VIDEO PTSD Coach App: Help at Your Fingertips

Oct 8, 2019

 

Find tools that can help you and your family members

If you’re experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), remember that you’re not alone. According to the National Center for PTSD, 8 million people have PTSD in the U.S.  Anyone can get PTSD after living through or seeing a traumatic event, such as combat or a bad accident. Seeking professional treatment is the best thing you can do if you think you have PTSD. To learn more about this mental health condition, available treatments, and ways to manage symptoms, VA offers the PTSD Coach mobile app.

Learning about PTSD can help you understand your feelings and how to effectively deal with them. With the PTSD Coach app, you can access:

• Information on PTSD
• A PTSD self-assessment
• Support or professional care
• Tools to help you manage the stresses of daily life with PTSD

The app’s features can help you practice relaxation and anger management skills, as well as other self-help strategies.

“This application has significantly helped me in the heat of these moments. It has helped my ability to deal with the panic attacks and steer me from feeling completely lost,” shared one Veteran. “If you don’t know what to do, you don’t have anywhere to go, try this app. It’s seriously helping me.”

Find the right treatment for you

Effective treatment for PTSD is available. Getting better means different things for different people. Since no one treatment is right for everyone, you should discuss treatment options with your healthcare provider. Together you can decide what works best for you based on the benefits, risks, and side effects of each treatment. If you are diagnosed with PTSD, your health care team may recommend:

• Therapy. Effective trauma-focused talk therapies, such as Prolonged Exposure (PE), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) can help you to cope with the trauma and reduce your symptoms.
• Medication. The therapies listed above are more effective for treating PTSD than medications. However, four antidepressant medications are effective for treating PTSD: Sertraline (Zoloft) Paroxetine (Paxil), Fluoxetine (Prozac), and Venlafaxine (Effexor). Depending on your treatment needs your healthcare provider may recommend one of these medications, often in combination with therapy.

Learn more about these evidence-based PTSD treatments within the PTSD Coach app or by checking out the online resources below.

If you are a Veteran with PTSD, upgrading your My HealtheVet account can help you better manage your treatment. Log into a Premium account to access tools such as Secure Messaging (sign in required) to communicate with members of your health care team.

Download the app for free on iTunes or the Google Play Store.

Read More

PTSD Coach (VA Mobile)

PTSD Treatment Options Can Work with Help from My HealtheVet

PTSD Treatment: Know Your Options (YouTube)

Getting Treatment for PTSD (Veterans Health Library) 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (National Center for PTSD)

https://www.myhealth.va.gov/mhv-portal-web/web/myhealthevet/ss20190301-ptsd-coach-app

---

What is PTSD?

PTSD Basics

It’s normal to have upsetting memories, feel on edge, or have trouble sleeping after a traumatic event. At first, it may be hard to do normal daily activities, like go to work, go to school, or spend time with people you care about. But most people start to feel better after a few weeks or months.

• PTSD Basics
  If it’s been longer than a few months and you’re still having symptoms, you may have PTSD. For some people, PTSD symptoms may start later on, or they may come and go over time.

More PTSD Topics

• Avoidance
  Avoidance is a common reaction to trauma. It is natural to want to avoid thinking about or feeling emotions about a stressful event. But when avoidance is extreme, or when it’s the main way you cope, it can interfere with your emotional recovery and healing.
• Trauma Reminders: Anniversaries
  On the anniversary of a traumatic event, some survivors have an increase in distress. These “anniversary reactions” can range from feeling mildly upset for a day or two to a more extreme reaction with more severe mental health or medical symptoms.
• Trauma Reminders: Triggers
  People respond to traumatic events in a number of ways, such as feelings of concern, anger, fear, or helplessness. Research shows that people who have been through trauma, loss, or hardship in the past may be even more likely than others to be affected by new, potentially traumatic events.
• Aging Veterans and Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms
  For many Veterans, memories of their wartime experiences can still be upsetting long after they served in combat. Even if they served many years ago, military experience can still affect the lives of Veterans today.
• Very Young Trauma Survivors
  Trauma and abuse can have grave impact on the very young. The attachment or bond between a child and parent matters as a young child grows. This bond can make a difference in how a child responds to trauma.
• PTSD in Children and Teens
  Trauma affects school-aged children and teenagers differently than adults. If diagnosed with PTSD, the symptoms in children and teens can also look different. For many children, PTSD symptoms go away on their own after a few months. Yet some children show symptoms for years if they do not get treatment. There are many treatment options available including talk and play therapy.
• History of PTSD in Veterans: Civil War to DSM-5
  PTSD became a diagnosis with influence from a number of social movements, such as Veteran, feminist, and Holocaust survivor advocacy groups. Research about Veterans returning from combat was a critical piece to the creation of the diagnosis. So, the history of what is now known as PTSD often references combat history.

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/what/index.asp

---

A complete guide to PTSD basics

Understanding PTSD and PTSD Treatment (PDF)

---

What is PTSD

---

PTSD Warning Signs

---

A Veteran Copes with PTSD: Brandon’s Story

 

---

---

Related

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/video-ptsd-coach-app-help-at-your-fingertips/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/can-we-come-together/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/can-we-still-celebrate-with-thanksgiving/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/the-2018-flight/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/devolving-into-history/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/what-sword-are-you-using/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2019/08/02/recycled-misfits/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2019/10/04/here-we-go-again/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/americas-choosing-and-ptsd/

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/ptsd-home-and-away/

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder#1

Advertisements

VIDEO A.G. Bill Barr: ‘In the Framers’ View, Free Government Was Only Suitable and Sustainable for a Religious People’

By CNSNews.com Staff | October 14, 2019

Attorney General Bill Barr at University of Notre Dame Law School, Oct. 11, 2019. (Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Bill Barr spoke at the University of Notre Dame Law School on Friday, saying that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that a “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”

“In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings,” Barr said. “Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves, freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values.

“And to control willful human beings with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s wills,” he said. “They must flow from the transcendent Supreme Being.

Watch video here

“In short,” he said, “in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people, a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and to manmade laws and had discipline to control themselves according to those controlling principles.”

Here is the transcript from the part of Barr’s speech where he said that the Framers believed that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people:”

“So, the founders decided to take a gamble, and they called it a great experiment. They would leave the people broad liberty, they would limit the coercive power of the government, and they would place their trust in self-discipline and virtue of the American people. In the words of Madison: ‘We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves.’

“And this is really what they meant by self-government. It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislature. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

“But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings. Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves, freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values. And to control willful human beings with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s wills. They must flow from the transcendent Supreme Being.

“In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people, a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and to manmade laws and had discipline to control themselves according to those controlling principles

“As John Adams put it: ‘We have no government armed with a power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.’

“And as Father John Courtney Murray observed: The American tenet was not ‘that free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.’”

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/bill-barr-framers-view-free-government-was-only-suitable-and

---

Bill Barr Flames ‘Unremitting Assault’ On Religion, Traditional Values During Notre Dame Visit

Kevin Daley | The Daily Caller October 13,, 2019

Concerted attacks on religious liberty have triggered a moral upheaval that contributes to deadly social pathologies, Attorney General William Barr said Friday at the University of Notre Dame.

“The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety,” Barr said. “It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.”

The attorney general said numerous measures of social decline are rising as religion recedes from public life, citing higher instances of drug addiction, mental illness, and suicide. Those outcomes are not random, but the fruit of a dedicated campaign against orthodox religious belief, Barr added.

“This is not decay,” Barr said. “This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”

Barr said state governments and municipal agencies have been at the vanguard of that effort, noting the board of education in Orange County, California, recently decided religious dissenters may not excuse their children from portions of the school curriculum broaching LGBT issues. Schools are the usual forum for attacks on religious liberty, Barr said.

In that connection, the attorney general noted the Department of Justice recently intervened in a dispute between a gay teacher and a Catholic high school near Notre Dame. The case arose when the Archdiocese of Indianapolis directed Cathedral High School to dismiss a teacher in a public, same-sex marriage or forfeit its Catholic affiliation. The high school did so. The teacher, Joshua Payne-Elliott, sued the school in turn.

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the case Sept. 27, arguing that the lawsuit suppresses the archdiocese’s First Amendment right to expressive association, and impermissibly asks the court to interfere with internal church matters.

“The First Amendment precludes this court, a state actor, from cooperating in plaintiff’s attempt to stifle the archdiocese’s First Amendment right to expressive association,” the filing reads. “The First Amendment also precludes the court from entangling itself in a quintessentially ecclesiastical question: whether the archdiocese properly interpreted and applied Catholic doctrine. The First Amendment commits that question exclusively to the ecclesiastical tribunals of the church.”

Anti-Barr demonstrators picketed near the Notre Dame campus during the attorney general’s visit, according to the South Bend Tribune. Some protesters blew whistles in reference to a whistleblower complaint from the intelligence community concerning President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden’s business interests in Ukraine, and suggested Barr could support that effort. Hunter, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings.

The attending controversy prompted Notre Dame Law School Dean G. Marcus Cole to issue a statement defending academic freedom.

“Notre Dame Law School will neither endorse nor condemn invited speakers,” Cole said. “An institution of higher education must be a place where controversial ideas and points of view are expressed, heard, and discussed. This is such a place.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Kevin Daley of The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Original here

---

Attorney General Bill Barr: "This is not decay. This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion & traditional values." pic.twitter.com/HPda0ybdYN

— The Hill (@thehill) October 12, 2019

---

 

 

Church takes worship service to ‘gates of Hell’

Congregation meets in shadow of Planned Parenthood

Jesus declared to his disciple Peter that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the church.

A congregation in Everett, Washington, is counting on that promise, taking its regular worship service to the shadow of abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood.

The multi-church effort, called the the Church at Planned Parenthood, explains on its website: “The Church at Planned Parenthood is NOT a protest. It’s a worship service at the gates of Hell. The Church at Planned Parenthood is a gathering of Christians for the worship of God and the corporate prayer for repentance of this nation, repentance for the apathetic church and repentance of our blood guiltiness in this abortion holocaust.”

The website says the effort is about “doing more.”

“We’ve got to put legs to our faith.”

It already has drawn opposition from the city, and the American Center for Law and Justice is now monitoring the response.

ACLJ said the church started hold monthly worship near the Planned Parenthood Everett Health Center in April. In June, police confronted members, explaining the city had adopted a new permitting structure that the church would have to follow.

In August, the Everett City Council passed an ordinance titled Interference with a Health Care Facility that enabled the city to prosecute offenses such as “making noise that unreasonably disturbs the peace within the facility.”

The ordinance encompasses any facilities that provide “health care services directly to patients,” ACLJ said.

Police have not yet moved to shut down the worship, “but the organization remains concerned that these recent actions by the city of Everett law enforcement and Everett City Council may signal that the city intends to interfere with the services soon.”

On behalf of the outreach, ACLJ wrote to the city to obtain additional information about the new ordinance.

“We remain determined to protect the rights of TCAPP and others to gather and pray on behalf of the unborn,” ACLJ said.

The website lists 14 pastors who support the effort.

Original here

---

Isn’t the Bible Regressive?

One of the objections modern Western people have to Christianity and the Bible, is that its teachings seem to be regressive. In the past 100 years we’ve made a lot of progress in freeing people from oppressive views on women, racism and sexuality, but Christianity and the Bible are often seen to be in the way of our march towards progress, especially if you read Stephen Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now.

The problem with this view is that it has to re-write history in order to sustain it. The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution came on the heels of the Protestant Reformation, one of the most significant revolutions of thought in European history. No qualified historian chalks that up to coincidence, but atheists like Stephen Pinker have to, in order to force a false dichotomy between Christianity and the progress of humanitarian values.

Far from standing in the way of the emancipation of women, Biblical Christianity was one of the major forces behind it. While some have claimed that the patriarchal narratives in Genesis are oppressive and condone polygamy, biblical scholar Robert Alter points out that the force of the narratives is actually to undermine oppressive views like polygamy: all of the characters in the narrative are having a terrible time precisely because they have more than one wife. (Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, xlvi)

Some have also claimed that Paul was a misogynist, but this doesn’t fit the evidence. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul begins an argument by stating the common view of the time: “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:4a). But then, Paul uses that view to suggest something radical and unheard of in that time and culture: “In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4b). In all extant historical records, this was radically unique. (Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 281)

On the issue of racism, biblical Christianity has been the single most powerful force for racial equality. The idea that all people are created equal was first introduced into human history on page one of the Bible (Genesis 1:27). The Bible’s vision for heaven is a picture of people from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Revelation 7:9). And the gospel itself, that we’re saved by the sheer grace of God, uniquely levels the playing field between racial groups more than any other worldview. As secular philosopher Luc Ferry points out:

By resting its case upon a definition of the human person and an unprecedented idea of love, Christianity was to have an incalculable effect upon the history of ideas. To give one example, it is quite clear that, in this Christian re-evaluation of the human person, of the individual as such, the philosophy of human rights to which we subscribe today would never have established itself. It is essential therefore that we have a more or less accurate idea of the chain of reasoning which led Christianity to break so radically with the Stoic past. (Luc Ferry, Learning to Live: A User’s Manual, 60)

The strongest argument for the view that the Bible is regressive, is on the issue of human sexuality. However, this requires that ‘progressive’ be defined as maximising all expressions of sexuality, while ‘regressive’ is defined as encouraging sexual restraint. On these definitions, Christianity and the Bible are certainly not ‘progressive’, but this ‘progressive’ view on sexuality is harmful for men, for women, and for children.

For men, a polyamorous (sexually progressive) culture leads to a small percentage of men having lots of sexual partners, and ironically, becoming depressed; and a large percentage of men staying single and becoming lonely. Unfortunately, this loneliness often leads to resentment and then to violence. By contrast, ‘enforced monogamy’, meaning socially encouraged monogamy, leads to more couples, more families, and more civilised men.

A polyamorous culture is also bad for women, because it encourages sex without love, commitment, romance or relationship. While men tend to be more interested in sex without any strings attached than women, women tend to be more interested in romance and relationships than men, and this is precisely what is eroded by a polyamorous culture.

Most obviously, polyamorous cultures harm children, because the sexual promiscuity that they encourage increases the numbers of children who are raised without both of their biological parents. Having both biological parents isn’t everything (having loving parents is more important), but by all agreed upon metrics, children who are raised by both of their biological parents have a better chance of good life outcomes.

The Bible encourages husbands to lay down their lives for their wives (Ephesians 5:25-28), to see all races and ethnicities as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and to promote a view of sex that doesn’t lead to loneliness – viewing sex as self-donation, not merely for one’s gratification. For some, this is regressive, and its secular opposite is progressive. But by what standard do we measure what’s progressive and what’s regressive?

While a number of people in the West find what the Bible says about sexuality repulsive, they’re often attracted to what it says about grace and forgiveness. However, when you take the Bible to the Middle East, people there are attracted to what the Bible says about sexuality (if anything it’s not strong enough), but they’re repulsed by what it says about grace and forgiveness. If the Bible really was the word of God, then you would expect it to challenge all cultures (including ours), challenging different cultures at different points.

Moreover, if you have a Bible from which you can pick and choose which parts are progressive and which parts are regressive and safely ignored, then you forfeit all possibility of a real relationship with God. In The Stepford Wives the men of Stepford put computer chips in the wives’ heads so that they only ever agree with them, at which point they no longer have a wife with whom they have a relationship, but a robot that they can programme however they like.

Similarly, if you have a Bible from which you can decide that certain parts regressive and safely ignored, then you forfeit all possibility of relationship with God. You merely have a Stepford god (or a Mr. Potato Head god) who only ever affirms you and/or your culture. As Augustine said: “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

http://www.faithbasedonevidence.com/regressive.html

Pro-Lifers: Remember This Phrase from Pope Francis

Whatever our differences with Catholic social teaching, we should echo his opposition to “throwaway culture.”

DANIEL DARLING SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

Not long ago I was speaking at a conference on the sanctity of human life. My specific topic was the way evangelicals are often tempted to neglect the most vulnerable among us, much like the priest and Levite on the road to Jericho (Luke 10:25–37). The event was in Washington, D.C., and I brought along my teenage daughter for a special trip as a birthday gift. Once the conference was over, I figured we would spend some time walking around the capitol.

In my hurry to keep us to our itinerary, I walked past a homeless veteran near the Washington Monument. But my daughter wouldn’t let me keep going. “Dad,” she said, “this man is made in the image of God. We have to help him.” After hearing my typical excuses (“I don’t have any cash on me,” “We’ll come back to find him later,” and so on), she pulled a 20-dollar bill out of her wallet and approached the homeless man. “Here you go,” she told him. “I want you to know that God loves you.” Her words broke my heart and exposed my own temptation to ignore the vulnerable.

It’s attitudes like this that Catholic theologian and ethicist Charles Camosy most wants to expose and critique with his book, Resisting Throwaway Culture: How a Consistent Life Ethic Can Unite a Fractured People. (He borrows the term “throwaway culture” from a speech by Pope Francis.)

Camosy champions the idea of a “consistent life ethic.” By this, he means that an authentically pro-life witness involves more than opposing abortion. The same values that commit us to protecting the unborn, he argues, should govern our thinking on a range of issues that weigh upon the lives of the most vulnerable—issues like capital punishment, assisted suicide, war and peace, and economic and social inequality. Proponents of this approach sometimes describe it as a “seamless garment,” a term coined by Catholic peace activist Eileen Egan and popularized in the 1980s by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago.

Camosy’s book begins with a useful recounting of the development of seamless-garment thinking and a careful reading of its antecedents in church history. In the first chapter, he describes the core philosophy behind a consistent life ethic as “resisting throwaway culture and promoting a culture of encounter.”

Though evangelicals will undoubtedly differ with this framework at certain points, Catholic social teaching has been a useful guide for understanding how the gospel compels us to love our neighbor. In many cases (early opposition to Roe v. Wade, for instance), Catholics have been way out ahead of evangelicals in speaking up for the most vulnerable.

The Courage to Be Consistent

Today, when people claim to be consistently pro-life, it’s often used as cudgel against those who advocate for the dignity of the unborn. But this is not what Camosy (who identifies as a Democrat) is doing. Instead, he is urging us to resist the pull of our political tribes and care for the vulnerable, wherever they may be found. He writes:

We risk applying our concern to one person or group when it suits our interests and ignoring another person or group when it does not. But when we follow our moral principles wherever they lead (even, perhaps, to places we don’t want to go) we resist the ways in which bias and self-interest can hurt our ability to protect and support those on the margins of our culture.

Nowhere is Camosy’s courage more evident than in his treatment of the issues that most divide Americans: the sexual revolution and the sanctity of human life. He is unflinching in calling out the ways in which sexuality is commoditized and human bodies are treated as objects for pleasure. He is also persuasive when he questions the benefits of the sexual revolution, arguing that sexuality without commitment only leads to disappointment (and often violence).

In perhaps the book’s most important section, Camosy raises important questions about reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and practices such as surrogacy. He is rightly concerned about the use of pre-natal screening to identify and weed out fetal abnormalities, a practice that “instrumentalizes children.” Furthermore, he writes, using these technologies to “discard and kill the unwanted sends a clear message to older people with disabilities: it would have been better had you never existed.”

If you have followed Camosy’s career, you won’t be surprised that he provides a forceful and articulate chapter condemning abortion. But you might be surprised by some of the parallels he draws between consumerism and autonomy, both in applying a consistent life ethic to abortion and busting some long-held shibboleths of its defenders. He points to research, for instance, showing that the widespread use of contraceptives—long championed by abortion rights advocates and even some progressive evangelicals as a way of reducing abortion rates—has actually increased the prevalence of abortion. He also debunks arguments for population control, often championed by pro-choice advocates and some extreme anti-immigration restrictionists. Yet Camosy looks at declining abortion rates in the United States and offers a nuanced explanation that involves legislation targeting abortion, safety-net programs like Medicaid and children’s insurance, and social stigma.

Resisting Throwaway Culture takes this approach with a variety of issues, thinking beyond the pro-life movement in ways that will rightly cause conservatives and liberals to reconsider some of their pet notions. From immigration policy to poverty to war to environmental stewardship, Camosy continually invites the reader to ask: Do these policies treat the vulnerable as human beings or as commodities to be discarded? And is our politics the kind that sees humanity in those with whom we disagree?

Begging to Differ

Though this book is extremely helpful, evangelicals will have some differences with the author. Perhaps the most stark is the way Camosy grounds his arguments mainly in Catholic teaching, especially that of Popes John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis. This is unsurprising, of course, but those looking for standard biblical exegesis to guide them will be disappointed. As a reformed Baptist, I probably would have weaved in a bit more of the gospel storyline, showing how Jesus both affirms our humanity in the Incarnation and rescues our humanity in the Resurrection.

In addition, some evangelicals might quibble with some of Camosy’s applications of a consistent life ethic to public policy, particularly in his chapter on care for the animal kingdom. I was unconvinced by his use of Acts 15 as an apologetic for veganism, especially when Acts 10 seems to give faithful Christians freedom to eat meat and 1 Timothy 6:17 seems to allow for enjoying God’s creation in moderation. Nevertheless, we should be sobered by the examples Camosy cites of exploitation and unnecessarily harsh treatment of animals.

And yet, despite these not-so-minor differences, Resisting Throwaway Culture is an important book for our time—a ringing mission statement for a growing movement to allow human dignity, rather than party or tribe, to determine our ethics. Those who welcome this revolution will consider Camosy a helpful companion.

Daniel Darling works for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission as vice president for communications. He is the author of The Dignity Revolution: Reclaiming God’s Rich Vision for Humanity (The Good Book Company).

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/september-web-only/charles-camosy-resisting-throwaway-culture-pope-francis.html

VIDEO Proof Of Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah

The Cities of the Plain

Ash and brimstone are reminders of the fiery event

Latest News from Sodom and Gomorrah

Four new photos below were sent to us by Jake Wilson, who visited the city of Admah, one of the five cities of the plain destroyed by fire and brimstone:

Above:   Multiple door openings into open chambers on a horizontal plane show us man-made construction.  Jake Wilson

Above:  Arched opening with square inserts indicate man-made construction of these formerly limestone buildings that have been reduced to ashen remains.      Photo Jake Wilson

Above:  Looking out from the interior of the remains, we can see an arched opening.  Photo Jake Wilson

_______________________________________________________________________

The five cities of the plain have been located and the evidence is staggering.  For the first time in modern history we have found round balls of brimstone, or nearly pure sulfur, embedded in an ashen area near the Dead Sea, which show clear signs of having once been ancient building structures!

Above:  Lighter colored formations can be seen near the Dead Sea.

Above:  ziggurat stands amidst ashen ruins in Gomorrah, with darker terrain in rear.
Government sign with gate, attempting to keep vehicles out.

Josephus Saw the Cities — Why Can’t We?

The cities were located in the plain, so they should not be located in the low area now covered by the Dead Sea.  These cities were well known in the first century, as Josephus said, “The traces or shadows of the five cities are still to be seen.”  If Josephus could see them, then we should be able to see them also.  The water level of the Dead Sea has fallen since the time of Josephus, so the areas Josephus saw in his day are still visible today.

Biblical Warning For All

The cities of the plain were destroyed as a warning for all that this same event will happen again one day to the wicked.  One would think God is capable of preserving this ancient lesson for us to see and to learn from.

“Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens”  Genesis 19:24.  “Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly”  II Peter 2:6.  (The word for “example” means an exhibit for warning.)

Analysis of the Brimstone

These sulfur balls are mostly golf ball sized, and some have burn marks all around them!  Webster’s Dictionary says that “brimstone” = sulfur.  Accordingly, we have found the absolute proof that we have finally located Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plain!

Above at left is brimstone with a burned, hardened shell that has the unburned sulfur inside, and next to it is brimstone without a burned shell.  The photo at right is a shell or capsule with unburned sulfur inside.  Tiny crystals are on its surface which were formed when the sulfur was burning and was in a liquid state, then it burned out.

Above:  Located on the side of a ziggurat, this brimstone in a shell is opened to reveal the unburned sulfur inside

Each of the cities of the plain contain evidence of brimstone which God rained down upon the cities to destroy them.  The brimstone is composed of 96-98 percent sulfur, with trace amounts of magnesium which create an extremely high temperature burn.  This is the only place on earth where you can find 96 percent pure monoclinic sulfur in a round ball.  This brimstone is NOT from any type of geo-thermal activity as there is no evidence of such in the area, and geo-thermal sulfur nodules are only 40 percent pure sulfur and are of the rhombic type.

Above:  holding a chunk of ash that has a burned ring which surrounds an unburned ball of sulfur

Above:  removing the lid from a brimstone shell reveals a round ball of sulfur inside

Above:  Jason cut this brimstone out of the material

Above:  Brimstone with burn ring

Analysis of the Ash

God rained down upon these cities was so hot that it burned the limestone blocks that were used in the construction of the cities.  The ash there today is composed of Calcium Sulfate and Calcium Carbonate which are by-products of the limestone and sulfur burning.

Everything in these cities burned and turned into ash, including the buildings themselves as the Bible says that the cities were to be destroyed also.  The Bible told us that God rained down “fire and brimstone”  When God rains down fire, it is a consuming fire, just like the time of Elijah when God sent down fire to destroy the stone altar, the limestone buildings here were totally destroyed and turned into ash.

 Above:  The extremely high burning temperatures created a multi-shaded layering of ash that was formed by thermal ionization, caused by electrons repelling and attracting, creating a swirling effect in the remains.

Above:  layers of multi-shaded ash, crumble in your hand.  Dead Sea and sphinx in rear

Cities Visible in Satellite Photos

The cities are almost entirely turned into white ash, and can be seen in the satellite photographs below.

 

Notice each of the cities stand out from the surrounding terrain because of the white ash contained within them.  The city of Zoar was a “little one” or a newly built city that was square.  As cities grew or expanded they quickly lost this square shape.

Genesis 10:19 indicates the five cities formed the Canaanite border, thus the could not have been grouped together at the south end of the Dead Sea as popularly believed.  They form a north-south line along the Jordan/Dead Sea area.  Gomorrah is located at the base of Masada, and in 1998, additional formations were found in Jordan on the opposite of the Dead Sea from Gomorrah in the Lisan Peninsula, including a large cemetery area containing 1,000,000 graves.  The same structures as found on the Israeli side were also found on the Jordanian side –  ash, brimstone and even ceramic tile.

Above –  looking southwest at the southern end of the Dead Sea

Above – The northern end of the Dead Sea, looking southwest

Man-made Formations

Man-made formations are found in the cities, including ziggurats, sphinxes, windows, arched doorways and walls resembling double Canaanite city walls.

Above:  On the left is a ziggurat and on the right a tower

Above:  ziggurat shape on raised platform composed of white material

Above:  Ninety degree angles extending out from a wall demonstrating unnatural architecture

Above:  Arched doorway still stands today

Sphinx Shapes

Unique shapes are visible in the cities that are not found in nature, including sphinx shapes like the ones below.

Above: This sphinx formation on a raised platform is about 40 feet long and was made of a different whiter material than the surrounding platform. It may have been a worship figure or god and was made of a special material.   Masada in rear.

Above:  Another sphinx shape sits at the edge of the city.  They thought it would protect them, but it too
was consumed in the destruction of fire and brimstone.

Sulphur Crystals

The extreme heat caused unusual specimens that can be found in the cities, including the creation of sulfur crystals.  Below are photos of a large slab of crystals found by our Ark Discovery Team.

Above:  The top layer is a solid slab of sulfur crystals created by a complete layer of
brimstone underneath that was burning, then turned to a liquid, then cooled down
leaving this layer of crystals.  Approximately six feet long.

Above:  Here we can see the brimstone underneath the crystals that are on top.

Above:  another shot of the brimstone underneath and the crystals on top

Above:  In another area, we found sulfur crystals which are a remnant of the consumed brimstone.

Above:  two feet in diameter clump of crystals.  Another group was found later when I
broke open a large clump “live” on video.

Above:  more crystals resulting from the sulphur burning, turning to liquid, and cooling into crystals

Anomalies

More evidence of the extreme heat was found.

Above:  this specimen shows signs of having been melted, with the upper portion
bubbling and the lower section pooled into a solid.

Above:   Specimen that some people think resembles bone, with the marrow in the middle. This looks similar to the specimens found by Dr. Lennart Moller, author of The Exodus Case

A spear head and a cache of burned gold which is now gold salts, burned bones, jars, and tile have also been found by others who have visited the cities.

Most photos by Kevin Fisher.

View PAX Program on this discovery

Read Ron Wyatt’s Research on this discovery

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

 

Sodom and Gomorrah PROOF (God leaves EXAMPLE for all GENERATIONS)

Why do politicians take oaths they intend to break?

Bill Federer recounts importance of morality, faith in governance

Sept 20, 2019

 

Chief Justice James Kent explained in People v. Ruggles, 1811, what made oaths effective: “In Taylor’s case … the court … said, that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy (effectiveness) of oaths.”

This view was held by President and Commander-in-Chief George Washington, who stated in his farewell address, Sept. 19, 1796: “Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?”

Yet this is exactly what Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James announced Sept. 17, 2014, that the U.S. Air Force oath need no longer include the mention of God.

James Kent was appointed Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court by New York Governor John Jay in 1804. At that time in early U.S. history, the New York Supreme Court was more influential than the United States Supreme Court. This was due in part because New York City had been the capital of the United States from 1785 to 1790, and it was the largest city in the nation.

From 1793 to 1798, James Kent served as the first professor of law at Columbia College in New York, which was the oldest institution on higher learning in the state, being founded in 1754 as King’s College. Kent is considered the premier jurist in the development of the legal practice in the United States, known for compiling “Commentaries on American Law,” 1826-1830.

Earlier in his career, 1796-1797, James Kent was as a member of New York’s Legislature where he opposed a regulation requiring African-Americans own property before they could vote. Kent was responsible for enunciating what would become the Cherokee doctrine, where American Indian peoples were considered sovereign nations.

After his death, James Kent was elected to the American Hall of Fame, 1900. Named for him are:

• Kent County, Michigan
• Kent City, Michigan
• Chicago-Kent College of Law
• Columbia Law School’s Kent Hall
• Chancellor Kent Professorship at Columbia Law School
• Chancellor Kent Professorship at Yale Law School

A bronze statute of Chancellor James Kent is in the Library of Congress’ Main Reading Room in the Thomas Jefferson Building.

Chief Justice James Kent wrote in People v. Ruggles, 1811: “In the case of Rex v. Woolston … the court said … whatever strikes at the root of Christianity, tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. The same doctrine was laid down in the late case of The King v. Williams. … The authorities show that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures … are offenses punishable at common law … because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. … They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. … We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this state, in common with the people of this country , profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. …”

Chief Justice Kent continued: “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful. To use the words of one of the greatest oracles of human wisdom (Lord Bacon), ‘profane scoffing doth by little and little deface the reverence for religion;’ and who adds, in another place, ‘two principal causes have I ever known of atheism – curious controversies and profane scoffing.’ … Things which corrupt moral sentiment, as obscene actions, prints and writings, and even gross instances of seduction, have, upon the same principle, been held indictable. … The free, equal, and undisturbed, enjoyment of religious opinion … is granted … but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound … to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the grand Lama … for this plain reason … that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors. …”

Chief Justice Kent stated further: “It is sufficient that the common law checks upon words and actions, dangerous to the public welfare … whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, by means of the Christian religion. Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality … punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties. … The (New York) Constitution … declaring that ‘the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, should for ever thereafter be allowed within this state, to all mankind’ … (was) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. … To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. The proviso guards the article from such dangerous latitude of construction, when it declares, the ‘the liberty of conscience hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness (sexual immorality). …'”

Chief Justice Kent added: “Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. The statute for preventing immorality (Laws, vol. 1. 224. R. S. 675, s. 69, et seq.) consecrates the first day of the week, as holy time, and considers the violation of it as immoral. This was only the continuation, in substance, of a law of the colony which declared, that the profanation of the Lord’s day was ‘the great scandal of the Christian faith.’ The act concerning oaths, (Laws, vol. 1. p. 405., 2 R. S. 407, s. 82) recognizes the common law mode of administering an oath, ‘by laying the hand on and kissing the Gospels. …'”

Chief Justice Kent concluded: “Surely, then, we are bound to conclude, that wicked and malicious words, writings and actions which go to vilify those Gospels, continue, as at common law, to be an offense against the public peace and safety. They are inconsistent with the reverence due to the administration of an oath, and among their other evil consequences, they tend to lessen, in the public mind, its religious sanction.”

Addressing the topic of oaths, President Calvin Coolidge told the Holy Name Society in Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 1924: “More than six centuries ago … there was much ignorance, much wickedness … the common people appeared to be sunk in hopelessness. … The speech of men was too often profane and vulgar, until the earth rang with the tumult of those who took the name of the Lord in vain. … The foundation of this day was laid in the formation of the Holy Name Society. … It sought to rededicate the minds of the people to a true conception of the sacredness of the name of the Supreme Being. It was an effort to save all reference to the Deity from curses and blasphemy, and to restore the lips of men to reverence and praise. …”

In affirmation of Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Coolidge continued: “This is the beginning of a proper conception of ourselves, of our relationship to each other, and our relationship to our Creator. Human nature cannot develop very far without it. The mind does not unfold, the creative faculty does not mature, the spirit does not expand, save under the influence of reverence. … It is only by a correct attitude of mind begun early in youth and carried through maturity that these desired results are likely to be secured. It is along the path of reverence and obedience that the race has reached the goal of freedom, of self-government, of a higher morality, and a more abundant spiritual life. … He who gives license to his tongue only discloses the contents of his own mind. By the excess of his words he proclaims his lack of discipline. …”

Coolidge added: “The worst evil that could be inflicted upon the youth of the land would be to leave them without restraint and completely at the mercy of their own uncontrolled inclinations. Under such conditions education would be impossible, and all orderly development intellectually or morally would be hopeless. I do not need to picture the result. We know too well what weakness and depravity follow when the ordinary processes of discipline are neglected. …”

Discover more of Bill Federer’s eye-opening books and videos in the WND Superstore!

President Coolidge continued: “The very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence asserted that they proposed ‘to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.’ And as they closed that noble document … they again revealed what they believed to be the ultimate source of authority by stating that they were also ‘appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of’ … their ‘intentions.’ When finally our Constitution was adopted, it contained specific provision that the president and members of the Congress and of state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officials, should be qualified for the discharge of their office by oath or affirmation. By the statute law of the United States … such oaths are administered by a solemn appeal to God for help in the keeping of their covenants. …”

Coolidge added: “I scarcely need to refer to the fact that the Houses of Congress, and so as I know the state legislatures, open their daily sessions with prayer. The foundation of our independence and our Government rests upon basic religious convictions. Back of the authority of our laws is the authority of the Supreme Judge of the World, to whom we still appeal for their final justification. …”

Coolidge stated further: “All liberty is individual liberty. … The principle of equality is recognized. It follows inevitably from belief in the brotherhood of man through the fatherhood of God. When once the right of the individual to liberty and equality is admitted, there is no escape from the conclusion that he alone is entitled to the rewards of his own industry. …”

President Coolidge concluded: “It seems to me perfectly plain that the authority of law, the right to equality, liberty and property, under American institutions, have for their foundation reverence for God. If we could imagine that to be swept away, these institutions of our American government could not long survive.”

Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.

 

Original here