course not. If the Palestinians were so discomfited by construction of settlements they would logically want to accelerate the peacemaking process. This is what King Hussein of Jordan warned them about at the 1984 Palestine National Council meeting. Hurry and get peace, he said, before the settlement process has gone forward too long. They ignored the advice; they weren’t in any hurry.

Again, though, if settlements are gobbling up the land perhaps to the point of no return, shouldn’t the Palestinians demand negotiations immediately instead of refusing to talk for a dozen years and setting countless preconditions that seem to become more demanding as any previous ones are met?

Then we have the bogus demographic issue. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are not part of Israel. Nobody today seeks annexation. Palestinians — except those who live in Israel’s borders — are never going to be citizens of Israel. Ironically, let’s remember, it is the Palestinians who demand that they, through the fictional “right of return,” get to be Israelis.

Bill Clinton recently said, with total ignorance:

Is it really okay with you if Israel has a majority of its people living within your territory that are not now, and never will be, allowed to vote?

They do not live within Israel’s territory. Therefore, the question does not arise and it will never arise.

Israel has not annexed and never will annex the Gaza Strip and West Bank. No one thinks the Palestinians there are citizens and they do not want to be citizens. In fact, they vote in their own elections, or at least once did so, and live under their own government and laws. How could anyone not understand this?

Finally, there is the never-addressed issue of what I call “the day after.” Let’s face it: the Obama administration and its predecessors have made — how can I put this politely? — some mistakes with the Middle East. They have often urged Israel towards very dangerous, even suicidal courses. They have not always been faithful to allies.

Are these the best-informed, best-intentioned, most trustworthy people to follow?

Perhaps it is possible that Israeli leaders actually do know more about the Middle East and their people’s interests than does Washington (and Western journalists and “experts”). Perhaps Israel’s people, as shown by their own repeated votes in free elections, are better informed than those thousands of miles away who never lived through this history, and understandably don’t put Israeli interests first.

After all, these are policymakers who have just formed alliances with a former Nazi collaborator (the Muslim Brotherhood) and other groups which preach genocide against all Jews, hate the West, hate Christians, want to murder gays, and to make women second-class citizens.

Would you listen to advice by people who do such things?

Moreover, what would happen the day after a successfully negotiated two-state solution? If cross-border terror attacks began, would the United States act decisively to condemn the Palestinian regime? Could it “fix” the problem of a Palestinian state that did not live up to its commitments?

What about a state that was taken over by a Hamas coup or even a Hamas electoral victory, which happened in the last Palestinian election? Suddenly, Israel would be ringed by a Hamas-ruled Palestinian state that rejected peace; a Muslim-Brotherhood ruled Egypt and perhaps Syria; and a Hizballah-ruled Lebanon.

Do you think that two-state solution or even peace would long endure?

What about a Palestinian state that invited in the armies of neighboring Arab states or Iran, with their weapons or large numbers of advisors?

In short, would Israel be better off making agreements with those who have little intention of implementing their agreements, as has often been the case before, and taking advice from those who urge them to make such a deal but can and will do nothing significant to enforce it?

No.

Clinton said that Israel needs peace to survive. Yet the situation is one in which a certain type of peace would endanger survival. What Israel wants is a two-state solution that brings real peace and that would enhance survival. Why is there never any talk about the quality of the peace?

But finally here is the key concept, as voiced by the Huffington Post’s article on Clinton’s speech:

It underscored a chasm between the country’s official support for creating an independent Palestinian state and the hard-line opponents who dominate Israel’s ruling coalition.

The problem is the word “opponents.” Israel would be happy to create an independent Palestinian state that resulted in an end to the conflict. It was ready to do so at the 2000 Camp David meeting, but the Palestinian leadership then, and since, refused to say that even a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict. It would merely initiate the next round of a battle pursuing total elimination of Israel. This is not an ideological but a strategic issue. Wishful thinking and arguments like “if you don’t work for peace you won’t get it” are fine for the words of bystanders. They would be disastrous for actual policy.

Incidentally, the three most “soft-line” supporters of creating an independent state have been Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ehud Barak. These men learned vividly the same lessons that their political opponents did.

The real blockage to peace comes from the Palestinian leadership (including Hamas and their open preference of massacring all Israelis) and the realities of the strategic situation.

Is this a right-wing position? No, it is just a recognition of reality. As I noted above, everyone knows it, and if they don’t there are three possible reasons:

1. They want to bash Israel and subvert Israel’s relations with the West and they know what they are doing.

2. They are ignorant about the region or at least very much out of date. And this goes for those ruled by wishful thinking.

3. They think that by pretending peace is possible they can make the Arabs feel that the United States is trying to help the Palestinians, and that therefore most Arabs and Muslims will think better of them and radical Islamists will like America.

Israelis know that since this is a firm belief in the West, keeping their mouths shut makes it easier to get along with those people who are in power in the West. And this goes for those ruled by wishful thinking, though proportionately far fewer than in the West.

It also goes for those who would gladly welcome a real, viable two-state solution but know that one is decades off and has been made more difficult by the radicalism unleashed by the supposedly moderating “Arab Spring.”

Ironically, the current narrative was put in place in the 1990s precisely because an Israel that was striving for a two-state solution gave peace a chance. The effort proved to Israelis that the Palestinian leadership wasn’t ready to make peace. The effort made the rest of the world think that the Palestinians were victims, desperate for peace. Committing terrorism must have been a cry for help.

Arafat rejected peace; Israel was falsely blamed for rejecting peace even though the facts were well known, to people like Bill Clinton who even said so at the times, in early 2000.

Fixing this political disaster is not a matter for politicians but one for starting the difficult task of correcting the narrative.

13th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Galatians 5.1, 13-18 NLT – free to serve

Reading: Galatians 5:1, 13-18 NLT

So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.

For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.

For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.

So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.

Prayer: Holy Spirit – Reign in me… win the war between my sinful nature and my new nature given to me by Christ Jesus. Make my good intentions a reality… and bring forth your good fruit in me – love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness and self control – that I might honor you in all things. Amen.

Spiritual Song: “Break every chain” – Jesus Culture
________________________

Morning Reading: Acts 10.1-8 NLT – angel vision

Reading: Acts 10:1-8 NLT In Caesarea there lived a Roman army officer named Cornelius, who was a captain of the Italian Regiment. He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was everyone in his household. He gave generously to the poor and prayed regularly to God.

Vision of Cornelius the Centurion
Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621-1674)

One afternoon about three o’clock, he had a vision in which he saw an angel of God coming toward him. “Cornelius!” the angel said.

Cornelius stared at him in terror. “What is it, sir?” he asked the angel.

And the angel replied, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have been received by God as an offering! Now send some men to Joppa, and summon a man named Simon Peter. He is staying with Simon, a tanner who lives near the seashore.”

As soon as the angel was gone, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier, one of his personal attendants. He told them what had happened and sent them off to Joppa.

Prayer: Lord God – Give me a generous heart… and make me a God-fearing person of prayer. Help me to listen more than I speak… and give me a spirit of willing obedience. I ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Spiritual Song: “I will run to you” – Hillsong _________________________

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: