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...

Friday, February 04, 2011

Replacement Theology

Replacement theology is the teaching that the Christian church has replaced national Israel regarding the plan, purpose, and promises of God.  It is the idea that God dispensed with Israel because of their sin, all covenants and promises that God made to Israel are either broken or bestowed on the Christian Church. this idea stems from the Human bent towards vindictiveness and spite and the desire of humans to attribute this evil to God. an attempt to mold a God in humankind's own image. basically idolatry in it's purist form. personally I wonder why humankind wants a vindictive, spiteful God. would seem to be an obvious dead end, literally, after all, the only way one could please a vindictive god is to die, is it not? yet, it is what it is. Islam takes this same theology one step further and declares that not only is God finished with Israel, but is finished with the Christian Church as well, because of their sin, so, in their view, God is done with Israel, God is done with Christians, but God will never be done with us, because we are better than y'all, we never make mistakes, you Jews didn't "get it" you Christians didn't "get it", but we? we "got it".

 see the logic? neither do I. yet, here we be. People always want to believe they have a better take/knowledge/understanding/belief/standing than their neighbor. I'm closer to God than YOU are, na, na, naa, na, na, naa....stupid.
 This Idea had it's start:
Gen 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 the serpent told Eve that God was a lying, mean, vindictive cuss, and Eve, and Adam, believed him. They had two choices before them, either believe God, or believe the serpent. they made their choice. and we live with the consequences of that choice today. now we see, yeah, we have knowledge of good and evil, but to be honest, we seem to have a natural bent to choose wrong much of the time, do we not? there's something missing in our psyche it seems...
  The outworking of the idea that God is vindictive has consequences, after all,  If God is vindictive, cannot the followers OF God be vindictive too? this Idea has killed a lot of people in the world, and torn up nations, peoples, churches, families. waffling about this point is disastrous. ya gotta either believe God or believe the serpent, there is no middle ground. which do you choose? Prophecies point to an ultimate end of this question, there is only two sides to choose and God let that choice be you own. 

Thursday, February 03, 2011


 Things look tough for Egypt right now, the protest might have started with nobler intentions that it will end with, I read a recent poll that made me wonder if Egypt could even stand more freedom. according to this research poll 90% of Egyptians polled said they believed in freedom of religion, and 84% said they thought anyone leaving Islam should be stoned to death. they also said that if it came down to a fight between modernization or Islamic fundamentalism 59% would support the fundamentalists and 27% would support modernization. 54% think the workplace should be segregated by sex, 54% think suicide bombers are justified in their actions, 82% think adulterers should be stoned to death, 82% have an unfavorable view of the USA. considering this, do you think Egyptians should even try to be more democratic? looks to me like, considering this, a "democratic" revolution there would make the bloody french revolution look like child's play.The vast number of Egyptians had favorable views on democracy, a free press, and the like yet think apostates from Islam should be stoned? how can this be, you ask? a lot of it has to do with their attitude towards their God, Muslim's do not believe their God loves them or has any desire to have any kind of personal relationship with them. They think their God demands tasks of obedience from them out of his own selfish desire. they MUST pray five times a day, the MUST make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life, the MUST convert others to further the just cause of ISLAM if not by verbal persuasion, than the persuasion of the sword. harsh punishment is just and righteous, chop the hand off the thief, stone the adulterer, force their wives into submission by beatings, kill their children if they rebel. their God demands this, and, to top this all off, the bestest way to please this tyrant God? to die in violent jihad against the perceived enemy of Islam!! This is the action that will get you into the great bordello in the sky!! where Allah will reward you for inflicting his righteous terror on the heathen below by providing you with 72 hot virgin chicks to beat for your pleasure! what's not to like about that? bet them wimmen are really lookin forward to heaven, eh?

Luk 19:21  For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
Luk 19:22  And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

 Thinking that God acts out of his own selfish desire is disastrous, not for God, but for YOU. understand this if you will understand anything, everything God does is out of Love. I feel the need to repeat this, EVERYTHING God does is out of LOVE. this quote above is from a parable Jesus used to illustrate this idea, though many will think it to be about money, or works. fact is, God don't need your money or your works. this is ass-backwards thinking and it will get you into trouble the day you stand before him. Please don't try to justify yourself that day. I'm begging you to understand this not for me, but for you. I pray for everyone to understand this, in tears, often. God the father and God the son have the Love that flows between them, a love that has a life of it's own, they don't need others to fulfill this love, but WE need this Love to fulfill US! you can share in that love, the Invitation is open!

Wednesday, February 02, 2011


"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
Benjamin Franklin

If a civilization thinks freedom's author is government, what will eventually happen? doesn't take a genius to figure that out does it?

"Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants."
Benjamin Franklin

 Freedom comes from God's law, tyranny comes from man's law.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

our founding fathers created a republic to keep the people in charge of their government, is this idea "outdated"? willful ignorance and apathy will kill the freedom the people enjoy.

"How many observe Christ's birthday! How few his precepts!
O! 'tis easier to keep holidays than commandments."
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1757

 Churches have to consider their part in this republic committing suicide, could they have been a better example?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

 so does the rest of us who comprise "we the people"


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.

 Many people in the past who have made the claim to be "servants of Christ" have enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered people. many "Christians" have even done so to other "Christians". read about the inquisition and about the Jesuits slaughtering the Huguenots and any might wonder about the Lord these folks claim to serve. servants ought to reflect the will of their masters, should they not? how can anyone reconcile the words above with such actions as these? can you find anywhere in scripture,  Jesus calling for his followers to commit torture and murder? people have a real problem in their process of belief, many, many times you can find examples of opinion having little or nothing to do with the pertinent facts. how can a "christian" torture another person  thinking he is loving his neighbor as he does himself? people are nuts. and I can't explain it. the best way one can get to the truth is to get as close to the facts as best they can, if you want truth of Christ, you would have to go to the Bible, read it, understand it. what you get from other people is OPINION. if you're looking for facts you'd best do your reading yourself. When looking at what any person or group has to offer, you will find both good thoughts and bad, if you learn anything in life, it's that people are flawed at some deep level in their psyche. some worse than others. some are full of more bad idea's than good and some vice versa. knowing this, I choose to start with the fact of the one person who claimed to BE God, that was quite an audacious claim, was it not? one that should be easy enough to examine as whoever would make such a claim would either have to be pretty much wholly bad as the chief liar of the ages or telling the truth, ya can't come up with any middle ground in that claim, can you, such a person would have to be exceptional one way or the other! think about it! most of us are chock full of inner conflict, we can't even live up to our own standard. is not such a person as this Christ Jesus worthy of examination? could not one learn from such? you be the judge. look for yourself what the Jesus expected of his followers by his own word, not by the word of those who obviously did not and do not follow his word or example.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

What do ya get?

"The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
"If the people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
"Paper is poverty... It is not money, but the ghost of money."
"There is an artificial aristocracy, founded on birth and privelege, without virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendency."
"The bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in a time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or it might withdraw its aid. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?"

James Madison speaking on the first attempt to establish a central bank in America:
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance."
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The free men of America did not wait until usurped power has strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

Andrew Jackson speaking on the second attempt to establish a central bank in America:
"If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."
"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic, inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a monied aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."
President Jackson told the bankers "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal god, I will rout you out!"

 Abraham Lincoln speaking on the third attempt to establish a central bank in America:
"The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes.
I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."
"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity."
"Government, possessing the power to create and issue credit and currency as money, and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work and public enterprise."
"The privelege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity."
"No duty is more imperative on the government than the duty it owes the people to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labor will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges."

Albert Einstein, arguably one of the most intelligent people who ever lived, was asked what he thought was the greatest of mankind's discoveries. His answer: "compound interest." He went so far as to call it the eighth wonder of the world.
As an example of just how powerful this can be, consider the following scenario.
Let's say Christopher Columbus made an investment in the new world's future in 1492. If Chris had placed a single penny in a 6% interest-bearing account and instructed someone to remove the interest every year, the value of the interest earned to date (2005) would be almost 31 cents. Not too much to write home about, is it.
But if the young explorer had placed the same paltry investment of one cent into the same interest-bearing account but LEFT the earned interest to compound—earning interest upon the interest—the results would be drastically different.
What would you guess the account would be worth now? $10,000? $100,000? A million? 10 million? 100 million?
In actuality, the resulting balance of a penny invested at 6% COMPOUND interest for 513 years would be $95,919,936,112. That's 95 BILLION!
Not bad for a single penny. Do you see what Al Einstein was so worked up about? It's powerful.

 It wouldn't take much 'cyphering to see how wealthy this nation could have been had the Wilson administration not signed off on the federal reserve act. all the compound interest we now have to pay that privately owned bank could have been kept in the treasury, though, we know full well that wouldn't have happened. we're way too greedy. our founding fathers warned us against this evil, but, times change and people get smarter (in their own mind).


"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816. Ford 11:533

 Why would a generation of people spend borrowed monies on their selves now, and thus incur a debt on future generations? and by this mechanism, wholeheartedly support the notion of taxation without representation?

 How many people, who, having studied issues such as slavery of the past, and, consider themselves so much more "enlightened" and "intelligent" than their past generations, now wholeheartedly support such slavery by this device now? (oh, I remember, the unborn have no rights)

 How many recreational drug users, by their particular commerce, knowingly commit many of their southern neighbors in Mexico, and the rest of central and south America to the terror and violence that the drug cartels employ. who often "hire" mules by kidnapping their families and threatening their death, usurp and/or corrupt their governments, and create a life of violence and death in general across much of that area?

 How many feminists, who spend huge amounts of time decrying occasional rude sexist behavior in  America's workplaces, remain silent as church-mice about their sisters in Islam being regarded as chattel of their male husbands or relatives, with little or no rights, covered from sight,  barely tolerated in public, often stoned to death for the charge of adultery that was actually the result of their being raped?

 How often does this country not just tolerate, but accept and do business with tyrants and/or tyrannical governments and/or religions because they have "stuff" for sale that we want to buy thereby facilitating slavery today?

 but! you say, you're trying to oversimplify the issue mark! yeah, that'd be one issue I'm trying to point out. If we can find all kinds of excuses to tolerate slavery in the here and now, why speak against those dead, and unable to defend their-selves? it still is what it is though, isn't it? I've spent much of the day reading what our founding fathers have written concerning their own hypocrisy, enough to know THEY were well aware of theirs, is THIS generation as aware of  their own? I wonder...



Sunday, January 30, 2011

Thomas Jefferson, would he be elected president today?

 Thomas Jefferson is hands down the most slandered former president of our country. Jefferson sent a reply to a letter from a community of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut and re-iterated to them the establishment clause of the first amendment. assuring the Baptists that congress would never interfere with the free exercise of religion, nowadays unethical, unscrupulous lawyers use his letter to attempt to do just that by taking his comments out of context.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's "separation of church & state letter written to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free excercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
John F. Kennedy to Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere,
at a White House function, April 29, 1962
"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816. Ford 11:533
"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others." "(If a) people (are) so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation must be taken up ab incunablis (from the beginning). Their minds (must) be informed by education what is right and what wrong, (must) be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible. In all cases, (they must) follow truth as the only safe guide and eschew error which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government."
In a letter to John Adams in 1819
"He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and it time depraves all its good dispositions." (1785)
"I never ... believed there was one code of morality for a public and another for a private man."
In a letter to Don Valentine de Feronda, 1809

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government."
Senator John Sharp Williams, Thomas Jefferson: His Permamnent Influence on American Institutions, p.49 (1913). Lecture delivered at Columbia University, New York City, 1912.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion." "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."
"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."
As President, Thomas Jefferson not only signed bills which appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and in the armed services, but he also signed the Articles of War, April 10, 1806, in which he:
"Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services."
In a letter to Horatio G. Spafford, dated March 17, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
"I have always said, I always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands."
Jefferson declared that religion is: "Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, while writing the 1st draft of the Virginia State Constitution.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

this last quote by the very writer of the first amendment:
Fisher Ames (Author of the First Amendment)
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."

Saturday, January 29, 2011


 Found some folks in Egypt who's blogs I used to read a lot a few years ago now posting on their twitter accts somehow. while these folks are young intellectuals with ideas of more (and much needed) freedom. I can only hope these folks have a plan, as both history and the word of God state that even bad government is better that no government at all. this group of young, educated (usually educated overseas in American and European universities) have lived in oppression there for years. some of the bloggers I followed had been arrested and beaten for minor off the cuff remarks on their blogs against Mubarak's government this has happened time and again and they are tired of it. they deserve a better government. my concern, however is that a radical and even more despotic organization could step into the vacuum if these folks don't have some plan to keep that from happening. The Muslim Brotherhood are largely popular amongst the poorer and less educated young masses there and they are a large and probably well armed group. this bunch getting into power would be disastrous to the cause of personal freedom, and stability in the middle east. as the very idea OF personal freedom is completely foreign to Islam. I pray this all works out for the good. the history of revolutions teaches that they can be either good or bad. just study the difference between the American revolution and the French one. and the importance of the philosophy that was behind both that were very different. In America the obvious truth as our founders saw it was that God created all men equal, and the God gave men certain rights, chief amongst them were the right to life (and that's the best start, right there) liberty, and the personal freedom to pursue their happiness.

The french revolution was quite different, their mantra was Liberty, equality, and fraternity. and you have to note that they believed in fraternity first and foremost, then equality, then liberty as last. note there was no idea in the french revolution that anyone had any "God given" right. rights were recognized as liberties provided by the government to the individual and there was no recognized right to life at all! Fraternity meant the individual was to submit to to the will and the way of the revolutionaries in power, agree with them or meet with madame Guillotine, and many did! you see that if nobody has a right to life, there is NO liberty to be had. the leader of the french revolution had his own philosophy about this jump up and bite him in the ass. wonder if his last thought was that philosophy matters? and what of equality? Just because people are created equal does not mean they will remain equal in all the range of pursuits people will roam after. we all have differing abilities and ideas and goals. this guarantees differing finish lines. If  I witness my neighbor go to the store and get a coke, and I want a coke, what should I do? petition my sheriff my grievance that my neighbor has a coke and I don't have one? after all, is not my neighbor ignoring my "right" to equality? should he not meet the Guillotine for this heinous crime? so you see, the idea of equality is not personal liberty either. if you want a coke, get a coke. if you can't afford a coke, get a job, then get a coke. the issue of covetousness is a dead end. society can't deal with it, only persons can, nine of the ten commandments God gave Moses deal with actions, the one last commandment forbids a thought, the thought that is nothing but a big dead end waste of time. covetousness.

 Building a government requires building a philisophy of government first and foremost, maintaining a government requires maintaining that philosophy in word and deed and teaching that philosophy to the generations after. America is falling down on the job here, one might even say rolling backwards here. and the results of that could be catastrophic.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Love letters

 Young lovers look for little notes from their mates with excitement and anticipation. memories from high school are full of young girls giggling and young boys gushing. such were the responses of letters passed in class or stuffed through a locker vent. I can remember the anticipation and excitement on the faces as they unfolded their little notes. nowadays the methods those notes are passed is different, what with facebook, twitter, and smartphones but the responses to them are pretty much the same I'd bet. the bigger the note was the greater the excitement! and was it not just for such as response that these little notes were written?

  Fellow people, we have a love letter written to us from our maker, who, having poured out his heart to us in this letter is awaiting a response from us. can you remember the response you had from those letters in school? did you not honor and treasure those little notes then? what about now? and what about the letter written to you by your maker, what is your response to it? is it the same excitement and anticipation you felt for your young friend? and if not? why not?

  In thinking about the full range of responses someone may have about this blog I imagine the percentages would go like this: about 90% indifference, about 5% anger, about 4% friends or family seeking indications of my present or future insanity and less than 1% other than previously described. note that this is not an actual poll, just my guesstimate, but I can't be too far off. why bother to write, considering this, you ask? well, are you asking me, or are you asking the subject OF my writing? some may complain as to the "tone" or the "spirit" of my diatribes. after all, God is love, and love is all gushing and giggling, right?

Well, no, love is not all gushing and giggling, as any parent could tell you. and if you were to sort God's word into categories of gushing and giggling and instruction and admonition, the "gushing and giggling" category would hold a whole lot fewer pages than the "instruction and admonition" pile. If I am trying to testify as to God's word, and told you different from this, would this not be a most horrible crime?

  I point out to you today that there is much written in scripture specifically for the people of today. Many evangelical Christians of today think we are in the "last days". there is much written in scripture specifically about, and for the church in the "last days" too, the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John wrote certain things SPECIFICALLY TO AND FOR the last days church. are you willing to read it? do you feel the same excitement and anticipation you felt when you knew there was a note in your locker from your high school sweetheart?


Tuesday, January 25, 2011

True Love

It seems to me as though I have written these last few posts ass-backwards. and perhaps the last post might really be a good set-up for the previous few. funny how the world appears different when you take the time to stop, turn around and look back. It might be some benefit to you, dear reader, to consider this, go to my main page, and read these from the top down. then consider all that was written for your benefit in God's word, there is much both in what Christ taught, what the apostles wrote down that were written for this age, this generation (and a lot of it says we have a problem! are they lying? or telling the truth? think you, that "this doesn't apply to ME"?). all this that should bring you to the foot of the cross. when you are there look up, and witness the fact that the terrible cost of sin, and the terrible cost of Love hangs right there as a witness to you, Consider what God brought to this point, and what you brought here. God's begging you to understand. my prayer is that you would choose to understand, but then, whether this witness is for you or against you is YOUR choice. when it comes to writing, or reading I guess writing is really the easier part, choosing requires a multi-stepped effort. Jesus said "wisdom is justified of all her children". how many consider this, and lay it to heart? God knows. consider this fact, God chose to reveal himself to you through the written word, to honor someone, do you not have to honor their word? first and foremost? there have been many a time my words were not honored, even those, my most precious words "I love you" were regarded as trash, as shit, and dropped to the ground and stepped on by some. hey, we've all been there. that brings pain, tears, and anguish. but in my mind I know that the place of both my words and the response I got from them mean little in the big picture, but.... God's words divide truth and folly, light and darkness, life and death! imagine the pain, the tears, and the agony of our Lord Jesus Christ. how we respond to God's truth and Love matters.

the best gift I can give anybody is to bring them to the knowledge of Christ and testify to it's effect on me in the hope that that may open their eyes and inspire them to read the bible. some may consider my choice of forum for this as odd, but I do what I can do, I am hobbled in several ways physically at this point so all I can do is salute my friends and family from here. this is the fruit I can offer, sometimes fruit is taken as juice. the juice I offer is that little bit of the knowledge of Christ I have been given. juice is made by pressing and squeezing the fruit and throwing the husk away. if this juice is acquired though some pain and violence to the fruit so be it.
 the common proverb states "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" that is true for those beasts, if you know you are going to go ride out in the desert, you would hydrate yourself a bit extra before the trip, the horse, however, as an unthinking beast, knows not that his rider is leading him to a dry place and may not drink the water proffered. us humans are not unthinking beasts, though at times we all act like it. the idea of that old proverb is that you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make him think. or feel. or love.

Do you see the tragedy? it's not in God's word that the tragedy lies, it is in our response to it. My Prayer is all will respond with all their heart and mind to God's True Love.

 Have a Blessed day.

Monday, January 24, 2011

If you want to know what water is like, don't ask the fish.

That is an old Chinese proverb (I think) can't honestly remember where I heard it, the Idea is that a fish that has been immersed in water it's whole life would have no common point of reference with us to explain to us what water is like. we think water is wet, does the fish? so likewise us, having grown up in the culture we find ourselves in...see the dilemma? we absorb traits from the culture around us. if we had grown up in a culture that has, for all our life called the color of grass purple, well, you get the picture.
 If we were to apply this to the subject of truth, how DO we find truth, can people actually find truth? God says yes, in the bible, do we understand it fully, no, but that does not mean one should give up trying and say it's not possible, People can have a relationship with truth, God says so, and wrote a book about it, in fact. as a society though, our relationship with truth is quite distant in this day and time, it would benefit all to think and study about this problem.

one of the problems of our post-modern philosophy of today is this:

borrowed from this website
You are here: Philosophy >> Nihilism
Nihilism – Abandoning Values and Knowledge
Nihilism derives its name from the Latin root nihil, meaning nothing, that which does not exist. This same root is found in the verb “annihilate” -- to bring to nothing, to destroy completely. Nihilism is the belief which:

  • labels all values as worthless, therefore, nothing can be known or communicated.
  • associates itself with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism, having no loyalties.
The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), is most often associated with nihilism. In Will to Power [notes 1883-1888], he writes, “Every belief, every considering something true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.” For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. The objective of nihilism manifests itself in several perspectives:
  • Epistemological nihilism denies the possibility of knowledge and truth, and is linked to extreme skepticism.
  • Political nihilism advocates the prior destruction of all existing political, social, and religious orders as a prerequisite for any future improvement.
  • Ethical nihilism (moral nihilism) rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Good and evil are vague, and related values are simply the result of social and emotional pressures.
  • Existential nihilism, the most well-known view, affirms that life has no intrinsic meaning or value.
Nihilism – A Meaningless World
Shakespeare’s Macbeth eloquently summarizes existential nihilism's perspective, disdaining life:

    Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Philosophers’ predictions of nihilism’s impact on society are grim. Existentialist, Albert Camus (1913-1960), labeled nihilism as the most disturbing problem of the 20th century. His essay, The Rebel1 paints a terrifying picture of “how metaphysical collapse often ends in total negation and the victory of nihilism, characterized by profound hatred, pathological destruction, and incalculable death.” Helmut Thielicke’s, Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer2 warns, “Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless."

Nihilism – Beyond Nothingness
Nihilism--choosing to believe in Nothingness--involves a high price. An individual may choose to “feel” rather than think, exert their “will to power” than pray, give thanks, or obey God. After an impressive career of literary and philosophical creativity, Friedrich Nietzsche lost all control of his mental faculties. Upon seeing a horse mistreated, he began sobbing uncontrollably and collapsed into a catatonic state. Nietzsche died August 25, 1900, diagnosed as utterly insane. While saying Yes to “life” but No to God, the Prophet of Nihilism missed both.

Beyond the nothingness of nihilism, there is One who is greater than unbelief; One who touched humanity (1 John 5:20) and assures us that our lives are not meaningless (Acts 17:24-28). 

a detailed treatise about this problem of human perception here

 Have a Blessed day.

Sunday, January 23, 2011


Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Exo 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 Jesus made the claim that nobody can or will come to the Father but by him. Jesus made no room for anybody to make some soft-pedaled claim that he was a "good teacher" or a "great prophet" or "nice guy". that there was any other way to enter the presence of God but through him. this is the exclusive statement of exclusive statements. nobody can be ambivalent about Jesus, he left NO room for it, at all. period. You have to believe either Jesus is who he says he is, or that he is the craziest kook, the utter nutter, the absolute father of all lies. there isn't any gray area to be found in this issue at He made it that way.

Mat 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

This truth, is the sword Jesus is, there is only two sides to this sword people can fall to. one or the other.period. all of society and all of the world are hurling headlong into the edge of this sword. the consequences of the decision that has to be made are dire. this sword will cleave the world of humankind in two. just because our current society holds pluralism and relativism on some pedestal higher even that we hold God will not change this fact, just because this society, and the spirit of the age wills that all people should be shamed into keeping their core beliefs private will not change this fact. making human government bigger will not change this fact. If you happen to believe Christ you HAVE to spread this message! what's the alternative! let others fall? is keeping this truth private for the sake of your present relationships your goal? then this goal is your God. is the Idea that you "don't want to offend" what motivates you? what fruit will this bear? for you or your friend? Should Christians remain huddled in their homes and churches, pat each other on the back, and feel good about their selves? Should Christians be devoted to praying for what they want God to do for them? or should Christians be praying for God's will to be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.

Many Christians have read about the arguments the Lord Jesus had with the religious leadership in the day. would he not have many of the same arguments with many church leaders today? and how much more the worse for us that this is so, for while the pharisees had knowledge of  Moses and the Prophets in that day, this world has had the testimony of Christ these two thousand years! Are we where we should be spiritually? read the word, and judge.