This is the opening statement of the book I am currently reading:
“Man knows that there is such a thing as love, but he does not know what love is. He knows that there is such a thing as love from common speech, as when it is said, he loves me, a king loves his subjects, and subjects love their king, a husband loves his wife, a mother her children, and conversely; also, this or that one loves his country, his fellow citizens, his neighbor; and likewise of things abstracted from person, as when it is said, one loves this or that thing. But although the word love is so universally used, hardly anybody knows what love is. And because one is unable, when he reflects upon it, to form to himself any idea of thought about it, he says either that it is not anything, or that it is merely something flowing in from sight, hearing, touch, or interaction with others, and thus affecting him. He is wholly unaware that love is his very life; not only the general life of his whole body, and the general life of all his thoughts, but also the life of all their particulars.”
So, so very true! And it’s wonderful and so calming when you find the simple answer to the question of love.
ANGELIC WISDOM CONCERNING THE DIVINE LOVE AND THE DIVINE WISDOM
I want to note that I really, really love the Gutenberg Free Library project hosted online, which is where I found this book. This website is a treasure trove of all kinds of books from all sorts of historical periods. I’ve been downloading books from all manner of subjects almost this entire afternoon and into the evening.
This book title really stood out to me. The book was originally written in Latin in 1763, then translated into English in 1794 here in the US. Whenever I see a title regarding “divine love and wisdom”, I’m always drawn to it immediately. I’ve not started reading it yet (although I have no doubt that will happen very soon!), but I did browse through the first couple of pages and saw enough there to really whet my spiritual appetite!
I’ll post an update on this once I’ve finished the book, and offer my thoughts thereon.
The following is quoted in its entirety from The Federalist Papers, a constitutionally-based website I follow fairly often. This is a very sad story about how a state government’s laws let down yet another innocent victim. My heart truly goes out to this woman, her family, and her friends.
As a woman who’s suffered from domestic violence in the past, this story is especially poignant. It’s not hard for me to realize that if circumstances were a little bit different, I could have been this woman. I thank God daily that I wasn’t another sad statistic.
In New Jersey, you have to get permission from your local police chief to be allowed to simply purchase a firearm.
There is no open or concealed carry in the state unless you work as a security guard, prosecutor or police officer.
Mere mortals in New Jersey aren’t allowed to protect themselves unless they are inside their homes.
The only people who can carry a firearm are criminals and those named above and security guards are only allowed to do it while at work.
The New Jersey legislature has blood on its hands. Because of their draconian gun laws, a woman is dead.
From the Courier-Post:
“When Carol Bowne felt the threat of domestic violence, the petite hairdresser took steps to protect herself.
The Berlin Township woman got a restraining order against a former boyfriend, installed security cameras and an alarm system to her home and began the months-long process of obtaining a handgun, friends said.
But it wasn’t enough.
Bowne, 39, was stabbed to death in the driveway of her Patton Avenue home on Wednesday night.
Carol Browne did everything right. She got the useless piece of paper the law allows her to get aka restraining order; she got security systems and on April 21 asked permission to be allowed to purchase a firearm to protect herself.”
In New Jersey, you have to get permission to purchase a firearm and also to possess one. Apparently passing a background check isn’t enough.
Apparently being threatened with domestic violence isn’t enough.
Carol Browne died because the New Jersey gun laws are so outrageously draconian they didn’t allow her to protect herself.
Across the country, 2nd Amendment activists are trying to change pistol license laws. Carol Browne is a perfect example of WHY.
No one can ever know if Browne would have saved her own life had she had a firearm because she was never allowed the chance to own one thanks to handgun laws in New Jersey.
It’s time every woman across the country, whether they want to own a firearm or not DEMAND their naturally given rights be supported.
It’s time every man who has a mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, aunt or girlfriend DEMAND the pistol license or permit laws be changed in their state so that no other women have to suffer like Carol Browne did.
Carol Browne’s horrific death should not be in vain. This is a wake-up call to Americans and legislators across the country that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Americans have the fundamental right to protect themselves thanks to the 2nd Amendment.
Gun control extremists have worked hard to take that right away.
These people must be held accountable for Carol Browne’s brutal murder.
I just wanted to talk about a couple things right here. Especially this particular line:
Really? I suppose in some ways, we do. The American Bill of Rights was a real leap forward, but let’s not forget the Magna Carta. The fledgling United States did not invent the idea of a free and equal society in which people have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their effects. The Magna Carta did it much earlier!
That’s somewhat beside the point, however. The bit I want to focus on is the fact that this article, and indeed, most of American society in general, gives government the credit for our personal freedoms. If they don’t really think that, this is what they actually say. And whether they want to admit it or not, words have power. They have meaning.
And let’s be even more honest here, while we’re at it.
If the government gave you your rights, as soon as it decides to, it can take them away, too.
So if that’s how you want to live your life, believing that it’s actually the 2nd Amendment that gave you your rights, that’s fine by me. But the reality is that your rights are not given (permission) to you by the government. They fundamental because they are given to you by God.
When you cede power from God and give it to the government, you’re leaving room for all sorts of trouble. Just ask the people of Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. I doubt I even need to reference Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
So before you open your mouth and give thanks to the 2nd Amendment for your right to defend yourself in the United States of America, don’t forget where those rights really came from.
For more information on this topic please read:
I can’t recall the reason this incident came into my mind, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot recently. At my previous job, there was a coworker there that was rather, shall we say, abrasive. He was constantly making comments that struck me in quite an uncomfortable manner. One of those, the one in particular that I’ve been mulling over, is the meaning of one simple word.
‘You should come out with us and do something actually fun for once!’ Or even better: ‘If it weren’t for your husband, you would go out and have “a good time” more often!’ (These are in paraphrase, of course.)
The question remains, though: what actually is fun, and who are you (a person who thinks you do, but doesn’t actually know me whatsoever) to decide what I should think of as fun? Isn’t fun a subjective word, given meaning in context by the individual referencing it?
From a typical American perspective, the “fun girl” is the outgoing one that goes out dancing, goes to the bar, gets drunk, lives by the whole YOLO (“You only live once.”) thing, and likes to “have a good time”. Those are the same sorts of girls that get just drunk enough while they’re there to make out with other girls because this is somehow attractive to men — not to mention it’s also something that I very much morally object to.
Because that’s what this coworker in particular told me should be my idea of fun, and he couldn’t even begin to understand that “going out and having a good time” is not at all my idea of a good time. Not only that, but he implied that I would actually have more “fun” if I ditched my own husband to do it!
Sorry there, buck-o, but that’s not how I operate.
What if my own idea of a good time is a quiet walk in the park with my family (yes), a hike in the woods (double yes), or going fishing, even if I don’t actually fish, because it’s so peaceful and relaxing?
Am I not entitled to be my own person? Am I not entitled to find things fun that aren’t stereotypically considered fun? What’s more, can I not find things fun that aren’t necessarily outgoing in nature?
Could I even, perhaps, find curling up on the couch with a good book in a thunderstorm and reading by candlelight far more “fun” than going out to a bar and watching a bunch of half-drunk people make fools of themselves?
What if I’m not outgoing at all and I would really just prefer to do something by myself?
My point is…I don’t know why people are always so dead-set on subjecting others to their personal opinion of what activities and events constitute fun.
Yes, this is a real “introvert problem”. And I’m really, truly fine with being one.
So please, for the love of God, stop trying to fix me.