Grace To You

Grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Phil 1:2

Monday, March 25, 2013

Night Falls on Civilization by Daniel Greenfield

Forget the World's Fair, we now have a new way to celebrate human accomplishment. Instead of seeing a vision of the future, we turn off the lights and sit in the dark for an hour.

Earth Hour shows how far we have come from celebrating human accomplishment to celebrating the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction. Don't build, don't create and don't do-- are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren't doing right now.

Environmentalism has degenerated into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet and all life on it. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.

Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.

Embrace the darkness.

While we take electric light for granted-- being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle.

During the recent extended blackout after Hurricane Sandy, some of us had a brief period of reverting to a pre-technological civilization in which work was governed by day and night cycles. And that was a reminder that there is no way to measure the increase in knowledge gained from the conquest of the darkness. There is no better measure of the unthinking contempt of the environmentalist movement for that achievement than a call to turn off the lights and sit in the dark.

Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is perverse and hypocritical. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, then is saved by practicing it. Websites switch to black, even though displaying black on television sets or monitors consumes more energy. Turning off electricity to entire buildings after working hours and then turning it on costs more than letting it run. And getting 90 million people across the country to turn their power on and off at a scheduled time is an energy savings disaster. And since power companies draw down on their more expensive 'green' generators first, Earth Hour actually shuts down 'green' power.

But its sponsors don't claim that Earth Hour saves energy or prevents us from polluting the globe. Like every environmentalist stunt from flying rock stars around the world on jet planes to carving thousands of statues made of ice and then leaving them to melt in a public square, Earth Hour is meant to spread awareness.

Spreading awareness is the sole purpose of most environmental activism. Awareness spreading doesn't make anything better, but makes people feel guilty, outraged, hopeful or some combination of the appropriate political sentiments in the face of an imminent armageddon that can only be fought by convincing everyone to be deeply concerned by it and disdainful of everyone who stands outside their Chicken Little consensus.

The WWF, Earth Hour's godmother, has learned that shrill attention seeking is a reliable fundraising method. One of the WWF's more memorable fundraising methods was an ad that showed hundreds of planes headed toward the World Trade Center, to highlight just how much more important their work is than fighting terrorism. Franny Armstrong of Age of Stupid, which was promoted by the WWF, ran a 10:10 campaign in the UK, whose ads featured environmentalists murdering dissenters, including a group of schoolchildren. The ads are just ads, but London's leftist former mayor, Ken Livingstone had said of Age of Stupid, "Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film."

That is the dark side of environmentalism. The most active non-Muslim domestic terrorist group is environmental. The undercurrent of violence finds easy purchase in environmentalism's creed that the only real problem with the world is people. No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.

The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term 'Ecology' was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.

The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive, because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.

Zero Population campaigns and calls for mandatory one-child families are the eugenics of environmentalism. The old eugenicists were concerned with improving the human breed by promoting the reproduction of some, and preventing the reproduction of others. Environmental eugenics treats all of mankind as an inferior race. We all must die.

Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred-- cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.

It's not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must also die.

Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by preference for a prehuman world of natural wilderness uncultivated by man. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.

This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized past that never existed.

In the environmental bible-- man is the source of all evil. The transition from the nomadic to the domestic, the village to the city, and the craftsman to the factory, is its version of original sin. The environmentalist began with a distaste for human civilization and the fetishization of the rural farm life of the peasant. The champions of this "naturalism" were invariably urban artists and writers from the upper classes who were enthusiastic about being in touch with nature. After them came the "Nature Fakers" crafting myths about the high moral standards of wild animals. Domestic animals in such stories were always wicked and dumb, while wild animals lived deep and spiritual lives out in the woods. And so the animal kingdom was subdivided into the noble savage and the uncle tom.

The world was divided into two polar opposites, the green and the gray, in an apocalyptic struggle. Either man would drown the world in industry, or he would return to a natural way of life through a lethal virus (Mary Shelley, The Last Man, 1826), a devastating war (H.G. Wells), oppressive social policies (Edward Bellamy) or eco-terrorism (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The more civilization grew, the more apocalyptic the scenarios became culminating in the two great environmental myths; nuclear winter and global warming. These apocalyptic myths have served the same purpose for environmentalists as apocalypses do for all religions. They predict a time when the sinful order is overturned and the earth is renewed to make way for the faithful.

Man is the environmentalist's devil. He must be beaten, broken and subjugated. Even the animals he has bred, who are the spark of his genius, must be taken out and killed. Take away his food and his power. Blame him for the natural cycles of the planet and the inevitable extinction of species that goes on whether he is there or not. Take away his technology and his inventions. Tell him that the humblest bacteria is better than him, for it is dumb and follows its natural instincts, while he insists on using his mind. Take away his primacy and his learning. And then leave him in the dark.

The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress. There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built. Whatever he has built, it must destroy.

The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.

Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things. To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness. A darkness of the soul.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Night Falls on Civilization

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The Rose's Response to the Leaf

 
 
If I were a rose and you a leaf
I’d think myself well graced
For having you beside me
And knowing your embrace.
 
I’d gladly share my beauty,
My fragrance, I’ll be bold,
Grateful for your support
There’s nothing I’d withhold!
 
Most benevolent of companions,
Delightful source of much relief,
Attended by you I’d know pure joy,
If I were a rose and you a leaf.
 
Cherel S. Justice
 Copyright © 2009

 

The Leaf's Declaration to the Rose

 
 
If you were a rose and I a leaf,
My life would be inspired,
And being by your side
Would gratify my heart’s desire.
 
The leaf beholds the beauty,
The leaf inhales the scent,
The leaf enfolds the flower,
What more to be content?
 
Most amiable of companions,
In truth, for me, ‘twould be no grief,
To attend you by the hour,
If you were a rose and I a leaf.
 
Cherel S. Justice
Copyright © 2009

Monday, March 18, 2013

Islam Roars Like A Lion


 
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8

Have you ever been in danger of being devoured by a lion? Have you ever, in real life, heard a lion roar? I've seen caged lions at the zoo, and I've seen lions on TV, but I've never been physically endangered by a real lion. However, I understand that the fear created by a lion's roar can actually immobilize its victim. 
 
Fear is the purpose of the lion's roar. The roar is meant to inspire a mind-numbing terror in the lion's intended victim which leads to a helpless, hopeless confusion and minimal resistance. This response makes the lion's prey easy to devour.

In the Holy Bible, Peter warns us about a roaring lion who goes about seeking victims to devour. He speaks not of a big cat, but of a far more diabolical enemy who wants to devour the soul, as well as the body of his victims. This is a dangerous lion indeed! In fact, Peter speaks of our oldest enemy, Satan!

Peter doesn't tell us what methods Satan will use against us and he doesn't describe the sound of the roar. But, he does tell us how to avoid being devoured. He tells us to "be sober and vigilant."

Peter was aware of the temptation to become drunk with the pleasures of the age and distracted by the cares of life. He knew it was easy to rest on the premise that someone else is on guard. So, Peter sounded a clear and personal warning.
"You be sober. You be vigilant!"

The early Christians faced many lions. But, the sober, vigilant, early church was not devoured and continued to share the good news and grow stronger in spite of Satan's frequent roars. In fact, they "turned the world upside down" for Jesus.
 
By 800 A.D., churches dotted northern Africa, the Middle East, Europe and parts of Asia. And Satan was not pleased. (Many of the early churches are long gone, having been converted to mosques or destroyed by the followers of Islam.)
 
 
In Satan's view, there were too many crosses marring the skylines of the population centers. So, he came up with a truly diabolical plan. He would create a new religious totalitarian regime which would despise the Jews and would deny the truths of the faith taught by Christians.
 
 
Islam would deny that Jesus is the Son of God and present Him as a second rate prophet. It would deny that Jesus died on the cross and rose again to provide salvation by grace for all who would repent and believe in Him. It would deny that God even had a Son. And, this new religion would deceive many!

Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22
Satan's ingenious scheme was based on a bate and switch strategy. His new religion would base the legitimacy of its new prophet, Mohammad, and its new revelation, the Qu'ran, on its association with the Holy Bible-- since it was already believed by many to be the revealed Word of the True God. Then, Islam would use the Qu'ran to instruct its followers to reject the accuracy of the Bible, saying it has been corrupted. It would also teach Muslims to look down on, mistrust, and avoid friendship with Jews and Christians, from whom they might learn the truth.

To institutionalize religious bigotry, Islam would instill within its followers an arrogant sense of superiority based on nothing more than the word of their god, Allah. To instill pride and build group solidarity, it would require participation in rote prayers five times a day (spoken in Arabic) facing Mecca. It would also mandate good works to be performed to demonstrate submission to Allah.

 
And, finally, to replace the Christian's commission to share the goods news of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, it would require its followers to fight to dominate the world by force.
Domination by force was actually Satan's primary goal in creating this totalitarian regime called Islam. Since Satan hates people and delights in making them submit to him, he used two methods to accomplish this goal. 


First, he loaded the Qu'ran with detailed threats of eternal punishments for the unbelievers, the hypocrtites and the infidels. And then he linked the fighting for Islam with booty in this life and the promise of salvation in the life to come. Those who died fighting for Allah (jihadi martyrs) would be guaranteed salvation and rewards. In fact, no Muslim other than a martyr could be assured of salvation since salvation would be based on works not grace.


That the Bible has been corrupted is a lie, of course. Thousands of copies of the Old and New Testament show remarkable preservation of the original texts for thousands of years-- far longer than Islam has existed! The Dead Sea scrolls testify to the accuracy of Jewish and Christian scriptures.
 

If you are Muslim, please stop relying on second hand information. Read the Bible for yourself and experience the living Word of God. Jesus died for your sins! You can know you are saved by grace if you put your trust and faith in Him!

 

By Satan's design, Islam is out to destroy Israel and the Western Nations. Muslims think they are meant to rule the world.
 
The very name, Islam, means submission. It denies freedom. Sharia law does not allow for a willing submission. Sharia law demands obedience which results in subjugation. Ask some of those Arab women imprisoned in black sheets how much freedom they have.
 
 


Islam claims to be for peace but peace for them means that everyone must honor them and submit to Islam. Don't be fooled. World domination is the agenda of Islam. Satan wants to be "like" God. He wants to be in control! He wants to rule the entire world! He wants everyone to submit to him! He is the Allah of Islam.



Jesus said, "Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy." And, that is a perfect description of Islam from its inception. The religion was born of Muhammad's sword. He consolidated a band of followers by raiding caravans: stealing, killing and destroying traveling merchants. Then he turned to the destruction of towns and villages throughout Arabia. And, when he died, his followers continued in his footsteps conquering (stealing, killing and raping) and destroying many countries and entire cultures. Look to history!

And, look around you today. The destruction and pillage continues throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa, as well as in Sudan, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and around the world!
For more details about the millions slaughtered follow the link below to an excellent article at Atlas Shrugs.
 

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/how-many-slaughtered-millions-under-jihad.html

Can you hear that roaring when Muslim jihadists explode bombs to terrorize societies they intend to dominate? The world could have heard the roar in Nigeria on Christmas of 2012-- if they were listening.
Can you hear the roaring when fundamentalist Muslims riot over contrived offenses? They seek death and destruction. Who has taught them to behave this way? Satan, in the Qur'an.


We must be sober and be vigilant in order to preserve the non-Muslim nations who are currently in danger of being devoured by Islam. We must speak the truth and refuse to be silenced by political correctness! Every voice for truth matters! Please don't remain silent. And, vote for those who stand for Truth.

But, the most important resistance is receiving Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior and sharing the good news of salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ Who died in our place so we might live eternally with Him!


Don't let Satan devour you. Be sober! Be vigilant! Please put your trust in Jesus and invite others to do the same.


Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings. 1Peter 5:9 NIV

 

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Value of You



Friendship’s a treasure chest filled to the brim.
Bright golden trinkets provide quite a trim
For jewels that sparkle and call to the eye,
And catch the attention as one passes by.
If one lingers longer and looks past the shine,
One finds that true riches come only with time.
The durable treasure is not to be found
By one passing by, but by one sticking ’round.
Too many take nuggets or just settle for gems.
They see not the treasure that’s buried within.
But I saw true riches were not on the top,
And after a moment decided to stop.
Looking beyond the glitter, I began to discover,
The deeper I searched the more wealth I uncovered.
Ornaments are pretty and plentiful too,
But nothing compares with the value of you.
Cherel S. Justice
1980

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Anti-Capitalism and Liberal Professors!

 
 
 

I had never heard of the historian, Richard J. Hofstadter, or his essay, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, published in the November 1964 edition of Harper's Magazine, before I got into a political discussion by email with my youngest brother. During our exchange he cited the aforementioned article which shared Hofstadter's newly coined term for a political personality he called the “paranoid style.” And that stoked my interest.

Hofstadter admitted his use of a clinical psychiatric term to describe a political personality was "pejorative". Then he attempted to appear "fair and balanced" by allowing that someone on the left side of the political spectrum could be paranoid, but his actual focus was on labeling conservatives as such. He intentionally promoted the idea that the "paranoid style" is more aptly applied to right-wingers.

When I read the article it was obvious to me that Mr. Hofstadter was liberal and godless (which don't always go together). He wrote about "angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers".   Then he made the statement, "The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will."

In other words, he labeled a person as paranoid if  that person was mentally capable of drawing personal conclusions about the causes of "decisive events" in history. Hofstadter claimed that only a paranoid person (or group of people) could believe that "the stream of history" is affected by willful choices. Keep your eyes on the puppets, folks, forget about the puppeteers!

Whether he truly believed his own propaganda or not would be hard to say but Richard Hofstadter promoted the idea that in the political realm things just happen by chance! As I read the article, I noticed that he was just talking off the top of his head. His ivory tower speculations were without foundation. And later, when I read about his life, scholarly critics confirmed my observation.

Well, I happen to believe that God's will is done in heaven and sometimes on earth. And, I believe that Satan's will is never done in heaven but is often done on earth. And, I believe mankind is in the middle and has a huge part to play since he often facilitates either the will of God or the will of Satan being fulfilled on earth. Thus, I believe the "stream of history" is not the result of mere chance but is the outcome of willful choices. And, I do not believe my beliefs are paranoid!  

So, I decided to study Richard Hofstadter's life to learn more about where he was coming from and I found that he joined the Communist Party USA, as a young adult, hoping to bring that "dog-eat-dog" capitalism he hated to an end. Yes, I discovered that he was an American academic working to destroy America from within. (How did McCarthy overlook him?) 

His article, which labels conservatives as paranoid, was demeaning right-wingers because they actually believed in the destructive influence of liberal professors and politicos like him!

In his latter years when American students started practicing what their professors had been preaching and things got ugly and scary, he decided to moderate his views and got a little more conservative. You think, maybe, he didn't want to lose his capitalistic lifestyle and benefits?   

Let me share some quotes with you from the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hofstadter.

Richard Hofstadter (6 August 1916 – 24 October 1970) was an American public intellectual of the 1950s, an historian and ... Professor of American History at Columbia University.
(He) ...became the "iconic historian of postwar liberal consensus" 
(He) was born in Buffalo, New York, in 1916 to a German American Lutheran mother and a Polish Jewish father, who died when he was ten.
(He) was a Communist, and a member of the Young Communist League at university,
... In 1938, he joined the Communist Party of the USA, yet realistically qualified his action:
"I join without enthusiasm, but with a sense of obligation.... My fundamental reason for joining is that I don't like capitalism and want to get rid of it. I am tired of talking.... The party is making a very profound contribution to the radicalization of the American people.... I prefer to go along with it now."
 In late 1939, he ended the Communist stage of his life...  He remained anti-capitalist: "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it".
...1944 published his dissertation Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915, a ...critique of late 19th century American capitalism and those who espoused its ruthless "dog-eat-dog" economic competition and justified themselves by invoking the doctrine of Social Darwinism...
The Progressive... Turner... said that, as an historian, Richard Hofstadter no longer was a useful guide, because his ideas were too isolationist, and too often had "a pound of falsehood for every few ounces of truth".
Consequent to the radical politics of the 1960s, and especially because of the student occupation and temporary closing of Columbia University in 1968, Hofstadter became more conservative.
His friend David Herbert Donald said: "He was appalled by the growing radical, even revolutionary, sentiment that he sensed among his colleagues and his students. He could never share their simplistic, moralistic approach". 
The sharpest criticism of Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 focused on Hofstadter's weakness as a research scholar: he did little or no research into manuscripts, newspapers, archival, or unpublished sources. Instead, he primarily relied upon secondary sources augmented by his lively style and wide-ranging interdisciplinary readings, this producing very well-written arguments based upon scattered evidence he found by reading other historians.
Hofstadter showed scant interest in his students. ... Hofstadter had few disciples and founded no school of history writing.
Conservative commentator George Will called Richard Hofstadter "the iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension", who "dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a 'paranoid style' of politics rooted in 'status anxiety', etc." 
"Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension."
Richard Hofstadter was an ivory tower extreme leftist. He seems to have lived in his own little world focused on promulgating unrealistic ideas which he didn't even want to live with in the end.

You may wonder why I shared this information with you and why it matters. I think it matters because it is a glimpse into the inner workings of the leftist elite academic cadre which is having such a deleterious effect on our nation. The anti-capitalistic mindset which is currently destroying this once prosperous nation has sprung from the treasonous seeds which have been sown for decades now by communistic/socialistic professors in our colleges and universities.

I experienced it personally when I took a government class at a Jr. College in Oklahoma City back in the early 1980s. I wanted to learn more about the country I was proud of. To my dismay, the professor ended the course with a lecture predicting that the USA would end up turning to Fascism or Socialism because Capitalism just wasn't working! (A self-fulfilling prophecy?)

No one in the class spoke up to disagree. We were just a bunch of clueless young students unprepared to hear such words-- much less to refute them. After gathering my thoughts, I wrote to the professor to share my disappointment and disagreement. I knew it was not likely to impact him, but I tried.

I thought about his words through the years and wondered why he was allowed to teach like that. I also wondered what impact his words were having on young malleable minds. I think it's clear now.

The stream of history is not the result of mere chance but is the outcome of willful choices. 

And it's not over. We still have some choices to make.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart 
and lean not on your own understanding;
 in all your ways submit to Him,

and He will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 3:5-6 NIV



 

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The ONLY Begotten Son of God?

When speaking of "the only begotten Son of God," there may be some confusion as to what the term means. Angels are called the sons of God and born again believers are called the sons (or children) of God. But, only Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God." Why is that?

First of all, we must know what begotten means. The English word begotten is commonly used to refer to procreation: the fathering of children in a biological sense. This biological connection between human generations means the father and his child or children are genetically related. They are of the same species and share the same physical and spiritual makeup. They often even look alike. However, this understanding of begotten is not sufficient to explain what begotten means when used to express the connection between Jesus and God the Father. Why? Because it does not include the full meaning of the Greek word monogenes which is used in the Greek New Testament and from which begotten is translated.

Monogenes, according to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has two definitions.

First, monogenes pertains to "being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." Monogenes is used in this way when Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son" in Hebrews 11:17. In case you don't know or have forgotten, the book of Genesis tells us that Abraham had eight sons. He begat Ishmael with Hagar. He begat Isaac with Sarah. And, he begat Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah with Keturah. (Yes, the Middle East is populated with Abraham's descendants!) But, Isaac was accurately called Abraham's only begotten son in the Hebrews statement because Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant.

Note: Hebrews 11:17 is probably one of the scriptures critics use to point out mistakes in the Bible. It just goes to show that one must diligently study to avoid wrong conclusions!

Second, monogenes pertains to "being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." Monogenes is used with this meaning by Jesus when He said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Contrary to what some believe, begotten/monogenes does not imply that Jesus had a beginning. No, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus exists from eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, the English term "only begotten" is simply used to highlight the fact that Jesus shares the divine nature as the unique Son of God. 

This second meaning of monogenes is also used in 1 John 4:9;            John 1:14, 18 and John 3:18 These scripture verses reveal the truth I'm sharing with you. Please meditate on their clear meaning as you can understand it now.

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.      1 John 4:9 NKJV

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.  John 1:14 NKJV

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.   John 1:18 NKJV


These verses say God the Father "sent" Jesus to us and "gave" Jesus to save us from our sins. They never say God created Jesus. He existed eternally with His Father as many verses tell us. Jesus, as God, created all things that are in heaven and earth! In the book of Isaiah, Jesus is called Wonderful (full of wonders!), Counselor (full of wisdom), Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. In the book of Revelation He declares Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end!

Jesus is never simply called "the begotten Son of God." He is always called the "only begotten Son of God" because He is indeed Unique! One of a kind. Angels and humans are called sons of God because God created them but only Jesus proceeds forth from the Heavenly Father as His Eternally Existing Only Begotten Son.

In the Bethlehem prophecy foretelling His birth in Micah 5:2, the scriptures say His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." We know He physically created and then visited with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  He walked with Enoch and then took him to heaven. He instructed Noah on the building the ark. He spoke with Abraham about Isaac's coming birth, the destruction of Sodom, the sacrifice of Isaac and the future of his descendants. He comforted Hagar and assured her concerning Ishmael's future. He spoke "face to face" with Moses on many occasions. He appeared to Joshua as Commander of the Lord's Hosts. He announced the coming birth of Samson to Manoah's wife and later to Manoah. He has been going forth throughout history as Micah said.

Don't you find it comforting that Jesus takes such an interest in His people? I certainly do! And He takes an interest in us because He loves us! We rejected Him but He still loves us and makes a way for us to return to fellowship with Him and live forever. Knowing Jesus and accepting Him as Lord and Savior is the only way to gain eternal life.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16 NKJV

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18 NKJV

Let me repeat:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16 NKJV

Jesus, God's only begotten Son,  invites you through His Word and His Spirit to be saved. I pray you will respond.


May God's grace and peace be with you and yours forever.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Bill O’Reilly: The Bible Contradicts Itself by Joe Kovacs

Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, who is writing an upcoming book titled “Killing Jesus,” proclaimed on his program Wednesday night that “a lot of the Bible is allegorical,” and the New Testament Gospels contradict themselves.

O’Reilly made the remarks during an interview with “Touched by an Angel” star Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett, executive producers of “The Bible” TV miniseries which begins this Sunday night on the History Channel.

Downey, who portrays Jesus’ mother Mary in the series, opened the interview by declaring her solid faith in Holy Scripture.

“Bringing the Bible to the screen came with a huge responsibility and one we took very seriously,” Downey said. “We had a great team of scholars and theologians helping us, making sure that we told these stories accurately and truthfully. I’ve been a believer my whole life, and that was very, very important to us. Something else that we wanted to do was to make it really, really cool. You know, we have teenagers at home and [it's] hard to get them to read anything, and one of the goals here was to get this generation interested and excited about Scripture, and I think we’ve been able to achieve that.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/oreilly-proclaims-the-bible-contradicts-itself/#UeHSIAkkvhvXCLK6.99



Monday, October 29, 2012

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.   

Saturday, September 22, 2012

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

Thursday, September 20, 2012

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!

Thursday, August 30, 2012

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.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

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.