Philippians 2:5-11 was the basis for my sermon on Sunday. Christmas time is a time of many paradoxes, at least in my mind. We celebrate the Incarnation, as well we should, but too often we do it while wearing blinders. We do this by focusing entirely on what it means to us while failing to consider what it meant to Christ Jesus.
Our exalted view of humanity would almost seem to declare that for Jesus to become one of us was, in and of itself, a tremendous blessing for Him. Immanuel has been changed from "God with us" to God amongst gods. Dare I bring up that we have forgotten that we were made lower than the angels, no matter how little lower that may have been?(Psalm 8:5) How wretched we are to think that becoming human was a blessing in and of itself.
Imagine, if you will, a sitting President and his wife having their baby in a community center rather than Bethesda, Maryland. One might contend that it is not fitting for such to happen. Much more can you imagine the contention if the Royalty of England was born in a barn instead of a castle? But Jesus, the very Son of God, the King of Kings, the Lord of lords, the very One before whom angels bowed, was born in a stable and laid in a manger.
He took upon him the form of a servant. He came not to be served but to serve. The King came not to have His feet washed but to wash the feet of men. The King came not to have people pay taxes unto Him but instead Himself paid taxes unto Caesar. The King came not to suffer and die for any personal iniquity or sin, for He had none. Instead, He came to bear the iniquity and sin of the servants of His kingdom.
No, humanity was not a step up for Jesus but it was a step down. And the reason for Jesus' willingness to bear such humility was twofold. First, it was the Father's will. Jesus obeyed His Father. Jesus worked the works that He saw His Father do. Secondly, it was to pick up fallen man. The love of Jesus and the righteousness of Jesus worked together to do for man what man could not do for himself.
While the manger was about us, we MUST NOT forget what that meant for Christ Jesus. This Christmas as you celebrate what Jesus did for you, consider what that meant for Jesus. Ponder, as Mary did with so many things, what the manger truly means. Consider the humiliation in the manger. Then, as Paul said, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Merry Christmas
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
AM I TOO RELIGIOUS
Am I too religious to help the hurting? If I answer yes, woe to me and my soul. If I answer no but don't help them, I'm a hypocrite.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
WHY THE POLAR ICE IS DISAPPEARING
I was reading the news of the day when I happened upon THIS story. Then it suddenly dawned upon me. The answer for the ages as to why the polar ice is disappearing. Scientists want to blame it on global warming when in reality it is all of the expeditions they make into these regions on icebreaker ships that undermine the ability of the poles to build up their ice sheets. As these scientists continue to "traipse" about(they call it study) the poles constantly busting up these ice sheets that they say are in such a danger of disappearing. But if they stopped their "study" of polar ice, they would not get federal money to line their pockets and provide them with paid vacations that most people can only dream about.
The sequence of events is like this:
1. we study the poles
2. we bust up the ice as we study the poles
3. the ice starts to disappear
4. we ask the feds to underwrite studies to understand why the ice is busting up
5. we travel to the poles, AGAIN
6. busting up more ice to understand what we caused in the first place.
Seems as reasonable to me as cow flatulence causing global warming!
The sequence of events is like this:
1. we study the poles
2. we bust up the ice as we study the poles
3. the ice starts to disappear
4. we ask the feds to underwrite studies to understand why the ice is busting up
5. we travel to the poles, AGAIN
6. busting up more ice to understand what we caused in the first place.
Seems as reasonable to me as cow flatulence causing global warming!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
WHY ISN'T THIS A HATE CRIME???
OUTRAGEOUS is the only way that I can describe THIS news article.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a "white" man had done this to a "black" woman, hate crime, amidst other tags would have been affixed to this news item. The hypocrisy running so rampant in this nation is so blatant that the blind can see it. Only those with their heads stuck in the sand will miss the implications of how this event is being handled.
Wake up America! Physical violence of this nature should not be tolerated IRRESPECTIVE to the color, socio-economic status, gender, orientation or religion of the abused. Let Justice continue to be blind and justice will be served. There is NO NEED to attach "hate" to any crime. An injustice perpetrated is injustice without regard or need for any caveats. Thus, to set apart certain groups with special rights and special status is both unnecessary and a discredit to what it means to be faithful to justice.
The Mainstream Media is manipulating and driving an agenda that will result not in equality and fairness, but rather is motivated to overthrow all that is good and exalt all that is evil. Their hypocrisy is glaringly evident in the way that stories of this nature are covered. And speaking of hypocrites, if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are truly so concerned about social justice, why aren't they spouting their rhetoric that this man is in error and needs to be sharply reprimanded by the loss of his job? Oh that's right! I forgot for a moment. The criminal is black. The blame, by default, rests upon the "white".
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a "white" man had done this to a "black" woman, hate crime, amidst other tags would have been affixed to this news item. The hypocrisy running so rampant in this nation is so blatant that the blind can see it. Only those with their heads stuck in the sand will miss the implications of how this event is being handled.
Wake up America! Physical violence of this nature should not be tolerated IRRESPECTIVE to the color, socio-economic status, gender, orientation or religion of the abused. Let Justice continue to be blind and justice will be served. There is NO NEED to attach "hate" to any crime. An injustice perpetrated is injustice without regard or need for any caveats. Thus, to set apart certain groups with special rights and special status is both unnecessary and a discredit to what it means to be faithful to justice.
The Mainstream Media is manipulating and driving an agenda that will result not in equality and fairness, but rather is motivated to overthrow all that is good and exalt all that is evil. Their hypocrisy is glaringly evident in the way that stories of this nature are covered. And speaking of hypocrites, if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are truly so concerned about social justice, why aren't they spouting their rhetoric that this man is in error and needs to be sharply reprimanded by the loss of his job? Oh that's right! I forgot for a moment. The criminal is black. The blame, by default, rests upon the "white".
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
KENNEDY'S HYPE AND HYPOCRISY
Well, Rep. Kennedy of Rhode Island is showing his true colors as well as that of the majority of the Democratic Party. You can find the entire article HERE. He is spewing a warning that those who are opposing ObamaCare are violent and dangerous. Why? Because he saw a sign that read, “Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.” Now let us look at this quote VERY closely. It DOES NOT say bury Obama. The reference to burying Kennedy was Edward Kennedy who had recently died from a brain tumor. So even there, we are talking about burying someone who was already dead, not someone among the living. But here is where the rubber meets the road. Mr. Kennedy, WHERE was YOUR voice when a movie about assassinating G.W. Bush was being promoted? Mr. Kennedy, WHERE was YOUR voice when then Governor Palin and her family were attacked by the Democrats and the media? Or is it okay in your little Camelot to live by the adage, do as I say and not as I do!? Makes you a hypocrite Mr. Kennedy.
Kennedy then tries to equate the assassinations of his family members to the opposition of ObamaCare. I am not in any way happy to say that any of his family was assassinated but Mr. Kennedy is simply trying to drum up a false sympathy for ObamaCare as well as lump those who oppose it to assassins. In my life up to this point, I have never run across anyone who celebrated the assassinations of either of the Kennedys. I am not saying they do not exist but I am saying that if they do, they must be as rare as a budget surplus in the Obama administration.
And once again, all those who oppose Democrats and their ideas are lumped together as assassins. Mr. Kennedy, if we were assassins, there would not be a Democrat brave enough to open his mouth to espouse the liberal drivel that you do. But rest assured, we WILL oppose the ObamaCare plan and I WILL celebrate the day that the plan is buried.
Yes, it is unfortunate that your family has gone through the things that they have gone through. But what your family has gone through is NOTHING compared to what the good people of the United States will be put through by your hands if you and your ilk are successful in passing the legislation that you desire to pass.
Mr. Kennedy, why don't you try endorsing righteousness and opposing evil? Why don't you try exalting the right and punishing the evil? And so that I am completely clear about this, ObamaCare is evil. So it is not me that you have to be concerned about, it is my God who will return and sift out the evil and save the righteous and before His court, there will be no appeals.
**Corrected to change Ted to Edward in the first paragraph.**
Kennedy then tries to equate the assassinations of his family members to the opposition of ObamaCare. I am not in any way happy to say that any of his family was assassinated but Mr. Kennedy is simply trying to drum up a false sympathy for ObamaCare as well as lump those who oppose it to assassins. In my life up to this point, I have never run across anyone who celebrated the assassinations of either of the Kennedys. I am not saying they do not exist but I am saying that if they do, they must be as rare as a budget surplus in the Obama administration.
And once again, all those who oppose Democrats and their ideas are lumped together as assassins. Mr. Kennedy, if we were assassins, there would not be a Democrat brave enough to open his mouth to espouse the liberal drivel that you do. But rest assured, we WILL oppose the ObamaCare plan and I WILL celebrate the day that the plan is buried.
Yes, it is unfortunate that your family has gone through the things that they have gone through. But what your family has gone through is NOTHING compared to what the good people of the United States will be put through by your hands if you and your ilk are successful in passing the legislation that you desire to pass.
Mr. Kennedy, why don't you try endorsing righteousness and opposing evil? Why don't you try exalting the right and punishing the evil? And so that I am completely clear about this, ObamaCare is evil. So it is not me that you have to be concerned about, it is my God who will return and sift out the evil and save the righteous and before His court, there will be no appeals.
**Corrected to change Ted to Edward in the first paragraph.**
Monday, September 28, 2009
HEALTH CARE DATABASE IS A SICK IDEA
You know, sometimes, you read an article and you shake your head saying, "no, this simply cannot be true". Hopefully, this article will be proven to have been false but I would not bet on it.
Representative Kennedy of Rhode Island wants those with STD's and abortions on their records to be able to have those kept out of the Health Care Database. So what he is really saying is this. If you are an immoral person, you need to be able to keep your health care secret. We only need to keep track of those darn moral people who believe sex is for marriage and children are a blessing.
Just another move by liberal democrats to seek to exercise complete control of all morality exalting the evil, while abhorring the good.
On a side note, extending the education day by 3 hours is another one of those attempts to completely brain wash your children and grandchildren. If the classroom time was actually being spent teaching the children reading comprehension, writing, math and science instead of learning songs to praise Obama, I'd be willing to bet that the test scores of our students would all go up.
WAKE UP Americans!!! Socialistic Fascism is on the move.
Representative Kennedy of Rhode Island wants those with STD's and abortions on their records to be able to have those kept out of the Health Care Database. So what he is really saying is this. If you are an immoral person, you need to be able to keep your health care secret. We only need to keep track of those darn moral people who believe sex is for marriage and children are a blessing.
Just another move by liberal democrats to seek to exercise complete control of all morality exalting the evil, while abhorring the good.
On a side note, extending the education day by 3 hours is another one of those attempts to completely brain wash your children and grandchildren. If the classroom time was actually being spent teaching the children reading comprehension, writing, math and science instead of learning songs to praise Obama, I'd be willing to bet that the test scores of our students would all go up.
WAKE UP Americans!!! Socialistic Fascism is on the move.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
PELOSI PILES ON
Nancy Pelosi is nothing but a hypocrite. Not ONCE was it ever reported that she spoke out against the members of her own party who publicly defamed and denounced Bush using rhetoric straight from the gutter. And NOW??? she wants to spew this type of hypocrisy. Read HERE. Puleeeease. Clean your own "House", pun intended, then tell me how to clean mine.
One step worse though is her banal attempt to distort the issue but not connecting it with racism this time but instead, attempting to connect disagreement with Obama to the homosexual movement of the 70's.
Nancy Pelosi, you need a teleprompter and a speech writer to prevent you from showing your true colors. You have no substance so you turn to Carter and the charge of racism and now a feeble attempt to connect the anti-socialist movement to the anti-gay of the 70's. This charge will stick to us like eggs stick to a Teflon skillet. Just won't do it.
C'mon Pelosi, stick to the issue rather than slinging mud. But it appears that is all you are capable of doing is smear and slinging. This is why ya'll are such miserable failures. You have NO SUBSTANCE!
One step worse though is her banal attempt to distort the issue but not connecting it with racism this time but instead, attempting to connect disagreement with Obama to the homosexual movement of the 70's.
Nancy Pelosi, you need a teleprompter and a speech writer to prevent you from showing your true colors. You have no substance so you turn to Carter and the charge of racism and now a feeble attempt to connect the anti-socialist movement to the anti-gay of the 70's. This charge will stick to us like eggs stick to a Teflon skillet. Just won't do it.
C'mon Pelosi, stick to the issue rather than slinging mud. But it appears that is all you are capable of doing is smear and slinging. This is why ya'll are such miserable failures. You have NO SUBSTANCE!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
THEN I MUST BE A RACIST!
If disagreeing with President Barak Obama makes one a racist, then I must be a racist. There is VERY LITTLE that I presently agree with him about the way he is proposing to take this country. In THIS article on Bloomberg, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, former President Jimmy Carter, and other unnamed black lawmakers attributed Joe Wilson's outburst to racism.
If this had happened to former President George W. Bush, the whole outburst would not have even been given a second glance by the aforementioned "scholars on racism". This whole brouhaha is nothing but politics. Pure, bitter, partisan politics. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party as a whole who say they oppose racism while it is demonstrable that THEY are the ones who seem to not be able to see past President Obama's blackness.
Again, if disagreeing with Obama makes one a racist, then I must be one.
In this case, however, it seems that those who are raising the biggest stink about this are the racists.
If this had happened to former President George W. Bush, the whole outburst would not have even been given a second glance by the aforementioned "scholars on racism". This whole brouhaha is nothing but politics. Pure, bitter, partisan politics. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party as a whole who say they oppose racism while it is demonstrable that THEY are the ones who seem to not be able to see past President Obama's blackness.
Again, if disagreeing with Obama makes one a racist, then I must be one.
In this case, however, it seems that those who are raising the biggest stink about this are the racists.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE
It is absolutely pathetic and mind-boggling in this day and age when a BLACK president is called a socialist and the camp he is a part of responds with the charge of RACISM and then THIS (link) happens and people WONDER if it is RACISM.
Calling Obama a socialist may not be much of a conversation builder but it certainly is not racist!
Would it be too much to ask that the liberal left CONDEMN the beating of this child as racially motivated and cheered on/encouraged as it happens?
Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU who would already have made statements had this been black on white?
Don't talk to me about racism unless the street we are going to discuss is TWO-WAY!
NO ONE! should be treated this way in a civilized society. But it appears that the only one who is supposed to show civility is the WHITE man?!
BLACK community....WHERE is the outrage at this event??? Or are you only concerned if it happens to a man like Rodney King?
GOD HELP US ALL!!!
Calling Obama a socialist may not be much of a conversation builder but it certainly is not racist!
Would it be too much to ask that the liberal left CONDEMN the beating of this child as racially motivated and cheered on/encouraged as it happens?
Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU who would already have made statements had this been black on white?
Don't talk to me about racism unless the street we are going to discuss is TWO-WAY!
NO ONE! should be treated this way in a civilized society. But it appears that the only one who is supposed to show civility is the WHITE man?!
BLACK community....WHERE is the outrage at this event??? Or are you only concerned if it happens to a man like Rodney King?
GOD HELP US ALL!!!
Friday, September 4, 2009
SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
CONGRATULATIONS!
Bubba and Allie will be married, Lord willing, this evening. Bubba is my son of 23 years and Allie is my future daughter-in-law. May God grant them wisdom, peace, happiness and prosperity. And yes, Daddy gets to officiate the wedding. Ain't life grand and ain't God good!!!
Bubba and Allie will be married, Lord willing, this evening. Bubba is my son of 23 years and Allie is my future daughter-in-law. May God grant them wisdom, peace, happiness and prosperity. And yes, Daddy gets to officiate the wedding. Ain't life grand and ain't God good!!!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Thoughts About the BIG Bang
Okay. So I am sitting here thinking and I have puzzled myself. I have watched videos of nuclear bombs exploding on YouTube. They tend to make very large bangs and so I got to thinking. When these "big bangs" do explode, some of their energy travels out very rapidly and then reverses course and rushes back to the point of detonation as energy heads skyward.
Now "IF" the "Big Bang" happened, did it have the same reaction? Was there a huge rush of energy into nothing and then back towards the center of the explosion into nothing? And if the "Big Bang" was to have happened like nuclear explosions, then is it not reasonable to expect that the effects reach a certain amount outward and then cease to go forward? And although maybe the shock wave continued throughout nothingness, though hard to conceive of that, would not the universe that came into existence have a definite point of influence just as the effects of a nuclear bomb have a definite sphere of influence?
Just some questions. I have tons more but this is all I am desirous to put to pad at this time.
Now "IF" the "Big Bang" happened, did it have the same reaction? Was there a huge rush of energy into nothing and then back towards the center of the explosion into nothing? And if the "Big Bang" was to have happened like nuclear explosions, then is it not reasonable to expect that the effects reach a certain amount outward and then cease to go forward? And although maybe the shock wave continued throughout nothingness, though hard to conceive of that, would not the universe that came into existence have a definite point of influence just as the effects of a nuclear bomb have a definite sphere of influence?
Just some questions. I have tons more but this is all I am desirous to put to pad at this time.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
CARICATURES, HYPOCRISY...DEMOCRATS
Recently, posters started showing up in the L.A. area. These posters depict President Obama as the Joker. You can find a picture of it HERE. Not too long in recent past, Vanity Fair did the same thing to President Bush and you can find that picture HERE.
Having set the stage, let's address the reactions to each. In a Washington Post article, found HERE, the Bush picture was praised while the Obama picture was disdained. In fact, the artist of the Obama pic is even called a racist. Pardon me while I turn my head and cough...(hypocrites).
Have you ever noticed that if you are the one making fun of someone, that it is legitimate. But if someone is making fun of you, it is wrong. Peter Lumpkins has been addressing this very issue of caricatures on his blog concerning Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. He arrives at the same conclusion about Calvinists that I arrive at about the current generation of Democrats. They are both guilty of hypocrisy. A quick disclaimer. If you are a Calvinist and oppose caricatures of Non-Calvinists, then I do not include you. If you are a Democrat and oppose caricatures of Non-Democrats, then I do not include you. I am of course speaking in broad generalization. For while some may say, well look, Republicans think the Obama pic is funny. Luke is a Republican. Luke thinks the poster is funny...well...I did find it humorous but not a humor I would participate in or condemn. Hey, it's politics. Take the heat or get out of the kitchen. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
My problem, of course, is NOT with those who caricature the other. My problem is that when they who caricature become the object of caricature, they then gripe about it not being fair. The Left loved the demonization of Bush but they decry the demonization of Obama as being racist among other things. I even read one comment where a person stated that it was true of Bush because he had been in office for 8 years but Obama has not even been in office for 8 months. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?! Hypocrites are what these people are. Those who will do the very thing they condemn others for doing. They are hypocrites who delight in the caricaturing of others but moan, whine and complain when it is done of them.
From where I sit, caricatures can be pretty funny. Caricatures can be very truthful. Caricatures can be very painful. But pain is not necessarily a bad thing. It can actually keep you from being critically hurt. So if you caricature others, take your baby faced whining somewhere else when it is done of you. Otherwise, chuckle a little, take the picture for what it is worth and move on.
Having set the stage, let's address the reactions to each. In a Washington Post article, found HERE, the Bush picture was praised while the Obama picture was disdained. In fact, the artist of the Obama pic is even called a racist. Pardon me while I turn my head and cough...(hypocrites).
Have you ever noticed that if you are the one making fun of someone, that it is legitimate. But if someone is making fun of you, it is wrong. Peter Lumpkins has been addressing this very issue of caricatures on his blog concerning Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. He arrives at the same conclusion about Calvinists that I arrive at about the current generation of Democrats. They are both guilty of hypocrisy. A quick disclaimer. If you are a Calvinist and oppose caricatures of Non-Calvinists, then I do not include you. If you are a Democrat and oppose caricatures of Non-Democrats, then I do not include you. I am of course speaking in broad generalization. For while some may say, well look, Republicans think the Obama pic is funny. Luke is a Republican. Luke thinks the poster is funny...well...I did find it humorous but not a humor I would participate in or condemn. Hey, it's politics. Take the heat or get out of the kitchen. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
My problem, of course, is NOT with those who caricature the other. My problem is that when they who caricature become the object of caricature, they then gripe about it not being fair. The Left loved the demonization of Bush but they decry the demonization of Obama as being racist among other things. I even read one comment where a person stated that it was true of Bush because he had been in office for 8 years but Obama has not even been in office for 8 months. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?! Hypocrites are what these people are. Those who will do the very thing they condemn others for doing. They are hypocrites who delight in the caricaturing of others but moan, whine and complain when it is done of them.
From where I sit, caricatures can be pretty funny. Caricatures can be very truthful. Caricatures can be very painful. But pain is not necessarily a bad thing. It can actually keep you from being critically hurt. So if you caricature others, take your baby faced whining somewhere else when it is done of you. Otherwise, chuckle a little, take the picture for what it is worth and move on.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
TOWN HALL MEETING BLUNDER
Every now and then, the solution to a problem presents itself rather easily. Reading THIS article is one of those instances where the problem and the solution is so readily apparent. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was being interviewed and he made the statement that "[t]he town hall tradition is to give people information, he said, 'so they can make a decision about policy that impacts their lives and I think that's what this town hall meeting will do today and I know the president is excited about engaging the public again.'"(para.5)
First, I will note that the entire quote is not a direct quote of his. But barring any forthcoming statements, it is presumed that Gibbs stands by the way he is quoted. But it is the first part of his statement that I want to draw attention to where it is stated that "the town hall tradition is to give people information." THERE is the problem. They, Obama and his muses, totally misunderstand the purpose of the Town Hall Meeting. It IS NOT for them to give us information. It IS for THE PEOPLE TO BE HEARD and in this case, by no other than Obama himself.
NO Mr. Gibbs! NO President Obama! The TOWN HALL MEETING is not a place where you INFORM us. It is the place where WE INFORM YOU. You've been so stuck in playing politics and stacking the questions that you have completely subverted the reason for these meetings. And perhaps, the people bare as much responsibility for sitting quietly and idly by as you and your ilk answer those staged questions without ever answering the TOUGH questions. But especially with YOU Obama, we understand why. If it is not scripted and you have to go off of your own reasoning rather than Teleprompter logic, you fail miserably because it is at that point where you reveal yourself for who you truly are and what you truly think. When you are behind the teleprompter, you tell us what your information specialists think.
President Obama, make trips to other cities where you KNOW you will be opposed. LISTEN to those gripes, complaints and suggestions. LEARN from us the American people what WE think for as often as it has been repeated, it bears repeating again. YOU work for us in America. YOU were hired by us in America. Now listen to us here in America.
NO Mr. Gibbs! NO President Obama! The TOWN HALL MEETING is not a place where you INFORM us. It is the place where WE INFORM YOU!!!
First, I will note that the entire quote is not a direct quote of his. But barring any forthcoming statements, it is presumed that Gibbs stands by the way he is quoted. But it is the first part of his statement that I want to draw attention to where it is stated that "the town hall tradition is to give people information." THERE is the problem. They, Obama and his muses, totally misunderstand the purpose of the Town Hall Meeting. It IS NOT for them to give us information. It IS for THE PEOPLE TO BE HEARD and in this case, by no other than Obama himself.
NO Mr. Gibbs! NO President Obama! The TOWN HALL MEETING is not a place where you INFORM us. It is the place where WE INFORM YOU. You've been so stuck in playing politics and stacking the questions that you have completely subverted the reason for these meetings. And perhaps, the people bare as much responsibility for sitting quietly and idly by as you and your ilk answer those staged questions without ever answering the TOUGH questions. But especially with YOU Obama, we understand why. If it is not scripted and you have to go off of your own reasoning rather than Teleprompter logic, you fail miserably because it is at that point where you reveal yourself for who you truly are and what you truly think. When you are behind the teleprompter, you tell us what your information specialists think.
President Obama, make trips to other cities where you KNOW you will be opposed. LISTEN to those gripes, complaints and suggestions. LEARN from us the American people what WE think for as often as it has been repeated, it bears repeating again. YOU work for us in America. YOU were hired by us in America. Now listen to us here in America.
NO Mr. Gibbs! NO President Obama! The TOWN HALL MEETING is not a place where you INFORM us. It is the place where WE INFORM YOU!!!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
MORE THAN A PET, HE WAS A FRIEND
Sitting with my son while his heart was hurting yesterday evening was a very difficult moment. His pet, hunting companion and friend experienced the end of his life. Bullet was his name. He was a hunting companion of a sort. Being mostly lab, he was trained(but not perfect) to fetch ducks. My son commented yesterday as we sat holding back tears, "Well at least he fetched two of them."
Bullet had been battling that awful disease known as heart worms. It was very difficult for my son to watch his friend go through the manifestations of that inward killer. He loved his friend but did not like watching the effects of the disease upon his friend.
We sat, yesterday evening, not saying a whole lot. Me, fighting back the urge to burst into a full blown cry as my son did the same, all the while as I hurt to watch my son hurt so. I'll miss the dog for sure. But my pain was for my son and his pain. In our discourse, I reminded him that this was one of the effects of sin upon this earth and that what God had made was good. But I also reminded him that anytime we open ourselves up to love, we also open ourselves up to hurt. He agreed.
This makes me long for the day when death will be cast away for eternity. For with the passing of death, much sorrow and pain will pass as well.
Bullet--more than a pet--a friend!
Bullet had been battling that awful disease known as heart worms. It was very difficult for my son to watch his friend go through the manifestations of that inward killer. He loved his friend but did not like watching the effects of the disease upon his friend.
We sat, yesterday evening, not saying a whole lot. Me, fighting back the urge to burst into a full blown cry as my son did the same, all the while as I hurt to watch my son hurt so. I'll miss the dog for sure. But my pain was for my son and his pain. In our discourse, I reminded him that this was one of the effects of sin upon this earth and that what God had made was good. But I also reminded him that anytime we open ourselves up to love, we also open ourselves up to hurt. He agreed.
This makes me long for the day when death will be cast away for eternity. For with the passing of death, much sorrow and pain will pass as well.
Bullet--more than a pet--a friend!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
RACIAL PROFILING??? GET REAL!!!
If you haven't heard this news story about the Harvard Professor, HERE is a link to read about it.
So now, it is reported, that some are going to accuse the cop of "racial profiling". OH PULEASE! The report was that two "Black" men were forcing the door open. So are we supposed to run around looking for white men? Are we supposed to run around looking for Hispanics? Are we supposed to run around looking for Japanese? Good grief. If the report is that the men are black, we would look for, yep you guessed it, BLACK men. It isn't racial profiling as in assuming all black men are robbers. It is taking the reported description and matching that description with who is at the house.
In the words of an news reporter(John Stossel to be exact), give me a break.
***UPDATE***Link HERE
So now, it is reported, that some are going to accuse the cop of "racial profiling". OH PULEASE! The report was that two "Black" men were forcing the door open. So are we supposed to run around looking for white men? Are we supposed to run around looking for Hispanics? Are we supposed to run around looking for Japanese? Good grief. If the report is that the men are black, we would look for, yep you guessed it, BLACK men. It isn't racial profiling as in assuming all black men are robbers. It is taking the reported description and matching that description with who is at the house.
In the words of an news reporter(John Stossel to be exact), give me a break.
***UPDATE***Link HERE
Monday, July 6, 2009
UPDATE on Honduras
For those who think the Honduran Government went beyond its powers to oust the former President Zelaya, please watch the following video.
Our United States President is showing his true colors when he sided with Chavez to condemn the actions of the Honduran Government and that is because President Obama is sympathetic with socialistic dictators rather than true democratic forms of government.
I continue to pray that God will grant the Hondurans a leader who would truly have the people's best at heart. I continue to pray that God will grant the Hondurans freedom from tyranny and a lasting peace. May the Gospel of Jesus Christ continue to be spread throughout Hond
Our United States President is showing his true colors when he sided with Chavez to condemn the actions of the Honduran Government and that is because President Obama is sympathetic with socialistic dictators rather than true democratic forms of government.
I continue to pray that God will grant the Hondurans a leader who would truly have the people's best at heart. I continue to pray that God will grant the Hondurans freedom from tyranny and a lasting peace. May the Gospel of Jesus Christ continue to be spread throughout Hond
Friday, July 3, 2009
HAPPY 4th of JULY
May God bless the United States of America. May He keep us free from the powers of tyranny. May He grant us wisdom to withstand the powers of tyranny. But especially may He grant to us victory in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. May this Independence Day become the day of salvation for many that they may live lives independent from sin and its wages and may they become dependent upon our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
In Support of Honduras' New President
To the new Honduran President, some of us here in the United States SUPPORT you in your efforts to keep Socialism from controlling your country. Many of us here think it absolutely incredulous that President Obama has spoken against you. May I plainly state that he is only one man and has but one voice. He is NOT speaking for the entire population of our country. I urge you to continue to defend your nation's freedom from the tyranny of a dictator wanna-be. As our Nation celebrates Independence Day on July 4th, I pray that your country will remain independent from tyranny.
Monday, June 1, 2009
ABORTIONIST MURDERED: Where's The Outrage?
Tiller began providing the life-ending procedure known as abortion(also known as a "choice" by some) in 1973 after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. I guess there is a statistic out there that can put an actual number to all the nameless children that Tiller killed but I do not have it ready and quite frankly, would probably be appalled by what I would find. 36 years of "technological service" to ending babies lives is the legacy of Tiller.
Comparing Tiller's end with an abortion may seem shocking at first but the irony is truly found in the details. Consider that Tiller made a living taking children from the sanctity of their mother's womb. Tiller's own life was taken from him in the sanctity of a church. Tiller made a living treating babies as if their lives had no value. Tiller's own life was taken from him by an individual that assigned more value to unborn babies than Tiller's value as a human being. Tiller's death left a family in shock and disbelief. How many husbands, fathers, and mothers were left in shock and disbelief after learning of Tiller's procedure upon a loved one? Tiller's years were shortened no doubt in an instant, in a single moment of time. Tiller was denied the privilege of living out those years. His family was denied the joy of those years. Yet, Tiller constantly shortened lives in an instant of time. He denied those babies the privilege of living out their years. He denied the families of those babies the joy of those years. But you argue, Tiller did not have a choice in his death. He was killed by another man on that man's whim. And I respond to you, all of those babies killed by Tiller did not have a choice in their deaths either. They were killed by another man on that man's whim.
I'll conclude this brief comparison in this way. It was an outrage for Tiller to day in and day out take the lives of babies. It was an outrage for Tiller, in the name of technology, to impose his practice upon those who had no choice in the matter. In much the same way, it was an outrage for Tiller to have his life taken in the place and in the manner of its taking. I do not doubt that many will cry foul, though I am quite sure that had he chosen to do all within his knowledge to extend life rather than take life, he himself would be alive today.
Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a baby was ripped limb by limb from its mother's womb? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a mother on occasion died from the procedure? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when the mothers who survived the abortion procedure went on to live with years and years of terrifying dreams and visitations from their unborn child? There was no outrage for those babies or the women left scarred from the procedure, so why would you expect there to be an outrage over his own life being taken?
In no way do I commend Tiller's murderer for what he did and where he did it. But I find it extremely ironic that Tiller met his fate much the same way the victims of his "procedures" did. He found himself at the end of an instrument being held by an individual who sought to impose his will upon another. The only real difference that I can see is that the babies had nowhere to run.
***News article can be found HERE.***
Comparing Tiller's end with an abortion may seem shocking at first but the irony is truly found in the details. Consider that Tiller made a living taking children from the sanctity of their mother's womb. Tiller's own life was taken from him in the sanctity of a church. Tiller made a living treating babies as if their lives had no value. Tiller's own life was taken from him by an individual that assigned more value to unborn babies than Tiller's value as a human being. Tiller's death left a family in shock and disbelief. How many husbands, fathers, and mothers were left in shock and disbelief after learning of Tiller's procedure upon a loved one? Tiller's years were shortened no doubt in an instant, in a single moment of time. Tiller was denied the privilege of living out those years. His family was denied the joy of those years. Yet, Tiller constantly shortened lives in an instant of time. He denied those babies the privilege of living out their years. He denied the families of those babies the joy of those years. But you argue, Tiller did not have a choice in his death. He was killed by another man on that man's whim. And I respond to you, all of those babies killed by Tiller did not have a choice in their deaths either. They were killed by another man on that man's whim.
I'll conclude this brief comparison in this way. It was an outrage for Tiller to day in and day out take the lives of babies. It was an outrage for Tiller, in the name of technology, to impose his practice upon those who had no choice in the matter. In much the same way, it was an outrage for Tiller to have his life taken in the place and in the manner of its taking. I do not doubt that many will cry foul, though I am quite sure that had he chosen to do all within his knowledge to extend life rather than take life, he himself would be alive today.
Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a baby was ripped limb by limb from its mother's womb? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a mother on occasion died from the procedure? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when the mothers who survived the abortion procedure went on to live with years and years of terrifying dreams and visitations from their unborn child? There was no outrage for those babies or the women left scarred from the procedure, so why would you expect there to be an outrage over his own life being taken?
In no way do I commend Tiller's murderer for what he did and where he did it. But I find it extremely ironic that Tiller met his fate much the same way the victims of his "procedures" did. He found himself at the end of an instrument being held by an individual who sought to impose his will upon another. The only real difference that I can see is that the babies had nowhere to run.
***News article can be found HERE.***
Thursday, May 28, 2009
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Show Us Your Colors
I would like to alert you to this news story if you have not already heard about it. You can find the original story as reported by CBS News of Fort Worth/Dallas HERE. To say that I was concerned after hearing of this story would be a great understatement. It took just a little searching and I found the website and contact numbers for both the hospital where the original incident took place and the corporate headquarters. Corporate headquarters posted a press release in response to the news article. Everything turned out fine right? Well not as far as I am concerned.
I called the corporate headquarters and was directed to "Dave"(no last name was given) who was in charge of public relations. The phone was not picked up and after ringing several times, it was transferred to "Dave's" voice mail where I was directed to leave a telephone number and my call would be returned. I left two numbers where I could be reached, I have answering machines at both phone numbers and have not heard from them yet. Kindred, DAVE!!!, I am still waiting.
Why am I writing about this? Because the news story claimed one thing and the press released claimed another. When you watch the news story, you will find that the claim of the employee is that she was told that her supervisor and "some others" were offended by the flag. Nothing was said of the size as being inappropriate in the initial report. And yet that is what Kindred is saying this dust up was all about.
Well, someone needs to get their story straight. It appears that Kindred Healthcare is simply trying to cover their tails and instead of dealing with the issue in a straight forward manner are trying to divert the attention to a less than honest recounting of the story. I really wish someone reading this could get "Dave's" attention and have him respond to this. If Mrs. McLucas was lying about the issue, she should be fired and disgraced for using the flag in an dishonorable manner. If Kindred Healthcare finds that Mrs. McLucas is telling the truth and the other employee was offended by the flag and had it removed, that employee ought to be fired and given a one-way ticket to China.
So WHICH is it Kindred? Who is really telling the truth? Or are you simply trying to cover your tail? SHOW us your colors KINDRED! Fire ANYONE offended by our American Flag and send them packing. Or, support them through your weak corporate policies and find that true Americans can find alternative health care providers to attend to them.
EDITED to add: I have also sent them an email and will see if they respond.
EDITED to add: CBS follow up new story can be found HERE.
EDITED to add: Kindred responds in the comment stream.(5/29)
I called the corporate headquarters and was directed to "Dave"(no last name was given) who was in charge of public relations. The phone was not picked up and after ringing several times, it was transferred to "Dave's" voice mail where I was directed to leave a telephone number and my call would be returned. I left two numbers where I could be reached, I have answering machines at both phone numbers and have not heard from them yet. Kindred, DAVE!!!, I am still waiting.
Why am I writing about this? Because the news story claimed one thing and the press released claimed another. When you watch the news story, you will find that the claim of the employee is that she was told that her supervisor and "some others" were offended by the flag. Nothing was said of the size as being inappropriate in the initial report. And yet that is what Kindred is saying this dust up was all about.
Well, someone needs to get their story straight. It appears that Kindred Healthcare is simply trying to cover their tails and instead of dealing with the issue in a straight forward manner are trying to divert the attention to a less than honest recounting of the story. I really wish someone reading this could get "Dave's" attention and have him respond to this. If Mrs. McLucas was lying about the issue, she should be fired and disgraced for using the flag in an dishonorable manner. If Kindred Healthcare finds that Mrs. McLucas is telling the truth and the other employee was offended by the flag and had it removed, that employee ought to be fired and given a one-way ticket to China.
So WHICH is it Kindred? Who is really telling the truth? Or are you simply trying to cover your tail? SHOW us your colors KINDRED! Fire ANYONE offended by our American Flag and send them packing. Or, support them through your weak corporate policies and find that true Americans can find alternative health care providers to attend to them.
EDITED to add: I have also sent them an email and will see if they respond.
EDITED to add: CBS follow up new story can be found HERE.
EDITED to add: Kindred responds in the comment stream.(5/29)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
WEEKLY CHURCH GOERS ARE A HINDRANCE
The NBC Today Show featured an interview by Matt Lauer of conservative Michael Smerconish and Katrina vande Heuval of the liberal Nation magazine. The conservative/liberal descriptors were taken directly from the video description for this particular interview. This interview was talking about the Republican Party's effort to remain relevant and Michael Steele's leadership in that party.
During the interview, Heuvel makes the statement that the Republican Party needs to become a more tolerant, modern, diverse party. She continues in her assessment that every demographic group is fleeing the Republican Party except for weekly church goers and that group, she states, will not make a party. She goes on to state that the Party is in trouble and that it needs to be a more modern, tolerant, opposition party.
Oh yeah. That is what the political arena would like isn't it!? They want us "weekly church goers" to abandon our ideals, adopt their own and sing Kum Ba Yah while the USA, and the world for that matter, continues in its downward moral spiral. Just in case Heuval has forgotten, the presidential race was nowhere near a blowout for Obama. It was a narrow majority win with an emphasis upon narrow though the majority vote went his way. This Republican Party is not as far gone as Heuval would have us to believe and the Republican Party is not as ready for liberal/moderate socialism as she would wish us to be.
This Country, the United States of America, was built firmly upon Biblical, Judaeo-Christian principles and ethics and can only continue its supremacy, whether financially, socially or militarily, as it remains devoted to those tenets.
No Heuval. The problem is not weekly church goers. The problem is those, such as yourself and your radical Nation, who would eradicate the values and tenets of those weekly church goers.
During the interview, Heuvel makes the statement that the Republican Party needs to become a more tolerant, modern, diverse party. She continues in her assessment that every demographic group is fleeing the Republican Party except for weekly church goers and that group, she states, will not make a party. She goes on to state that the Party is in trouble and that it needs to be a more modern, tolerant, opposition party.
Oh yeah. That is what the political arena would like isn't it!? They want us "weekly church goers" to abandon our ideals, adopt their own and sing Kum Ba Yah while the USA, and the world for that matter, continues in its downward moral spiral. Just in case Heuval has forgotten, the presidential race was nowhere near a blowout for Obama. It was a narrow majority win with an emphasis upon narrow though the majority vote went his way. This Republican Party is not as far gone as Heuval would have us to believe and the Republican Party is not as ready for liberal/moderate socialism as she would wish us to be.
This Country, the United States of America, was built firmly upon Biblical, Judaeo-Christian principles and ethics and can only continue its supremacy, whether financially, socially or militarily, as it remains devoted to those tenets.
No Heuval. The problem is not weekly church goers. The problem is those, such as yourself and your radical Nation, who would eradicate the values and tenets of those weekly church goers.
Monday, May 4, 2009
HOMELAND SECURITY REPORT
Okay, okay. I am not exercising restraint here and am jumping the gun so to speak, but after acquiring the actual 9 page document and reading it, I had to point out this one quote. The entire report is found HERE and the quote is from page 4 under the heading, Economic Hardship and Extremism. "Antigovernment conspiracy theories and "end times"(emphasis mine) prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity (emphasis mine) organizations and extremist members of the militia movement. "
Oh brother, or sister, who would have ever thought that by preaching about the Rapture and 7 years of tribulation that I'd be motivating extremist individuals to make provision for an unprecedented time of global upheaval. Especially when I preach that Christians WILL NOT BE HERE.
My second point concerns the reference to "violent Christian Identity". I sure hope the BI crowd does not start using violence. This would just make reading articles too confusing. I mean, how would we be able to tell the difference between "Christian Identity" and "Baptist Identity". But on a serious note, I am just not sure that the writers of the report understand what true "Christian Identity" really is. If that were the case, they would understand that "violent" is not a modifier of true "Christian Identity". Our Leader, Jesus Christ, was not violent though he died a violent death at the hands of violent men. Our Leader, Jesus Christ through Paul, taught us to pray for our leaders, not destroy them. But thank God that Jesus Christ is coming back. He, Jesus, will do battle with the government of this world. We will not have to avenge ourselves for he himself will avenge us. So pass all the laws you want, but understand, our Lord Jesus Christ is not subject to the laws of man. And make no mistake, he is coming back and this time, it will not be on a humble donkey but instead upon a battle horse.
More to come, Lord willing, as I continue to read the Napolitano Report.
***UPDATE***(5/5/09) The Domestic Extremism Lexicon which was revoked can be found HERE.
***UPDATE***(5/14/09) The DHS has pulled the report referenced. You can read about it HERE and HERE. My link to the report still works at the time of this update. Props to Kim for the heads up.
Oh brother, or sister, who would have ever thought that by preaching about the Rapture and 7 years of tribulation that I'd be motivating extremist individuals to make provision for an unprecedented time of global upheaval. Especially when I preach that Christians WILL NOT BE HERE.
My second point concerns the reference to "violent Christian Identity". I sure hope the BI crowd does not start using violence. This would just make reading articles too confusing. I mean, how would we be able to tell the difference between "Christian Identity" and "Baptist Identity". But on a serious note, I am just not sure that the writers of the report understand what true "Christian Identity" really is. If that were the case, they would understand that "violent" is not a modifier of true "Christian Identity". Our Leader, Jesus Christ, was not violent though he died a violent death at the hands of violent men. Our Leader, Jesus Christ through Paul, taught us to pray for our leaders, not destroy them. But thank God that Jesus Christ is coming back. He, Jesus, will do battle with the government of this world. We will not have to avenge ourselves for he himself will avenge us. So pass all the laws you want, but understand, our Lord Jesus Christ is not subject to the laws of man. And make no mistake, he is coming back and this time, it will not be on a humble donkey but instead upon a battle horse.
More to come, Lord willing, as I continue to read the Napolitano Report.
***UPDATE***(5/5/09) The Domestic Extremism Lexicon which was revoked can be found HERE.
***UPDATE***(5/14/09) The DHS has pulled the report referenced. You can read about it HERE and HERE. My link to the report still works at the time of this update. Props to Kim for the heads up.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
WHEN LOGIC ISN'T LOGICAL: THE PIG FLU
Our current president, widely known for teleprompter usage, must be getting his wisdom from a teleprompter. He recently said that closing the border with Mexico because of the Pig Flu "would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States." With all due respect sir, when sick horses continue to leave the barn and mingle with other horses that would not ordinarily be exposed, it is PAST time to close the barn doors. The Divine wisdom given by God in dealing with leprosy would be very appropriate to follow at this point, isolation for the sick and restoration after they are healed.
We find that his advisors are also drinking from the same cup of wisdom. Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary said, "this virus is already in the United States. Any containment theory ... is really moot at this time." And to think of all the things I could have gotten away with had my parents bought into that theory when I was a lot younger. Oh I get it. We'll sin that grace may abound. GOD FORBID.
But instead of worrying about people's health, this method of operation has been chosen because closing the borders would not be economically advantageous or so they say.
Close the borders till the flu dies off and then reopen them! It really is that simple and it doesn't take a teleprompter to figure that out.
We find that his advisors are also drinking from the same cup of wisdom. Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary said, "this virus is already in the United States. Any containment theory ... is really moot at this time." And to think of all the things I could have gotten away with had my parents bought into that theory when I was a lot younger. Oh I get it. We'll sin that grace may abound. GOD FORBID.
But instead of worrying about people's health, this method of operation has been chosen because closing the borders would not be economically advantageous or so they say.
Close the borders till the flu dies off and then reopen them! It really is that simple and it doesn't take a teleprompter to figure that out.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Way To Go Navy SEALS!!!
I say that it is about time that we responded the way that we have. The terrorists, not criminals, have far too long affected the lives of the innocent and then, when confronted try to act like the offended rather than the offender. While I am cognizant of the fact that those terrorists who were killed are more than hostages to the fires of hell, their fate is something that they brought upon themselves. May God grant their families mercy and may the light of Jesus Christ shine upon their souls rather than continue to pursue these methods of operation.
To the Navy SEALS...this is indeed a defining moment for the world to observe. May God continue to grant you great success.
I'll be out of pocket for a while. Lord willing, be back in about a week.
There are many stories out about this operation. You can read about one such HERE.
To the Navy SEALS...this is indeed a defining moment for the world to observe. May God continue to grant you great success.
I'll be out of pocket for a while. Lord willing, be back in about a week.
There are many stories out about this operation. You can read about one such HERE.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Who Is My Neighbor?
Every now and then, a story seems to really drive the point home, just who is my neighbor? If you will follow the link, your heart will not go untouched unless ice water runs through your veins.
WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
Monday, March 23, 2009
IS YOUR CHURCH A FRIENDLY CHURCH
It took the church a while to figure out why they were considered to be elitists. They did not understand why visitors would walk up to the front doors and then turn around and leave. They considered themselves friendly but noticed the whispers around town.
Eventually, they figured out what the problem was. Can you see the difference?
Simple question. Is your church invitational or by invitation only?
Monday, March 16, 2009
SUITABLE FOR TEACHING
If you are like me, we really do not like our "dirty laundry" aired in public view. And it may be true in some cases that the public has no clue what your "dirty laundry" consists of though many would not be too timid to venture a guess. But what about those past events of our lives that are known both publicly and privately and even those that are known just privately. Consider that instead of covering them from view and burying them from sight, one might actually use them to teach the next generation.
Consider with me the text Proverbs 6:20-35. These verses form a complete unit and though 20-23 seem like they can stand on their own, they actually are to be interpreted in light of verse 24 and those that follow. Solomon is teaching his son about adultery. Now for a moment, side-step the issue of Solomon's multiple marriages. What in Solomon's past could be so important to teach such a truth to his son. I contend that it is what happened between his mother and father. David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and as a result, the child conceived died and Solomon was the subsequent child born from the union of David and Bathsheba. But why the connection between verses 20-23?
Deuteronomy 17:17 sheds some additional light about why kings were not to multiply wives and the basic reason for avoiding this is that the women, instead of God, would become the focus of the husband(king). David's mulitple marriages led to his downfall with Bathsheba or more biblically referred to as an adulterous rendevous. David kept not the Word of God and women became his focus. As a result, he fell into sin, which when the shockwaves would finally settle, would cost David more than he ever expected to pay.
Solomon himself was aware of the struggles that led to his own kingship. Surely the truths that the sins of the fathers would be visited upon the children was a truth Solomon had experienced. It indeed was tragic(sinful) what happened in David's life but it was suitable to use such an event to express to the younger the need for remaining faithful to the commands of God and what remaining faithful to those commands would protect us from. In this case, it would be protection from adultery.
Mistakes from our past may be embarassing, but they are certainly capable of becoming teaching moments where we do not extol our error but rather explain how it is that we went astray. Particulary, we abandoned the Word of God and when one abandons that anchor, his/her ship may flounder among many ports of call with unexpected/unintended outcomes.
Lastly, we would do well not to repeat the mistakes of our fathers. Had Solomon only paid attention to his own teachings and the Word of God, he would have avoided the idolatry that crept in under his watch and his children would not have had to endure the hardships that resulted from his own sins.
Yes, our pasts are Suitable for Teaching...not just the next generation...but our very own.
Consider with me the text Proverbs 6:20-35. These verses form a complete unit and though 20-23 seem like they can stand on their own, they actually are to be interpreted in light of verse 24 and those that follow. Solomon is teaching his son about adultery. Now for a moment, side-step the issue of Solomon's multiple marriages. What in Solomon's past could be so important to teach such a truth to his son. I contend that it is what happened between his mother and father. David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and as a result, the child conceived died and Solomon was the subsequent child born from the union of David and Bathsheba. But why the connection between verses 20-23?
Deuteronomy 17:17 sheds some additional light about why kings were not to multiply wives and the basic reason for avoiding this is that the women, instead of God, would become the focus of the husband(king). David's mulitple marriages led to his downfall with Bathsheba or more biblically referred to as an adulterous rendevous. David kept not the Word of God and women became his focus. As a result, he fell into sin, which when the shockwaves would finally settle, would cost David more than he ever expected to pay.
Solomon himself was aware of the struggles that led to his own kingship. Surely the truths that the sins of the fathers would be visited upon the children was a truth Solomon had experienced. It indeed was tragic(sinful) what happened in David's life but it was suitable to use such an event to express to the younger the need for remaining faithful to the commands of God and what remaining faithful to those commands would protect us from. In this case, it would be protection from adultery.
Mistakes from our past may be embarassing, but they are certainly capable of becoming teaching moments where we do not extol our error but rather explain how it is that we went astray. Particulary, we abandoned the Word of God and when one abandons that anchor, his/her ship may flounder among many ports of call with unexpected/unintended outcomes.
Lastly, we would do well not to repeat the mistakes of our fathers. Had Solomon only paid attention to his own teachings and the Word of God, he would have avoided the idolatry that crept in under his watch and his children would not have had to endure the hardships that resulted from his own sins.
Yes, our pasts are Suitable for Teaching...not just the next generation...but our very own.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Pray for North American Missionaries
I should have posted this on Monday. This is a reminder to all that read this that we have set aside this week specifically for thinking of and praying for those who labor in missions here in North America. If ever there was a time that we needed a move of God in our country, now is the time and I pray that revival would sweep our land.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
SILENCE PROVES GUILT?
There seems to be this theme that surfaces throughout life, and it is illustrated here (at 3:59PM 2-4), here (at 6:10Pm 2-4) and here (comment #1 implies), that if one is questioned and remains silent and chooses not to answer that question, then they are indeed attributing truth to the question. Depending upon how the question is phrased, the questioneer(I made that word up) may determine that the person is guilty of a crime, knows something and is hiding it or simply is afraid to speak the truth. Indeed, we often ask questions that we really intend not to even give ear to an answer from the one asked. I think the term for those questions is rhetorical but I digress.
Does one's refusal to answer questions indicate anything positive or negative? Well, in Luke 23:9 we read, "Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing." This is the account of Herod "interrogating" Jesus. Now if anybody knows the answer, it would be Jesus. If there was ever anyone who could answer EVERY question asked of Him, Jesus is the one who could do it. And yet, Jesus remained silent. Did Jesus' silence towards Herod prove anything to Herod. Nope. Simply that Jesus did not wish to speak to Herod.
My point?...Silence is simply that...silence. It neither confirms nor denies. To build a case from silence or to argue against someone who remains silenct is a futile endeavor. For in the absence of words, we are only left with speculation and since none of us are God, we do not know really even what to speculate about the silence.
Silence is what it is. And we can contribute nothing to silence since it indeed does not speak.
Does one's refusal to answer questions indicate anything positive or negative? Well, in Luke 23:9 we read, "Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing." This is the account of Herod "interrogating" Jesus. Now if anybody knows the answer, it would be Jesus. If there was ever anyone who could answer EVERY question asked of Him, Jesus is the one who could do it. And yet, Jesus remained silent. Did Jesus' silence towards Herod prove anything to Herod. Nope. Simply that Jesus did not wish to speak to Herod.
My point?...Silence is simply that...silence. It neither confirms nor denies. To build a case from silence or to argue against someone who remains silenct is a futile endeavor. For in the absence of words, we are only left with speculation and since none of us are God, we do not know really even what to speculate about the silence.
Silence is what it is. And we can contribute nothing to silence since it indeed does not speak.
Monday, January 26, 2009
WINNERS AND LOSERS
I'll admit it. When I go to a sporting event, I seldom like to see a blowout. I like to see contests that are challenging and call for both teams to give it their all. I like to see great athleticism and gutsy calls by coaches. But in the end, make no mistake, I like to see a winner. Now we should know that when players/teams agree to go on/in to the field/arena, they understand they could be the loser. Most of them are not actually contemplating losing but rather winning and in that contemplation, they are planning on someone being a loser, albeit they are planning that it will be the other person/team. So in the context of sports, there will be winners and there will be losers and by virtue of one "playing" the game, they understand that axiom from the outset.
Recently, two Texas high school teams made the headlines. The winning team posted 100 points to the losers zero. That score has turned up a pretty big row though. Some feel that the coach of the winning team went too far as he let his team continue to "run up" the score. And then to garner your sympathy for the losers, as if the score is not enough, we are informed that the losing girls team actually has very few athletes at its school. In other words, the school is not a very big "farm" from which to build a successful girls basketball team. All of this is meant to stir us up against the winning coach/team/school. And I want to shout a big, STOP THE BUS and back up here. If you want a handicap, play golf or take up bowling. But basketball does not recognize handicaps and award points accordingly. As far as I understand it, neither do football, baseball, NASCAR, hockey, tennis, ping pong...I think you get the picture.
Competition is meant to distinguish a winner and by virtue of having a winner, it means that someone DID NOT win. I like the phrase, 2nd place is really just the first loser. If you do not like 2nd place either do not enter the contest OR get better at what you do.
Perhaps there should be a mercy rule in sports that once a particular boundary/margin is crossed, the team/player that is behind, LOSES the event. Then the score or margin of victory would be smaller than 100-0. But in the end, whether a race is lost by 1 second or 1 hour, the race is still lost. Whether a game is lost by 1 point or 1 touchdown, the game is still lost. Whether a game is lost by 1 run with the bases loaded or 10 runs, the game is still lost.
In the particular event that I am referring to, the winning coach has taken a lot of heat. But why has no one chided the losing coach for not throwing in the towel after the first half? Why did he submit his team to such a superior team knowing the inevitable outcome? Why didn't the losing coach forfeit after the first half and then propose a member switch for the second half to make the event more challenging though it would not go down in the books? The weight of this event is being placed upon the shoulders of the winning coach rather than the losing coach. And that should not be so. BOTH coaches know that when they step into the arena of play, they could lose and they could lose big.
It seems to me we have bought into this sappy feel good mantra that no one can succeed and do well unless everyone succeeds and does well. With that thought, perhaps I need to challenge Tiger Woods to a game of golf. I'll need about a70 handicap to compete but in the end, I am not Tiger's quality of game. Should he back off his game because the others cannot compete? I say not! Should a student who excels in math be held back because the rest of his class just does not get it?
One more point before I bring my verbiage to a close. Some interject that just because this was a game between two "christian" schools, the winning coach should have exercised better judgment. Some are saying that Jesus would not have run the score up. And to those who would offer such, tell me, what would the score have been then if Jesus was the winning coach? And what about that "Golden Rule"? In the area of sports, I believe it would be this, "Did you give it your all?" How do you want the others to treat you? You should want them to give it their best and when you show up to play, you need to do the same. In this game, both teams gave it their best. However, one team's best was not enough to win.
And what can we learn from this? Sometimes, our best is not enough. And in one particular area, our best will never accomplish a win. Your best is not enough to merit salvation. Having giving it your all is not enough to merit your salvation. Jesus is not going to say, "Well I see you were up against some tall odds, I'll lower the bar for you". Jesus is not going to consider that you came from a tumultuous background and then give you an easy entrance. Instead, if you try to enter by any way other than faith in Jesus and His finished work, you'll hear the words, "Depart from me, I never knew you". Jesus was/is God's best. Jesus finished what you and I could not do. Jesus won where you and I, left to our own devices, will lose.
My final comments will be thus. If the winning coach desired to humiliate the other team, then he failed miserably. The losing coach wisely counseled his team and they did not give up but rather kept trying. But really, was the winning coach desiring to humiliate the winning team or was he desiring that his team gave it their all just as the losing coach was doing for his own team? Coach Micah says he was playing the game as it was meant to be played. I agree with Coach Micah.
You can read the AP story HERE.
Recently, two Texas high school teams made the headlines. The winning team posted 100 points to the losers zero. That score has turned up a pretty big row though. Some feel that the coach of the winning team went too far as he let his team continue to "run up" the score. And then to garner your sympathy for the losers, as if the score is not enough, we are informed that the losing girls team actually has very few athletes at its school. In other words, the school is not a very big "farm" from which to build a successful girls basketball team. All of this is meant to stir us up against the winning coach/team/school. And I want to shout a big, STOP THE BUS and back up here. If you want a handicap, play golf or take up bowling. But basketball does not recognize handicaps and award points accordingly. As far as I understand it, neither do football, baseball, NASCAR, hockey, tennis, ping pong...I think you get the picture.
Competition is meant to distinguish a winner and by virtue of having a winner, it means that someone DID NOT win. I like the phrase, 2nd place is really just the first loser. If you do not like 2nd place either do not enter the contest OR get better at what you do.
Perhaps there should be a mercy rule in sports that once a particular boundary/margin is crossed, the team/player that is behind, LOSES the event. Then the score or margin of victory would be smaller than 100-0. But in the end, whether a race is lost by 1 second or 1 hour, the race is still lost. Whether a game is lost by 1 point or 1 touchdown, the game is still lost. Whether a game is lost by 1 run with the bases loaded or 10 runs, the game is still lost.
In the particular event that I am referring to, the winning coach has taken a lot of heat. But why has no one chided the losing coach for not throwing in the towel after the first half? Why did he submit his team to such a superior team knowing the inevitable outcome? Why didn't the losing coach forfeit after the first half and then propose a member switch for the second half to make the event more challenging though it would not go down in the books? The weight of this event is being placed upon the shoulders of the winning coach rather than the losing coach. And that should not be so. BOTH coaches know that when they step into the arena of play, they could lose and they could lose big.
It seems to me we have bought into this sappy feel good mantra that no one can succeed and do well unless everyone succeeds and does well. With that thought, perhaps I need to challenge Tiger Woods to a game of golf. I'll need about a70 handicap to compete but in the end, I am not Tiger's quality of game. Should he back off his game because the others cannot compete? I say not! Should a student who excels in math be held back because the rest of his class just does not get it?
One more point before I bring my verbiage to a close. Some interject that just because this was a game between two "christian" schools, the winning coach should have exercised better judgment. Some are saying that Jesus would not have run the score up. And to those who would offer such, tell me, what would the score have been then if Jesus was the winning coach? And what about that "Golden Rule"? In the area of sports, I believe it would be this, "Did you give it your all?" How do you want the others to treat you? You should want them to give it their best and when you show up to play, you need to do the same. In this game, both teams gave it their best. However, one team's best was not enough to win.
And what can we learn from this? Sometimes, our best is not enough. And in one particular area, our best will never accomplish a win. Your best is not enough to merit salvation. Having giving it your all is not enough to merit your salvation. Jesus is not going to say, "Well I see you were up against some tall odds, I'll lower the bar for you". Jesus is not going to consider that you came from a tumultuous background and then give you an easy entrance. Instead, if you try to enter by any way other than faith in Jesus and His finished work, you'll hear the words, "Depart from me, I never knew you". Jesus was/is God's best. Jesus finished what you and I could not do. Jesus won where you and I, left to our own devices, will lose.
My final comments will be thus. If the winning coach desired to humiliate the other team, then he failed miserably. The losing coach wisely counseled his team and they did not give up but rather kept trying. But really, was the winning coach desiring to humiliate the winning team or was he desiring that his team gave it their all just as the losing coach was doing for his own team? Coach Micah says he was playing the game as it was meant to be played. I agree with Coach Micah.
You can read the AP story HERE.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Website of Prayer
National Prayer Challenge is a website encouraging and devoted to prayer for our nation and individuals at such a tumultuous time. Check it out and sign up if you are willing to make the commitment to pray. If only 1440 people will sign up for one minute of the day, someone will be praying at all times, round the clock. Can we meet the challenge?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
DEFINITIONS TO PONDER
Pride-the attitude of overestimation of one's own self.
Arrogance-an actual demonstration, as opposed to attitude, of pride.
Envy-awareness of the excellence of another and the desire to either have it or see them diminish.
Hubris-an actual demonstration, as opposed to attitude, of envy.
It is amazing to me that when we understand the proper meaning of words, the proper usage communicates more effectively. I found these four very helpful in my current studies.
Arrogance-an actual demonstration, as opposed to attitude, of pride.
Envy-awareness of the excellence of another and the desire to either have it or see them diminish.
Hubris-an actual demonstration, as opposed to attitude, of envy.
It is amazing to me that when we understand the proper meaning of words, the proper usage communicates more effectively. I found these four very helpful in my current studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
