Saturday, June 26, 2010
VBS at ER's place
Friday, June 18, 2010
Weekend bibliophile fun! LOL
"Both Ugaritic texts (1.45.1; 1.168.9) and biblical rituals (Leviticus 4-5) provide for divine forgiveness (*slh/*slh). -- from Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002).
Very cool. :-)
What's the fifth sentence on page 23 of *your* closest book?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Neil, back in the good ol' days
Then Neil banned me, which is OK, since he's gone so far hard-right on so many issues, and painted himself into so many corners he's become irrational to the point of needing some kind of intervention.
It reminds me of the Dwarf-Ghost (the real Neil) and the Tragedian (blogging Neil) in C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce." The real Neil is going to blink out of existence one day, and the snarling, judgmental, mean-spirited blogging Neil is all that will be left.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Religious faith is one thing; faith in God is another
"I don't feel obliged to defend the church against its critics, including those who profess non-belief in the God of a corrupt church's making. If anything, I affirm that kind of brave agnosticism -- especially when religion has failed to make known for them the God of love it professes."
Read all of "Faith in God doesn't always mean faith in religion," in the Cleveland Plain dealer, by the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, director of publishing, identity and communication for the United Church of Christ.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Lamentation for Our Gulf of Mexico
by The Erudite Redneck
O God, again, we have defiled our Mother Earth.
As sure as did the drill itself -- we all raped her.
She spews her bile into the Gulf of Mexico.
She gags, coughing up rot we have made our life blood.
Such filth we would kiss away with a user’s lust!
We are addicts, God! Is this Your intervention?
O God! Mother’s robe is torn, hems soaked in sick sweat!
Her heart is racing, loathing the bastard to come!
Her mind reels, her flesh crawling at what we have done.
Wretched creatures of the sea bear dying witness.
Lovely beaches and marshes face desolation.
We are addicts, God! Make this Your intervention!
Forgive us our Oil Rig of Babel on the sea!
Take away far from us our altars in low places!
Restore us to right relations with our Mother.
Our stiff-necked ways have ruined our home, Your Creation.
Help us deliver ourselves from our low nature.
O, God, help us, we pray, in our unbelief! Amen.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
The UCC should accept this condemnation as affirmation
The usual lies, lunacy and paranoia give it away.
Spew, spew from you know who.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
'The problem of misfortune'
But 'the problem of misfortune' -- Haiti earthquake, Katrina, Dr. ER's increasingly debilitating illnesses!
What's my prayer?
What's my recourse but to pray?
To hope for healing from You, You alleged Healer! Or is it all snake oil?
Where is hope? She does not deserve this chronic pain. No one does.
MY GOD, help me in my unbelief.
I do not trust YOU to show that YOU really give a damn. Take that as my sacrifice tonight! Put it on your altar and smoke it!
Sunday, June 06, 2010
An analysis of John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'
for a seminary class
1. What is the central theme of the book?
The central theme of John Milton’s Paradise Lost seems to be God’s determination to love the humanity he has created, whether that meant the originally intended couple or their descendants through the ages, and God’s determination to keep providing a means for relationship. “Determination” could be too strong a word, however, considering God’s apparent readiness to let free will take its course: The woman and Adam chose unwisely, and so either humanity must die or Justice must perish. It is a complicated love, to be sure: In Milton, the Son volunteers to go and die in humanity’s stead, to still the Father’s hand from killing humanity off. The Son thereby defeats the Death humanity deserves and thwarts Satan’s plans to ruin humanity. It galls Satan, whose very rebellion was sparked by God’s appointment of the preexisting Son to a position of equality with God. A further nuance to the theme is that the Son’s love and willingness to die in humanity’s place is rooted in the Son’s love for the Father, and not simply his own love for humanity. In other words, the Son steps up to save humanity for the Father’s sake as much as for the sake of humanity. This theme raises Christological questions and issues surrounding the meaning of the Trinity, but as with the rest of Paradise Lost, the fleshing out of characters and intentions left inadequately contextualized in the Scriptures, to me, enriches the sense that there is more to the words than meets the eye.
2. Where does the author position himself in the narrative?
Milton selected the epic poem over other forms to deliver this message to an audience of English Protestants who knew his work. The selection suggests that he intended readers to interpret the narrator in Paradise Lost as a kind of ventriloquist for Milton. Within the work itself, the narrator starts out praying for wisdom to write a great work unlike any penned before. Milton’s narrator, then, is also an author, another hint that readers should hear Milton’s own voice. He also is a narrator of narrators, a sort of host for all the storytellers who follow. He converses at times with characters as they appear, coming in and out of the narrative to tie together sections and ideas as he, and Milton, deem necessary. It seems at first to be a haphazard literary device, but occasionally the chief narrator’s overt appearance in the story is as effective at drawing in the reader or hammering home a point as an actor in a film suddenly looking directly at the camera and drawing in a viewer.
3. Where do you see reformation influences – politically, ecclesially or theologically?
Politically: The whole idea of Satan leading rebellious angels in a revolution in the Kingdom of Heaven has to be informed by the Protestant nobles who rebelled against the Roman church and Catholic monarchies in the name of Christian freedom. That Milton, a Protestant, places Satan in the role of rebel chieftain, espousing republican ideas no less, seems odd, if not scandalous, and certainly was provocative. It still is. On the other hand, Milton’s disgust with monarchy could very well have extended as far as the metaphor of God’s “kingdom.” Further, putting Satan in the position of fighting for “liberty” itself could be seen as a faint indictment of free will run to the extremes and radical reformers who would cast off all government, even the Parliament, not just the crown.
Ecclesially: Milton compares Satan’s sneaking into the Garden to Satan’s allies’ later infiltration of the Church: “So clomb this first grand Thief into God’s fold: So since into his Church lewd hirelings climb” (Paradise Lost [1674 ed.] and Selected Poetry and Prose, intro. Northrop Frye, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1951, Book 4: 192-193, p. 85). Milton holds up the marriage bed as a holy place for honest love-making, in a swipe at priestly celibacy: “Far be it that I should write thee sin or blame, or think thee unbefitting holiest place, perpetual fountain of domestic sweets, whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronounced, present, or past, as saints and patriarchs used” (Book 4: 758-762, p. 100). Raphael, talking to Adam, compares heaven to the physical medium that carried the reformation far and wide from its origins, the book: “To ask or search I blame thee not; for heaven is as the Book of God before thee set, wherein to read his wondrous works, and learn his seasons, hours, or days, or months, or years” Book 8: 66-69, p. 180).
Theologically: God says some people will be saved if they want to be saved, but because he enables them to want to, that is, by his Grace they will want to, which Catholics would say abrogates free will: “Man shall not quite be lost, but saved who will; yet not of will in him, but Grace in me freely vouchsafed. Once more I will renew his lapsed powers, though forfeit, and enthralled by sin to foul exorbitant desires: Upheld by me, yet once more he shall stand on even ground against his mortal foe, by me upheld, that he may know how frail his fallen condition is, and to me owe all his deliverance, and to none but me” (Book 3: 173-182, p. 63). Immediately following is an explicit reference to the Elect, a nod to Calvin.
4. Where do you find instances of social satire?
Milton mocks those who build great edifices – great churches? – and are so proud of themselves for it, as well as those who are so impressed with them, which could be the Roman church or monarchs and the wealthy in general: “And here let those who boast in mortal things, and wondering tell of Babel, and the works of Memphian kings learn how their greatest monuments of fame and strength, and art, are easily out-done by Sprits reprobate, and in an hour what in an age they, with incessant toil and hands innumerable, scarce perform” (Book 1:692-699, p. 24). Milton mocks the rich again by depicting Mammon, although in Satan’s service, as advising against war against God and his angels because stirring up trouble would disrupt the order and complacency that wealth prefers, because, after all, “what can Heaven show more?” (Book 2: 273, p. 35). Milton, with civil war still ringing in his and his readers’ ears, mocks war itself in light of how Satan and his followers came to agreement so readily and still wait hungrily for humanity’s destruction: “O shame to men! Devil with devil damned firm concord holds; men only disagree of creatures rational, though under hope of heavenly grace, and, God proclaiming peace, yet live in hatred, enmity, and strife among themselves, and levy cruel wars wasting the earth, each other to destroy: as if (which might induce us to accord) man had not hellish foes enow besides, that day and night for his destruction wait!” (Book 2: 496-505, p. 41-42).
5. How are moral dilemmas addressed? Resolved?
Adam faced a moral dilemma between the time the woman ate of the fruit and his own decision to do likewise. His dilemma was over love and divided loyalties, whether to accept the ruin of his relationship with her or to join her in sin and sully his relationship with God. Adam resolved his dilemma by rebelling against God – while at the same time rebelling into the woman. And so they both were together, but in rebellion. For the reader, in Milton’s time as well as ours, a moral dilemma is presented in Satan’s claims to seeking liberty in the face of what he insists is an unfair royal system in heaven, and God’s resignation to humanity’s fate absent the Son’s eventual volunteering to make things right. The resolution here comes in the form of Satan’s exposure as a selfish fraud and God’s joy over the work of the Son to save humanity. Finally, the whole crux of the matter, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil presents, to me, the mother of all moral dilemmas: Why is inquisitiveness a sin? As Milton has Satan say, “Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious, reasonless! Why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they only stand by ignorance? Is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?” (Book 4: 513-520). For Adam, resolution had come earlier, from Raphael, who emphasized Adam’s free will: “God made thee perfect, not immutable; and good he made thee; but to persevere he left it in thy power – ordained thy will by nature free, not over-ruled by fate inextricable, or strict necessity” (Book 5: 524-528). In other words, Adam was more advised against eating than commanded not to eat. For the reader, in Milton’s time and now, resolution of the dilemma in any advice against gaining “knowledge” comes with the realization that rather than simply “knowledge,” or even “knowledge of good and evil,” the advice not to eat was a warning against self knowledge – Adam and the woman knew their nakedness, representing their helplessness before their Creator, only after defying him – which at once did make them “Godlike” in their knowledge of themselves yet cost them the Godlike attributes with which they were created. For the reader, then, resolution comes with the first couple’s very act of defiance: In striving to be like God, they lost their Godliness, which both explains why they were advised against eating and presents a cautionary tale for all times.
6. What truths are revealed?
Among other subjective thoughts … Milton brings out the truth that strength does not equal righteousness and evil, eventually, will be silenced: “For strength from truth divided, and from just, illaudable, nought merits but dispraise and ignominy, yet to glory aspires, vain-glorious, and through infamy seeks fame: Therefore eternal silence be their doom” (Book 6: 381-385). To me, Milton brings out the depths of the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father, and the promise that, as the Son says to the Father, “in the end, Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee for ever, and in me all whom thou lov’st” (Book 6: 631-633). Milton illuminates the power of temptation, the role of imagination in it, and the allure of the unknown in his depiction of the woman eating with “such delight till then as seemed, in fruit she never tasted, whether true or fancied so through expectation high of knowledge” (Book 9: 787-789). Finally, Milton brings out twin results of sin, increased knowledge but decreased wisdom, in his depiction of the revelations that came to both Adam and Eve after they ate: They “soon found their eyes how opened and their minds how darkened. Innocence, that as a veil had shadowed them from knowing ill, was gone; Just confidence, and native righteousness, and honour, from about them, naked left to guilty shame” (Book 9: 1053-1058).
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
A REFLECTION ON VINE DELORIA JR.’S "GOD IS RED: A NATIVE VIEW OF RELIGION" -- or, HE RANTED AND I RANTED BACK
GOD IS RED: A NATIVE VIEW OF RELIGION
By The Erudite Redneck
For a seminary class
Anyone could tell just from the sheer amount and tone of the marginalia I jotted while reading God is Red that Vine Deloria Jr. hits me where it hurts time and time again — in the head and in the heart and conscience. He challenges my understanding of the history of Christianity, my understanding of the history of the West, my personal views of what it means to be a Christian, not to mention my own approach to informative and persuasive writing and use of rhetoric. I consume books, and over my adult life I have left rivers of ink in their margins and between their lines, but rarely, if ever, have I reacted so emotionally, and at times viscerally, to learned social commentary. Page after page, there are scrawled angry reactions, exasperated questions, resigned agreement and more than a few profane exclamations. In this paper, I will give more measured responses to Deloria’s challenges, claims and assertions.
At times, the most polemical sections of God is Red reminded me of polemicist extraordinaire Ann Coulter: His points sometimes get lost in the snarling vitriol. Deloria, unlike Coulter, is entitled — but is it the best way to communicate meaningfully for either of them? Deloria’s writing in general reminds me of arguments I’ve had with some atheist acquaintances in the United Kingdom who are devotees of Richard Dawkins, whose 2006 book The God Delusion spawned a “new atheism.” Whatever the qualities of Dawkins’ own argument — that all religious faith is delusion — many of his most vocal disciples are prone to mistake “pop” Christianity for all Christianity, that is, they take the thinking of rank-and-file believers as the deepest theology. Everyday Christians, those not given to deep theological reflection, are easy pickings for militant atheists. While it is entirely fair to challenge people on their assumptions and beliefs, it is a mistake to assume, as Deloria seems to, that the most commonly held thinking comprises the latest thinking or gives any indication of the direction theological thought is headed.
Deloria’s chapter, “Thinking in Time and Space,” presents the nut of his argument that a new earth-friendly religious reality has to come about, even if it means wholesale dismissal of Christianity as a framework for a world view, for the earth and the people on it to survive and for justice to have a chance. In this, Deloria is dead-on right: For traditional Christianity, and Western culture as incubated and informed by traditional Christianity, history has a beginning and an end, irrespective of place — that is, irrespective of the planet, since “human affairs alone are important” (68). For those who historically have regarded the Judeo-Christian God as the author of history, the earth is too often seen as a rest stop for humanity, a place for humanity to consume as much as it can, as it passes through on its cosmic, heavenly journey. Guilty! But Deloria is too quick to dismiss or ignore earnest, nontraditional, post-colonial attempts by some Christians to condemn such attitudes and to emphasize “working toward the Kingdom of God on Earth” rather than joining the historic crowd in “fulfilling its manifest destiny” (68). His condemnation is too broad and too harsh when he writes: “While Christianity can project the reality of the afterlife — time and eternity — it appears to be incapable of providing any reality to the life in which we are here and now presently engaged — space and the planet earth” (74).
Deloria has thrown the baby Jesus out with the Christian bathwater — he has concentrated almost exclusively on the institution of the church, or churches and denominations, rather than the messages and examples of Christianity’s alleged founder — “alleged” in the minds of Christians who see Christianity as the historic human response to Jesus of Nazareth rather than his personal institutional legacy per se. There is no way to excuse the sins of historical Christianity. Some of us think the wheels started to fall off with Constantine. And there is no way to excuse the persistence of ignorance among modern Christians concerning the evils of Christianity past or present. The chief value of “God is Red” can be found in its direct attack on ignorance and long-cherished ideas resting on ignorance. A major negative, however, is Deloria’s failure to even try to isolate the voice of Jesus from the historic chorus of his followers. I will not fall into the trap, repeatedly pointed out by Deloria, of asserting that the sins of the Christian past were not committed by “true Christians.” No, they certainly were, for the most part (allowing for the usual fakers and freeloaders that make up part of any group or tradition). What to do about them now? Explain them, rather than explaining them away. What to do about their spiritual progeny living amongst us today? Expose them, teach them, admonish them, shine light on them and for them. At the same time try to draw back into Christian folds those whose stomachs could no longer take the hypocrisy, historic and intellectual, so they quit. Those are some of the very reasons some of us are in seminary: to become equipped to preach to the choir, on one hand, and to extend hope and love — and intellectual honesty — to the Jesus-following Diaspora, such as it is, keeping in mind something Deloria, actually, seems to have failed to consider: Narrow is the way, and few there are who find it, hopes of advancing the Kingdom of God on earth, as opposed to preaching more promises of Pie in the Sky in the Sweet Bye-and-Bye, notwithstanding. Deloria’s complaints are valid. But when were the people who make up the church, or churches, ever righteous?
Deloria’s “brief and general sketch of the Christian religion” is missing a couple of adjectives: “hostile” and “skewed.” Of course, it is hostile, but why skewed, if Christianity so obviously clearly invites condemnation for its actions in history? He denigrates the differing genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels, wondering what was the intent if not “accurate genetics” (103)? Of the Gospels generally, he writes: “What we have ... is a curious mixture of historical events, parabolic teachings, and tortured proof texts from various sources in the Jewish writings” 103. At best, he writes, the Gospels “can be said to be the first Christian effort to define the meaning of past events in terms of humankind’s universal history” (103). To insist, rather, that the Gospels are among the first recorded Christian efforts — plural — to define the Jesus experience is no small quibble. Why hold the biblical writers to modern historical and literary standards they, arguably, never intended? Could not have intended? Deloria echoes the fundamentalist-literalists he deplores even more than the liberals who, he sniffs, “pander to the unchurched (55).” Deloria continually reduces Christian thought and experience into a simple stick figure, ignoring the theological variations, arguments and nuanced interpretations within Christianity through the ages. It is difficult to see why, for Deloria does know that winners write the histories, with marginal voices lost, ignored or silenced.
So some of his plain assertions fall flat: “The whole basis for the Christian belief in life after death was the alleged resurrection of Jesus” (104) — not so, if scholars of the Ancient Near East and of Christian origins can be believed (see “Afterlife” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible for a start). “It is now nearly two thousand years since Jesus lived and died, and there has been no return” (104). That a loophole is built into the Christian tradition itself — no one knows the hour or day, the Scriptures remind — is not the fault of Christians living in the present, nor in any of the times and places spawning apocalyptic frenzies among anxious believers, who can only answer for themselves. Westerners must “come to grips with the breadth of human experiences and understand these experiences from a world viewpoint, not simply a Western one” (107), Deloria writes (107). Granted. But then he goes too far: “This shift will necessarily involve downgrading the ancient history of the Near East” (107). “Bull!” it says now in my margin. “Why not upgrade others?” Deloria writes that “the history of the Old Testament must assume a rather minor importance in the whole scheme of development” (107). “No!” my marginalia yells. “Just as major as other histories!” He writes: “This involves, of course, giving up the claim by Christianity of its universal truth and validity” (108). Across the top of the page in my book it now says, “Does it? No — another era of adjustment and reinterpretation!” Deloria goes on: “The experiences of the Hebrews do not really take precedence over the experiences and accomplishments of other people when viewed with an unjaundiced eye” (108). Finally, my marginalia insists: “They take precedence for Xtians! Faithwise!”
It is easy to get defensive while reading “God is Red,” even for a liberal Christian who admits the Sins of Scripture, as John Shelby Spong calls them. Deloria’s passion and understanding of native religions seem clear. But his scholarship leaves me wondering, especially regarding the maverick Immanuel Velikovsky, who I am not qualified to assess and decline to judge, other than to note that academic communities, as human communities, have blind spots. Which is to say: Who can say? However, prophets usually do leave people upset and scratching their heads, and I cannot, based on my own reading and Deloria’s stature in Native American communities, deny that possibility.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Prayer for peace in my inbox: Amen
AN OPEN LETTER TO MUSLIMS ONLY
Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,
God forbid if any one of our near one and dear one is killed then the killer is evil, a beast and what not and should get penalty but if one among us kills anybody then he is not evil and we start lying, denying or even justifying the killing.... double standards?
Being Muslims, many of our brothers and sisters are not working for peace. They are misguided, mistaken and spreading the virus of hatred and revenge through telling deliberate lies, disinformation and false accusations, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also bringing bad name to Mohammed (PBUH) who never killed anyone in his life time.
Instead of teaching about Good & Evil, certain Radical Muslim Clerics are only "Trading in Religion". They teach us about accusing, abusing and killing the non-Muslims. They try to hypnotize us to Hate and Kill the non-Muslims and brethren of other sects or be killed and without using any common sense, we readily believe in whatever is being said by these Hate Mongers. Actually, they are "Agents of Satan" who is paying them heavily and in return they are cutting at the very roots of the Ummah. Instead of "Mourning" most of the Muslims are rejoicing on the brutal killings of the non-combatant innocent civilians and "The Murderers" have always been "Our Great Heroes".
Before it is too late and the Curse Of God falls upon us, we should use common sense, find out the TRUTH and must change ourselves to save Muslims from becoming the most "Hated, Isolated, Discredited and Suspicious"people in the world. We must start working for promoting "Sectarian Harmony and Religious Tolerance" in the society and should prove to the WORLD through our deeds that Islam is not a religion of Zero Tolerance and Mohammed (PBUH) teaches "Love & Peace"and not Gangsterism, Terrorism, Barbarism, Extremism, Sectarianism, Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" of the innocent civilians.
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam teaches respect and love for all even the animals. But many narrow-minded Muslims have so far failed to learn anything good from the teachings of Mohammed (PBUH) who preaches love for the peoples of all religions. We are far away from the basic principle of Islam i.e. "Enjoining the people to do Good and forbidding them from Doing Evil" and thus, possess no quality of the civilized society. Unfortunately, many of us show Zero Tolerance towards others and have wrongly learnt few thing to be called as good Muslims and those are "hate" the non-Muslims and "Accusing, Abusing and Cursing" the non-Muslims. ...act of madness?
The killing of others in the name of religion is a Sin. Can a FATHER ever teach his Children to be the permanent Enemies of each other?
The time has come for us to stop readily believing in whatever is being said, read and written by the LIARS / Hate Mongers. Unfortunately, some misguided-Muslims believe that the Holy Koran and Holy Prophet (PBUH) both have instructed Muslims that the opponents be KILLED and that they are simply following the orders.
We should use our own common sense and only believe which is logical, convincing and in the best interest of the humanity.
Why do we hate others so much, may be they are better humans then what we are. My feeling is that the Muslims should unite to discredit and deactivate the fringe mullahs (Preachers of Hate) who promise a quick trip to paradise to people who have little and sacrifice themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies. If the mullahs (THE LIARS) thought that it really was a way to paradise they would be strapping bombs to themselves! Their followers are kept too ignorant to see this for themselves and enlightened Muslims should educate them. We must promote understanding and peace. We are all watched by the same God and need to help one another, not Hate and Hurt.
Our contention is that the WORLD should resolve the conflicts facing the Muslim World to stop the terrorism. Unfortunately, all the disputes facing the Muslim World are our self created. The root causes of all the disputes are based on the Muslim Philosophy of Hate against the non-Muslims. The Muslim literature, teachings and preaching are spreading and injecting this hatred in hearts and minds of the Muslims. Our intolerant behavior is further proved by the root causes of all the pending conflicts that we (Muslims) cannot live side by side in peace with the non-Muslims. All the disputes facing Muslim World can be resolved easily, only if we (the Muslims) are able to condemn the "Philosophy of Hate" created in us by our past and present elders who have divided the peoples of the world in the name of "Religion, Cast and Creed".
Fellow Muslims! if God is one and he loves mankind, we should value each others life and strive to protect each other than thinking that if we kill we shall have reward. God looks at human beings not as belonging to different religions, that is why the rain falls to all, the sun shines to all and we all breathe the air freely. We are all created or given life in the very same way- whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew etc.
Let us learn to love each other sincerely.
The change of heart and mind is possible to achieve if we keep up our relentless efforts for a violence free and peaceful world. We need to preach love, kindness and humanity with extremist devotion and mission. The mullahs (THE LIARS) and the preachers of HATE must be excommunicated at every level and we should stop giving them donations as it is our money which is being used by them to spread HATRED for killing of the innocents.
We must also stop dividing the World into Muslim and non-Muslim blocks. Our political leaders and religious teachers must offer positive ideas. Without the ability to imagine a better world, we cannot build anything together. Tolerance of the beliefs of other peoples in the world, warmth and friendship across racial cultures MUST be the objective of all peace loving people worldwide. What is being offered today through religion is "Death, Destruction and Sufferings".
MY PRAYER FOR PEACE:
Merciful God, please give to peoples of the world, the required wisdom and determination, to Forgive and Forget the bitterness of the past and learn to live in peace like brothers and sisters, by condemning the divisions and hatreds created in us by our past and present elders.
Please Read And Circulate this Message For Peace.