The Liberal Man's Burden by Daniel Greenfield

One-hundred and thirteen years ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about the American enterprise in the Philippines. The title of that poem has since become a byword for racist colonialism and yet its text is a sardonic recitation of the dim virtues of the "Savage wars of peace"."Go bind your sons to exile, To serve your captives' need;" Kipling wrote. "To seek another's profit, And work another's gain. Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease."

This moral imperialism has never gone away, though it is no longer thought of in racial terms. For over a hundred years, the United States has gone on trying to feed and cure the world, sacrificing for others and seeing nothing in return.

For more of this excellent article go to:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-liberal-mans-burden.html

God Will Judge Nations For Dividing Israel

Articles: Netanyahu's Settlement Jungle by Jerald S. Auerbach

The issue of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the biblical homeland of the Jewish people, continues to roil Israeli politics. According to worldwide conventional wisdom, settlements built since the Six-Day War on land that previously had been known as Jordan's West Bank violate fundamental principles of international law.

But conventional wisdom, according to the recent report of an Israeli commission chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, is wrong. The report concluded: "according to international law, Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements cannot in and of itself be considered illegal."

Prime Minister Netanyahu's announced intention to seek ministerial approval for the Levy Report instantly stirred the wrath of his left-wing political opponents, who dismissed it as "a transparent elections scheme" and accused the government of planning "an infestation of illegal settlements to annex territories." Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that government adoption would cause "diplomatic damage to Israel and deepen its isolation in the world." (Barak's palpable hostility to settlers was demonstrated years ago when he ordered the forcible eviction of Hebron Jews from property they legally owned, an order recently overturned in court.) But Alan Baker, one of the authors of the Levy Report and former legal adviser for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, dismissed Barak's reasoning as "nonsense."

The Obama administration, ever eager to soothe Muslim sensibilities, also was not pleased. A State Department spokesman declared that the United States rejects "the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity." UN Ambassador Susan Rice emphasized that the United States would not recognize Israel's settlement claims.

Yet the Levy Commission had merely reiterated a ninety-year-old principle of international law. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, adopted in 1922, recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and guaranteed their right of "close settlement." Even after British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill partitioned Palestine to provide Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with his own East Bank kingdom, Jews retained the internationally guaranteed legal right to "close settlement" west of the Jordan River. That right has never been rescinded.

Settlement critics invariably cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (1949), prohibiting the "forcible transfers" by an Occupying Power of its civilian population to occupied territory "for political and racial reasons." It was inspired by the brutal population transfers conducted by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during World War II. But international law expert Julius Stone decried attempts to portray Article 49 as "an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein." Israel has never forcibly transferred anyone to a settlement. Indeed, settlements were voluntarily established by small groups of Jews, often over government objections, resistance, and expulsions.

After the Six-Day War, UN Security Council Resolution 242 permitted Israel to administer its newly acquired territory until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. Even then, Israel would only be required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" -- not from "the territories" or "all the territories." Resolution 242 imposed no restriction on Jewish settlement west of the Jordan River, guaranteed under the Palestine Mandate forty-five years earlier.

Legions of settlement critics have asserted that under international law Israel is a "belligerent occupier," without sovereignty over territories whose future must be decided by international agreement. But the Levy Commission rejected that argument, concluding that because no state had territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in 1967 (Jordan's occupation after 1949 was not recognized under international law) Israel cannot be considered a "belligerent occupier." Accordingly, Jews enjoy the legal right to live there.

Learning of Netanyahu's plan, a Palestinian Authority representative insisted: "We will not sign any peace agreement if there is a [single] settlement on Palestinian land." That, however, raises another interesting question: Where is "Palestinian" land? Archeological discoveries -- coins, pottery, seals, inscriptions (many bearing the name YHWH, the Israelite God) -- confirm a sovereign Jewish presence in the Land of Israel for one thousand years preceding the Common Era. Indeed, Roman coins bearing the words "Judea Capta," minted after the capture of Judea and the destruction of the Second Temple, poignantly testify to the loss of Jewish national sovereignty that would endure for nearly nineteen hundred years. By contrast, no evidence of an identifiable (or self-identified) "Palestinian" people predates the twentieth century.

Despite Netanyahu's proclaimed intention to seek Cabinet approval for the Levy Report, the prime minister quickly backed down after Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, yielding to pressure from Kadima Party chairman Shaul Mofaz, indicated his own strong opposition to consideration of the report until after the election. Once again, Netanyahu -- playing both sides of the issue for maximum political advantage -- yielded to pressure from settlement opponents. If he remains prime minister after February he might try to remember that the largest Jewish settlement in the Middle East, routinely delegitimized in the international arena, is the State of Israel.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author, most recently, of Against the Grain: A Historian's Journey (Quid Pro Books).

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/netanyahus_settlement_jungle.html#ixzz2AdY1YKtg

My thoughts: I recently read that the United States has been under "a curse from God" for decades because our presidents have been pressuring Israel to divide her land with the "Palestinians."

See: Eye To Eye: Facing The Consequences of Dividing Israel by William Koenig 

"What do these major record-setting events have in common?

• The ten costliest insurance events in U.S. history 

• The twelve costliest hurricanes in U.S. history  

• Three of the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history 

• The two largest terrorism events in U.S. history

All of these major catastrophes and many others occurred or began on the very same day or within 24-hours of U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush applying pressure on Israel to trade her land for promises of "peace and security," sponsoring major "land for peace" meetings, making major public statements pertaining to Israel’s covenant land and /or calling for a Palestinian state.

Are each one of these major record-setting events just a coincidence or awe-inspiring signs that God is actively involved in the affairs of Israel?" (excerpt from Amazon.com)

I knew President Obama had opposed new building by Israelis in East Jerusalem shortly after he was elected but did not know anything was happening currently. When I heard about the freakish Frankenstorm, I wondered if our leaders had been pressuring Israel again so I looked into it. That's how I came across the news about the Levy Report and the Obama Administration's response on October 15th, 2012, as mentioned in the article above.

"A State Department spokesman declared that the United States rejects  'the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.' UN Ambassador Susan Rice emphasized that the United States would not recognize Israel's settlement claims."

What? Why do we think we have a right to decide the legitimate use of Israel's land? These declarations are offensive and, I believe, dangerous for us! 

Do you think this freak storm is just a coincidence or do you think God is serious about protecting Israel? Remember, Joel 3:2 says God will judge the nations for "they have divided my land."

P.S. God's Word is true! And, as Charles Stanley says, "We reap what we sow, more than we sow and later than we sow."

As you pray for Israel, remember to pray for the USA.   

Watch That Last Step, It's a Doozy by Daren Jonescu

As any mature radical will tell you, the great advantage of a gradual unraveling, as opposed to the more colorful sudden insurrection, is that in the latter case, everyone knows what is happening and, if so inclined, may resist, whereas the former method is akin to the stealthy burglar who steals your jewels while you sleep. You might wake up and carry on with your life for days before realizing you have lost your prized possessions and family heirlooms. And by then it is too late.

But the stealthy burglar is merely a metaphor. What are the real, practical mechanisms whereby socialists have co-opted most of the Western world over the past hundred years without awakening the majority of the population? No short article could hope to give a complete account of the process -- nor could any long book, for that matter, though many have explained elements of it with admirable clarity.

One invaluable tool in the radical's belt, however, is sometimes overlooked. This is the natural human weakness -- on display every day, everywhere -- for breaking a long process into its discernible stages, and then judging the significance of each stage relative to the whole, so that each stage appears less noteworthy than the preceding ones, as the growing whole proportionately diminishes each new part. This tendency of our thinking can prevent us from recognizing all sorts of gradual developments, both positive and negative. It allows us to observe incremental changes in our bodily condition over time without ever deducing that we have developed a serious illness, for example.

In the modern political context, this phenomenon helps to explain the blank stares or rolling eyes one meets when talking to people about the multifaceted catastrophe -- economic, social, and moral -- that looms just ahead of the Western world on its present path. "What are you getting all worked up about?" is a typical response, and a sure sign you are witnessing the psychological weakness in question. You, looking at the whole process, see an ever-expanding threat. They, focused only on the discrete stages -- each one seeming smaller than the last, compared to the whole -- see ever-shrinking dots against an amorphous gray background. "What's the big deal?"

An analogy: anyone with experience teaching a language knows that the special challenge with more advanced learners is to convince them that they really are progressing. For beginners, every new word or phrase feels like a great leap and engenders a sense of accomplishment. Advanced students, by contrast, are forever complaining that they don't see themselves improving. They may be progressing every bit as quickly as the beginners, but the distance between zero and one is inevitably easier to appreciate than the distance between a thousand and a thousand and one. The absolute rate of progress may be the same, but the relative rate -- which is how we experience the progress subjectively -- shrinks to indiscernibility.

The same applies to the West's gradual devolution into socialism, also known as "progress." The absolute rate of this "progress" fluctuates, but it has been accelerating of late. Progressivism's relative rate of change, however -- people's subjective perception of society's deterioration into authoritarianism and its accompanying material degradation -- inevitably shrinks each year. Once again, the distance between a thousand and a thousand and one feels insignificant compared to the distance between zero and one. Civilization has, through this trick of perception, long since ceased to notice that it is being forced to walk the plank, or even that there are pirates on board.

The problem is that as each generation's feeling of peril diminishes through this perceptual illusion, so does its real chance of averting the ultimate ends of "progress," which are now closer to realization than ever before. That is, there is an inversely proportional relationship between the real danger and the feeling of danger. This is a recipe for civilizational doom -- or, if you prefer a less judgmental description, for "fundamental transformation."

Seen in this light, the remarkable part of the West's decline was the early stage, when socialism progressed from zero to one, as it were. This was the hardest part of the process for the leftists; for during those first steps, their agenda was exposed, as everyone could see the nature of the changes they were proposing. It was as clear as the difference between knowing no words at all and saying "hello" for the first time.

These early progressives were true radicals, people educated in Marx and Lenin and inspired by the "workers' uprising" in Russia. Desirous of similar "reform" at home, despising "capitalism" for purely Marxist reasons -- exploitation of workers, unequal distribution of wealth, etc. -- they gradually realized that achieving their ends in the prosperous, democratically inclined West would require an arduous process of working to undo the evil system from within. They really had to "sell" socialism, exploiting (and falsely diagnosing) transitory conditions as grounds for permanent political "reform" (initially labor reform, in keeping with their Bolshevik dreams) in the hope of setting in motion a slow revolution. Since then, comparatively, and notwithstanding some bumps in the progressive road, their journey has been all downhill, in every sense of the word.

By way of a concrete example, consider Frances Perkins, FDR's labor secretary, widely credited as the driving force behind Social Security, along with other New Deal instantiations of the progressive agenda in America. An advocate of radical socialist reform, she evolved into a model for all leftists with an eye on practical goals rather than abstract theory. She grew to espouse the view that "venal politicians can sometimes be more useful than upstanding reformers." (For "upstanding reformers," read "doctrinaire Marxists.")

During the Senate Finance Committee hearings on Social Security, a Republican senator bluntly asked Perkins, "Isn't this socialism?" She flatly denied it, to which the senator replied ironically, "Isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?"

FDR had to address such accusations directly. Those first teeny-weeny bits of socialism were the hard part, because every honest observer could see them as such. The s-word had not yet been banished from mainstream discussion. "Positive rights" had not yet been broadly accepted as rivals to Lockean natural rights. Property had not yet been excised from the lexicon of "freedom," or from international standards of human rights, as though liberty were somehow separable from the right to own the product of one's effort. Education had not yet been completely converted into a factory for building leftist attitudes. People in general did not yet feel "entitled" to things that could be guaranteed only by forcibly taking them from other people.

With each subsequent step, however, "progress" has become easier to implement, due in part to the increasing difficulty of seeing the discrete steps as a continuum of degradation. Each step appears smaller -- less "scary" -- than the previous steps, due to the relative perception of change.

Early victories such as those of Perkins represent socialism's progress from zero to one. The measure of their importance, and of the extraordinary power of the psychological mechanism of experiencing relative rather than absolute rates of change, can be taken by considering this obvious fact: Perkins, in her mature years, never advocated the degree of progressive policy that has subsequently been achieved in America. Later progressives have surpassed even her most ambitious efforts to convert leftism into legislation -- and yet only a small minority today see anything radical or extreme in the recent rapid advances of "progress."

This latter fact defines the "cognitive dissonance" that is often noted by people trying to understand how a self-described "progressive" like Barack Obama could ever have been elected -- toting all his leftist baggage, from communist mentors to communist appointees, with him -- in the land of Jefferson and Madison. The explanation seems to be that most people just cannot perceive the significance of the step from a thousand to a thousand and one. In fact, it should perhaps be regarded as surprising, and a triumph of reason, that any can still perceive it.

There is, however, in every plank walk, a final step beyond which one reaches the only logical outcome -- one must plunge into the shark-infested waters. No blindfold, however secure, can save you from this result. The thankless task of modern conservatives -- i.e., those still rational enough to perceive absolute "progress" -- is the race against inevitability to remove that blindfold from civilization's eyes before it is too late.

Word to the GOP campaign team: assiduously avoiding the s-word in defining the other side won't make this urgent effort any easier. "Playing it safe" with the rhetoric now will only ensure that humanity remains asleep long enough for the burglar to finish his work.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/watch_that_last_step_its_a_doozy.html#.UF4py0N_ams.blogger

Obama's Flattering Mouth Causes Ruin

The Democratic Convention shocked the nation when it decided to take God out of its party platform.The shocked response brought a swift reversal to the platform (over the objections of at least half of the delegates present) but didn’t change the direction of the party. The Democratic party abandoned God in practice long ago when it decided to make the right to have abortions a major plank in its platform!

Read more:
http://justicemusings.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/obamas-flattering-mouth-causes-ruin/

Wake Up, Religious Conservatives: A Summons to Outrage by Fay Voshell

Observers of the religious and political scenes in America should have taken notice when President Obama deemed Christian religious symbols too offensive to be seen during his economics speech at Catholic Georgetown University in April of 2009. The offending symbols, including the ancient monogram IHS representing Christ's name, were covered with a dark cloth.

Looking back, the funereal covering was a pivotal sign that the Obama administration was openly hostile to Catholics and would attempt to diminish the Church's influence in America while asserting the supremacy of the president and the leftist secular state.

One of the most egregious examples of persecutory behavior toward faith-based institutions on the part of our left-leaning administration has been the attempt to jettison constitutionally guaranteed protection of religious freedom by insisting that church-run institutions, Catholic and Protestant alike, provide access to abortifacients and sterilization in health insurance plans for their employees. If the order is observed, the funeral of the Church is assured, as the Church would be completely absorbed by the State, totally subject to the State's mores.

To their credit, since the egregious assault by the current administration on the Church's first amendment rights, Catholic leaders have reacted vigorously, sowing distinct signs of life

As of the writing of this article, some 43 Catholic institutions have filed lawsuits against the government. Catholic bishops have united in opposition to the intrusion of the state into religious affairs. They realize that for the first time in American history, an administration has egregiously violated the line between church and state by advancing what is essentially a government takeover of private religious institutions. They now see that the Obama administration is intransigently pro-abortion, as well as firmly against traditional marriage.

Unfortunately, the response of the conservative Protestant community of faith to the multiple attacks by the left on religious institutions and mores often has been weak, characterized by retreat and subsequent marginalization.

For a long time, evangelicals and fundamentalists, along with adherents to the Reformed faith, have gone underground. While admirably seeking to establish institutions of their own, including charities, hospitals, and institutions of learning, religious conservatives committed themselves to mostly defensive maneuvers and retreat, rather than employing more aggressive, militant tactics against the assaults of the left.

Why are so many people of faith allowing their guaranteed constitutional freedom to exercise their faith in the public square to be jeopardized? Why is there so little genuine outrage? Why are religious conservatives so meek and mild when assaulted by the left -- so meek and mild that millions don't even vote?


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/wake_up_religious_conservatives_a_summons_to_outrage.html#ixzz253DUi0Ib


**********************************************************************************
A frequent contributor to American Thinker, Fay Voshell holds a M. Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the Charles Hodge Prize for excellence in systematic theology. Selected as one of the Delaware GOP's "Winning women" of 2008, she seeks to apply theological principles to politics and culture. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

The Journey of Pastor Mike by David Gudeman

I just finished reading The Journey of Pastor Mike by David Gudeman.

It is the first novel in a series about the life of a Baptist minister known as Pastor Mike who finds himself in need of more "power" in his ministry and more "reality" in his relationship with God.

Having been a pastor's wife for nearly 40 years, I could relate to the inner workings of the church world as described by the author. Mr. Gudeman did a great job of bringing the conflict and struggles born of spiritual warfare to life. His characters and their faith battles challenge and encourage the reader to a closer walk with God.

If you like to read novels with a Christian purpose, this is the book for you. It is not at all preachy or condemning. I found myself encouraged and singing spiritual songs between reading sessions. Pastor Mike's journey leads the sincere follower of God to examine their own spiritual life and to become more open to personal growth and sharing the good news with others.

For your own copy please contact DavidG.LiveLife@Hotmail.com. Or give Mr. Gudeman a call at 574-223-2154. The book has 296 pages. It is published in paperback and sells for $14.95. I believe you will be blessed by reading it and sharing it with others.

This is my honest review of the book. I have no financial connection with the sales of this book.

May God's blessing rest on you as you love and serve Him.
   

Book Review:The Rise and Fall of The Nephilim by Scott A. Roberts

Offering us a chance to take a closer look at the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis is a great idea. The topic is interesting and timely and Mr. Roberts is a good storyteller. I wish I could say he has written an excellent book on the subject but his lack of integrity in his personal approach to scripture brings confusion to a topic he is attempting to shed light on. Starting with the Holy Bible, the Book of Enoch and Jubilees, he uses the right resources, but his interpretations of his sources are disappointing. Jumping back and forth between calling the Nephilim angels and aliens, as well as categorizing them as "lesser gods," when they were created to be God's servants, only serves to hide the truth about their origins and purpose.

It would take a book to clear up unfounded claims made by Mr. Roberts in this book so I'll limit myself to only discussing a handful or so. 

1. Serpent Seed Theory: This theory is unsupportable in Genesis or anywhere else in scripture. If Cain was truly the son of Eden's serpent (Fallen Angel or Satan), why wasn't he a giant or a mighty warrior like the sons of the other fallen angels mentioned in Genesis and the Book of Enoch? Why was Cain upset when his offering was not acceptable to God? Why would he even make an offering? Why would he care if God rejected it? And, why would God need to put a mark on Cain to protect his life if he was a mighty Nephilim?
2. The Fall Involved Adultery: Are we to believe that Adam let the serpent seduce Eve in his presence? If Eve's sin was adultery, what was Adam's sin? Contrary to Mr. Robert's assertions, Adam's sin brought death into the world because he sinned willfully; whereas, according to Paul, Eve sinned because she was deceived by the serpent. (Deceived not seduced!) The story of the fall is clearly told in Genesis. The sin was disobedience and did not involve sex. No decoder is needed to understand the passage.
3. Daughters of Men: Remarks about the "daughters of men" throughout the book were sexist! It was implied that the women were lusty and chose to have relations with the fallen angels. (You know how women are!) Their perversity defiled the earth and led its destruction in the flood. It seems there is always a reason to blame women. The Holy Bible; however, says the fallen angels saw them and "TOOK" them. If it was humanly possible to stop them, why weren't the men intervening to save them? And, why does the Bible say, "men's thoughts were continually evil"?
4. Moses:  Mr. Roberts paints Moses as a power hungry, arrogant, "Egyptianized" sociopath who sought to be a Pharoah-God to the slaves. The Holy Bible says Moses was the meekest man on earth, willing to give up all the wealth of Egypt to suffer with his brethren. Moses was saved from destruction as a baby and called by God to lead the people out of Egypt. Although he was reluctant at first, Moses took on the leadership role in obedience to God.  If the Holy Bible is true, Roberts is wrong, which devalues his book.  
5. Theophany: Mr. Roberts refers to Moses' having "face to face" encounters with God from the pillar of cloud at the door of the tabernacle as one more ploy to elevate himself in the eyes of the people. Then, if that's not bad enough, he "questions" how God could let Moses see His face on those occasions and then turnaround and deny him that same experience on Mount Sinai. The answer is that Moses wasn't asking for the same experience. Moses knew he was seeing a theophany at the tabernacle and he asked YHWH to let him see HIS FACE in HIS ETERNAL GLORY! YHWH refused but allowed him the unprecedented experience of glimpsing HIS BACKSIDE. (A theophany is an appearance of God in a physical form that a man can look upon and relate to. Seeing God as HE IS IN HIMSELF is not allowed for a mortal man.)   
6. Marriage of Jesus:  Without proof it is conjectured that Jesus was married. A rule that rabbis were required to be married is offered as proof. The fact that Jesus was set forth for ministry by His Father in heaven and not by a synagogue seems lost here. The people called Jesus Rabbi because he taught them, not because of an official religious affiliation. 
7. Misjudging the Prophet Elisha: I realize it is politically incorrect nowadays to hold people accountable for their actions but that was not the case in ancient Israel. Mr. Roberts attributes evil behavior to Elisha when his encounter with a group of mocking youths leads to their deaths. Roberts fails to see the incident from a divine perspective. Elisha had been the Prophet Elijah's servant. When God miraculously took Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind, Elisha received a double portion of God's Spirit operating in his life compared to Elijah. That means he was a powerful prophet in Israel and should have been treated with the utmost respect by all the people. However, in this incident a large gang of youths mocked Elisha as he walked past their town. They taunted him saying, "Go up, baldhead. Go up." This was blatant disrespect for him and for God's act of taking Elijah to heaven. (It is also possible they were consistent trouble makers and Elisha had prior experience with the, had heard of them, or was given spiritual insight concerning their prior deeds.) At any rate, after some time, Elisha pronounced judgement on their actions and 2 female bears came out of the woods and killed 42 of them. (42 is not a few. That's a gang!) Roberts needs to rethink his comments on this passage and on many others.   
8. For Christian Fundamentalists "nothing exists outside the bounds of written scriptural text". I disagree with this statement (and several others Mr. Roberts makes about Christians) because it is mistaken. We do believe facts that contradict scripture are wrong. However, we are not so closed minded as to believe that scripture covers everything that's out there. There are many avenues to discover various aspects of the truth. Nature itself, rightly observed, reveals much.  And, the Holy Bible mentions additional resources like the Book of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees, which expand our knowledge of certain issues lightly covered in the scriptures. These books are available today (in the last days-- like the days of Noah-- which Mr. Roberts referenced so many times) because God has preserved them for us according to His plan. And they are worth reading. 

I was disappointed by the disparaging remarks about God's nature, His Word, the church and Christians scattered throughout the book. Mr. Roberts could have expressed his doubts and questions in less derogatory terms if he chose to. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Early on in the book he says, "I still cling to my Judeo-Christian roots," and acknowledges his belief in the Trinity. But, he follows these statements with complaints about being "someone's toy." Then he ends the book by announcing that his research has exposed him to information that has overwhelmed his faith and left him with serious doubts. I can only say that when one removes the cornerstone, the building will collapse.

The fallen angels and the Biblical giants reveal a clear pattern of spiritual warfare that impacted the early earth and continues today. Satan can transform himself into an Angel of Light to deceive his victims. Certainly his followers can transform themselves into secular aliens to deceive mankind in the last days. Evolution has laid a strong foundation to get people to fall for such a lie. If Scott Roberts had been true to the Bible and brought in more UFO information with theories as to how fallen angelic beings posing as aliens could be attempting to undermine the Christian faith with their deceptive alien disguise that would have been truly helpful to unaware Christians and sceptics alike. Many are unaware of the genetic manipulation and seeding reportedly going on. He missed a great opportunity.  

And how about giving God and the early Jews some credit for slowing the corruption of the post flood world by killing off so many wicked giants when they conquered Canaan? No one seems to go there!

Shredding foundations of faith and offering nothing substantial to replace them helps no one, not even Mr. Roberts. He needs to realize he has fallen prey to the deception inherent in his subject matter and truly return to his former faith. There is no God other than YHWH. He knows the end from the beginning and the proof is found in His Word. It is filled with prophecies that have already been fulfilled and many that are yet to come. Allowing ancient corrupted copycat religions and legal systems to undermine one's faith is foolish. The truth stands above all!

There is much to be learned but I advise readers to beware the false reasoning underlying much of Mr. Roberts "doubtful" conjectures.

"For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places." Eph 6:12 NLT

"Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.  For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority." Col 2:8-10 NLT

I can't really recommend this book because it may shake your faith. If you choose to read it, I advise you to reread all scriptures referred to and to discard the dross.

Repost: Greatest Church Soon To Be Mega Mosque?

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 8, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3259/hagia-sophia-church-mosque

Ostensibly dealing with a building, a recent report demonstrates how Turkey's populace—once deemed the most secular and liberal in the Muslim world—is reverting to its Islamic heritage, complete with animosity for the infidel West and dreams of Islam's glory days of jihad and conquest. According to Reuters:

Thousands of devout Muslims prayed outside Turkey's historic Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday [May 23] to protest a 1934 law that bars religious services at the former church and mosque. Worshippers shouted, "Break the chains, let Hagia Sophia Mosque open," and "God is great" [the notorious "Allahu Akbar"] before kneeling in prayer as tourists looked on. Turkey's secular laws prevent Muslims and Christians from formal worship within the 6th-century monument, the world's greatest cathedral for almost a millennium before invading Ottomans converted it into a mosque in the 15th century.

Hagia Sophia—Greek for "Holy Wisdom"—was, in fact, Christendom's greatest cathedral for a thousand years. Built in Constantinople, the heart of the Christian empire, it was also a stalwart symbol of defiance against an ever encroaching Islam from the east. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts, Constantinople was finally sacked by Ottoman Turks in 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, Hagia Sophia—as well as thousands of other churches—was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Then, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, as part of several reforms, Ataturk transformed Hagia Sophia into a "neutral" museum in 1934—a gesture of goodwill to the then triumphant West from a then crestfallen Turkey.
Even though Hagia Sophia is a Christian center under Islamic domination, several Christian authorities are content seeing it remain a museum, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians: "We want it to remain a museum in line with the Republic of Turkey's principles," adding, "if it became a church it would be chaos."

True enough; one need only recall how back in 2006, when Pope Benedict was scheduled to visit Hagia Sophia, Muslims were outraged. Then, Turkey's independent paper Vatan wrote: "The risk is that Benedict will send Turkey's Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the Pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims." Before the Pope's visit, a gang of Turks stormed and occupied Hagia Sophia, screaming "Allahu Akbar!" and warning "Pope! Don't make a mistake; don't wear out our patience." On the day of the Pope's visit, another throng of Islamists waved banners saying "Pope get out of Turkey" while chanting Hagia Sophia "is Turkish and will remain Turkish."

All this is yet another reminder of the Islamic world's double standards: when Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, such as Constantinople and its churches—through fire and steel, with all the attendant human suffering and misery—the descendents of those conquered are not to expect any apologies or concessions. However, once the same Muslims who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests, including buildings, are on the short end of the stick—Palestinians vis-à-vis Israel, for example—then they resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights, and so forth. (See this 2006 LA Times Op-Ed for more on this theme.)

Even in the brief Reuter's report, evidence of such "passive-aggressive" behavior emerges. First, this is not about Muslims wanting to pray; it's about Muslims wanting to revel in the glory days of Islamic jihad and conquest: Muslims "staged the prayers ahead of celebrations next week marking the 559th anniversary of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet's conquest of Byzantine Constantinople." According to Salih Turhan, a spokesman quoted by Reuters, "As the grandchildren of Mehmet the Conqueror, seeking the re-opening Hagia Sophia as a mosque is our legitimate right."

Sultan Mehmet was the scourge of European Christendom, whose Islamic hordes seized and ravished Constantinople, forcibly turning it Islamic. Openly idolizing him, as many Turks do, is tantamount to their saying "We are proud of our ancestors who killed and stole the lands of Christians." And yet, despite such militant overtones, Turhan, whose position is echoed by many Turks, still manages to blame the West: "Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million. It symbolizes our ill-treatment by the West."

If merely keeping a historically Christian/Western building—that was stolen by Islamic jihad—as a neutral museum is seen as "ill-treatment by the West," on what basis can Muslims and non-Muslims ever "dialogue"?

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics: Turkey and Turks | Raymond Ibrahimreceive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

YEHOVAH Declares HE IS THE ONLY GOD and SAVIOR

“Thus says YEHOVAH, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer,YEHOVAH of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

^{Isaiah 44:6}

 “Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,
And My right hand has stretched out the heavens...

^{Isaiah 48:12-13}

“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am YEHOVAH,
And besides Me there is no Savior.

Isaiah 43:10-11

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” 

^{Rev 1:11, 17, 2:8, 22:13} 

If you will open your Bible and read the passages from Isaiah in context you will see that they are a powerful personal testimony. YEHOVAH, Himself, is speaking. He boldly proclaims that He is God! He is not just a god, He is the only God, and He offers proof. His proof is His Omniscience. He knows all things and He has no rivals, not men or false gods. He knows and has declared the truth about the beginning and the end. The Bible is full of His prophetic revelations about the past and the future and none has been proven false. So, YEHOVAH'S testimony is trustworthy.

YEHOVAH declares that He is the ONLY GOD. There was no god before YEHOVAH and there will be no god after YEHOVAH. He is the ETERNALLY EXISTING "I AM." To be clear, in the Bible, YEHOVAH has revealed Himself as existing eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All Three Persons of the Godhead are YEHOVAH. They are One God in three Persons: the Trinity.

YEHOVAH is the CREATOR of heaven and earth! He tells all about His creative activity in Genesis. He says He spoke everything into existence in six days and rested on the seventh day. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all evident in the creation process. 

YEHOVAH says He is the King of Israel. Jesus, in His resurrected body, will reign over this renovated earth in the city of Jerusalem for 1000 years and then over the new earth for eternity! Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in human form but the Trinity will abide with believers forever.

YEHOVAH is also the Redeemer of mankind, and the Only Savior. Jesus died on the cross to reconcile us with the Father. When we believe in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, the Holy Spirit brings us into the body of Christ and guarantees eternal life. 

Reading these three verses you find two critical concepts: belief and unbelief. Our place in eternity depends on belief in Jesus or unbelief concerning Jesus.

A believer is not currently condemned and will not be condemned in the future. He will not be called before YEHOVAH'S Great White Throne for judgment and perish eternally. He has now and will continue to have everlasting life. His name is written in the Book of Life. He will stand before the Bema Seat of Jesus Christ to receive rewards for good deeds done after salvation, or he will lose rewards if He has no acceptable deeds. Either way, he has everlasting life with YEHOVAH, Angels and all Believers because he was saved by grace for Jesus' sake.

On the other hand, an unbeliever is currently under the wrath of YEHOVAH for rejecting the sacrifice made for him by Jesus, God's Son. He is condemned to perish. His name is not written in the Book of Life and all his evil deeds are recorded in a book which will be reviewed when he appears for his trial and sentencing at the Great White Throne judgement. He will never experience life. All who go to that judgement will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Satan, fallen angels, demons and unbelievers to suffer for eternity. This is called the second death. See Revelation 20:10-15. 

If you have not believed in Jesus before now, I urge you to consider your situation. YEHOVAH (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) loves you! Jesus died for you! 

If you sense the Spirit of God drawing you through His Word, please respond to Him. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He paid your sin debt you will be saved. Today is the day of Salvation and there is no other Savior. Please put your trust in Him and call on Him today.

May you experience peace, joy, love and everlasting life! 

 All scriptures are from the NKJV but I have removed "the LORD" and reinserted YEHOVAH to restore
God's Name to His Word as He intended it to be there originally. 

Repost: Christianity or Thoughtcrime?

"Thoughtcrimes" -- opinions and ideas that oppose the status quo -- were pursued and punished by the Thought Police in the future world described by George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Could politically incorrect thought be declared illegal -- a type of "hate" crime against individuals or the State -- someday in America? Since much of Christian thought seems to be considered politically incorrect these days, might it also be declared hate speech?


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/christianity_or_thoughtcrime.html#ixzz1vl6QlWmi

Repost: The Resurrection

At this time of year, Christians celebrate Easter, or as I prefer, Resurrection Sunday. As one scans history, no other date put such a mark in time as when Jesus Christ shed His grave-clothes and departed the tomb.
Of all the religions of the world, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. British theologian Michael Green said it well when he noted, "Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all." Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that "[t]he resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down[.]" Indeed it did.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_resurrection.html#ixzz1rVh7jY6v



May the Resurrection  be your hope and strength!

Obama Misquotes Bible on Wealth Redistribution (and my comments)

Read article:

"Liberals/Progressives/Democrats say the Bible is off-limits when it addresses the subject of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, abortion, or any issue liberals favor but the Bible condemns. But it's permitted to be used when wealth-redistribution is being discussed. The only problem is that when President Barack Hussein Obama quoted from the Bible, he both took his quotation out of context and got it wrong."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obama_misquotes_bible_on_wealth_redistribution.html


Cherel's P.S. 


The Bible is the primary source for godly knowledge. When the Bible is properly understood and applied to real life, it enables one to live wisely. When one lives wisely, one does what is right for oneself and for one's neighbor in the eyes of God. In other words, one fulfills the greatest commandments to love God and one's neighbor.


As mentioned in the article, the Good Samaritan was a godly individual who used his own resources to help a stranger in need. There was no government involvement of resources or behavioral controls. He was good because he knew God.  


God gives us life! He is the provider of health, talents, intelligence and opportunities which allow individuals to earn and accumulate wealth at various levels. God is, therefore, the ultimate distributor of wealth. The government, which has no resources of its own, has no business trying to outdo God by redistributing wealth-- taking what legitimatly belongs to some people and giving it to others. And, demonizing the wealth creators in the process.   


I find it deeply disturbing that so many Americans have bought into the idea that it is appropriate for the government to take money from their neighbor and give it to them. Legalized plunder is still plunder. In fact, the government is currently spending our grandchildren's money on our generation! Do you honestly feel good about that?


If politicians truly cared about the poor and disadvantaged, they would be frugal with public money and generous toward others with their own money! They would live righteously and promote the love of God and the love of one's neighbor by setting an example for the nation.


How do you see it?

Good Leadership is Essential to Restore America

2 Chronicles 14-16

King Asa, of Judah pleased God because he was good in His eyes; so, God gave him 10 years of peace when he came to the throne. During that time Asa commanded Judah to seek and obey God. He removed foreign altars, pagan shrines, sacred pillars, cut down Asherah poles, removed incense altars. He fortified towns with walls, towers, gates and bars. He taught the people to trust in the Lord. He built the army. He had 300,000 topnotch warriors from Judah and 280,000 warriors from Benjamin. 

King Asa was a good king because he followed God and did everything in his power to restore his country to righteousness. He strengthened the nation from within and prepared to defend her from the enemies surrounding her. In a dangerous world, defensive strength is essential!

Then Zerah, the Ethiopian attacked him with 1,000,000 warriors. 

Asa called on God for help and trusted Him. “O Lord, no one but You can help the powerless against the mighty! Help us, O Lord, our God, for we trust in you alone. It is in your name that we come against this vast horde. O Lord, you are our God; do not let mere men prevail against us."

Because of King Asa's humility and faith expressed in prayer, Yahweh gave them an overwhelming victory. They conquered Zerah and other enemies in their vicinity. Then, as they returned in victory, Azariah the prophet came out to meet them with a warning.

"The Lord will stay with you as long as you stay with Him. Whenever you seek Him, you will find Him. But if you abandon Him, He will abandon you.” 

 

The USA has been given the victory many times in the past because God has blessed our country for supporting Israel, spreading the gospel around the world, and feeding the hungry. But, the good deeds of our past won't keep us now.

 

We have a president who is in the process of forsaking Israel. He does not honor her leaders as friends. He criticizes her decisions. He refuses to help her prepare to deal with Iran. He is more involved with arming and protecting Islam than with ensuring Israel's safety. Since his bow to the Saudi King he has helped topple several governments which have fallen under Muslim Brotherhood control. Rather than spread the gospel, our tax dollars and oil money are being used by the nations of Islam to slaughter Christians daily. 

 

It's not enough that our forefathers served God. It's not enough to say, "God Bless America." We need righteous leadership in our nation once again to get our country back on the right track.

 

Please join with me in asking God to have mercy on us. Pray that He will open the eyes of those who have lost sight of what is most important and give them wisdom in their personal lives and in the voting booth. And pray that God will raise up a righteous leader for our country who will help us to Restore America! 

“Be strong and courageous, for your work will be rewarded.”

What Happened to Preserve, Protect, and Defend?

I have been concerned about Obama's desire to undercut American security for a long time now. Even though our trust rests ultimately upon the LORD GOD, it is imperative for our nation and our allies that we maintain our defenses in a volatile world. I highly recommend the following article by John Griffing to you. 

Americans have only been able to live the cushy, carefree existence of the last half-century -- now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have known only prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot -- because the U.S. possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary. It is because of, not in spite of, America's nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats.       

America's president has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which raises the obvious question: what word describes a president who will do this to his own country? The recent Medvedev revelations are a good indicator of Obama's interest in satisfying Russian demands in ways that would be unpopular with the American people.

Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Even if a case can be made for a reduced U.S. footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation's greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with "everybody else"?

The time for pretense is over. Obama is no friend of America.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_happened_to_preserve_protect_and_defend.html#ixzz1qWl3vTAz

Did America Vote for Its Own Demise?

"We have to stop voting for "the lesser of two evils" and encourage everyone who seeks public office to strive for the greater good -- not just in word, but in deed. Knowing a person's character is key to getting the right representation and leadership."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/did_america_vote_for_its_own_demise.html#ixzz1qBEPF7lx

Leftist Textbooks and World War I

As a high school history teacher in the New York City schools for twenty years, I find myself frequently wondering how the city's textbooks have gotten so full of errors and liberal hogwash.

The latest textbook we are required to use (no exceptions) in my school's U.S. history courses is The Americans, published by McDougal Littell. Every section of this book is replete with errors and omissions.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/leftist_textbooks_and_world_war_i.html#ixzz1qAZHTz00