President Obama was nominated and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after he assumed the Office of the President of the United States of America...even though there was nothing that he had accomplished.
The committee said it was for the things he aspires to do.
Mitch Albom said that we all deserved our own Noble Peace Prize for the election of Barrack Obama....
This was emailed to me and I thought it was interesting to note. According to Snopes and Truth or Fiction, this is a true story....it shows you how much true heroes aren't recognized for their ultra-human efforts but the humanism of man is brought into full glory among his peers.
I would like to see our President live up to this standard when he makes decisions to kill babies in the womb, create a science around their celluar remains and tells us that the government is our health care provider while giving life ending conferences to the elder citizens as he embraces a marriage as defined by whatever you want it to be.
The prize doesn't always go to the most deserving...
Irena Sendler
There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.
Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected.
Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian Peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran , and others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.
Mankind is its worse enemy, because it continues to declare that it is the God of its own creation.....thank God for the saints like Irena who don't look for the worldly prize but seek to live for another more eternal one.
Showing posts with label Interesting things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interesting things. Show all posts
Friday, October 16
Monday, August 10
A Holy man....emailed things
Barring the obvious simplisty of this, I thought it was an interesting thought:
This was emailed to me by one of my non-Christian co-workers.......
A Holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day and said, 'Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.'
The Lord led the holy man to two doors.
He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in.
In the middle of the room was a large round table.
In the middle of the table was a large pot of stew,
which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water.
The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly.
They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles that were strapped to their arms and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful.
But because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.
The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering.
The Lord said, 'You have seen Hell. They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one.
There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water.
The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.
The holy man said, 'I don't understand.
'It is simple,' said the Lord. 'It requires but one skill.
You see, they have learned to feed each other.
The greedy think only of themselves.
When Jesus died on the cross, he was thinking of you.
This was emailed to me by one of my non-Christian co-workers.......
A Holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day and said, 'Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.'
The Lord led the holy man to two doors.
He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in.
In the middle of the room was a large round table.
In the middle of the table was a large pot of stew,
which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water.
The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly.
They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles that were strapped to their arms and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful.
But because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.
The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering.
The Lord said, 'You have seen Hell. They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one.
There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water.
The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.
The holy man said, 'I don't understand.
'It is simple,' said the Lord. 'It requires but one skill.
You see, they have learned to feed each other.
The greedy think only of themselves.
When Jesus died on the cross, he was thinking of you.
Thursday, May 21
Jesus is much more than....what He did.....
"God called you to endure suffering because Christ suffered for you. He left you an example so that you could follow in his footsteps." (1 Peter 2:21 GW)
It was the sensation that sparked the little wristbands, the bumper stickers, and even conversations around the water cooler…..WWJD or "What would Jesus do?" It has faded because of two reasons: Everyone already knew the answer and no one could sustain doing what Jesus would do for long. There was no deep, reactionary change from shallow Christianity to a deeper relational understanding and commitment to God through His Son, Jesus Christ that must happen before the question becomes the reaction.
Jan Johnson feels even knowing that mysterious "WWJD" and doing it is prone to the same failure, because outward obedience is corrupted unless inward transformation of the heart towards "the kind of person from whom good deeds naturally flow" happens. In her theological understanding of 'Christlikeness', Johnson endeavors to look beyond the knowledge of "what" Jesus did to "understanding" seventeen 'underrated and particular' characteristics of Christ so that a 'curriculum of Christlikeness' will lead to a sustainable, transformational change within where what Jesus would do is replaced by doing what Jesus would do.
Johnson offers us a perspective of a "Jesus who was more than what He did" and a different look at the examples He left for us to follow.
Sunday, April 5
Uncompromised faith in a compromising world.
"But dedicate your lives to Christ as Lord. Always be ready to defend your confidence in God when anyone ask you to explain it. However, make your defense with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15 (GW)
"Research reveals that Christianity in America has become more diluted, more distorted, and less Christ-like with each subsequent generation," Josh McDowell writes. "So severe is the crisis that I dared to proclaim that if something serious does not occur in the life of the church, we may be witnessing the last Christian generation in America."
"Historically, Christians have been formidable in projecting this new and true interpretation of reality [the transformational shift in our conceptions of reality, self, human nature, knowledge, morality, and ethics] into every aspect of American life and culture," S. Michael Craven offers, "not by political coercion but through intellectual influence, missional activity, and compassionate outreach." But, in today's culture, where a candidate can be elected President through 'inclusive and universal' change even by those who claim Christianity as their religion, such formability has become systematically reduced to "religious ritual and personal piety."
As the world has become increasingly intolerant of its views and its mission, the Church has withdrawn into its beautiful buildings and subcultured language, symbols, and literature. It has strayed away from the very calling of its mission and ill-equipped those daring enough to venture into the culture of deprived and sinful world. It has become a victim of the culture, influences, and worldview of a society it was supposed to save.
S Michael Craven, president of The Center for Christ and Culture, is considered to be one of the leading cultural apologists in the modern world and offers those daring enough to engage in discussion a thought-provoking and challenging look at the crisis facing the movement started by Jesus Christ and the ineffectiveness of modern Christianity in meeting that commission given in his book Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming Our Culturalized Christianity.
"Empty-headed evangelism," Craven believes, is the "dumbed down Christian theology" that has created a generation of Christians who are afraid to engage in the hard questions that society uses to silence the witness of the followers of Christ, prevents effective discipleship, and has created a world where the immoral views of humanism are dominant. He calls for a renewed, biblical form of engagement in the battle for the lost souls of the world, in an effective and culturally changing mindset.
Missional apologetics.
A way of engaging the culture in a way that historical apologetics (classical, presuppositional, and evidential) has failed to do. In "addressing the ideas or ideological influences common to a given culture," and recognizing "social issues and their underlying ideas or worldviews," missional Christianity becomes more of a "rescue force that is determined to stay until all are rescued" instead of a hit-and-run commando force that is only here to harass the enemy forces.
"The missional Christian presses into the world wherever he or she is," Craven defines this 'new', highly trained warrior. "and pushes back the darkness with the love of Christ."
In Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming Our Culturalized Christianity, Craven not only challenges us to learn the way to effectively engage the culture that we have unknowingly allowed to affect our faith but he offers thought-provoking arguments on how those influences have brought a once effective and life changing reality to the former shadow of itself.
Post-enlightenment, postmodernism, and the persuasive consumerism of American culture have allowed "social acceptance of false moral perspectives" as culturized Christians have become increasingly unable to "articulate meaningful, rational, and compelling reasons" for the Gospel message of morality. Only 4% of American Christians use a biblical worldview as a basis for decisions, and even that worldview is more of an espousing of Christian tenets rather than a framework for 'analyzing, evaluating, and guiding' one's lifestyle.
Craven describes this necessity of having a "Christian philosophy of life….where men understand all of reality and its nature in connection with the revealed Word of God" for the effective engagement of a culture and society that has become increasingly anti-Christian. In looking at the effects of modernity and modernism, postmodernism, and consumerism upon our faith, Craven calls us to 'represent the Kingdom of God' through "distinct community…and serving the world through compassion and mercy in meeting humanity's needs and being just."
Reading his book, we are taken upon a journey of understanding the cultural influences and how they have changed the biblical context of God's grace, mercy and glory. We are offered a restoring and effective way to rejoin that unique and achievable goal of being part of God's redemptive work in a world gone crazy by understanding how the morality of our faith has been suborned by secularism. Craven looks at the cultural influences of our modern times, the social issues that plaster the landscape of American society, and calls us to engage that culture through 'demonstrating the reign of God within…authenticating community" with understanding and love.
"If we want to overcome our Culturalized Christianity to worship and serve the King of Kings; we must recover this broader understanding of our mission as Christians in the world. We must learn to properly analyze and intelligently engage the culture, and we must interact with each other and the world in a spirit of grace, love and charity."
Far from emergent, universal, and New Age spirituality movements that disengage God from life, Craven offers a means of understanding and being effective as believers in the cultural influences of our age with the effectiveness of Paul, the compassion of Peter, and the ultimate reality-changing and life-giving impact of Jesus Christ.
I would recommend picking up a copy of Craven's book and challenge you to develop an 'uncompromised faith.'
Thursday, March 12
What kind of God is that?
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (II Kings 2:23-24)
The poster on AFA's site on Facebook said that it is things like this moment in the biblical text that caused him to realize that "because the God that's described in the Bible is cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful, and impossible" is not a God "worthy of worship, or of any consideration whatsoever" after a 'misspent' youth in a fundamentalist church that he was 'born into.'
I decided to post my response to it here on my blog. I'll post an invite to read it, but thought it should be written here where I am solely responsible for its contents.
Of course, without digging further (as the poster claims to have done more than most believers) we wouldn't discover those things that would bring this circumstance into possibly a more 'understandable' light.
The word used for 'children' here means idolatrous or infidel young men. We'll look into why these men were 'idolatrous' or 'infidel' in a moment. Also, the retort of the 'children' of 'baldhead'(קֵרֵחַ) was a epithet of contempt in the East, viciously applied even to people with a full bushel of hair, which was mostly meant to imply the person was 'unclean like a leper', if we look at the requirement that a priest examine the bald spots on people's heads (Leviticus 13:40-44) and see if they were suffering from leprosy.
So, these young men were being very vicious in their slander of a prophet of God.
And, the 'go up' is a reference to this prophet's Master and is a case of modern-day religious persecution……
But, let's not stop there. Going back further, into Genesis, we discover more on our 'deeper' discovery of what 'extenuating circumstances' could lay behind the outcome of this incident.
Bethel was established by Jacob (who was renamed Israel and the patriarch of the Twelve Tribes) and means "House of God". Jacob named it Bethel because this is where God spoke to him after he fled the wrath of his brother Esau. A deeper search into the history of Jacob is for another discussion, surely which a person who seeks understanding of the character of God would endeavor to undertake.
Now, there was an altar built, El-Bethel, which means "God of the House of God," so labeled by Jacob for the "God, who answered me when I was troubled and who has been with me wherever I've gone." So Bethel has a historical spiritual significance that doesn't get portrayed in the account our poster cites as one of many examples of a God who is bitter to swallow and mean-spirited.
Now, the books of Kings (1&2) chronicle the 'royalty' of Israel's early history, another example of God's chosen people not believing that they should be different from the other nations of the world and demanding from Samuel that they be given a "real King to rule over them" rather than the 'judge' format of government that was established from the time of Moses. Even in the context of human experience, the history isn't that great with the majority of the kings being wicked and evil in the sight of God.
But it is Jeroboam that we want to pull from the histories of the Israel kings. Jeroboam was the son of Nebat and an Ephrathite named Zeruah and an officer in Solomon's kingdom appointed to oversee the forced labor of the tribe of Joseph in Jerusalem, who was chosen by God to punish Solomon for turning to the pagan worship of Astarte (the goddess of the Sidonians), Chemosh (the god of Moab), and Milcom (the god of Ammon) and not following God's ways in doing what was right and established through the Mosaic law as King David, his father, had done. Again, the story of Solomon deserves more than a curtsy glance, but that isn't part of this discussion.
God chose the prophet Ahijah to tell Jeroboam that he would take 10 tribes from Solomon's legacy, for God was going to divide the kingdom but spare Solomon total defeat due to the faith of his father, David. As with each decree, commandment or law of God, God gives an opportunity for doing the right thing to those He has given them to.
Solomon's son, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are no different; Rehoboam is offered a chance to abandon the pagan worship of his father by the people of Israel.
Jeroboam was told at the time of the division prophecy that "If you will do all I command you, follow My ways, and do what I consider right by obeying My laws and commands as My servant David did, then I will be with you. I will build a permanent dynasty for you as I did for David. And I will give you Israel."
God gives many chances for us to return to what is right. Much like a human father and mother are oft to do.
Rehoboam, rejecting the wise counsel of elders who had serve his father in the past and instead accepting the foolish and inexperienced counsel of his peers, proclaims that he will be far worse than his father was. Israel rebels and proclaims Jeroboam King, and Rehoboam is left with Jerusalem, as prophesied by Ahijah.
Jeroboam, who rebuilds Shechem in Ephraim, is afraid if the Israelites return to Jerusalem to worship God, he will be rejected and killed in favor of Rehoboam. So he seeks to protect his newfound status as King by giving the Israelites two pagan calves to worship, much like they did in the wilderness when Moses was receiving the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai, and proclaiming "You have worshipped in Jerusalem long enough. Here are the gods who brought you out of Egypt." A festival, on the fifteenth day of the eighth month is established for these 'gods' with priests established from non-Levite tribes.
Worshipping these gods became a national sin, with the Israelites rejecting God's favor and commandments to follow these new gods. It is in Bethel where Jeroboam goes to burn an offering to the pagan calf-gods on the appointed day of his invented festival. (1 Kings 11 & 12 GW)
So, we have a people in a state of national sin and corruption and from these people comes a large crowd of idolatrous and infidel young men. They are very proud of, and fond of, this calf of Jeroboam's and hate those who reprove them of their pagan worship. So, a very angry and hate-filled gathering comes against God's invested prophet Elisah, who has purified the water so that the deaths and crop failures from the corrupted water supply would cease. He proclaims God's word, and yet this crowd comes against him.
They mock God through His prophet and Elisah speaks a Spirit-inspired curse. Only 42 of the gathered are killed, in an undeniable fashion through God's punishment, for the course they had undertaken and the deliberate mocking of God's blessing and the prophet who delivered it.
So, far from "simply [making] fun of a "prophet's" baldness", this exposes a "supposedly just and merciful deity" that holds not only His chosen people, but Himself to "the highest standards of all." And, the 'differentiation between the Old and New Testaments" doesn't exist. God was, in the context of this moment in the story, far more merciful than He had the justification to be.
"Perhaps some of you who take that book literally can tell me what I ought to be thinking..." the poster comments......
I would venture that you should dig deeper for understanding.
Far from the "grisly death as [an] appropriate punishment from poking fun at a chrome-domed holy man, it shows an absolute authority and mercy even in the Old Testament. The Creator shows very high patience between the sin and the punishment, giving ample time for repentance and restoration.
The poster claims that the bible "is cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful and impossible." I would stipulate that the argument that he gives against those who believe in the authority and literal interpretation of the Biblical text is far more 'cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful and impossible' than he wants to admit.
This event, and the poster's comments behind it, shows the completeness that goes far beyond any human capability of achieving, in any societial context or culture, of the authority and fullness of God and highlights the difference between the 'wages of sin' and the 'evil nature of a wicked humanity'as opposed to the righteousness and moral authority of a loving and just God.
But I'm not here to refute this poster's argument, I think the biblical story itself brings an understanding to linear human thinking of a possible justification of such a brutal punishment. God shows us higher standard and tells us to follow the example shown....Of course, there are those who would still say that even in the light of the full story, there was no reason for delivering such punishment.
I, obviously, would have to disagree.
When a sixteen year old decides to engage in sexual relations, and becomes pregnant…what is the 'just' punishment? Beyond the aspect of 'you play, you pay?'
For the mother-to-be or the child that grows inside her? Who loses, and who has the 'higher' standard for the right to live?
What about a wife who decides to engage in an extra-martial affair…..what is the just punishment? She made a choice, and lives with the consequences, but why do the husband and the children suffer as well? Were is the justification in punishing the children?
Far better is a religion that tells it's faithful to kill those who don't convert or kill those who have the misfortune to belong to a family that practices such 'religious' decrees and decides it is their right to believe what they want, not what they are told?
Far better then the allowance of that unfaithful wife to be beheaded under the dictates of that religion? What if that 'unfaithfulness' is the fact the husband doesn't think she makes a good wife?
There is no such dictate under the Christian faith, even the fundamentalist denomination to which the poster claims to have had wasted his youth by being 'born' into.
If we apply human standards and moral authority to the Biblical text, we find ourselves afraid of this God who seems far more evil than He has a right by our standards to be. And not in the least desirous to know Him. We subject the truth to our view, our thoughts and our character to explain a God we cannot explain in our sinful nature.
We reject such a deity because we have the human condition of wickedness, evil and atrocities against each other as our standards, where truth is subjective to the culture, the national image or the desire of the individual.
But when we take in the fullness of God and His eternal character, all of it, releasing the boundaries of human condition to an un-human deity, we discover that God, far from being just cruel, humorless, vengeful and impossible is a complete packet of love, mercy, grace and compassion as well as being faithful to deliver (as well as capable) upon the decisions of His people. For good or bad, our choices are but God brings both good and bad into an eventual 'good' outcome to which only He can know.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty and only a human condition that is placed on a non-linear God.
The absoluteness and proven authority of God, to be just, fair and loving to a created people who don't deserve it is far more worthy of respect and investigation than what has been given. Even if I know I will never truly understand, in this place, the God who allows humanity to destroy itself through its own invention. As a human father, I wouldn't do so.
And, in return for His salvation, bought and purchased for a people (all of humanity) who don't show worthiness for its commission because of His love…all that is asked is that we believe in Jesus Christ and His Truth.
Where is the justification in that, I would ask? Far less than the righteous justification God has in this context.
There's only love.
The poster on AFA's site on Facebook said that it is things like this moment in the biblical text that caused him to realize that "because the God that's described in the Bible is cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful, and impossible" is not a God "worthy of worship, or of any consideration whatsoever" after a 'misspent' youth in a fundamentalist church that he was 'born into.'
I decided to post my response to it here on my blog. I'll post an invite to read it, but thought it should be written here where I am solely responsible for its contents.
Of course, without digging further (as the poster claims to have done more than most believers) we wouldn't discover those things that would bring this circumstance into possibly a more 'understandable' light.
The word used for 'children' here means idolatrous or infidel young men. We'll look into why these men were 'idolatrous' or 'infidel' in a moment. Also, the retort of the 'children' of 'baldhead'(קֵרֵחַ) was a epithet of contempt in the East, viciously applied even to people with a full bushel of hair, which was mostly meant to imply the person was 'unclean like a leper', if we look at the requirement that a priest examine the bald spots on people's heads (Leviticus 13:40-44) and see if they were suffering from leprosy.
So, these young men were being very vicious in their slander of a prophet of God.
And, the 'go up' is a reference to this prophet's Master and is a case of modern-day religious persecution……
But, let's not stop there. Going back further, into Genesis, we discover more on our 'deeper' discovery of what 'extenuating circumstances' could lay behind the outcome of this incident.
Bethel was established by Jacob (who was renamed Israel and the patriarch of the Twelve Tribes) and means "House of God". Jacob named it Bethel because this is where God spoke to him after he fled the wrath of his brother Esau. A deeper search into the history of Jacob is for another discussion, surely which a person who seeks understanding of the character of God would endeavor to undertake.
Now, there was an altar built, El-Bethel, which means "God of the House of God," so labeled by Jacob for the "God, who answered me when I was troubled and who has been with me wherever I've gone." So Bethel has a historical spiritual significance that doesn't get portrayed in the account our poster cites as one of many examples of a God who is bitter to swallow and mean-spirited.
Now, the books of Kings (1&2) chronicle the 'royalty' of Israel's early history, another example of God's chosen people not believing that they should be different from the other nations of the world and demanding from Samuel that they be given a "real King to rule over them" rather than the 'judge' format of government that was established from the time of Moses. Even in the context of human experience, the history isn't that great with the majority of the kings being wicked and evil in the sight of God.
But it is Jeroboam that we want to pull from the histories of the Israel kings. Jeroboam was the son of Nebat and an Ephrathite named Zeruah and an officer in Solomon's kingdom appointed to oversee the forced labor of the tribe of Joseph in Jerusalem, who was chosen by God to punish Solomon for turning to the pagan worship of Astarte (the goddess of the Sidonians), Chemosh (the god of Moab), and Milcom (the god of Ammon) and not following God's ways in doing what was right and established through the Mosaic law as King David, his father, had done. Again, the story of Solomon deserves more than a curtsy glance, but that isn't part of this discussion.
God chose the prophet Ahijah to tell Jeroboam that he would take 10 tribes from Solomon's legacy, for God was going to divide the kingdom but spare Solomon total defeat due to the faith of his father, David. As with each decree, commandment or law of God, God gives an opportunity for doing the right thing to those He has given them to.
Solomon's son, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are no different; Rehoboam is offered a chance to abandon the pagan worship of his father by the people of Israel.
Jeroboam was told at the time of the division prophecy that "If you will do all I command you, follow My ways, and do what I consider right by obeying My laws and commands as My servant David did, then I will be with you. I will build a permanent dynasty for you as I did for David. And I will give you Israel."
God gives many chances for us to return to what is right. Much like a human father and mother are oft to do.
Rehoboam, rejecting the wise counsel of elders who had serve his father in the past and instead accepting the foolish and inexperienced counsel of his peers, proclaims that he will be far worse than his father was. Israel rebels and proclaims Jeroboam King, and Rehoboam is left with Jerusalem, as prophesied by Ahijah.
Jeroboam, who rebuilds Shechem in Ephraim, is afraid if the Israelites return to Jerusalem to worship God, he will be rejected and killed in favor of Rehoboam. So he seeks to protect his newfound status as King by giving the Israelites two pagan calves to worship, much like they did in the wilderness when Moses was receiving the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai, and proclaiming "You have worshipped in Jerusalem long enough. Here are the gods who brought you out of Egypt." A festival, on the fifteenth day of the eighth month is established for these 'gods' with priests established from non-Levite tribes.
Worshipping these gods became a national sin, with the Israelites rejecting God's favor and commandments to follow these new gods. It is in Bethel where Jeroboam goes to burn an offering to the pagan calf-gods on the appointed day of his invented festival. (1 Kings 11 & 12 GW)
So, we have a people in a state of national sin and corruption and from these people comes a large crowd of idolatrous and infidel young men. They are very proud of, and fond of, this calf of Jeroboam's and hate those who reprove them of their pagan worship. So, a very angry and hate-filled gathering comes against God's invested prophet Elisah, who has purified the water so that the deaths and crop failures from the corrupted water supply would cease. He proclaims God's word, and yet this crowd comes against him.
They mock God through His prophet and Elisah speaks a Spirit-inspired curse. Only 42 of the gathered are killed, in an undeniable fashion through God's punishment, for the course they had undertaken and the deliberate mocking of God's blessing and the prophet who delivered it.
So, far from "simply [making] fun of a "prophet's" baldness", this exposes a "supposedly just and merciful deity" that holds not only His chosen people, but Himself to "the highest standards of all." And, the 'differentiation between the Old and New Testaments" doesn't exist. God was, in the context of this moment in the story, far more merciful than He had the justification to be.
"Perhaps some of you who take that book literally can tell me what I ought to be thinking..." the poster comments......
I would venture that you should dig deeper for understanding.
Far from the "grisly death as [an] appropriate punishment from poking fun at a chrome-domed holy man, it shows an absolute authority and mercy even in the Old Testament. The Creator shows very high patience between the sin and the punishment, giving ample time for repentance and restoration.
The poster claims that the bible "is cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful and impossible." I would stipulate that the argument that he gives against those who believe in the authority and literal interpretation of the Biblical text is far more 'cruel, arbitrary, humorless, vengeful and impossible' than he wants to admit.
This event, and the poster's comments behind it, shows the completeness that goes far beyond any human capability of achieving, in any societial context or culture, of the authority and fullness of God and highlights the difference between the 'wages of sin' and the 'evil nature of a wicked humanity'as opposed to the righteousness and moral authority of a loving and just God.
But I'm not here to refute this poster's argument, I think the biblical story itself brings an understanding to linear human thinking of a possible justification of such a brutal punishment. God shows us higher standard and tells us to follow the example shown....Of course, there are those who would still say that even in the light of the full story, there was no reason for delivering such punishment.
I, obviously, would have to disagree.
When a sixteen year old decides to engage in sexual relations, and becomes pregnant…what is the 'just' punishment? Beyond the aspect of 'you play, you pay?'
For the mother-to-be or the child that grows inside her? Who loses, and who has the 'higher' standard for the right to live?
What about a wife who decides to engage in an extra-martial affair…..what is the just punishment? She made a choice, and lives with the consequences, but why do the husband and the children suffer as well? Were is the justification in punishing the children?
Far better is a religion that tells it's faithful to kill those who don't convert or kill those who have the misfortune to belong to a family that practices such 'religious' decrees and decides it is their right to believe what they want, not what they are told?
Far better then the allowance of that unfaithful wife to be beheaded under the dictates of that religion? What if that 'unfaithfulness' is the fact the husband doesn't think she makes a good wife?
There is no such dictate under the Christian faith, even the fundamentalist denomination to which the poster claims to have had wasted his youth by being 'born' into.
If we apply human standards and moral authority to the Biblical text, we find ourselves afraid of this God who seems far more evil than He has a right by our standards to be. And not in the least desirous to know Him. We subject the truth to our view, our thoughts and our character to explain a God we cannot explain in our sinful nature.
We reject such a deity because we have the human condition of wickedness, evil and atrocities against each other as our standards, where truth is subjective to the culture, the national image or the desire of the individual.
But when we take in the fullness of God and His eternal character, all of it, releasing the boundaries of human condition to an un-human deity, we discover that God, far from being just cruel, humorless, vengeful and impossible is a complete packet of love, mercy, grace and compassion as well as being faithful to deliver (as well as capable) upon the decisions of His people. For good or bad, our choices are but God brings both good and bad into an eventual 'good' outcome to which only He can know.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty and only a human condition that is placed on a non-linear God.
The absoluteness and proven authority of God, to be just, fair and loving to a created people who don't deserve it is far more worthy of respect and investigation than what has been given. Even if I know I will never truly understand, in this place, the God who allows humanity to destroy itself through its own invention. As a human father, I wouldn't do so.
And, in return for His salvation, bought and purchased for a people (all of humanity) who don't show worthiness for its commission because of His love…all that is asked is that we believe in Jesus Christ and His Truth.
Where is the justification in that, I would ask? Far less than the righteous justification God has in this context.
There's only love.
Wednesday, February 11
The significance of the events at Golgotha.....
"Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left." Matthew 27:38 "And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death." Luke 23:32
Throughout the world of Christianity, the familiar views of three crosses on a hilltop are symbolic of the death of our Savior and the two thieves that were crucified with Him on that fateful day. The latest diversion from what the meaning behind the symbology of the Cross. “Of this the cross to which [Christ] was nailed was a symbol, as the Apostle declares, ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, pp339-400
There are those who declare that the tradition of three crosses is incorrect and therefore we, as the brethren, must seek out the truth of what transpired that day, because God wants us to have the right symbology…..
Of course, it is the fact that other men have interpreted the Word of God to suit themselves, their theology, and their traditions that have created this 'devastating' error in the history of the church, according to the interpretation of these theologians. This verse is often quoted in reference to praying for leaders, not for support that in addition to salvation, God wants us all to seek after the Truth.
And, according to some theologians, there were not only two thieves upon the Golgotha hilltop that day but also two malefactors. They point to the accounts of Mark and Matthew as support for their declaration. They feel you must know exactly what the truth is about the accounting of bodies upon that hilltop otherwise you are not seeking after God’s will which is “not only that all men be saved, but also that they also come unto a knowledge of the truth.”
According to those who feel that such schematics about the Matthew and Luke accounts regarding the thieves and/or malefactors and how many there are is important, because "God wills not only that all men be saved, but also that they also come unto a knowledge of the truth. At least in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4.
"My desire is, first of all, that you will make requests and prayers and give praise for all men; for kings and all those in authority; so that we may have a calm and quiet life in all fear of God and serious behavior. This is good and pleasing in the eyes of God our Savior; whose desire is that all men may have salvation and come to the knowledge of what is true. For there is one God and one peacemaker between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave himself as an offering for all; witness of which was to be given at the right time; And of this I became a preacher and an Apostle (what I say is true, not false,) and a teacher of the Gentiles in the true faith." 1 Timothy 2:1-7 BBE
If we expand our reading beyond the quotation of the verse 4, we see that Paul was speaking of praying for all men, kings, and authority figures because God desires that all know salvation and come into the knowledge of their Savior. Not knowledge of the subjective truth of how many was crucified upon Golgotha with our Lord.
But, those who stand against the tradition of three crosses say that the brethren face a quandary; either you continue to believe what you have been taught or you change your mind to bring your belief into alignment and harmony with God's Word.
There is no quarter given for the simple fact that the events upon the hilltop outside the city proper require 'correctness' about one thing; Jesus Christ was crucified and died, according to prophecy. Though the totality of the Good News doesn't end there, this is what we need to take away from the account. In that, there is no 'division' between Matthew's and Luke's account. Christ died upon the Cross.
In so far as God is concerned, He does expect us to test all things. In Lamentations 3:40, “Let us carefully examine our ways, and let us return to the LORD. “
“Always rejoice, constantly pray, in everything give thanks. For this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt. But examine all things; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-21 NET.)
The Lord expects us to test all things (1 John 4:1), and see if they are of God. If they are of God, then we are to place them within our hearts. If they are not of God, nor advance us in the commission of the Gospel, then we are to discard them as fruitless endeavors of non-eternal significance. Let's not get distracted with doctrines and traditions in which God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not the central theme.
"There is one Mediator, and that Mediator gave himself a ransom for all. And this appointment has been made for the benefit of the Jews and the Gentiles of every nation; that all who are willing may come in this way, to the mercy-seat of a pardoning God, to seek reconciliation with him. Sin had made a quarrel between us and God; Jesus Christ is the Mediator who makes peace." Matthew Henry writes in his concise commentary on this opening to 1 Timothy, "He is a ransom that was to be known in due time. In the Old Testament times, his sufferings, and the glory that should follow, were spoken of as things to be revealed in the last times. Those who are saved must come to the knowledge of the truth, for that is God's appointed way to save sinners: if we do not know the truth, we cannot be ruled by it."
This seems to be a more fruitful endeavor in which to pursue Scriptural understanding, so that we can conform ourselves to the example set forth by Christ.
If you look at the Crucifixion as having to have certain elements in its physical makeup, then indeed you have a subjective outlook upon the whole and are missing the importance of what took place upon that hill in Jerusalem. You will be in a quandary…..for there will always be subjective opinions about the physical makeup of this event.
The Truth is simple: according to prophecy and the plan of God, Christ came to earth (fully God, fully man) and lived as a man for thirty-three years (give or take) and was crucified upon a cross for the sins of all mankind, and rose again (as prophesied) after three days.
In this theologian's effort in 'narrative development' there is a 'major' discrepancy in the biblical accounts of Matthew (who wrote to the Jews) and Luke. They point that there are many 'apparent contradictions' in the bible and one must have a real faith in the 'integrity of the Word' to overcome them.
So, were there more than three upon Golgotha that day?
Matthew states in verse 44 that "…the thieves who were on the crosses said evil words to him," apparently from both sides, as Matthew puts the two thieves on the right and left of Christ. Luke, in verses 39-40 of chapter 23, states that "two others, evil-doers [malefactors], were taken with him to be put to death," and placed on the right and left of Christ. This is the presentation of the first problem, easily explained by the 'assumption' that two were on either side of Christ, who was centered in this collection of human infliction of cruelty upon humans. But, if this was the case, why would Matthew and Luke ignore the two others who were in the image they endured?
What about John’s account, the only apostle to bear witness to the actual crucifixion? “Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst.” (John 19:18 DRB)
According to the proponents for more than three, the King James Version says "two thieves;" (Greek duo (two) lestai (robbers)). The Greek word for thieves is different, kleptes. So, they put forth that duo lestai were crucified with Jesus, but after an interim of time. And in the Luke account, the Greek form is duo kakourgol (malefactors). These malefactors were crucified at the same time as Christ.
Adam Clarke states “Matthew and Mark in the parallel places calls them robbers or murderers; they probably belonged to the gang of Barabbas.”
“All the Synoptists describe the character of the two who were crucified with Jesus,” the entry in Vincent’s Word Studies states, “Matthew and Mark, robbers; Luke, malefactors. All three use the phrase, one on the right, the other on the left, and so, substantially, John: on either side one. John says nothing about the character of these two, but simply describes them as two others.”
But, as the argument continues, either thieves (or robbers) revile Christ but only one malefactor in Luke’s account ‘rails on him’ whiles the other defends him. To me, it seems that Matthew's wording suggests that both of the criminals spoke harshly to him and one of them quickly changed his attitude toward Jesus, coming to his defense in the realization of who he truly was. Or since John and the women were the closest to Christ that the other people in attendance simply didn’t hear the exchange through the verbal lashing from the crowds?.
Another discrepancy within the Matthew and Luke accounts, according to these proponents, is that the ‘malefactors’ of Luke were taken with Christ to be crucified, while the thieves of Matthew were crucified after the casting of Christ’s garments.
According to what we know of historical accounts, crucifixions were one of the cruelest forms of death ever devised by man. Through the histories of the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and Roman cultures, we can find a fairly accurate picture of what transpired.
The agonies victims were subjected to in the form of painful (and non-fatal) wounds, the strain of the abnormal positioning of the body where the slightest movement (lifting up with the feet to breathe) caused horrible pain, and the traumatic fever brought on by hanging for such a long time. Medical studies in our age have pieced together the reason for death from crucifixion; heart failure. The blood sinks rapidly to the lower extremities, dropping the blood pressure in half and doubling the pulse in a matter of six to twelve minutes inducing fainting due to the depravation of blood to the heart.
But victims did not die rapidly, succumbing to heart failure as long as three days after. To hasten death, the Romans practiced ‘crucifragium’, the breaking of legs.
If we look to the accounts for this factor, the crucifragium, we find in John’s account that only two pair of legs was broken, to conclude this vicious and brutal form of death before the start of the Sabbath.
“So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other.” (John 19:32 NET.)
If we take into account the timing of a typical crucifixion, two to three days, unless the crucifiers broke the legs of the victims, we run into a problem. If the two malefactors of Luke were crucified with Christ, there is no accounting of them to the point of death. Only two pair of legs was broken, as Christ was dead before the soldiers took such action. If four other victims were crucified, regardless of the time frame, the soldiers would have broken four pair of legs to conclude death before the fall of the Sabbath period.
According to our proponents of four others in addition to Christ, the interlinear translation of Stephens Greek Text (the source of the King James Version translation), there is no corresponding Greek word for one, which is in brackets. This proves, according to them, that the Western Church was so indoctrinated with a three cross symbology by 1611 that the translators simply removed the brackets. Removing the ‘one’ inclusion, the verse reads, “Where they crucified him, and two others with him on both side, and Jesus in the midst.”
To bring into compliance the breaking of apparently four pair of legs, they simply conclude that the soldiers broke the legs of the first two on the one side of Christ and then carried out the same on the two on the opposite side.
They point to the Greek again in support, in the form of heteros and alios, which mean the same ‘other’ but are used in two different contexts. The usage of ‘other’ or alios in John’s account is said to be used when there may have been more than two involved. In Luke, the Greek form of ‘other’, or heteros, is used to count the malefactors who were led to crucifixion with Christ.
So, it could easily be four victims that were crucified at different times with our Savior and Lord. Or it could simply be an over thinking of the importance of the physics of the Crucifixion.
You do have a quandary, not whether you accept that there were two or four 'thieves" crucified that day at Golgotha by the Roman government. If your faith is based upon the number of victims killed with Christ, then the basis of your faith is grounded in the wrong place.
The significance of the two thieves' exchange about Christ stands as testimony to the two choices that we, as fallen and broken human beings, have to make. Accept that Christ, innocent and blameless, took upon the punishment of a thief for our sins. Or ridicule that sacrifice as improbable and proof that He was not the Son of God.
Matthew’s account brings to light the mockery made of the Kingly claim of Christ, which was the theme of his gospel; portraying Christ as the Promised Messiah of the Jewish nation. The crown of thorns, the scepter, and the title over the cross speak of this. He leaves us with a witness to the Kingly claim of our Lord.
Luke’s account brings to mind the accounting of Christ’s sacrifice. As two malefactors were being killed for their crimes, so every sinner must die to their sins to be saved. The closing of the Luke account declares “surely this was a righteous man” and supports the theme of his Gospel, that Jesus Christ was the Son of Man, victorious in the resurrection.
John’s account shows us the sacrifice and dual nature of Christ, that He was fully man and fully God---the only one capable of enduring such hatred for the uncompromising love of the Father. He declared, as only He could, “IT IS DONE!” John’s theme is amplified in his crucifixion account, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He died as a man, righteous and blameless, for the sins of all of us and as God, defeated death to rise again.
Does it truly matter whether we accept the tradition and doctrine of the three crosses atop Golgotha or declare those traditions in error, that four were brutalized and killed with our Savior? Or, by quibbling about the number of victims that day, do we detract and distract those baby souls who have accepted Christ’s sacrifice to the point of dismay?
God gave us a free will, and it is that free will those proponents of five victims that fateful day 2000 years ago say call us to consider the ‘truth’ of God’s word. To stop, as they put it, using the ‘traditional’ way of viewing the Bible from the outside to the inside and using the ‘truthful’ way of looking from the inside out. It is only when you grasp such a concept, they claim, that you can begin the discovery of God’s Word.
I would conclude that God inspired the writers of the Gospels to reach those He directed them to, recording in their own words and themes, the episode of the crucifixion so that a four dimensional picture would be created as those audiences progressed further in relationship with God and explored the other’s account of this pivotal moment in God’s redemption of mankind. And the importance of the Calvary story isn't in the amount of thieves and malefactors crucified, at any time, with Christ but rather the sacrifice of Christ upon the cruelest of mankind's invention of torture; the Cross. For that sacrifice makes mute the points of doctrinal differences that man creates.
“He is the head of the Body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:18
Cornelius Tacitus, perhaps the greatest Roman historian, writes in his manuscripts The Annals, “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
The Jewish historian, Josephus, in his writings Antiquities 18, writes, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Lucian of Samosata, second century Greek satirist, mocked early Christians in his work: “The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, (Tertullian, as anglicized), was an early Christian writer and lawyer. He references a letter from Pontius Pilate regarding the crucifixion, in which the significance of the sacrifice upon the Cross is noted. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity…"
It is the divinity of Christ, and His ability to deliver the perfect sacrifice for the just punishment of sin, that is highlighted in the exchange of one's realization of His innocence and Christ's reply…."Today, you will be with Me in paradise….."
Maybe we should take from Tertullian's Apology the way to view the significance of the events on Golgotha and the traditions of the Church. "And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image. But the said Cornelius Tacitus (the very opposite of tacit in telling lies) informs us in the work already mentioned, that when Cneius Pompeius captured Jerusalem, he entered the temple to see the arcana of the Jewish religion, but found no image there. Yet surely if worship was rendered to any visible object, the very place for its exhibition would be the shrine; and that all the more that the worship, however unreasonable, had no need there to fear outside beholders…… Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. If you offer homage to a piece of wood at all, it matters little what it is like when the substance is the same: it is of no consequence the form, if you have the very body of the god. …….The object of our worship is the One God,(4) He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of K osmos
. The eye cannot see Him, though He is (spiritually) visible. He is incomprehensible, though in grace He is manifested. He is beyond our utmost thought, though our human faculties conceive of Him. He is therefore equally real and great. But that which, in the ordinary sense, can be seen and handled and conceived, is inferior to the eyes by which it is taken in, and the hands by which it is tainted, and the faculties by which it is discovered; but that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions--our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown. And this is the crowning guilt of men, that they will not recognize One, of whom they cannot possibly be ignorant. Would you have the proof from the works of His hands, so numerous and so great, which both contain you and sustain you, which minister at once to your enjoyment, and strike you with awe; or would you rather have it from the testimony of the soul itself? Though under the oppressive bondage of the body, though led astray by depraving customs, though enervated by lusts and passions, though in slavery to false gods; yet, whenever the soul comes to itself, as out of a surfeit, or a sleep, or a sickness, and attains something of its natural soundness, it speaks of God; using no other word, because this is the peculiar name of the true God. "God is great and good"--"Which may God give," are the words on every lip. It bears witness, too, that God is judge, exclaiming, "God sees," and, "I commend myself to God," and, "God will repay me." O noble testimony of the soul by nature Christian! Then, too, in using such words as these, it looks not to the Capitol, but to the heavens. It knows that there is the throne of the living God, as from Him and from thence itself came down. But, that we might attain an ampler and more authoritative knowledge at once of Himself, and of His counsels and will, God has added a written revelation for the behoof of every one whose heart is set on seeking Him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing obey."
Throughout the world of Christianity, the familiar views of three crosses on a hilltop are symbolic of the death of our Savior and the two thieves that were crucified with Him on that fateful day. The latest diversion from what the meaning behind the symbology of the Cross. “Of this the cross to which [Christ] was nailed was a symbol, as the Apostle declares, ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, pp339-400
There are those who declare that the tradition of three crosses is incorrect and therefore we, as the brethren, must seek out the truth of what transpired that day, because God wants us to have the right symbology…..
Of course, it is the fact that other men have interpreted the Word of God to suit themselves, their theology, and their traditions that have created this 'devastating' error in the history of the church, according to the interpretation of these theologians. This verse is often quoted in reference to praying for leaders, not for support that in addition to salvation, God wants us all to seek after the Truth.
And, according to some theologians, there were not only two thieves upon the Golgotha hilltop that day but also two malefactors. They point to the accounts of Mark and Matthew as support for their declaration. They feel you must know exactly what the truth is about the accounting of bodies upon that hilltop otherwise you are not seeking after God’s will which is “not only that all men be saved, but also that they also come unto a knowledge of the truth.”
According to those who feel that such schematics about the Matthew and Luke accounts regarding the thieves and/or malefactors and how many there are is important, because "God wills not only that all men be saved, but also that they also come unto a knowledge of the truth. At least in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4.
"My desire is, first of all, that you will make requests and prayers and give praise for all men; for kings and all those in authority; so that we may have a calm and quiet life in all fear of God and serious behavior. This is good and pleasing in the eyes of God our Savior; whose desire is that all men may have salvation and come to the knowledge of what is true. For there is one God and one peacemaker between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave himself as an offering for all; witness of which was to be given at the right time; And of this I became a preacher and an Apostle (what I say is true, not false,) and a teacher of the Gentiles in the true faith." 1 Timothy 2:1-7 BBE
If we expand our reading beyond the quotation of the verse 4, we see that Paul was speaking of praying for all men, kings, and authority figures because God desires that all know salvation and come into the knowledge of their Savior. Not knowledge of the subjective truth of how many was crucified upon Golgotha with our Lord.
But, those who stand against the tradition of three crosses say that the brethren face a quandary; either you continue to believe what you have been taught or you change your mind to bring your belief into alignment and harmony with God's Word.
There is no quarter given for the simple fact that the events upon the hilltop outside the city proper require 'correctness' about one thing; Jesus Christ was crucified and died, according to prophecy. Though the totality of the Good News doesn't end there, this is what we need to take away from the account. In that, there is no 'division' between Matthew's and Luke's account. Christ died upon the Cross.
In so far as God is concerned, He does expect us to test all things. In Lamentations 3:40, “Let us carefully examine our ways, and let us return to the LORD. “
“Always rejoice, constantly pray, in everything give thanks. For this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt. But examine all things; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-21 NET.)
The Lord expects us to test all things (1 John 4:1), and see if they are of God. If they are of God, then we are to place them within our hearts. If they are not of God, nor advance us in the commission of the Gospel, then we are to discard them as fruitless endeavors of non-eternal significance. Let's not get distracted with doctrines and traditions in which God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not the central theme.
"There is one Mediator, and that Mediator gave himself a ransom for all. And this appointment has been made for the benefit of the Jews and the Gentiles of every nation; that all who are willing may come in this way, to the mercy-seat of a pardoning God, to seek reconciliation with him. Sin had made a quarrel between us and God; Jesus Christ is the Mediator who makes peace." Matthew Henry writes in his concise commentary on this opening to 1 Timothy, "He is a ransom that was to be known in due time. In the Old Testament times, his sufferings, and the glory that should follow, were spoken of as things to be revealed in the last times. Those who are saved must come to the knowledge of the truth, for that is God's appointed way to save sinners: if we do not know the truth, we cannot be ruled by it."
This seems to be a more fruitful endeavor in which to pursue Scriptural understanding, so that we can conform ourselves to the example set forth by Christ.
If you look at the Crucifixion as having to have certain elements in its physical makeup, then indeed you have a subjective outlook upon the whole and are missing the importance of what took place upon that hill in Jerusalem. You will be in a quandary…..for there will always be subjective opinions about the physical makeup of this event.
The Truth is simple: according to prophecy and the plan of God, Christ came to earth (fully God, fully man) and lived as a man for thirty-three years (give or take) and was crucified upon a cross for the sins of all mankind, and rose again (as prophesied) after three days.
In this theologian's effort in 'narrative development' there is a 'major' discrepancy in the biblical accounts of Matthew (who wrote to the Jews) and Luke. They point that there are many 'apparent contradictions' in the bible and one must have a real faith in the 'integrity of the Word' to overcome them.
So, were there more than three upon Golgotha that day?
Matthew states in verse 44 that "…the thieves who were on the crosses said evil words to him," apparently from both sides, as Matthew puts the two thieves on the right and left of Christ. Luke, in verses 39-40 of chapter 23, states that "two others, evil-doers [malefactors], were taken with him to be put to death," and placed on the right and left of Christ. This is the presentation of the first problem, easily explained by the 'assumption' that two were on either side of Christ, who was centered in this collection of human infliction of cruelty upon humans. But, if this was the case, why would Matthew and Luke ignore the two others who were in the image they endured?
What about John’s account, the only apostle to bear witness to the actual crucifixion? “Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst.” (John 19:18 DRB)
According to the proponents for more than three, the King James Version says "two thieves;" (Greek duo (two) lestai (robbers)). The Greek word for thieves is different, kleptes. So, they put forth that duo lestai were crucified with Jesus, but after an interim of time. And in the Luke account, the Greek form is duo kakourgol (malefactors). These malefactors were crucified at the same time as Christ.
Adam Clarke states “Matthew and Mark in the parallel places calls them robbers or murderers; they probably belonged to the gang of Barabbas.”
“All the Synoptists describe the character of the two who were crucified with Jesus,” the entry in Vincent’s Word Studies states, “Matthew and Mark, robbers; Luke, malefactors. All three use the phrase, one on the right, the other on the left, and so, substantially, John: on either side one. John says nothing about the character of these two, but simply describes them as two others.”
But, as the argument continues, either thieves (or robbers) revile Christ but only one malefactor in Luke’s account ‘rails on him’ whiles the other defends him. To me, it seems that Matthew's wording suggests that both of the criminals spoke harshly to him and one of them quickly changed his attitude toward Jesus, coming to his defense in the realization of who he truly was. Or since John and the women were the closest to Christ that the other people in attendance simply didn’t hear the exchange through the verbal lashing from the crowds?.
Another discrepancy within the Matthew and Luke accounts, according to these proponents, is that the ‘malefactors’ of Luke were taken with Christ to be crucified, while the thieves of Matthew were crucified after the casting of Christ’s garments.
According to what we know of historical accounts, crucifixions were one of the cruelest forms of death ever devised by man. Through the histories of the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and Roman cultures, we can find a fairly accurate picture of what transpired.
The agonies victims were subjected to in the form of painful (and non-fatal) wounds, the strain of the abnormal positioning of the body where the slightest movement (lifting up with the feet to breathe) caused horrible pain, and the traumatic fever brought on by hanging for such a long time. Medical studies in our age have pieced together the reason for death from crucifixion; heart failure. The blood sinks rapidly to the lower extremities, dropping the blood pressure in half and doubling the pulse in a matter of six to twelve minutes inducing fainting due to the depravation of blood to the heart.
But victims did not die rapidly, succumbing to heart failure as long as three days after. To hasten death, the Romans practiced ‘crucifragium’, the breaking of legs.
If we look to the accounts for this factor, the crucifragium, we find in John’s account that only two pair of legs was broken, to conclude this vicious and brutal form of death before the start of the Sabbath.
“So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other.” (John 19:32 NET.)
If we take into account the timing of a typical crucifixion, two to three days, unless the crucifiers broke the legs of the victims, we run into a problem. If the two malefactors of Luke were crucified with Christ, there is no accounting of them to the point of death. Only two pair of legs was broken, as Christ was dead before the soldiers took such action. If four other victims were crucified, regardless of the time frame, the soldiers would have broken four pair of legs to conclude death before the fall of the Sabbath period.
According to our proponents of four others in addition to Christ, the interlinear translation of Stephens Greek Text (the source of the King James Version translation), there is no corresponding Greek word for one, which is in brackets. This proves, according to them, that the Western Church was so indoctrinated with a three cross symbology by 1611 that the translators simply removed the brackets. Removing the ‘one’ inclusion, the verse reads, “Where they crucified him, and two others with him on both side, and Jesus in the midst.”
To bring into compliance the breaking of apparently four pair of legs, they simply conclude that the soldiers broke the legs of the first two on the one side of Christ and then carried out the same on the two on the opposite side.
They point to the Greek again in support, in the form of heteros and alios, which mean the same ‘other’ but are used in two different contexts. The usage of ‘other’ or alios in John’s account is said to be used when there may have been more than two involved. In Luke, the Greek form of ‘other’, or heteros, is used to count the malefactors who were led to crucifixion with Christ.
So, it could easily be four victims that were crucified at different times with our Savior and Lord. Or it could simply be an over thinking of the importance of the physics of the Crucifixion.
You do have a quandary, not whether you accept that there were two or four 'thieves" crucified that day at Golgotha by the Roman government. If your faith is based upon the number of victims killed with Christ, then the basis of your faith is grounded in the wrong place.
The significance of the two thieves' exchange about Christ stands as testimony to the two choices that we, as fallen and broken human beings, have to make. Accept that Christ, innocent and blameless, took upon the punishment of a thief for our sins. Or ridicule that sacrifice as improbable and proof that He was not the Son of God.
Matthew’s account brings to light the mockery made of the Kingly claim of Christ, which was the theme of his gospel; portraying Christ as the Promised Messiah of the Jewish nation. The crown of thorns, the scepter, and the title over the cross speak of this. He leaves us with a witness to the Kingly claim of our Lord.
Luke’s account brings to mind the accounting of Christ’s sacrifice. As two malefactors were being killed for their crimes, so every sinner must die to their sins to be saved. The closing of the Luke account declares “surely this was a righteous man” and supports the theme of his Gospel, that Jesus Christ was the Son of Man, victorious in the resurrection.
John’s account shows us the sacrifice and dual nature of Christ, that He was fully man and fully God---the only one capable of enduring such hatred for the uncompromising love of the Father. He declared, as only He could, “IT IS DONE!” John’s theme is amplified in his crucifixion account, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He died as a man, righteous and blameless, for the sins of all of us and as God, defeated death to rise again.
Does it truly matter whether we accept the tradition and doctrine of the three crosses atop Golgotha or declare those traditions in error, that four were brutalized and killed with our Savior? Or, by quibbling about the number of victims that day, do we detract and distract those baby souls who have accepted Christ’s sacrifice to the point of dismay?
God gave us a free will, and it is that free will those proponents of five victims that fateful day 2000 years ago say call us to consider the ‘truth’ of God’s word. To stop, as they put it, using the ‘traditional’ way of viewing the Bible from the outside to the inside and using the ‘truthful’ way of looking from the inside out. It is only when you grasp such a concept, they claim, that you can begin the discovery of God’s Word.
I would conclude that God inspired the writers of the Gospels to reach those He directed them to, recording in their own words and themes, the episode of the crucifixion so that a four dimensional picture would be created as those audiences progressed further in relationship with God and explored the other’s account of this pivotal moment in God’s redemption of mankind. And the importance of the Calvary story isn't in the amount of thieves and malefactors crucified, at any time, with Christ but rather the sacrifice of Christ upon the cruelest of mankind's invention of torture; the Cross. For that sacrifice makes mute the points of doctrinal differences that man creates.
“He is the head of the Body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:18
Cornelius Tacitus, perhaps the greatest Roman historian, writes in his manuscripts The Annals, “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
The Jewish historian, Josephus, in his writings Antiquities 18, writes, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Lucian of Samosata, second century Greek satirist, mocked early Christians in his work: “The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, (Tertullian, as anglicized), was an early Christian writer and lawyer. He references a letter from Pontius Pilate regarding the crucifixion, in which the significance of the sacrifice upon the Cross is noted. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity…"
It is the divinity of Christ, and His ability to deliver the perfect sacrifice for the just punishment of sin, that is highlighted in the exchange of one's realization of His innocence and Christ's reply…."Today, you will be with Me in paradise….."
Maybe we should take from Tertullian's Apology the way to view the significance of the events on Golgotha and the traditions of the Church. "And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image. But the said Cornelius Tacitus (the very opposite of tacit in telling lies) informs us in the work already mentioned, that when Cneius Pompeius captured Jerusalem, he entered the temple to see the arcana of the Jewish religion, but found no image there. Yet surely if worship was rendered to any visible object, the very place for its exhibition would be the shrine; and that all the more that the worship, however unreasonable, had no need there to fear outside beholders…… Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. If you offer homage to a piece of wood at all, it matters little what it is like when the substance is the same: it is of no consequence the form, if you have the very body of the god. …….The object of our worship is the One God,(4) He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of K osmos
. The eye cannot see Him, though He is (spiritually) visible. He is incomprehensible, though in grace He is manifested. He is beyond our utmost thought, though our human faculties conceive of Him. He is therefore equally real and great. But that which, in the ordinary sense, can be seen and handled and conceived, is inferior to the eyes by which it is taken in, and the hands by which it is tainted, and the faculties by which it is discovered; but that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions--our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown. And this is the crowning guilt of men, that they will not recognize One, of whom they cannot possibly be ignorant. Would you have the proof from the works of His hands, so numerous and so great, which both contain you and sustain you, which minister at once to your enjoyment, and strike you with awe; or would you rather have it from the testimony of the soul itself? Though under the oppressive bondage of the body, though led astray by depraving customs, though enervated by lusts and passions, though in slavery to false gods; yet, whenever the soul comes to itself, as out of a surfeit, or a sleep, or a sickness, and attains something of its natural soundness, it speaks of God; using no other word, because this is the peculiar name of the true God. "God is great and good"--"Which may God give," are the words on every lip. It bears witness, too, that God is judge, exclaiming, "God sees," and, "I commend myself to God," and, "God will repay me." O noble testimony of the soul by nature Christian! Then, too, in using such words as these, it looks not to the Capitol, but to the heavens. It knows that there is the throne of the living God, as from Him and from thence itself came down. But, that we might attain an ampler and more authoritative knowledge at once of Himself, and of His counsels and will, God has added a written revelation for the behoof of every one whose heart is set on seeking Him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing obey."
Monday, October 27
The right to vote, a thought from my friend Steve Coffman....
The Right to Vote, a Patriotic Gift
How much do you appreciate your right to vote? Is it something that you truly cherish, or is it something that you just take this for granted? Consider this fact; throughout our American history, many average citizens like you and me fought for this right, and in some cases, even died for the right to vote! This is a patriotic gift from the struggles of many patriotic citizens that we should never be taken for granted.
Did you know that there are no laws for "the right to vote" in our United States Constitution? These rights were added only in the Amendments to the Constitution. Each state's standards have evolved separately, unless federal laws were passed that applied to every state. When our country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote, (although freed African Americans could vote in four states). White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied this right, that some take for granted today.
At the beginning of the Civil War, most white men were finally allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property, due to the efforts of those who championed this cause for frontiersmen and white immigrants, (who had to wait 14 years for citizenship and their right to vote, in some cases). Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various states, and most of the white women, people of color, and Native Americans still did not have the right to vote.
Black Suffrage; The patriotic gifts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed following the Civil War, in the later 1860s. Besides outlawing slavery, these Amendments extended civil rights and suffrage (voting rights) to former slaves. Even thought the right to vote for African-Americans was established, there still were numerous restrictions that kept many black Americans from voting until the 1960s Voting Rights Act was passed. Thanks to the pressures of Dr. Martin Luther King and a powerful civil rights movement, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and provided federal enforcement of voting registration and other rights in several Southern states and Alaska.
Five years later, the patriotic gift of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 provided language assistance to minority voters who did not speak English fluently. Asian Pacific Americans and Latinos were major beneficiaries of this legislation.
Women's Suffrage initiatives to promote voting for women have been traced back as far as the 1770s, but the modern movement for a vote for women traces its beginning to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when supporters of a Constitutional Amendment to allow women to vote finally came together. While this movement was slowed during the Civil War years, the two major suffragist organizations united after the war and pushed forward with a movement that culminated, and after many difficult years, the patriotic gift of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920.
Native Americans had to become American citizens, and give up their tribal affiliations for the right to vote in 1887, but many did not become U. S. citizens until 1924. Most of the Western states continued to deny the right to vote through property requirements, economic pressures, hiding the polls, and condoning of physical violence against those who voted.
Asian Pacific Americans were considered "aliens ineligible for citizenship" since 1790. Interim changes to naturalization and immigration laws in 1943, 1946, and 1952 give the right to vote to some but not all immigrant Asian Pacific Americans. Because citizenship is a (precondition) for the right to vote, immigrant Asian Pacific Americans did not vote in large numbers until 1966 when the immigration and naturalization laws were changed.
Asian Pacific Americans born on American soil were American citizens, and had the right to vote. When 77,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were put in American concentration camps during World War II, their right to vote was withheld during there captivity.
Mexican Americans in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas were supposed to get voting rights along with American citizenship in 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the Mexican American war. Property requirements and literacy requirements were imposed in those states to keep them from voting. The Sons of America, founded in 1921 fought for equality and the right to vote, but all Mexican Americans did not receive the right to vote until 1975.
Americans under the age of twenty-one in the late 1960s protested over their lack of suffrage. Many truly felt that if they were old enough to be drafted into service and go to Vietnam, then they should be able to vote. A series of protests ensued, most notably at the Chicago Democratic Convention, where protestors screamed and chanted many slogans of President Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War, and the right to vote. In 1971, President Johnson signed our patriotic gift of the 26th Amendment granting Americans the right to vote at age eighteen.
I hope you now realize that even in "The land of the Free", the evolution for the right to vote in the America has cost a heavy price for many, and should always be considered a true patriotic gift from those that struggled, endured and gave their life for this privilege that we have today.
Steven Family-eStore
How much do you appreciate your right to vote? Is it something that you truly cherish, or is it something that you just take this for granted? Consider this fact; throughout our American history, many average citizens like you and me fought for this right, and in some cases, even died for the right to vote! This is a patriotic gift from the struggles of many patriotic citizens that we should never be taken for granted.
Did you know that there are no laws for "the right to vote" in our United States Constitution? These rights were added only in the Amendments to the Constitution. Each state's standards have evolved separately, unless federal laws were passed that applied to every state. When our country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote, (although freed African Americans could vote in four states). White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied this right, that some take for granted today.
At the beginning of the Civil War, most white men were finally allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property, due to the efforts of those who championed this cause for frontiersmen and white immigrants, (who had to wait 14 years for citizenship and their right to vote, in some cases). Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various states, and most of the white women, people of color, and Native Americans still did not have the right to vote.
Black Suffrage; The patriotic gifts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed following the Civil War, in the later 1860s. Besides outlawing slavery, these Amendments extended civil rights and suffrage (voting rights) to former slaves. Even thought the right to vote for African-Americans was established, there still were numerous restrictions that kept many black Americans from voting until the 1960s Voting Rights Act was passed. Thanks to the pressures of Dr. Martin Luther King and a powerful civil rights movement, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and provided federal enforcement of voting registration and other rights in several Southern states and Alaska.
Five years later, the patriotic gift of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 provided language assistance to minority voters who did not speak English fluently. Asian Pacific Americans and Latinos were major beneficiaries of this legislation.
Women's Suffrage initiatives to promote voting for women have been traced back as far as the 1770s, but the modern movement for a vote for women traces its beginning to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when supporters of a Constitutional Amendment to allow women to vote finally came together. While this movement was slowed during the Civil War years, the two major suffragist organizations united after the war and pushed forward with a movement that culminated, and after many difficult years, the patriotic gift of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920.
Native Americans had to become American citizens, and give up their tribal affiliations for the right to vote in 1887, but many did not become U. S. citizens until 1924. Most of the Western states continued to deny the right to vote through property requirements, economic pressures, hiding the polls, and condoning of physical violence against those who voted.
Asian Pacific Americans were considered "aliens ineligible for citizenship" since 1790. Interim changes to naturalization and immigration laws in 1943, 1946, and 1952 give the right to vote to some but not all immigrant Asian Pacific Americans. Because citizenship is a (precondition) for the right to vote, immigrant Asian Pacific Americans did not vote in large numbers until 1966 when the immigration and naturalization laws were changed.
Asian Pacific Americans born on American soil were American citizens, and had the right to vote. When 77,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were put in American concentration camps during World War II, their right to vote was withheld during there captivity.
Mexican Americans in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas were supposed to get voting rights along with American citizenship in 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the Mexican American war. Property requirements and literacy requirements were imposed in those states to keep them from voting. The Sons of America, founded in 1921 fought for equality and the right to vote, but all Mexican Americans did not receive the right to vote until 1975.
Americans under the age of twenty-one in the late 1960s protested over their lack of suffrage. Many truly felt that if they were old enough to be drafted into service and go to Vietnam, then they should be able to vote. A series of protests ensued, most notably at the Chicago Democratic Convention, where protestors screamed and chanted many slogans of President Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War, and the right to vote. In 1971, President Johnson signed our patriotic gift of the 26th Amendment granting Americans the right to vote at age eighteen.
I hope you now realize that even in "The land of the Free", the evolution for the right to vote in the America has cost a heavy price for many, and should always be considered a true patriotic gift from those that struggled, endured and gave their life for this privilege that we have today.
Steven Family-eStore
Friday, October 24
All in the name.....
Psalm 143 A psalm of David.
" O LORD, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you. The enemy pursues me, he crushes me to the ground; he makes me dwell in darkness like those long dead. So my spirit grows faint within me; my heart within me is dismayed. I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done. I spread out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land. Selah. Answer me quickly, O LORD; my spirit fails. Do not hide your face from me or I will be like those who go down to the pit. Let the morning bring me word of your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in you. Show me the way I should go, for to you I lift up my soul. Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD, for I hide myself in you. Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground. For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life; in your righteousness, bring me out of trouble. In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant"
Another installment in the 'stretching your mind and your faith' from Andrew and Garry, the writers and drivers behind the Men to Men blog. Still digging into the Psalm 143 written by David, we are asked some additional questions.....
What did David ask God to do in verses 9 and 12?
Of course, that one is easy......rescue and the total destruction of his enemies.....'Silence' and 'destroy'. As we can see in the verses referenced: "Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD, for I hide myself in you." and "In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant." David wants total and complete removal of his 'situations' under God's power. To vanish without recurrence, never again to trouble David's head again.
The next question, What reasons did he cite (check verse 11) for why God should rescue him?
Geez, I thought it was going to be harder......as we can see in the reference, for God "name's sake," as expressed; "For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life; in your righteousness, bring me out of trouble."
But, what does that mean......."for your name's sake." Why would David be so concerned to declare God should rescue him because God's name might be tarnished? The omnipotent God? Come on! There's no way......yet, David calls out for rescue based on that declaration.
I guess one could make a case that David gives more reasons that just for "your name's sake" as justification for immediate and total rescue from God over his enemies and foes. He reflects in verses 9-12, such personal pluses as "I hide myself in you", "I am your servant", "I have put my trust in you", and "I lift up my soul". All good and worthy efforts in the pursue of God.....we are all servants who trust in God to deliver His promise and we lift our soul's to a higher standard than the lost......even if we fail to stay in such lofty places.
My grandfather drilled into me the honor, glory, and uniqueness of my family name, traced back to a Dutch philosopher named Hugo de Groot, who (as best I can discover) was commonly referred to as Huigh de Groot (Dutch) or Hugo Grotius.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition, list this notable figure who lived from 1583 to 1645, as a Dutch jurist and humanist who is often referred to as the father of international law. Grotius was a leading student of theology and biblical criticism, professing natural rights, where things are good or bad by their own nature, breaking from the prevailing Calvinistic theology that God was the only source of ethical qualities.
On May 18, 1619, this would land Grotius in prison for life, due to a Calvinist coup d'état in August that led to his arrest. Several years later though, in 1621, Grotius escapes to Antwerp and eventually to Paris.
Grotius' political literary works include a treatise, The Law of Prizes, for the East India Company (defending Dutch trading and sailing rights), one chapter of which was published under the title Mare liberum (The Free Sea) in 1609, though the rest would remain unpublished until its discovery in 1864; published until its discovery in 1864; 1610, in De antiquitate reipublicae Batavae (The Antiquity of the Batavian State), written in 1610, in which he argued Holland was sovereign and independent since the times of the Romans.
His theological literary works include such heavy tomes as "Prolegomena to the Law of War and Peace" and "De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace)" published in 1625; "True Religion Explained and Defended against the Archenemies Thereof in the Times (The Truth of the Christian Religion)", published in 1632; and "De Jure Praedae (Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty)", published in 1968.
At the end of an eventful life, Hugo Grotius dies from exhaustion on August 28th, 1645 in Rostock, Germany. The final word of this famous figure is "By understanding many things, I have accomplished nothing."
Upon the shores of a new country, Joseph Hutson began the American legacy of the de Groot family in the 1800's. My grandfather would impress upon me the importance of keeping the 'family name' honorable and clear of stain, though I would fail to do so for most of my life.
Throughout the Psalms, this reference of 'name's sake' is made over and over, about ten times, like Psalm 23:3, "He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.", or Psalm 79:9, "….deliver us and forgive our sins for your name's sake".
Psalm 106:8 seems to highlight a bit of reason behind such actions by God, "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, to make his mighty power known."
His name's sake is further developed in Isaiah 48:9, "For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off."
God talks further about why this is important in Ezekiel 20:44, "You will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name's sake and not according to your evil ways and your corrupt practices, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD"
But this phrase is more than just God emphasizing the authority behind His name's sake, the righteousness and incorruptibility of His holiness. It is through and because of His name's sake that we are saved by grace.
Romans 1:5 "Through Him and for His name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."
So, maybe this is why Andrew and Garry chose to highlight that one important and life-altering reason as to why God should move to rescue and destroy David's foes……….not for the health, wealth, or fame of David. Not for his future goals both personal and kingdom purposed. No, something much greater and more powerful than being a servant, keeping the trust, and hiding oneself within the grace and mercy of God's powerful hands.
Deuteronomy 4:29-39 perhaps captures the essence of God's 'name sake:
"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath. Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other."
Because, it is because of who God is, and the holiness and authority by which His name, I AM, is known. The absolute authority of His holiness and righteousness, through which He can deliver the promise of redemption through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, and by 'His name's sake' be unchallenged in his authority to do so.
1 John 2:12 (NASB) "……..your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake."
We have been forgiven under, by, and because of "His name's sake."
For personal ponderance, Andrew and Garry ask......
"Can you tell some reasons why God should rescue you in your present situations?"
And just another thought to close this with……the difference between a worldly, wicked man and a righteous, God-fearing man is the direction in which they run when fear and persecution rear their heads.
Each man has a choice as the grips of fear and failure encircle their hearts. One with no hope will run in flight from such a heavy obstacle while a man of God will stand, with hope, to fight against such as these.
Why?
Because the hope he has in the God I AM, Jehovah, is not secured by worldly assurance or the enemy's defeat, but is secured by the authority, holiness, and absoluteness of God's name.
Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
" O LORD, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you. The enemy pursues me, he crushes me to the ground; he makes me dwell in darkness like those long dead. So my spirit grows faint within me; my heart within me is dismayed. I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done. I spread out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land. Selah. Answer me quickly, O LORD; my spirit fails. Do not hide your face from me or I will be like those who go down to the pit. Let the morning bring me word of your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in you. Show me the way I should go, for to you I lift up my soul. Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD, for I hide myself in you. Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground. For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life; in your righteousness, bring me out of trouble. In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant"
Another installment in the 'stretching your mind and your faith' from Andrew and Garry, the writers and drivers behind the Men to Men blog. Still digging into the Psalm 143 written by David, we are asked some additional questions.....
What did David ask God to do in verses 9 and 12?
Of course, that one is easy......rescue and the total destruction of his enemies.....'Silence' and 'destroy'. As we can see in the verses referenced: "Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD, for I hide myself in you." and "In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant." David wants total and complete removal of his 'situations' under God's power. To vanish without recurrence, never again to trouble David's head again.
The next question, What reasons did he cite (check verse 11) for why God should rescue him?
Geez, I thought it was going to be harder......as we can see in the reference, for God "name's sake," as expressed; "For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life; in your righteousness, bring me out of trouble."
But, what does that mean......."for your name's sake." Why would David be so concerned to declare God should rescue him because God's name might be tarnished? The omnipotent God? Come on! There's no way......yet, David calls out for rescue based on that declaration.
I guess one could make a case that David gives more reasons that just for "your name's sake" as justification for immediate and total rescue from God over his enemies and foes. He reflects in verses 9-12, such personal pluses as "I hide myself in you", "I am your servant", "I have put my trust in you", and "I lift up my soul". All good and worthy efforts in the pursue of God.....we are all servants who trust in God to deliver His promise and we lift our soul's to a higher standard than the lost......even if we fail to stay in such lofty places.
My grandfather drilled into me the honor, glory, and uniqueness of my family name, traced back to a Dutch philosopher named Hugo de Groot, who (as best I can discover) was commonly referred to as Huigh de Groot (Dutch) or Hugo Grotius.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition, list this notable figure who lived from 1583 to 1645, as a Dutch jurist and humanist who is often referred to as the father of international law. Grotius was a leading student of theology and biblical criticism, professing natural rights, where things are good or bad by their own nature, breaking from the prevailing Calvinistic theology that God was the only source of ethical qualities.
On May 18, 1619, this would land Grotius in prison for life, due to a Calvinist coup d'état in August that led to his arrest. Several years later though, in 1621, Grotius escapes to Antwerp and eventually to Paris.
Grotius' political literary works include a treatise, The Law of Prizes, for the East India Company (defending Dutch trading and sailing rights), one chapter of which was published under the title Mare liberum (The Free Sea) in 1609, though the rest would remain unpublished until its discovery in 1864; published until its discovery in 1864; 1610, in De antiquitate reipublicae Batavae (The Antiquity of the Batavian State), written in 1610, in which he argued Holland was sovereign and independent since the times of the Romans.
His theological literary works include such heavy tomes as "Prolegomena to the Law of War and Peace" and "De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace)" published in 1625; "True Religion Explained and Defended against the Archenemies Thereof in the Times (The Truth of the Christian Religion)", published in 1632; and "De Jure Praedae (Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty)", published in 1968.
At the end of an eventful life, Hugo Grotius dies from exhaustion on August 28th, 1645 in Rostock, Germany. The final word of this famous figure is "By understanding many things, I have accomplished nothing."
Upon the shores of a new country, Joseph Hutson began the American legacy of the de Groot family in the 1800's. My grandfather would impress upon me the importance of keeping the 'family name' honorable and clear of stain, though I would fail to do so for most of my life.
Throughout the Psalms, this reference of 'name's sake' is made over and over, about ten times, like Psalm 23:3, "He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.", or Psalm 79:9, "….deliver us and forgive our sins for your name's sake".
Psalm 106:8 seems to highlight a bit of reason behind such actions by God, "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, to make his mighty power known."
His name's sake is further developed in Isaiah 48:9, "For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off."
God talks further about why this is important in Ezekiel 20:44, "You will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name's sake and not according to your evil ways and your corrupt practices, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD"
But this phrase is more than just God emphasizing the authority behind His name's sake, the righteousness and incorruptibility of His holiness. It is through and because of His name's sake that we are saved by grace.
Romans 1:5 "Through Him and for His name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."
So, maybe this is why Andrew and Garry chose to highlight that one important and life-altering reason as to why God should move to rescue and destroy David's foes……….not for the health, wealth, or fame of David. Not for his future goals both personal and kingdom purposed. No, something much greater and more powerful than being a servant, keeping the trust, and hiding oneself within the grace and mercy of God's powerful hands.
Deuteronomy 4:29-39 perhaps captures the essence of God's 'name sake:
"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath. Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other."
Because, it is because of who God is, and the holiness and authority by which His name, I AM, is known. The absolute authority of His holiness and righteousness, through which He can deliver the promise of redemption through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, and by 'His name's sake' be unchallenged in his authority to do so.
1 John 2:12 (NASB) "……..your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake."
We have been forgiven under, by, and because of "His name's sake."
For personal ponderance, Andrew and Garry ask......
"Can you tell some reasons why God should rescue you in your present situations?"
And just another thought to close this with……the difference between a worldly, wicked man and a righteous, God-fearing man is the direction in which they run when fear and persecution rear their heads.
Each man has a choice as the grips of fear and failure encircle their hearts. One with no hope will run in flight from such a heavy obstacle while a man of God will stand, with hope, to fight against such as these.
Why?
Because the hope he has in the God I AM, Jehovah, is not secured by worldly assurance or the enemy's defeat, but is secured by the authority, holiness, and absoluteness of God's name.
Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Thursday, October 23
What you are voting for this election from American Family Association.
Please take a moment to watch this short video.
http://www.valuevotersusa.com/
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
http://www.valuevotersusa.com/
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Wednesday, October 22
Brueggemann revisited.....
"No matter who you are, if you judge anyone, you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things." Romans 2:1 (GWT)
I am opposed to the emergent movement within the Church today; there are many articles where I have discussed that 'opposition' and consider it a false movement away from the true worship and praise of God. Though the movement's doctrines are what I believe are flawed, I've had to reexamine my opposition to some of its 'labeled' theologists, such as Walter Brueggemann, noted Old Testament theologian and scholar.
I read his book, Prophetic Imagination, for the leadership class and have another one in the 'required reading' list. One of my friends, at least I believe he is, is pursuing a Masters and studying currently under Brueggemann for what might very well be his last teaching class. Josh Graves; newly 'minted' father-to-be and minister at Rochester Church of Christ, among other noteworthy pursuits, speaks of his first class under this giant of the Old Testament and passes on some of his handwritten notes during the lecture.
You can peruse them at his blog, www.joshgraves.blogspot.com
One that struck a chord with me that Josh posted is:
"The Bible, just like the humans who wrote them under God's influence, is complex. Therefore, just as we move beyond judging people for their complexity, we must move beyond judging the Bible and move into a living, breathing relationship. We must allow the Bible to critique us. To ask questions we would not dare ask if left to our own devices."
Ummmmmmm, does 'WOW' really express the bingo I felt when I read that comment.....and re-read it because of whom I knew Graves spoke. I've expressed to one of my fellow brothers who is in the leadership class with me that Brueggemann bothers me....not because of what he says, per se, but rather the words and the way he says it. Psycho-babble in bibli-speak. It still does, but that comment above, along with so many others that Graves graciously imparted to his reading audience, smacks not-of-biblispeak, but of human conceptualizing of the understanding of God.
Too much longer and I'll be speaking like Brueggemann.
It is that concept that we fight against the entire time we walk this earth as Christians, 'moving beyond judging people for their complexity', and judging according to 'biblical-critiques'; agape love judging not to condemn but to restore. Not to deliver circumstances but to bring healing.
I have been getting better at it, but still cannot do such 'judging' without human influences that I have to return back to God for the process of 'weeding out.' What I worry about what Brueggemann is saying is that humans are too complex to righteously judge, i.e. we cannot declare homosexuality sin even though the Bible states that it is....and that is what confuses me about his teachings.
He says "people for their complexity" i.e. complex human beings and then "We must allow the Bible to critique us." So, is it that we, complex beings that we are, have a commonality...an Absolute Truth....that is the standard to which we are to be judged? And, if so, doesn't that fly in the face of the true emergent? Who says that we, as complex human beings, cannot say with absolute certainty what is truth, because it is all subjective truth----based on one's perceptions. At least, the emergent movements I know of......
"To ask questions we would not dare ask if left to our own devices."
I agree that we, as humans, shouldn't follow our own divining, but rather stretch ourselves into the realm of the eternal and face God. But such questioning, designed to excite us as 'forbidden questions', those that we dare not ask....regardless of the context....seems to me to be dangerous.
We are not going to define, landscape, or otherwise bulid an accurate model of what God is, who God is, and how God is to act because our own linear humanity is flawed; living in a world in a design we were never intended to be in, but are because of our forefather's actions and the continuation of them throughout the generations.
There are two other comments that Graves posted on his blog that Brueggemann said. One I totally agree with and the other, totally disagree with.
"We are all selective fundamentalists. That is, we all choose which parts of the Bible we read and which parts we do not. Therefore, a healthy reader will confess to this problem, help others to see their own participation in selective reading of the Bible and courageously move forward to let all of Scripture serve as our guiding force."
This is an argument designed to cut off the opposition to anything that anyone says in doctrinal debates or theological arguments. I cannot accept one part of the bible as truth, therefore I am not a 'selective fundamentalist' and acknowledge that my human tendency is to part things according to my own need....but, pursuing God; I accept all the Bible as His word and authority....therefore I don't read selectively rather in-depth for understanding.
But, if I have a disagreement with another theologian such as a Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Islamic, or Emergent, then I am a 'selective fundamentalist' and therefore guilty.
Sometimes I enjoy the way that Brueggemann stretches me to new ways of thinking and other times, he leaves a major headache right behind the eyeballs.
"The text calls us to more freedom than we are ready to have."
I believe that Brueggemann has this dead on; we, as children of the Most High God, are called to perfection, to a freedom that lies beyond our humanity...and its ability to grasp and comprehend such freedom. It is beyond our corrupted and sinful flesh.
"The ruin of sinners is their walking after a hard and impenitent heart," Matthew Henry writes, "In the description of the just man, notice the full demand of the law. It demands that the motives shall be pure, and rejects all actions from earthly ambition or ends."
There are a bit of the absolute truth in everything theologians and teachers say, even in the false doctrines and liberal interpretations.
The key….is finding that kernel.
I am opposed to the emergent movement within the Church today; there are many articles where I have discussed that 'opposition' and consider it a false movement away from the true worship and praise of God. Though the movement's doctrines are what I believe are flawed, I've had to reexamine my opposition to some of its 'labeled' theologists, such as Walter Brueggemann, noted Old Testament theologian and scholar.
I read his book, Prophetic Imagination, for the leadership class and have another one in the 'required reading' list. One of my friends, at least I believe he is, is pursuing a Masters and studying currently under Brueggemann for what might very well be his last teaching class. Josh Graves; newly 'minted' father-to-be and minister at Rochester Church of Christ, among other noteworthy pursuits, speaks of his first class under this giant of the Old Testament and passes on some of his handwritten notes during the lecture.
You can peruse them at his blog, www.joshgraves.blogspot.com
One that struck a chord with me that Josh posted is:
"The Bible, just like the humans who wrote them under God's influence, is complex. Therefore, just as we move beyond judging people for their complexity, we must move beyond judging the Bible and move into a living, breathing relationship. We must allow the Bible to critique us. To ask questions we would not dare ask if left to our own devices."
Ummmmmmm, does 'WOW' really express the bingo I felt when I read that comment.....and re-read it because of whom I knew Graves spoke. I've expressed to one of my fellow brothers who is in the leadership class with me that Brueggemann bothers me....not because of what he says, per se, but rather the words and the way he says it. Psycho-babble in bibli-speak. It still does, but that comment above, along with so many others that Graves graciously imparted to his reading audience, smacks not-of-biblispeak, but of human conceptualizing of the understanding of God.
Too much longer and I'll be speaking like Brueggemann.
It is that concept that we fight against the entire time we walk this earth as Christians, 'moving beyond judging people for their complexity', and judging according to 'biblical-critiques'; agape love judging not to condemn but to restore. Not to deliver circumstances but to bring healing.
I have been getting better at it, but still cannot do such 'judging' without human influences that I have to return back to God for the process of 'weeding out.' What I worry about what Brueggemann is saying is that humans are too complex to righteously judge, i.e. we cannot declare homosexuality sin even though the Bible states that it is....and that is what confuses me about his teachings.
He says "people for their complexity" i.e. complex human beings and then "We must allow the Bible to critique us." So, is it that we, complex beings that we are, have a commonality...an Absolute Truth....that is the standard to which we are to be judged? And, if so, doesn't that fly in the face of the true emergent? Who says that we, as complex human beings, cannot say with absolute certainty what is truth, because it is all subjective truth----based on one's perceptions. At least, the emergent movements I know of......
"To ask questions we would not dare ask if left to our own devices."
I agree that we, as humans, shouldn't follow our own divining, but rather stretch ourselves into the realm of the eternal and face God. But such questioning, designed to excite us as 'forbidden questions', those that we dare not ask....regardless of the context....seems to me to be dangerous.
We are not going to define, landscape, or otherwise bulid an accurate model of what God is, who God is, and how God is to act because our own linear humanity is flawed; living in a world in a design we were never intended to be in, but are because of our forefather's actions and the continuation of them throughout the generations.
There are two other comments that Graves posted on his blog that Brueggemann said. One I totally agree with and the other, totally disagree with.
"We are all selective fundamentalists. That is, we all choose which parts of the Bible we read and which parts we do not. Therefore, a healthy reader will confess to this problem, help others to see their own participation in selective reading of the Bible and courageously move forward to let all of Scripture serve as our guiding force."
This is an argument designed to cut off the opposition to anything that anyone says in doctrinal debates or theological arguments. I cannot accept one part of the bible as truth, therefore I am not a 'selective fundamentalist' and acknowledge that my human tendency is to part things according to my own need....but, pursuing God; I accept all the Bible as His word and authority....therefore I don't read selectively rather in-depth for understanding.
But, if I have a disagreement with another theologian such as a Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Islamic, or Emergent, then I am a 'selective fundamentalist' and therefore guilty.
Sometimes I enjoy the way that Brueggemann stretches me to new ways of thinking and other times, he leaves a major headache right behind the eyeballs.
"The text calls us to more freedom than we are ready to have."
I believe that Brueggemann has this dead on; we, as children of the Most High God, are called to perfection, to a freedom that lies beyond our humanity...and its ability to grasp and comprehend such freedom. It is beyond our corrupted and sinful flesh.
"The ruin of sinners is their walking after a hard and impenitent heart," Matthew Henry writes, "In the description of the just man, notice the full demand of the law. It demands that the motives shall be pure, and rejects all actions from earthly ambition or ends."
There are a bit of the absolute truth in everything theologians and teachers say, even in the false doctrines and liberal interpretations.
The key….is finding that kernel.
Monday, October 20
Men, will you lead?
"I see what you've done. Now see what I've done. I've opened a door that no one can slam shut. You don't have much strength; I know that; you used what you had to keep my Word. You didn't deny me when times were tough." Revelation 3:8
A brother in Christ sent this to me in response to a prayer request. It hasn't been a real 'walk in the Park' since that February day back in 2004 when I heard God call me back into the fold….especially since that October day in Illinois where He placed a call of ministry upon my heart.
It has been fraught with struggles, failures, and stress. There has been loss; there has been accountability and sorrow over my own failings and those of others. There hasn't been the abundance of wealth, health, or peace…well, at least the first two….that many gospels today proclaim is the Christian's 'birthright.'
It hasn't been pleasant, some of the places where God has taken me. It hasn't been without self-incrimination or doubt, a desire to 'not go there', and a fight to indeed 'go where no man has travelled before' in the depth of my dark soul……to shine the light upon the decay and sin there, and burn it in the righteous fire of the Most High.
My brother told me he didn't know what the 'door' would be, or what would manifest itself in my life to show God's favor for not 'denying Him in rough times.' God will bless me, this I know for sure; whether it is in this life or the eternal one that is open for debate. God will do what brings total glory and honor to Him, not what we feel is best for us, necessarily. The closer we get in our relationship to God, the more we realize how blessed we are even in the hurricane winds of trials and persecution.
Pastor Jim spoke of Hosea this Sunday past; a book most pastors he said weren't too eager to pursue in their sermons. After all, God tells Hosea to marry a prostitute, who then continues her trade and who Hosea has to eventually buy back from her 'pimp.' Not a very exciting or glamorous tale of following God's lead! Yet, as Pastor Jim said, there is a reason and he thinks the reason is so that Hosea would know how God felt about Israel. It wasn't the verses that Pastor Jim spoke of that hit me between the eyes, but one a few chapters in…a few verses down….
"Therefore your daughters turn to prostitution and your daughters-in-law to adultery."I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes—a people without understanding will come to ruin!" Hosea 4:13c-14 (NIV)
I have said over and over in my blog that it is MEN who have the capability, under the authority and direction of God, to turn the cultural shift to the liberal, Universalist side back to a God-ordained, santicified path to restoration and healing. Men, who under the silence of Adam's sin, have given up their purpose as Spiritual leaders, and defenders of the beauty in a world of chaos and disorder, can redeem themselves and their families by being godly men.
It is through our own 'silence' that we are allowing this world to slide further and further away from God. It is not our daughters or our daughter-in-laws that will be punished but they will feel the effects of masculinity under sinful pursuits through our own failings to be men of the Word.
Maybe the verse my brother gave me wasn't intended just for me, but for all men in pursuit of a God most-powerful, most-holy, and most-merciful………
He has locked the door open for Godly men to step forward and lead. Not with the promise of renewed strength or power.....but the correct use of the power and strength already given....to the point of exhaustion.....
God calls for men to be Men of God
Will you be one of them?
A brother in Christ sent this to me in response to a prayer request. It hasn't been a real 'walk in the Park' since that February day back in 2004 when I heard God call me back into the fold….especially since that October day in Illinois where He placed a call of ministry upon my heart.
It has been fraught with struggles, failures, and stress. There has been loss; there has been accountability and sorrow over my own failings and those of others. There hasn't been the abundance of wealth, health, or peace…well, at least the first two….that many gospels today proclaim is the Christian's 'birthright.'
It hasn't been pleasant, some of the places where God has taken me. It hasn't been without self-incrimination or doubt, a desire to 'not go there', and a fight to indeed 'go where no man has travelled before' in the depth of my dark soul……to shine the light upon the decay and sin there, and burn it in the righteous fire of the Most High.
My brother told me he didn't know what the 'door' would be, or what would manifest itself in my life to show God's favor for not 'denying Him in rough times.' God will bless me, this I know for sure; whether it is in this life or the eternal one that is open for debate. God will do what brings total glory and honor to Him, not what we feel is best for us, necessarily. The closer we get in our relationship to God, the more we realize how blessed we are even in the hurricane winds of trials and persecution.
Pastor Jim spoke of Hosea this Sunday past; a book most pastors he said weren't too eager to pursue in their sermons. After all, God tells Hosea to marry a prostitute, who then continues her trade and who Hosea has to eventually buy back from her 'pimp.' Not a very exciting or glamorous tale of following God's lead! Yet, as Pastor Jim said, there is a reason and he thinks the reason is so that Hosea would know how God felt about Israel. It wasn't the verses that Pastor Jim spoke of that hit me between the eyes, but one a few chapters in…a few verses down….
"Therefore your daughters turn to prostitution and your daughters-in-law to adultery."I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes—a people without understanding will come to ruin!" Hosea 4:13c-14 (NIV)
I have said over and over in my blog that it is MEN who have the capability, under the authority and direction of God, to turn the cultural shift to the liberal, Universalist side back to a God-ordained, santicified path to restoration and healing. Men, who under the silence of Adam's sin, have given up their purpose as Spiritual leaders, and defenders of the beauty in a world of chaos and disorder, can redeem themselves and their families by being godly men.
It is through our own 'silence' that we are allowing this world to slide further and further away from God. It is not our daughters or our daughter-in-laws that will be punished but they will feel the effects of masculinity under sinful pursuits through our own failings to be men of the Word.
Maybe the verse my brother gave me wasn't intended just for me, but for all men in pursuit of a God most-powerful, most-holy, and most-merciful………
He has locked the door open for Godly men to step forward and lead. Not with the promise of renewed strength or power.....but the correct use of the power and strength already given....to the point of exhaustion.....
God calls for men to be Men of God
Will you be one of them?
Wednesday, October 15
Now, here's a true leader in Congress....let's elect McCotter!
I have always appreciated Congressman Thaddeus McCotter's representation and candor as he served as my representive in Congress for some years now. We have disagreed on some issues, but he always has replied with the intent of helping me understand why he was voting a certain way rather than do the form letter, like the Democratic Senators I've dealt with. It is McCotter's quote under the quotation section that he writes me about.
This is a member of the government we should elect to higher office.
In peace,
Jim
As your Member of Congress and as promised, I wish to update you on an important issue: our freedom of religious expression and the importance of religious faith in our free republic's history.
On December 2, 2008, the new Capitol Visitors Center (CVC) is expected to open to the public. Unfortunately, there has been no effort on the part of the House and Senate Committees on Administration (which oversee the CVC) to include well known examples America's spiritual heritage. Consequently, as a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus (CPC), on July 30, 2008, I co-signed a CPC letter sent to the Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers regarding the curious omission of symbols of America's spiritual heritage such as "In God We Trust" from the CVC.
Ultimately, on October 2, 2008, the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Administration agreed to ensure the phrase "In God we Trust" is prominently displayed within the CVC and recognized as our Nation's official motto. Further, these Committees have also agreed to have the Pledge of Allegiance - including the words "under God" - engraved in a prominent location inside the CVC.
As I have stated before: no good government denies God's presence. Thus, rest assured, I will continue to defend our God-given right of religious expression and oppose efforts to erase our Nation's religious heritage during the 110th Congress. Thank you for all you do for our community and our country. Should you have any further comments or questions on this or any other issue, please contact me at the Livonia or Milford district, or Washington, D.C. office.
I work for you.
Sincerely,
Thaddeus G. McCotter
Member of Congress
This is a member of the government we should elect to higher office.
In peace,
Jim
As your Member of Congress and as promised, I wish to update you on an important issue: our freedom of religious expression and the importance of religious faith in our free republic's history.
On December 2, 2008, the new Capitol Visitors Center (CVC) is expected to open to the public. Unfortunately, there has been no effort on the part of the House and Senate Committees on Administration (which oversee the CVC) to include well known examples America's spiritual heritage. Consequently, as a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus (CPC), on July 30, 2008, I co-signed a CPC letter sent to the Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers regarding the curious omission of symbols of America's spiritual heritage such as "In God We Trust" from the CVC.
Ultimately, on October 2, 2008, the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Administration agreed to ensure the phrase "In God we Trust" is prominently displayed within the CVC and recognized as our Nation's official motto. Further, these Committees have also agreed to have the Pledge of Allegiance - including the words "under God" - engraved in a prominent location inside the CVC.
As I have stated before: no good government denies God's presence. Thus, rest assured, I will continue to defend our God-given right of religious expression and oppose efforts to erase our Nation's religious heritage during the 110th Congress. Thank you for all you do for our community and our country. Should you have any further comments or questions on this or any other issue, please contact me at the Livonia or Milford district, or Washington, D.C. office.
I work for you.
Sincerely,
Thaddeus G. McCotter
Member of Congress
Friday, October 10
Success
"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, "Come along now and sit down to eat"? Would he not rather say, "Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’?" Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, "We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”'" Luke 17:7-10
Success. That driving force that each of us entertain in all our endeavours, even in ministry....."How many saved", "Tithing ratio: Need/Recieved", and "Attendance". In our workplace, we look at responsibilites, pay rate, and 'perks'. In our homes, we look to how we've provided for in necessities, desires, and pyschological health in our children and our spouses. To be American means you should be successful; nice home, nice car, and good clothing are the hallmarks of that success.
Yet, Jesus Christ, who is by far, the most successful man in the history of the world....didn't even have a place to lay His head down for the night.
I have been viewed as a failure in terms of being a successful man, by any meager standard set forth by culture and society. As a husband, as a father, and as a man of the community....I am by far far away from where I 'should' be at this point in my life.
At age 41, I have two broken marriages and two children who are hurting from the events of the last one. I have a 13-year old car...rent a small two-bedroom apartment....and have just enough in the bank to make a majority of my bills (if I remain gainfully employed, and go without some basic 'necessities'). I've had to ask for assistance just to keep my son in programs offered even at church. I've had to go down to the local food pantry just to have some staples to feed my children.
But what is success? Is it the Merriam-Webster definition of "favorable or desired outcome ....the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence"? Is it the cultural definition of "New car, big house, and lotsa cash"? Or is it something much greater, and ultimately much more rewarding?
There are alot of books on the market today regarding success.
There are many 'gurus' of the internet, real estate, and some multi-level marketing schemes like "Team of Destiny" and "Amway" that promise over and over to bring us to a place where, for a little work (couple of hours here, there), we can have wealth beyond our wildest dreams.......if only we send them 19.95 for the package. Others will tell you what degree to have, what company will have the ability to deliver you upon the 'corporate ladder' to that pinnacle, and what steps & habits are needed to be that 'successful man' that everyone wants to be. In each and every area, there are those who feel they've the 'track of success' that can be duplicated and emulated. You name it, someone has discovered the successful path to untold achievement in that area. "Been there, done that" and for the cost of a program, a book, or a seminar....you too can be successful. Fulfilled, Satisfied, and Valued.
"Individual results may vary"
Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, observed, "All the toil and anxious striving with which [man] labors under the sun... is meaningless."
Regis Nicoll, freelance writer and a Centurion of the Wilberforce Forum, says "Eternity is woven into our design, our purpose, [and]our desire making human fulfillment the consequence of experiencing the Eternal".
If we look at the two notables' quotes and put them together, we find that all the toil and anxious striving which we labor under is meaningless in an eternal perspective unless we take an eternal perspective in our toils.
Seems like a good idea, for if we do everything with eternity in mind, the things that we value and dedicate our time to will have more eternal longevity than most the fruitless things we currently occupy our time with. Hopefully.
Is that the pathway to success? Definitely.
Problem is; we'll never know success in this world following that path.
If I seek success, the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence, by my faith in Christ…..there is no way I can achieve success; there is a level of perfection that only Christ was able to maintain and increase. Even the disciples, those who walked with Christ and were witness to His miracles, begged Him to "increase our faith and perfect what is lacking in it." They admitted to weakness, deficient faith and realized only Christ's grace could improve it.
All of us, children of God and kinsman to Christ, want our discoveries, desires, dedication, delight, and dependency of our faith to be abundant and strong. It is the path to that increase that we tend to want to walk away from. Even though Christ tells us we would suffer as He did for faith and would forgo an immediate reward for an eternal one, we don't want to suffer and feel our faith isn't strong if we indeed are struggling with finances, family issues, job security, and life in general. We look to leaders who are successful as those who aren't visibly struggling, dealing with trials and humanity, but have a visible…..success at being better than us.
Is it any wonder why the fall of the mighty, highly visible leaders of the Christian faith surprise us?
"Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."---Joe Paterno.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, with our brethren, and with our God; we will never achieve success by the standards set by Christ and lived out in God's design for all living things. We failed, in the Garden, and have been redefining success ever since. The "acquiring of things" to prove our success and our value to us, our families, and our society.
How wrong are we………………and how sad it is.
We didn't hang upon a cross and die for our fellow man, nor rose again from the DEAD and ascended to Heaven. We didn't stop the snake in the Garden from corrupting our wives with juicy temptation, nor did we stop society from building a tower of Babel.
We're told in James that faith without works is dead, just as work without faith is foolish.
Our works are a result of our faith, and our faith needs works to be alive.
Faith in an eternal reward in a place we have never been to and never seen. Faith in a Savior who walked the earth 2,000 years ago… Faith in a God that we cannot fully define, never see, and who is a mixture of contradictions when humanity is applied to Him.
Faith in God's pardoning mercy will enable us to get over the greatest difficulties. And will still leave us unsuccessful in trying to do enough to justify His salvation gift.
But, as John Wesley said, "Though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us."
"Our principal care here must be to do the duty of our relation, and leave it to our Master to give us the comfort of it, when and how he thinks fit." Matthew Henry elaborates, "No servant expects that his master should say to him, Go and sit down to meat; it is time enough to do that when we have done our day's work."
"It becomes us therefore to call ourselves unprofitable servants, but to call his service a profitable service," Henry concludes "for God is happy without us, but we are undone without him."
The secret of success?
It lies within the pursuit of God with our whole heart, mind, and soul and will never gain a successful conclusion on this earth. Yet, when we do find that success, we will gain more than we could ever imagine:
Happiness.
http://biblecommenter.com
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5752
Success. That driving force that each of us entertain in all our endeavours, even in ministry....."How many saved", "Tithing ratio: Need/Recieved", and "Attendance". In our workplace, we look at responsibilites, pay rate, and 'perks'. In our homes, we look to how we've provided for in necessities, desires, and pyschological health in our children and our spouses. To be American means you should be successful; nice home, nice car, and good clothing are the hallmarks of that success.
Yet, Jesus Christ, who is by far, the most successful man in the history of the world....didn't even have a place to lay His head down for the night.
I have been viewed as a failure in terms of being a successful man, by any meager standard set forth by culture and society. As a husband, as a father, and as a man of the community....I am by far far away from where I 'should' be at this point in my life.
At age 41, I have two broken marriages and two children who are hurting from the events of the last one. I have a 13-year old car...rent a small two-bedroom apartment....and have just enough in the bank to make a majority of my bills (if I remain gainfully employed, and go without some basic 'necessities'). I've had to ask for assistance just to keep my son in programs offered even at church. I've had to go down to the local food pantry just to have some staples to feed my children.
But what is success? Is it the Merriam-Webster definition of "favorable or desired outcome ....the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence"? Is it the cultural definition of "New car, big house, and lotsa cash"? Or is it something much greater, and ultimately much more rewarding?
There are alot of books on the market today regarding success.
There are many 'gurus' of the internet, real estate, and some multi-level marketing schemes like "Team of Destiny" and "Amway" that promise over and over to bring us to a place where, for a little work (couple of hours here, there), we can have wealth beyond our wildest dreams.......if only we send them 19.95 for the package. Others will tell you what degree to have, what company will have the ability to deliver you upon the 'corporate ladder' to that pinnacle, and what steps & habits are needed to be that 'successful man' that everyone wants to be. In each and every area, there are those who feel they've the 'track of success' that can be duplicated and emulated. You name it, someone has discovered the successful path to untold achievement in that area. "Been there, done that" and for the cost of a program, a book, or a seminar....you too can be successful. Fulfilled, Satisfied, and Valued.
"Individual results may vary"
Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, observed, "All the toil and anxious striving with which [man] labors under the sun... is meaningless."
Regis Nicoll, freelance writer and a Centurion of the Wilberforce Forum, says "Eternity is woven into our design, our purpose, [and]our desire making human fulfillment the consequence of experiencing the Eternal".
If we look at the two notables' quotes and put them together, we find that all the toil and anxious striving which we labor under is meaningless in an eternal perspective unless we take an eternal perspective in our toils.
Seems like a good idea, for if we do everything with eternity in mind, the things that we value and dedicate our time to will have more eternal longevity than most the fruitless things we currently occupy our time with. Hopefully.
Is that the pathway to success? Definitely.
Problem is; we'll never know success in this world following that path.
If I seek success, the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence, by my faith in Christ…..there is no way I can achieve success; there is a level of perfection that only Christ was able to maintain and increase. Even the disciples, those who walked with Christ and were witness to His miracles, begged Him to "increase our faith and perfect what is lacking in it." They admitted to weakness, deficient faith and realized only Christ's grace could improve it.
All of us, children of God and kinsman to Christ, want our discoveries, desires, dedication, delight, and dependency of our faith to be abundant and strong. It is the path to that increase that we tend to want to walk away from. Even though Christ tells us we would suffer as He did for faith and would forgo an immediate reward for an eternal one, we don't want to suffer and feel our faith isn't strong if we indeed are struggling with finances, family issues, job security, and life in general. We look to leaders who are successful as those who aren't visibly struggling, dealing with trials and humanity, but have a visible…..success at being better than us.
Is it any wonder why the fall of the mighty, highly visible leaders of the Christian faith surprise us?
"Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."---Joe Paterno.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, with our brethren, and with our God; we will never achieve success by the standards set by Christ and lived out in God's design for all living things. We failed, in the Garden, and have been redefining success ever since. The "acquiring of things" to prove our success and our value to us, our families, and our society.
How wrong are we………………and how sad it is.
We didn't hang upon a cross and die for our fellow man, nor rose again from the DEAD and ascended to Heaven. We didn't stop the snake in the Garden from corrupting our wives with juicy temptation, nor did we stop society from building a tower of Babel.
We're told in James that faith without works is dead, just as work without faith is foolish.
Our works are a result of our faith, and our faith needs works to be alive.
Faith in an eternal reward in a place we have never been to and never seen. Faith in a Savior who walked the earth 2,000 years ago… Faith in a God that we cannot fully define, never see, and who is a mixture of contradictions when humanity is applied to Him.
Faith in God's pardoning mercy will enable us to get over the greatest difficulties. And will still leave us unsuccessful in trying to do enough to justify His salvation gift.
But, as John Wesley said, "Though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us."
"Our principal care here must be to do the duty of our relation, and leave it to our Master to give us the comfort of it, when and how he thinks fit." Matthew Henry elaborates, "No servant expects that his master should say to him, Go and sit down to meat; it is time enough to do that when we have done our day's work."
"It becomes us therefore to call ourselves unprofitable servants, but to call his service a profitable service," Henry concludes "for God is happy without us, but we are undone without him."
The secret of success?
It lies within the pursuit of God with our whole heart, mind, and soul and will never gain a successful conclusion on this earth. Yet, when we do find that success, we will gain more than we could ever imagine:
Happiness.
http://biblecommenter.com
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5752
Tuesday, October 7
Spiritual war and NO RETREAT!
"Pul on all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks of the Devil" Ephesians 6:11 (NASB)
We have been memorizing Ephesians 6:14-17 as part of the challenge issued by two dear brothers in the Lord's Army, Garry and Andrew. I've noticed that God has us pretty well covered in the preparation for the battles we, as Christians, face for the glory of the Kingdom. There's the belt of Truth, the breastplate of Righteousness, the helmet of Salvation, and the 'shoes' of readiness to girth upon our bodies. We are also called to carry the shield of Faith, and use the sword of the Spirit. We're all covered, except for our backs.
There is nothing in our Commander's battle plan about retreat; no matter the odds, regardless of the size of the enemy's army arrayed against us, and regardless of the giants he may command. God doesn't call for retreat, but a pressing on towards the goal; the restoration of the Kingdom to the creation God made with His own hands for His children which made the choice to stray.
The battle plan is simple. Stand your ground, and even after you have done all in your power and in the Spirit, to stand. Not swaying to and fro, but firmly. Your feet planted upon the Rock of Salvation's deliverance, your sword held high by the strength of the Lord, and your faith flowing through the bruised and battered flesh. And once, when you have done all that God calls each and every warrior of His command to do, you bring out the grenade.....prayer and toss it into the midst of the foe.
"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests." v18a(NIV).
For the battle to which each man, woman, and child of God is called isn't physical. We are called into the spiritual plane, where the rulers, authorities, and powers of the dark, corrupt world reside; bringing the spiritual might empowered to each of us who answer the call to rally against the forces of evil which stand in the heavenly realms. God will reclaim His creation, and it is the saints upon the battlefield of the heavens to which He has empowered the fight.
We should remember that, in the midst of our needs, wants, and desires that are subservant to the Lord's will, that the mysteries of the physical world are visible to those who fight in the spiritual one. And, even if you are called to be a healer...in the 'rear with the gear', or a instructor in the training grounds, or even a support personnel, enabling supplies and necessities to be brought to those upon the thick of the battle; it is all for God's glory that this mighty Army moves. All are important, all are a part of the plan.
And all, regardless of the calling and where you serve within this vast host, we should not forget Paul's final say in this passage;
"With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints" v18b(NIV)
"All for the One, and One for All!", should be our battle cry.
We have been memorizing Ephesians 6:14-17 as part of the challenge issued by two dear brothers in the Lord's Army, Garry and Andrew. I've noticed that God has us pretty well covered in the preparation for the battles we, as Christians, face for the glory of the Kingdom. There's the belt of Truth, the breastplate of Righteousness, the helmet of Salvation, and the 'shoes' of readiness to girth upon our bodies. We are also called to carry the shield of Faith, and use the sword of the Spirit. We're all covered, except for our backs.
There is nothing in our Commander's battle plan about retreat; no matter the odds, regardless of the size of the enemy's army arrayed against us, and regardless of the giants he may command. God doesn't call for retreat, but a pressing on towards the goal; the restoration of the Kingdom to the creation God made with His own hands for His children which made the choice to stray.
The battle plan is simple. Stand your ground, and even after you have done all in your power and in the Spirit, to stand. Not swaying to and fro, but firmly. Your feet planted upon the Rock of Salvation's deliverance, your sword held high by the strength of the Lord, and your faith flowing through the bruised and battered flesh. And once, when you have done all that God calls each and every warrior of His command to do, you bring out the grenade.....prayer and toss it into the midst of the foe.
"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests." v18a(NIV).
For the battle to which each man, woman, and child of God is called isn't physical. We are called into the spiritual plane, where the rulers, authorities, and powers of the dark, corrupt world reside; bringing the spiritual might empowered to each of us who answer the call to rally against the forces of evil which stand in the heavenly realms. God will reclaim His creation, and it is the saints upon the battlefield of the heavens to which He has empowered the fight.
We should remember that, in the midst of our needs, wants, and desires that are subservant to the Lord's will, that the mysteries of the physical world are visible to those who fight in the spiritual one. And, even if you are called to be a healer...in the 'rear with the gear', or a instructor in the training grounds, or even a support personnel, enabling supplies and necessities to be brought to those upon the thick of the battle; it is all for God's glory that this mighty Army moves. All are important, all are a part of the plan.
And all, regardless of the calling and where you serve within this vast host, we should not forget Paul's final say in this passage;
"With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints" v18b(NIV)
"All for the One, and One for All!", should be our battle cry.
Monday, October 6
McCain, a moderate under impending death?
I've already stated my views on why Democratic Senator Barack Obama is not the best choice for the office of the President of the United States of America. This was based on his record within his short term in office as a Senator, rather than rumors (whether true or not) of his embellishment of his 'community activist' time and his 'job' prior to becoming one.
It was my intention, in an effort to explain why I feel neither candidate; either Obama or Republican Senator John McCain is unacceptable.
Perusing several liberal websites, blogs, commentaries, and so on, that task of finding the reasoning behind why McCain should not be President isn't the issues, rather it is centered, as far as I could tell, on one item that seems to be a generational issue:
His age.
Not that there isn't alot of nonsensical articles and commentaries out there on why Republican John McCain shouldn't be the next Presidential office holder; typically centered around articles of the "John McCain: Blowing Up the World at 3am? By Doug Bandow, of the American Conservative Defense Alliance" type. Unlike a majority of the articles I found concerning Obama, most of the articles concerning McCain are misquotes, misrepresented truths, and downright wrong interpretations of what he actually said. But, still, there is enough to cause me concern about Senator John McCain as the 44th President of the United States of America.
"McCain similarly appears to share George Bush's simplistic view of the world. Both see America threatened by numerous enemies who are all alike – al-Qaeda members, secular dictators, Palestinian terrorists, Ba'thist insurgents, Shia nationalists, Hezbollah fighters, Taliban fundamentalists, Hamas activists. McCain told an audience at the Virginia Military Institute last year: The Iraq war "is part of a broader struggle in the Arab and Muslim world, the struggle between violent extremists and the forces of modernity and moderation." The extremists, he adds, "wish to return the world to the 7th century."
According to Bandow, it is "perhaps McCain's willingness to irritate, anger, enrage, and threaten countries all over the world" that has strengthened the 'loose collection of transnational terrorists' of the 9-11 attacks from a "nasty" to the radical extremists today.......Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda terrorists, who are simply fighting against the US invasion of 'their' homeland, although none actually had Iraq as their 'homeland' prior to the US war.
More important than the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century [of] radical Islamic extremists" , in the eyes of liberalists like Bandow, are the disagreements with Russian, challenges from China, likely controversies from Brazil and India, and the endless complications from nations being transformed in a new globalized world order which will be "far more decisive in shaping our world."
Opponents feel his willingness to "risk the lives of other Americans for causes not vital to our nation's security," shows he lacks the temperament to be a "wise commander-in-chief." His knowledge and philosophy are also on the table against his ability to have a decisive and effective foreign policy and therefore "is the last person who should be answering any 3am phone calls at the White House."
This despite 46% in a Zogby poll that feel McCain is the right candidate to handle the Iraq, 49% who feel he is the right one to combat terrorism, and 55% who feel he would be the right one to "handle any 3am phone calls."
Of course, McCain has a wealth of experience, laced with courage and honor that has been labeled a 'maverick' in good light and a personality gone amok in darker circles. Some feel it is his temperament, a sanctimonious certainty, and his arguments with Senate colleagues over disagreements from both sides of the party lines that make his 'good' points ineffective.
Charlie Savage of the Globe feels that McCain is the stereotypical politician, seeming to genuflect to a man he once denounced by name. ''This tells us that John McCain is a living, breathing politician who has looked in the mirror and said 'I should be president of the United States,' " said Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. ''The media built McCain into something more than [a politician] when he last ran for president. They made him into an icon -- the maverick."
Nothing new in the annuals of political processes here in the USA. Politicians have, like McCain, been twisting themselves in knots switching their long-term views when enamored with a possibility of being President.
Since 2000, McCain has pushed bills limiting political campaign donations, banning the torture of suspected terrorists, and allowing illegal immigrants to become legalized guest workers. Don Feder feels that McCain is a hardcore leftist who panders to the Democratic Party with his "socialist, anti-speech, open-borders, enviro-Marxist measures" over the years; "McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Edwards", to name a few.
Top reason on the Feder list; Immigration. McCain is pro-open borders with amnesty for all 15 million illegal aliens in the country today, evidenced by co-sponsoring a bill with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, which would have led, in the eyes of The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, the largest expansion of the welfare state in US history, costing an estimated $2.6 trillion. To his opponents, even fellow Republicans, McCain has accused them of being 'xenophobes' and now promises to close the borders first and then grant amnesty. Along with an open-border policy, McCain has opposed official English education and supported an amendment to President Clinton's Executive Order 13166 that would require any recipients of federal funding to provide translation services in any language requested. He is the darling of the LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens).
Another reason is what Feder describes as "Enviro-Marxism," because McCain was one of only six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to "make the caribou comfortable." This despite research, technology, and experience proven in report after report that such drilling would have little to no impact on the refuge, which is largely uninhabited even by caribou. McCain has also co-sponsored, with Senator Lieberman, a $660 billion dollar bill to cap C02 emissions, pandering to the mythical man-made global warming.
Abortion, one of the hot buttons of conservatives, is something we have less of a clear view of McCain's views on until recent months than Obama's, and they seem to have changed as his realization of the Presidency became a possibility. McCain has supported embryonic stem-cell research, claimed until recently he would not support a repeal of Roe v. Wade, and has voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, McCain seems to have supported limiting a pro-life organizations right to highlight a pro-abortion legislator's record sixty days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
A disturbing anti-family stance in conservative eyes. As far as his judicial nominations would be, McCain prevented, along with 13 of his colleagues, a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on such nominations, that have derailed many conservative judges from having their nomination approved, often used by the Democratically-controlled Congress.
McCain, trying to show a more conservative bent, hasn't the record to support it. Working with the 'left', even as a 'bipartisan maverick', is a 'natural inclination' Feder feels. He quotes former Senator Rick Santorum who said, "The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him (McCain), 6 years in the United States Senate as a leader, one of the leaders of the Senate; the number-3 leader, who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and at almost every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."
"If McCain is elected, it will be roll-over time for Congressional Republicans," Feder concludes, "on taxes, regulation, environmentalism, speech-suppression, internationalism, multiculturalism, civil liberties for terrorists and open-borders."
"John McCain is not the "true conservative" he claims to be, and using the label in order to attract voters isn't panning out too well." according to Maritza Carroway in an article, McCain too liberal for conservatives, "A recent Fox News poll of 1000 conservative activists showed that when asked if they thought John McCain was a true conservative, 59.5 percent said no and 20.8 percent couldn't make up their mind." Most conservatives, myself included, are totally unsure as to McCain's leanings. To me, he seems more of a moderate liberalist than a conservative.
Even if McCain is the a-typical politician, that is not the reason most Americans are leery about placing him in the Presidential office.
It is his age and several indications that he is in poor health (despite a partial release of McCain's medical records showing good health), that has prompted support to be given to Obama or a third-party candidate.
In one story floating around the internet allegedly by two soldiers, according to TBR News, who met McCain while he was on a 'fact-finding' mission in Iraq. Though it is probably hype created by the opposition, as evidenced by the ability of the two being able to gain access around 'more security than Bush had' and other comments, it shows the mindset of the younger generation that are typically leaning towards the younger Obama.
Such statements contained in the post, such as "He looked at us like we were cows and kept blinking. Finally, he smiled and said, 'Hey, there, soldiers! How is it going? Is it going good?" ......McCain smiled at nothing and looked around the room......." and "....he began a conversation with someone who wasn't there ....when we left, the Senator was talking complete nonsense.....one of the staff personnel told both of us that the Senator had "a little accident" and he had to change his pants" seem to be disbelievable to even the most critical voter.
The rumor this story supports is that Senator McCain has the beginning stages of Alzheimer's.
McCain himself has recognized the 'enhanced importance' of having a vice-presidential candidate who could take his place as President due to his age, as most voters are taking in the life expectancy and the statistical probability of him dying in the near future.
According to Amy Weiss, in a Buzzflash news analysis, Paul Begala is noted as remarking: "For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment."
According to the 2004 Social Security Administration's actuarial table, a man exactly 72 years old has about a 3.3% of dying in the next year, without additional concerns such as McCain's lethal skin cancer history. In the Politico, it is noted that there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that a 72-year-old man will not reach the age of 80, which is how old McCain would be at the end of a second presidential term.
"The type of skin cancer McCain has had was melanoma, "the most serious type of skin cancer." Three of [cancers] were "Stage 0" melanoma, considered "of little long-term concern." They were removed in 1993, 2000 and 2002." Weiss reports in the Buzzflash news analysis, "The fourth is suspected to be a Stage IIA melanoma, an invasive one that went beyond the first layer of skin. It was removed from McCain's left temple area in 2000. The American Cancer Society says a Stage IIA melanoma "is associated with a five-year survival rate of about 78 percent and a 10-year survival rate of about 66 percent.""
Weiss recognizes that such statistics aren't melodramatic, just insightful. "Certainly we shouldn't immediately dismiss a person's capabilities because of his or her age, but it is impossible to argue that age -- unlike race or gender -- plays no role in a person's performance." she continues, referencing aDNC speech that remarked about McCain's age. "'So remember, when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this Earth.' John Kerry quipped."
The Culture and Media Institute released a special report, "'Character' the Most Important Issue in the Presidential Primary Debates." An interesting fact, one supported by perusing the media and debate commentaries is that the Democrats are being as twice as many 'softball' questions as the Republicans; 48 to 25 percent. Is this the proper way to elect judgment and character?
Of course, with the issue being age, focus has turned to the would-be President if McCain was to meet what many feel is an inevitability; his death in office. Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, has redeemed partially the disastrous Couric interview in the one and only Vice-Presidential debate. Of the Couric interview, even Republican sites were commenting negatively and the ticket seemed to be in danger.
When a liberal misspeaks, it's a slip of the tongue. We all make mistakes. Your faith shouldn't matter, being checked at the door when you report for work and you are not responsible for sitting under liberal, controversial, and racial theologies.
"Couric's questions [were] straightforward and responsible. Palin [was] mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero... I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck."
Palin seems to have recovered from her 'gaff' at the hands of Couric with a spetacular debate with Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic nominee for the Vice-President slot, and she has more executive experience than even Presidential hopeful Obama does and the record to show it. But if it is McCain's age that is helping to deflect the younger generations from voting for him, it is Palin's faith that is throwing off many more of the humanistic, universalist, and emergent generation that claims religious morality.
If you are a conservative, you commit an unforgiveable sin when you misspeak or blunder. No second chances, no 'oppsy'. And your faith, no matter how 'personal' it is kept, is brought under the light of what denomination and its belief system (mainstream or not) that it espouses. A Los Angeles Times story claimed that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin espoused young-earth creationism, leading liberal Internet columnist Robert Paul Reyes to call Palin a "religious fanatic" with a "Neanderthal faith" who "thinks that 'The Flintstones' is a reality show.""
Ron Meyers, a 62-year-old Orange County banker said Palin "needs to explain what she would do if she became president," reflecting the opinion of many young voters following this year's election.
Weiss wraps up her analysis pointing out that the Obama camp has portrayed McCain as out-of-touch and a longtime Washington insider, which are in her opinion more important than his age. "But," Weiss concludes, "age undoubtedly contributes to being out-of-touch, especially with technology."
So the question concerning McCain's suitability, moderate as it may be, to perform the duties of President aren't much in question. It is how long he will be alive to do so and if his Vice-President is capable of taking over in the eventual demise of the 44th President.
Aren't American politics great?
You have a choice of a liberal, universalist that sat under a Black Liberation Theology preacher and is rumored to have embellished his credentials, which are few and unimpressive compared to similar adventurers in the hallways of Harvard and the Senate, as President or the war-hero, embattled Republican nominee ready to drop off with an inexperienced (according to the Democratic Party) Vice-President to assume power, if statistics are accurate in regards to McCain's old age.
In my opinion, we will wind up with a liberal socialistic society in which big government will continue at the end of four years, no matter who is elected. It is just a matter of how soon it will become plainly evident to those who allow history to cloud their judgment or water their values down to make one candidate the most acceptable.
Where have all the good men gone and where are all the heroes that once made this country great?
Resources:
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/28367-if-mccain-elected-president-we-also-electing-palin-position-given-age.html
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-backs-mccain-expect-more-wars-if.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/453
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/MCCAIN.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/04/06
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/p...
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3371
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=272238http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/specialreports/2008/Character/CharacterFull_Report.htm
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=271028
It was my intention, in an effort to explain why I feel neither candidate; either Obama or Republican Senator John McCain is unacceptable.
Perusing several liberal websites, blogs, commentaries, and so on, that task of finding the reasoning behind why McCain should not be President isn't the issues, rather it is centered, as far as I could tell, on one item that seems to be a generational issue:
His age.
Not that there isn't alot of nonsensical articles and commentaries out there on why Republican John McCain shouldn't be the next Presidential office holder; typically centered around articles of the "John McCain: Blowing Up the World at 3am? By Doug Bandow, of the American Conservative Defense Alliance" type. Unlike a majority of the articles I found concerning Obama, most of the articles concerning McCain are misquotes, misrepresented truths, and downright wrong interpretations of what he actually said. But, still, there is enough to cause me concern about Senator John McCain as the 44th President of the United States of America.
"McCain similarly appears to share George Bush's simplistic view of the world. Both see America threatened by numerous enemies who are all alike – al-Qaeda members, secular dictators, Palestinian terrorists, Ba'thist insurgents, Shia nationalists, Hezbollah fighters, Taliban fundamentalists, Hamas activists. McCain told an audience at the Virginia Military Institute last year: The Iraq war "is part of a broader struggle in the Arab and Muslim world, the struggle between violent extremists and the forces of modernity and moderation." The extremists, he adds, "wish to return the world to the 7th century."
According to Bandow, it is "perhaps McCain's willingness to irritate, anger, enrage, and threaten countries all over the world" that has strengthened the 'loose collection of transnational terrorists' of the 9-11 attacks from a "nasty" to the radical extremists today.......Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda terrorists, who are simply fighting against the US invasion of 'their' homeland, although none actually had Iraq as their 'homeland' prior to the US war.
More important than the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century [of] radical Islamic extremists" , in the eyes of liberalists like Bandow, are the disagreements with Russian, challenges from China, likely controversies from Brazil and India, and the endless complications from nations being transformed in a new globalized world order which will be "far more decisive in shaping our world."
Opponents feel his willingness to "risk the lives of other Americans for causes not vital to our nation's security," shows he lacks the temperament to be a "wise commander-in-chief." His knowledge and philosophy are also on the table against his ability to have a decisive and effective foreign policy and therefore "is the last person who should be answering any 3am phone calls at the White House."
This despite 46% in a Zogby poll that feel McCain is the right candidate to handle the Iraq, 49% who feel he is the right one to combat terrorism, and 55% who feel he would be the right one to "handle any 3am phone calls."
Of course, McCain has a wealth of experience, laced with courage and honor that has been labeled a 'maverick' in good light and a personality gone amok in darker circles. Some feel it is his temperament, a sanctimonious certainty, and his arguments with Senate colleagues over disagreements from both sides of the party lines that make his 'good' points ineffective.
Charlie Savage of the Globe feels that McCain is the stereotypical politician, seeming to genuflect to a man he once denounced by name. ''This tells us that John McCain is a living, breathing politician who has looked in the mirror and said 'I should be president of the United States,' " said Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. ''The media built McCain into something more than [a politician] when he last ran for president. They made him into an icon -- the maverick."
Nothing new in the annuals of political processes here in the USA. Politicians have, like McCain, been twisting themselves in knots switching their long-term views when enamored with a possibility of being President.
Since 2000, McCain has pushed bills limiting political campaign donations, banning the torture of suspected terrorists, and allowing illegal immigrants to become legalized guest workers. Don Feder feels that McCain is a hardcore leftist who panders to the Democratic Party with his "socialist, anti-speech, open-borders, enviro-Marxist measures" over the years; "McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Edwards", to name a few.
Top reason on the Feder list; Immigration. McCain is pro-open borders with amnesty for all 15 million illegal aliens in the country today, evidenced by co-sponsoring a bill with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, which would have led, in the eyes of The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, the largest expansion of the welfare state in US history, costing an estimated $2.6 trillion. To his opponents, even fellow Republicans, McCain has accused them of being 'xenophobes' and now promises to close the borders first and then grant amnesty. Along with an open-border policy, McCain has opposed official English education and supported an amendment to President Clinton's Executive Order 13166 that would require any recipients of federal funding to provide translation services in any language requested. He is the darling of the LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens).
Another reason is what Feder describes as "Enviro-Marxism," because McCain was one of only six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to "make the caribou comfortable." This despite research, technology, and experience proven in report after report that such drilling would have little to no impact on the refuge, which is largely uninhabited even by caribou. McCain has also co-sponsored, with Senator Lieberman, a $660 billion dollar bill to cap C02 emissions, pandering to the mythical man-made global warming.
Abortion, one of the hot buttons of conservatives, is something we have less of a clear view of McCain's views on until recent months than Obama's, and they seem to have changed as his realization of the Presidency became a possibility. McCain has supported embryonic stem-cell research, claimed until recently he would not support a repeal of Roe v. Wade, and has voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, McCain seems to have supported limiting a pro-life organizations right to highlight a pro-abortion legislator's record sixty days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
A disturbing anti-family stance in conservative eyes. As far as his judicial nominations would be, McCain prevented, along with 13 of his colleagues, a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on such nominations, that have derailed many conservative judges from having their nomination approved, often used by the Democratically-controlled Congress.
McCain, trying to show a more conservative bent, hasn't the record to support it. Working with the 'left', even as a 'bipartisan maverick', is a 'natural inclination' Feder feels. He quotes former Senator Rick Santorum who said, "The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him (McCain), 6 years in the United States Senate as a leader, one of the leaders of the Senate; the number-3 leader, who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and at almost every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."
"If McCain is elected, it will be roll-over time for Congressional Republicans," Feder concludes, "on taxes, regulation, environmentalism, speech-suppression, internationalism, multiculturalism, civil liberties for terrorists and open-borders."
"John McCain is not the "true conservative" he claims to be, and using the label in order to attract voters isn't panning out too well." according to Maritza Carroway in an article, McCain too liberal for conservatives, "A recent Fox News poll of 1000 conservative activists showed that when asked if they thought John McCain was a true conservative, 59.5 percent said no and 20.8 percent couldn't make up their mind." Most conservatives, myself included, are totally unsure as to McCain's leanings. To me, he seems more of a moderate liberalist than a conservative.
Even if McCain is the a-typical politician, that is not the reason most Americans are leery about placing him in the Presidential office.
It is his age and several indications that he is in poor health (despite a partial release of McCain's medical records showing good health), that has prompted support to be given to Obama or a third-party candidate.
In one story floating around the internet allegedly by two soldiers, according to TBR News, who met McCain while he was on a 'fact-finding' mission in Iraq. Though it is probably hype created by the opposition, as evidenced by the ability of the two being able to gain access around 'more security than Bush had' and other comments, it shows the mindset of the younger generation that are typically leaning towards the younger Obama.
Such statements contained in the post, such as "He looked at us like we were cows and kept blinking. Finally, he smiled and said, 'Hey, there, soldiers! How is it going? Is it going good?" ......McCain smiled at nothing and looked around the room......." and "....he began a conversation with someone who wasn't there ....when we left, the Senator was talking complete nonsense.....one of the staff personnel told both of us that the Senator had "a little accident" and he had to change his pants" seem to be disbelievable to even the most critical voter.
The rumor this story supports is that Senator McCain has the beginning stages of Alzheimer's.
McCain himself has recognized the 'enhanced importance' of having a vice-presidential candidate who could take his place as President due to his age, as most voters are taking in the life expectancy and the statistical probability of him dying in the near future.
According to Amy Weiss, in a Buzzflash news analysis, Paul Begala is noted as remarking: "For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment."
According to the 2004 Social Security Administration's actuarial table, a man exactly 72 years old has about a 3.3% of dying in the next year, without additional concerns such as McCain's lethal skin cancer history. In the Politico, it is noted that there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that a 72-year-old man will not reach the age of 80, which is how old McCain would be at the end of a second presidential term.
"The type of skin cancer McCain has had was melanoma, "the most serious type of skin cancer." Three of [cancers] were "Stage 0" melanoma, considered "of little long-term concern." They were removed in 1993, 2000 and 2002." Weiss reports in the Buzzflash news analysis, "The fourth is suspected to be a Stage IIA melanoma, an invasive one that went beyond the first layer of skin. It was removed from McCain's left temple area in 2000. The American Cancer Society says a Stage IIA melanoma "is associated with a five-year survival rate of about 78 percent and a 10-year survival rate of about 66 percent.""
Weiss recognizes that such statistics aren't melodramatic, just insightful. "Certainly we shouldn't immediately dismiss a person's capabilities because of his or her age, but it is impossible to argue that age -- unlike race or gender -- plays no role in a person's performance." she continues, referencing aDNC speech that remarked about McCain's age. "'So remember, when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this Earth.' John Kerry quipped."
The Culture and Media Institute released a special report, "'Character' the Most Important Issue in the Presidential Primary Debates." An interesting fact, one supported by perusing the media and debate commentaries is that the Democrats are being as twice as many 'softball' questions as the Republicans; 48 to 25 percent. Is this the proper way to elect judgment and character?
Of course, with the issue being age, focus has turned to the would-be President if McCain was to meet what many feel is an inevitability; his death in office. Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, has redeemed partially the disastrous Couric interview in the one and only Vice-Presidential debate. Of the Couric interview, even Republican sites were commenting negatively and the ticket seemed to be in danger.
When a liberal misspeaks, it's a slip of the tongue. We all make mistakes. Your faith shouldn't matter, being checked at the door when you report for work and you are not responsible for sitting under liberal, controversial, and racial theologies.
"Couric's questions [were] straightforward and responsible. Palin [was] mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero... I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck."
Palin seems to have recovered from her 'gaff' at the hands of Couric with a spetacular debate with Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic nominee for the Vice-President slot, and she has more executive experience than even Presidential hopeful Obama does and the record to show it. But if it is McCain's age that is helping to deflect the younger generations from voting for him, it is Palin's faith that is throwing off many more of the humanistic, universalist, and emergent generation that claims religious morality.
If you are a conservative, you commit an unforgiveable sin when you misspeak or blunder. No second chances, no 'oppsy'. And your faith, no matter how 'personal' it is kept, is brought under the light of what denomination and its belief system (mainstream or not) that it espouses. A Los Angeles Times story claimed that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin espoused young-earth creationism, leading liberal Internet columnist Robert Paul Reyes to call Palin a "religious fanatic" with a "Neanderthal faith" who "thinks that 'The Flintstones' is a reality show.""
Ron Meyers, a 62-year-old Orange County banker said Palin "needs to explain what she would do if she became president," reflecting the opinion of many young voters following this year's election.
Weiss wraps up her analysis pointing out that the Obama camp has portrayed McCain as out-of-touch and a longtime Washington insider, which are in her opinion more important than his age. "But," Weiss concludes, "age undoubtedly contributes to being out-of-touch, especially with technology."
So the question concerning McCain's suitability, moderate as it may be, to perform the duties of President aren't much in question. It is how long he will be alive to do so and if his Vice-President is capable of taking over in the eventual demise of the 44th President.
Aren't American politics great?
You have a choice of a liberal, universalist that sat under a Black Liberation Theology preacher and is rumored to have embellished his credentials, which are few and unimpressive compared to similar adventurers in the hallways of Harvard and the Senate, as President or the war-hero, embattled Republican nominee ready to drop off with an inexperienced (according to the Democratic Party) Vice-President to assume power, if statistics are accurate in regards to McCain's old age.
In my opinion, we will wind up with a liberal socialistic society in which big government will continue at the end of four years, no matter who is elected. It is just a matter of how soon it will become plainly evident to those who allow history to cloud their judgment or water their values down to make one candidate the most acceptable.
Where have all the good men gone and where are all the heroes that once made this country great?
Resources:
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/28367-if-mccain-elected-president-we-also-electing-palin-position-given-age.html
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-backs-mccain-expect-more-wars-if.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/453
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/MCCAIN.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/04/06
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/p...
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3371
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=272238http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/specialreports/2008/Character/CharacterFull_Report.htm
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=271028
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)