Thursday, June 16, 2011


   - by Rudyard Kipling. 
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! 

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Are there Nazi's in Wisconsin?

 There's been an uproar in Wisconsin over public employee unions. It seems the union complaint is in the states desire to limit "collective bargaining rights" by the union. these folks seem to forget that since Wisconsin is a republic ALL citizens actually HAVE collective bargaining rights! it's called voting! since what we are actually talking about unionization AGAINST the state, which is a republic, those unions are actually demanding their will be over and above the real power of the republic, which is the public as a whole. yes, these unions are NOT protesting the governor, they are protesting against the electorate of the state of Wisconsin. they are DEMANDING from the electorate MORE STUFF FOR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WISCONSIN CITIZENRY. they can get rid of this governor and the next governor will still have to balance the budget either by cutting benefits cutting state services, or layoffs. so even these unions know the governor is a moot point, just a cheap attempt by the union bosses to utilize their useful idiots in their membership to distract the people from the real issue. these union bosses want power over the duly elected representatives of the people of Wisconsin. and so want power over the people of Wisconsin themselves. that's the real issue.
 What case is there for unions in the public sector? that is unionizing against the public itself! and these clowns attempt to associate themselves with those fighting for the right to democracy now in the middle east? by fighting AGAINST democracy here in the states? what bullshit is this? this is nothing more than a minority trying to exercise it's will over the whole. it is the exact opposite of what unions were originally established for! unions in the private sector back in the day when some corporations held a monopoly in certain areas  for the labor market, one example being the early coal companies in Appalachia. they abused their labor and unions were a good answer for that abuse, what abuse are the teachers unions of Wisconsin complaining about? I've seen all the pay and benefit data from that state and can't see any complaint. these teachers have above average pay and definitely above average benefits. (I should note too that most developed countries pay far less per student and get much better results than the US does, so teachers unions here demand more pay for far less performance by the world's standard) so, what's the real issue? POWER. nothing more, just a small minority wanting to hold sway over the whole of society, sound familiar? socialist utopianism is nothing new, and it always defies democracy and personal freedom and always ends up as a dictatorship. but, that's not taught in school anymore, in fact, many textbooks even attempt to paint Hitler's socialist party as some kind of right-wing movement in an effort for the socialist utopians to paint their movement in a better light historically.
 The eminent psychiatrist Dr. sanity has a relevant post. 

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

one example of the failure of multiculturalism

 The failure is not just in the barbarous acts of the one side, but the absolute unwillingness to stand against it on the other.

 Read this,  and this.

Monday, February 21, 2011

read all about it

Joh 5:43  I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
 The day is coming for the "new guy" to come along that most of the world will willingly follow. Despite the fact the Lord provided, in his Love all the knowledge needed to know him, and thus know this impostor, still this will be. all these generations after Adam and Eve's day most folks still want to listen to the serpent, and Ignore their maker.
 Here's a hint to those willing to seek the Lord's face. God handed to Moses a Law that proscribed seven holy days thru the year, Jesus fulfilled the three spring feasts of passover, unleavened bread, and firstfuits at his first coming. the Holy spirit fulfilled the feast of Pentecost that summer, all to the day. Jesus will fulfill the three remaining fall feasts of trumpets, atonement, and tabernacles at his second coming. 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The front row seat

 Having too much time on your hands has some unexpected benefits. I get to read a lot of scripture, much of it prophecy, and I get to watch too much news. funny thing is it's hard these days to tell whether I'm reading news or prophecy due to the fact that I'm kinda scatterbrained and can't remember whether I'm reading my e-sword or a news site and both tend to be about the same subject these days. these two will be meeting very soon, it seems. thinkin this new "popular" Arab uprising will become a very Muslim uprising pretty soon, that many Arab nations will assemble themselves against Israel, that Israel will be forced to drastic actions to save that tiny little new Hampshire sized nation of 6 million that most of the 1.4 billion Arabs say so sorely oppresses them. think the love affair between militant Islam and western leftists will grow and blossom and cause trouble over much of the west (still don't quite understand it, kinda like I don't understand those women who seek out and marry violent criminals in prison). It's bothers me a lot to see how many people there are who refuse to trouble their opinions with even a cursory examination of the facts.
  One of the fun guys to watch in this drama is this dude.
 The outlandish things this guy says, and all the contortions the mainstream media goes to the not report anything about this is funny!
 some may accuse me of fear-mongering here, the news flash here is I 'aint scared, and don't want you to be either. There's no need to fear, Yeshua HaMashiach will soon be here. I encourage everyone to read the Bible, I probably have worn that theme out here, but the troubling fact is, many churches and pastors these days spend little or no time on prophecy, I won't go into the reasons this may be but one thing I do know is that these scriptures were not handed down to us thru the ages to be ignored! those people who spoke these prophecies and documented them did so at great personal expense! it was obviously not for their personal gain. have a heart, people died so you could have a glimpse of these things, I know the popular response to such things these days is indifference, waking up from this slumber will benefit you in the long run.


Eze 33:2  Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
Eze 33:3  If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
Eze 33:4  Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
Eze 33:5  He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
Eze 33:6  But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
Eze 33:7  So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
Eze 33:8  When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 33:9  Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Eze 33:10  Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?
Eze 33:11  Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 33:12  Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
Eze 33:13  When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
Eze 33:14  Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
Eze 33:15  If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 33:16  None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
Eze 33:17  Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.
Eze 33:18  When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
Eze 33:19  But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
Eze 33:20  Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

  Many people, even though they know they have need of Christ's forgiveness, tend to think of him as some sort of celestial scorekeeper when they look at their relationships with their fellow humans. yeah, they want Christ's forgiveness for themselves, but to their neighbor, they want the Lord  to keep score according to the law. do they really want their neighbor to have the same access to that same forgiveness? well, the proof is in the puddin. how do they act and react to their fellows? anger, selfishness, and indifference are not any of the fruits of the holy spirit now, are they? yes, you are your brothers keeper. this text above shows just how that crappy attitude towards your fellows will translate to your attitude to your maker too. unless you have a Love for God that supersedes your love for yourself and everything else, you will end up writing your own death sentence in the end.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

A bit one sided

Mat 11:16  But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
Mat 11:17  And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
Mat 11:18  For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Mat 11:19  The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

 The human response to Jesus love remains a baffling lesson for me, it might seem natural to some to assume because they see things differently than most, that perhaps they should just "go with the flow". after all, there is a widely held opinion that a consensus=truth right? if you think differently than most of your fellows ya gotta be wrong, right? somehow I have to disagree. I just don't think very many people realize the position they put their selves in with their attitude to God's love.  Do people believe what God says about himself? and if not, what does that do to their view of the world? Jesus said he Loved you in the most profound way possible. providing for us a way back to God by way of him sacrificing his own life for our benefit. being killed in the most horrific way possible to reconcile humanity back to God! yet, what really are the most common responses to this love God has for his creatures? mostly indifference. face it, most people could care less. even many who make some claim to understand God's love continually pray to God for their needs, wants and desires to be fulfilled. what more really, can God do for you? having died on your behalf? yet that's just not good enough? is that not what you are saying? are you not ignoring the clear facts of God sacrificing himself for you for, what? some carnal need or want? frankly I can't see it. can people not look at their self from God's point of view and see how thankless this is? and what does this do for their attitude towards each other? God says he is no respecter of persons, yet, do people really believe this? look around, one person thinks because he prays the rosary and you don't, because I speak in tongues and you don't, because I pray more loudly than you, because i was baptized by dunking, because I'm in church twice a week, because I put more in the collection plate, because, because, because, because, ad nauseum. God thinks I'm better than YOU are! like the little children in the market in Jesus parable above, we are better and you are not, because, we piped and you didn't dance. why does the christian church today think they are any better off than the pharisees of Jesus day? because.
  the part of humanity that does have any belief in God think they are in some kind of quid-pro-quo relationship with God? what can you give God that he needs? how f---ing arrogant can people get? they are even MORE arrogant today than the pharisees were in the day. because WE have the clear knowledge of redemption they didn't have!! they cursed themselves because they failed to see God's love in the law and the writings of the prophets, this generation failed even more-so by failing to see God's love in the life, and death of Christ Jesus. humankind still thinks they can buy their way into heaven. some inside track, some secret knowledge, some, something they got their neighbor doesn't. What, really has the Church shown the world of God's love? were not we of the church supposed to be some ensign to the nations? here's the church, all fractured and split and divided, on one point or another. we really show God's love, eh? the church is not even recognizable as compared to it's start under the apostles. should we blame God for that? introspection is tough, I know. turning this message around to the messenger will not help you, ya gotta help yourself, God did all he can do for you at the cross. you have to truly accept that, what do you think you are going to do the day you meet Christ? say he didn't make his plan clear enough for you? tell him you really were a "good" person? I did great works! think perhaps he won't bring up your treatment of your fellows? or your response to his love?
Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
 even Adam and Eve got to see God's love for them, God did not strike them down for disobeying him, why do we think better of ourselves than our neighbors? are we not all in the same boat?
God killed some animals, and made them some clothing of skins to cover their shame. God did this, himself, for them, get it? ain't we all in the same boat? WE ALL NEED GOD TO COVER OUR SHAME. and he will, for all those who will receive it. funny thing is, many won't. and should God's love not be flowing out of those believers to their fellows? wisdom truly is justified of her children.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

What then??

 I've heard the talking heads in the media gush on about Egypt's "peaceful" protests bringing about their "freedom" for two days now. it left me wondering how the hell these folks define the word "freedom". "freedom" to them is apparently living in a country ruled by the military, at least that's how they define freedom for Egyptians in Egypt. somehow I don't think that if it were them they would be okay with that. If the US was being run by the joint chiefs of staff I believe they would be speaking against the notion. why the doublethink? It would seem obvious that freedom takes more work than protesting a despot. but, that's not what you're hearing from the talking heads today. huh. 
 One of the stories not getting a whole lot of attention at the same time all this is going on is that many of Europe's leaders declared multiculturalism a failure over there. there is no peace, and therefore, no freedom when you have two cultures competing for supremacy in the same nation. when one culture treasures personal freedom and the other culture treasures sharia, that does not even recognize the basic concept OF personal freedom there is an obvious problem. apparently after all these years, Europe's leadership is now coming to recognize the fact. 
 How do we all get along when differing groups have differing outlooks on life? seems tough especially when one group espouses a convert to my way or die mentality. how can one think "basic human rights" and "convert or die" can get along?
 It does seem these two get along for some reason, leftist groups espousing their claimed belief in "basic human rights" have been in bed with Islamists from before the second world war. The Muslim brotherhood's motto is:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
 The founder of this group, Hassan al-Banna, was a good buddy of socialist Adolf Hitler and they held quite similar goals, aims and view's  between them. even most Leftists today understand Hitler's view of the world and rightly despise it, yet, chide the world for not being "open-minded" about Islam. huh? I don't get it, unless it is some idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. after all, how long do you think a human rights activist would last espousing their opinions on the streets of Mecca right now? so, the question is, who do these groups think their enemy is? and just how far is either side willing to go to accommodate their "friend"? will code pink and the like take up wearing burqua's? help stone adulterers? perhaps help chop a few hands off of some hungry street waifs who stole a biscuit? kill a few infidels? will the other friend lay off the Idea of sharia, at least tolerate seeing a woman's ankle without thinking they should be raped and beaten for this "exposure"?
  Just who do these groups view as their enemy? and will "discussion and understanding" ever be enough? history shows an answer, and it's an answer nobody wants to hear. the discussion nearly always eventually falls to violence where Humans are concerned. then the winner gets to write the history about the conflict.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Is finding fault enough?

 It seems an obvious point to me that, simply removing a bad idea is not enough. one has to replace the bad idea with a good one. consider the riots in Egypt as an example. Mubarak, the self-serving dictator is a bad idea, and it seems many in that country has seen that light. what doesn't seem to be developing over there is a good idea to replace him with. Rubin makes great argument about this here. we think democracy is a good thing, and it is, but only if it is underpinned with sound philosophy. democracy is just a mechanism. without sound logic it will fail, and fail horribly. it succeeded in the USA because of the sound moral values of our founders. and failed in France just a few years later because of the lack of such. those french leaders of that movement, while full of the good intentions of removing the despotism of monarchy, very shortly became far greater despots than the king ever was.
 Finding fault has been a real passion of humankind throughout history, but what really is the end result? can this fix any problem? it's a start, that's all. what then? Is there logic in Love? most would say yes to that but there is a very wide idea of just what love is among us though is there not? millions have been slaughtered in the name of love, people have killed others in the name of the love of God, even more people have been killed in the name of love for humanity itself. can anyone see the hypocrisy of humans? think you that I'm being a hypocrite myself right now? finding fault with finding fault? let's look at those who make the claim of being the most compassionate nowadays. many people think "green" thinking is compassionate to future generations, after all, we worry about global warming drowning the world someday right? well, just how compassionate is this in the end? Al Gore's carbon credit scheme is said to be "compassionate" right? this scheme forces companies and governments to buy credits that are promises of doing something good for the environment like planting trees someday somewhere, for the right to expel carbon emissions now. so, what we have here is a scheme whereby Al Gore sells an electric company a promise of planting a tree in their behalf someday, somewhere, for a lot of money, thereby raising the cost of producing present energy, a lot. who benefits from this? well, Al says future generations do. who loses here? well, Al says the evil electric company does. is this the truth? no, the real answers are Al makes billions, and the billions he makes is at the expense of "we the people" who now have to spend more for energy. who has the toughest time? the poorest among us. so, the truth of the matter is Al Gore is making billions at the expense mainly of the poorest among us, so we can feel good, warm, fuzzy feelings about doing something about some future perceived threat, right? is this Love and compassion?
 how about the ethanol craze, is this not the same compassion as described above? who loses the most when food gets more expensive? the poorest among us. but, John Q Yuppie can feel better about driving his beemer, so all's well that ends well right? one present craze now is "let them have health-care", yeah, that sounds great! but read the stupid law as passed and you find what that really is all about is Obama creating a whole new great big bureaucracy so he can employ more of his friends. use that bureaucracy to reward his friends by exempting them (and himself) from it, punish his enemies by enforcing it's expense on them. enslaving the entirety of the health-care profession to the government, and making us pay for it all. who gets hurt the most by increased taxes? who gets hurt the most by increased medical expense? the poorest among us.  real compassionate. 
 If even the self-proclaimed "most compassionate" among us cannot even meet their own standards of compassion, from whence does real compassion from? if we can't meet our own standard (if we did we could not FIND fault, could we?) from whence do our standards come? what about just giving everyone money? you say? that'll fix everything! the problem is there will never be enough money, besides, if there was in theory, money itself would shortly become worthless, a fact that is presently playing out right now. who hurts the most when money loses value? the poorest among us, that's who. 
 Can truth reveal itself to Humankind? I think so, because truth himself told me so, and as truth told me also that he's no respecter of persons, and wills that all understand him and his Love. that he can reveal himself to you too. the Love of truth flows to all of us freely, if there is any difference in our response it is because of the difference in our various responses to that Love. you need no priest or preacher to help you understand, just a willingness on your part to respond to his Love, that's all. 

 here's a great snippet on truth's attempt to reveal himself to you borrowed from this website:

Revelation Theology

FAQ: Why Are Christians Always Quoting Scripture?

The cornerstone of Christian belief is REVELATION. We believe that it is not really possible to figure God out "from below", but that God in his love chose to "reveal" his nature. By "from below" we mean from down here--of the earth, or worse. By revelation we mean a knowledge that comes from "above".
This is key to why we are always referring to scripture: We believe it is a reliable guide to describe the nature of God and the nature of man.
Contained in this revelation are stern warnings NOT to imagine a "god" of our own liking--this is idolatry, which the real God rather dislikes. Our God is the living God, the self-existent I AM, the Creator God. He is not to be re-designed or second-guessed by humans. If he is to be believed, there is nothing that makes him more angry than people choosing to deliberately ignore his revelation and "make-up" their own man-made notions about his nature. He has spoken and confirmed his word.
And some day we will be face to face with our Maker. Then we can lecture him about what we think he should "really be like", that hell is not real, that he is a she, etc. How do you think this will fly with him... who spent so much to be so clear?
As scripture says so vividly, "prepare to meet your God!"
As a parable to illustrate this...

Suppose a potential "lover" took an attitude towards you of ignoring whatever you said about yourself. He or she might even claim to be having a relationship with you, etc. But instead of getting to know the real you, he/she just "makes it up" to suit his/her fancy, goes out with other suitors and says it is you, blows-off anything you say about yourself as "dogmatic", and projects on to you his/her own preference of what you "ought to be" in their opinion.
In this deceived lover's mind, you love him/her, you approve of him/her, regardless of your vehement protests to the contrary. "All paths lead to YOU," he/she asserts. "Don't be so narrow-minded," you are told as you try to describe what you really are like. But the "lover" is too intoxicated with his/her own ideas to be bothered with the truth of who you really are.
How would you feel about this person's "knowledge" about you. Some "relationship", eh?
For more on this see our cute little skit attached to the Theology Bible study. If God exists at all, then he has a nature. That nature exists independent of what you or I or anyone else happens to have coursing through our little heads. If he has indeed revealed himself, then we can confidently approach him and revel in the bounty of his self-disclosure. We can have a "real" relationship with the Living One. But if we are wrong... He does not change. Only we are cut off from the joy of his presence, or take the bait of a rival suitor.

John 1:1-5 (Phi) At the beginning God expressed himself. The personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out. Mat 17:5-7 (NIV) While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid."
For more on this, see our expanded Bible study on the nature of The Truth. In summary:
1) God can speak. 2) God has spoken--and that very clearly--what he wanted to say.
3) His "Word" was Jesus Christ, the "visible expression of the invisible God" (Col 1:15-19).
4) He has pointed out that his self-revelation is TRUE, which makes some people go into a major snit, but it is what you would expect if God took the trouble to really reveal himself.
5) Some humans think they are wiser than God, who somehow botched the job of revealing himself. They are going to improve on God's message by editing out what they do not like.
6) God and these "editors" will someday meet. Place your bets, but play to win!

Monday, February 07, 2011

When we are past

 What will people think about our generation in the future? we know what we think of generations past, after all, Ben Franklin never had an iphone, so he couldn't have been as smart as us, right? what will future generations think of us? Imagine what archeologists will think as they finger thru the "ancient" buildings we've built and try to make sense of our past life? what did us ancient peoples value? well, shouldn't those scholars then look at our largest buildings and edifices to make sense of what we valued and  worshiped? what conclusions would they come up with? what about when they looked at stored data on these ancient computers? what would they find on those ancient data storage and distribution units called "servers" and how should they judge us by what they find? should they not consider categorizing this data into groups and review what groups are larger, and weigh their judgments in part by the volume of groups? just what conclusions would these archeologists come to concerning this generation? well, what are our largest buildings now? and what is the largest content category in our servers now? those future archeologists would have to assume that we worshiped a funny looking ball made of pigskin that we wanted to fight over and, sex acts, lotsa, lotsa, lotsa, sex acts. would they not? judging by what they find?
 huh? you think they would be too harsh in judging this? they don't understand? you say? my question is, why do YOU say that? is not the evidence plain as the nose on your face?
 Coming back to my point in the last post about how presuppositions taint how you think. If you start by assuming God is a vindictive cuss, what you will find in scripture is just what you are looking for. you will decide God doesn't think like you and therefore God must be wrong, right? 
 If you take God's word that he loves you and make that your starting premise you will see the same things in a whole different light.
 attitude has a lot to do with outlook, look at the world thru the glasses of anger you will see one thing, look thru the glasses of selfishness you will see another thing,  look thru the glasses of pride you will see something else, look thru the glasses of love and you will see something else entirely.
 One of people's louder gripes today about God is that they don't agree with his attitude about sex. why do their have to be rules? the people cry.
 the popular attitude today is that sex IS entertainment. is this right? people nowadays think if people sell sex it is wrong, think prostitution demeans women and the like, and one-sided sex, called rape is wrong, but the only thing they see wrong with it is that it's one sided. as long as two people have sex simply for it's (selfish) entertainment value that's O.K. well, is it? don't you think that just perhaps if you think sex is just for it's entertainment value maybe you are selling yourself short? literally? perhaps you should think you are of more value than that? maybe there should be more to relationships than you presently think? People of the past thought so, God thinks so, who's right? remember the archeologists above? you perhaps think they might treat our generation unfairly in your eyes, right?
 this doesn't just have to do with the relationship between God and humankind. this has a lot to do with people's relationships with each other. Your view of people is tainted by you presuppositions. if you look thru the prism of Love you will see others in a different light than if you look at them in thru the prism of vindictiveness.
 Have we not all been the victim of presuppositions? is it not agonizing when people we care about make decisions  about our motives that are not right? take a look at Christ, think you got it bad in this respect? He allowed himself tortured to death for your benefit, yet, many view this act either with anger or indifference. huh. all I can say is thank you Lord for showing me your Love, know I can't come close to returning the favor. wish I could help the rest of this world understand..............

Sunday, February 06, 2011

What about Love?

"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" ~ Ronald Reagan

 It seems fitting that I should write this post on Reagan's birthday. some things should never be forgotten.

Mat 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38  This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 What about Love? how is this a better starting point to understanding God over any other means? look at these verses carefully, Jesus said we should love the Lord our God with all your heart, soul and mind. THIS has to be first. why? you ask? well the conclusions you could come to depend on your presuppositions. If you think God says that because of any number of selfish reasons, because he wants to be lifted up to lord it over you, you would come to one conclusion, If you presuppose he is saying so out of Love and concern for you you would come to another conclusion. the picture that comes to my mind is of a parent/teenager situation. God the parent tells teenager, who he loves dearly, that rules must be followed for their own good. God the parent says "I must be obeyed for your good". teenager thinks parent is full of himself and says this for some selfish reason like fear of embarrassment, or some desire to spoil their fun. Parent makes rules like don't drink and drive out of the love of their teenager, teenager thinks this rule is just to spoil their fun. who's being selfish here? the teenager, obviously. there is no respect of the law if there is no love for the lawgiver, is there? love has two components, the component of the one loved, and the one loving.

 Jesus said the second law is like the first. to love your neighbor as yourself. 
 there's something that looks so easy, yet it is the failure of humankind both individually and as a whole to follow this that causes the "trouble with the world" we find. What would the world be like if everyone loved their neighbor as they do their-selves? what if people loved God's law, and loved their neighbor as they do their selves? A great many spoiled teenagers among us decry God's law as onerous, yet, look at the ten commandments, as ask yourself, can a society succeed without these? why do you think they are so onerous? are you a spoiled teenager still yet? 
 suppose that spoiled teenager gets drunk, and goes driving, wrecks and kills some of his friends and siblings? what position does this teenager find himself in, his sin, having caught up with him? what of his relationship with the law? the lawgiver? who's to come to his defense if and when he recognizes his sin and repents? what should happen then?
 God loves us, his law is for our good. you can listen to God or to the snake, one of the two, but here's God's plan for us. as the lawgiver he is the prosecutor in the case, he prosecutes this wayward teenager. as the judge, he declares this wayward teenager guilty of his sin. and pronounces sentence, death. but the story doesn't end there! the judge gets off his podium, removes his robe, and takes the punishment for the crime onto HIMSELF! believe that! HE takes the place of the condemned! wow! but now, consider wisely your relationship with God now wayward teenager, you owe him an even bigger debt than ever! Do you love your redeemer like you should? ponder all that has been done for you, dear teenager. How would you feel, if you were the parent in this story? and your great sacrifice and love came back to you unappreciated, perhaps mocked, even? understand humankind's present position! we are the spoiled teenager, bent on following our friends ways and opinions and ignoring or, even worse, mocking and making fun of our redeemer. get to know God's mind by studying his word. understand your place as one loved of God and respect it. 

To the Humanist

 In my last post I addressed the notion of replacement theology because frankly, there are many Christians who, for whatever reason (a reason that does not come from the scripture they claim to follow) believe God is vindictive, demands certain rituals and rites that, if not met by the believer, will result in angering their God and incurring his wrath. I further pointed out that an outworking of this idea resulted in a lot of torture and death, to the Jew first, but then also to the perceived heathens, many of which were even their fellow Christians. this assumption of God's vindictiveness clouds their view of God. no better example of this today is the Westboro baptist Church. Islam follows a vindictive God by it's own definition. their God does indeed demand certain rites and rituals, the enforcement of those rites and rituals, and any Muslim cleric will tell you so, so no need for me to say anything more about that nor is there any need for you to take my word for it. there is a lot of argument between a wide range of opinion as to the nature of God amongst Humans, can a person or group attempt to rise above this noise and circumnavigate this argument by other means? Atheism says there is no God, but then, is this not a logical fallacy? what proof is there of this claim? one would have a time trying to explain his very existence. how can one "know" there is no God? Agnosticism is no better logically, atheism claims there is no God, Agnosticism claims God can't be known, same difference then. (a christian answer to these here)
 How about Humanism then? can we not sidestep the issue completely and just focus of Humanity? would this not be a more noble exercise? Humanism's claim is that Humans are the ultimate of everything, the ultimate of intellect, ability, knowledge, we are the SHIT! as the new slang term goes. o.k, let's examine that. many humanists like to make the claim that most of what's wrong in the world is religion, yet, make the claim that humanism is not a religion, and is in fact, a philosophy above religion itself. is this true? actually, Humanism would in fact qualify as a religion in any dictionary, look at the definitions. so, setting God aside, could humans be "the shit" even by their own definition? If humans were "the shit" would we not have all the answers to all our questions? could we not create a utopia by our own means and by our own standard? would not all human endeavors be met with amazing joy and success? after all, this popular humanist culture has busied itself by finding all the fault with the world and demanding "change". is "change" the road to nirvana? many people want "change" in our present health-care system today, many people want "change" in our political dialogue today, let's examine these two points. obviously, if ya want change, that is because you find fault with the present system, right? so, what's wrong with the present system? one argument is that health-care is too expensive and that only rich people can get access to decent health-care. o.k, lets look at the solution to this passed by congress. that solution now in place is a piece of legislation that is over 2600 pages long that creates a whole new bureaucracy to oversee health care when implemented in a couple of years. so, rather than your doctor having the personal  freedom to run his own business, he will now have to acquiesce to the apparent greater wisdom and knowledge of the state when administering his service to his patients. and those patients, will have to acquiesce to the greater wisdom of the state for their treatment. so, rather than a patient paying a doctor for his services, the patient now has to pay for the doctor and all his staff, and the bureaucracy and all their expenses as well, and all this in the name of greater efficiency! with two exceptions to this rule, one is that the state that imposed this plan on the people exempted itself from this plan, and two, the state also reserves the right to issue waivers to whomever will donate to or support the emperor who so wisely "gifted" this oh so great plan to his subjects (but not himself). If humanism is so great, why can't we find a better plan? why do people demand their doctor neighbors businesses be co-opted by the state? why do they think this a good idea? would they be alright with this if they were doctors? and howabout the much complained about "lack of civility" in political discourse today? many people decry some of the talking heads as being intolerant, we had a good example of this  a few weeks ago when Congresswoman Giffords was shot. before the bodies of the slain were even cold there was an outcry about the "tone of political debate", and even the assertion that political debate was the culprit of this heinous crime. according to many in the news the fault of this crime was placed, by name, on Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. yes folks, the people who so decry the "tone of political debate" actually specifically named these two as the perpetrators of this crime. yeah, they are really sincere about their concern over the "tone of political debate" aint they? a congresswoman gets shot in the head, many people die including a little girl, and the knee-jerk reaction is to blame those who don't agree with them in things political. no regard for the victims, little or no concern if the actual perpetrator of the crime is found or gets his just punishment. even the sheriff that should have been in charge of getting to the facts of the case was more concerned with bandying about his opinion about Rush Limbaugh then doing his job. thankfully, the feds saw this and fixed it. but now that sheriff certainly did do the defendant, the actual perpetrator a real favor. all the defense attorney need do is play the interviews of the dumb ass sheriff to the jury. what more need he add? after all, isn't the opinion of the sheriff not worth something?

 Ben Franklin's definition of democracy is "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".
 Tyranny can fit within that definition, can it not? many people today confuse fact and opinion, and think if you can get enough people to agree on a point, then that consensus is "fact" (look out, Rush!). If humanism were some road to truth, than this would be true, would it not? wouldn't the consensus be "right"?
 Why would some people see it right to trample the rights of others? is not a burgeoning bureaucracy tyranny? why don't people think doctors should be able to operate their businesses as they see fit? If people were inherently good, as humanism claims, why the need for ever larger and more expensive government? what's missing? that this has to be?
 If people were inherently good, why do people so love to vilify others? despite the facts? 
 Remember Orwell? his tome "1984"? do we not have many of his definitions today? like "newspeak" and "doublethink"? is not the vilification of others today not unlike the idea of "thoughtcrime" in that book? Makes me wonder...