Maybe the birthers are right. This seems to be very incriminating.
Obama's "Birth Announcement" Microfilm Reels Are Very Different
Friday, February 21, 2014
Ted Nugent on Obama... OUCH
Ted Nugent said:
"“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America,” said Nugent.
When chastened for the crassness of his remark and asked if he would apologize he said,
"Yes I would, I did cross the line. I do apologize, not necessarily to the president, but on behalf of much better men than myself, like the best governor in America, Gov. Rick Perry, the best attorney general in America.”
Nugent said he should have used different words.
“On behalf of those professional politicians and those who put their heart and soul into representing we the people so aptly like the gentlemen I just mentioned, I apologize for using the street-fighter of subhuman mongrel instead of just using more understandable language such as violator of his oath, the Constitution, the liar that he is,” Nugent said. “I apologize for using the term subhuman mongrel and I will try to elevate my vernacular to the level of those great men that I’m learning from in the world of politics.”
Nugent acknowledged many people would consider his remarks “inflammatory speech.”
“Well, I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.”
My opinion... we need more outspoken individuals like Ted Nugent. Obama's illegal actions are more inflammatory than mere words!!!
"“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America,” said Nugent.
When chastened for the crassness of his remark and asked if he would apologize he said,
"Yes I would, I did cross the line. I do apologize, not necessarily to the president, but on behalf of much better men than myself, like the best governor in America, Gov. Rick Perry, the best attorney general in America.”
Nugent said he should have used different words.
“On behalf of those professional politicians and those who put their heart and soul into representing we the people so aptly like the gentlemen I just mentioned, I apologize for using the street-fighter of subhuman mongrel instead of just using more understandable language such as violator of his oath, the Constitution, the liar that he is,” Nugent said. “I apologize for using the term subhuman mongrel and I will try to elevate my vernacular to the level of those great men that I’m learning from in the world of politics.”
Nugent acknowledged many people would consider his remarks “inflammatory speech.”
“Well, I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.”
My opinion... we need more outspoken individuals like Ted Nugent. Obama's illegal actions are more inflammatory than mere words!!!
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Ten Proactive Things Liberals Have Done to Destroy the USA
If you are a self identified Liberal it's reasonable to assume you embrace the liberal agenda. I contend that Liberals are destroying the fabric of our nation. Some of the things I see that
is the PROBLEM not the SOLUTION in liberalism are:
Pro Abortion. This all by
itself preys most heavily on the Black Community. It is a racist
genocide against an unborn generation. Planned Parenthood supported by liberals is the prime player in this genocide against black people. The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger. She was a
devout racist who created the Negro Project
designed to sterilize unknowing black women and
others she deemed as undesirables of society?
The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored
people are like human weeds and are to be
exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled
today? The Percentage of Black Babies aborted is way above white babies. AND more black babies were aborted in New York City than were born. Abortion is a near sacrament to most liberals.
Pro Gun Control. This by
itself leaves the most vulnerable unprotected. In states and towns
where guns are allowed, see Houston versus Chicago, the gun crime is
fractional when guns are legal. Destroying lives by creating artificial gun free zones. A liberal idea.
Pro Marijuana legitimacy.
This is directly focused on keeping people down and drugged up. The President says it's harmless... I mean he smoked a lot and came out OK... Right? I guess science doesn't have anything to do with this. I have never understood how liberals can be against smoking cigarettes but for making Marijuana legal. But liberal brains work differently...
Pro Public Education.
Vouchers allow children in poor communities to get the
educations they deserve in private schools if they want, but unions
and democrat politicians see to it they are deprived of that right. Here is an unbiased appraisal.
Eric Holder even sued Louisiana in this regard. It's a war on poor
children. Chicago is exhibit A for Public Education as child abuse. Liberals support this horrid system. If I were able, I would abolish public education forever. I would see to it the amount of money we waste on public education ($15,000) per student and cut it by a third, make that available as a voucher for day care thru high school. Spend it where you will. The competition will cause schools to become better and better.
Destruction of our health
care system by Obamacare. No one is getting better health care
and if it is ostensibly free.. it's unavailable. Just as it is in Great Britain. An example is over 1000 RNs
have been laid off in Indianapolis because of Obamacare. This is a disaster.
Support of a higher
minimum wage which will destroy any chance a poor child from the
South Side (who is a product of a lousy union run public school) can
ever get an entry level job. The unemployment rate in the City is
over 27%
Destruction of the family
by the war on poverty that has spent billions and the poverty rate is about what it was in 1966. The only thing it has accomplished is
causing the fathers to get out of the house.
Creating a dependency society with all kinds of government largess to keep people dependent on democrats... that is why I work in the inner
city. To help people see how horrid (see Detroit) the liberal agenda
really is. Look at this... it's criminal
Using race to create affirmative action programs that are shams. It only drives corruption. I am working on the Peotone Airport and have to work
thru a minority contractor (Woman in this case) because no white
males are allowed to have any contracts on state contracts. So she
will get a cut and I'll get the bulk of the money. This is a crime.
I have black Landscaper friends who simply are contract getters.
Liberal affirmative action politics drives a level of corruption in
Chicago that would stun you.
Increasing rules and regulation destroy the capacity for business to be established. One of my goals is to train young black men and women to start, own
and operate successful businesses. The problem is the government is
constantly in the way. Local is the most oppressive. (all liberal
democrats) but EPA, OSHA and the other lettered national agencies are
a major stumbling block. Europe has figured out how to do this. We
don't. We just elect liberals that are a bane on society.
The worst thing liberals
have done is elect the singularly most inept president in the USA.
One who creates class warfare, hatred of the rich, limited potential politics. His vision of our future is so dim, his failed strategies (Green Energy) are so inane as not worth discussing. His international bungling is embarrassing. We have become the laughing
stock of the WORLD. AND all this while DOUBLING our national debt in 5 years. It took bush 8 and two bad wars to do this. IF we keep on
we will triple by the end of his term.
So what have liberals like
you done? MUCH and you have created a world much worse such that
people from Mexico are going home and the number of people revoking their citizenship is at an all time high.
Welcome to liberal hell... You Liberals DID Build This.
The perennial question answered by some folks... WHY DID that Chicken??
SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!
BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.
JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken 2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
MOM: Because I told that chicken to cross the road. I'm Mom and I said so, don't question me if you know what's good for you!
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.
JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken 2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
MOM: Because I told that chicken to cross the road. I'm Mom and I said so, don't question me if you know what's good for you!
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga} --- the long version. It's funnier as it goes along
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...
Monday, February 17, 2014
A Former Atheist on the Big Bang .. Frank Pastore
You know, for 27 years, I was an atheist. I thought, anyone who believed in a God or Gods was, well, stupid—or uneducated—naïve, gullible, or just into the gig for money, sex, and power. I mean, after all, everyone knows that religion is just a psychological crutch for intellectual weaklings, right? So, what changed my mind?
I was challenged by my Christian teammates on the Cincinnati Reds to read some religious books, critique them, and then share with the guys where the authors were wrong, and why atheism is the only real and true outlook for anyone not deceived by fantasy, fiction, or mythology.
I mean, for someone who wants to base their beliefs and values upon evidence and argument, not emotion and tradition. Now look, simply put, I set out to disprove theism, which I didn’t think would take very long, but I ran into some difficulties along the way. Difficulties like: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas. I mean, in simple terms, I was confronted with the awareness that there are really four big bangs that have to be accounted for, not just one. I had never even really considered that before.
We’re all familiar with the first big bang, right? It’s usually the answer given to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It’s the idea that there was nothing, it popped, and—boom! -- there’s something! I mean, that time, matter and space all came into existence in some great cosmological flash about 16 billion years ago. There was no gradual development, no transitional forms, just a binary flip—a metaphysical, now you don’t see it, and now you do. Fine, I want to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
However, astrophysicists tell us that this first big bang yielded only a handful of fundamental elements, and that it would take billions and billions of years for the nuclear furnaces of trillions of stars to yield the 118 elements in the periodic table.
But the first theoretical cosmological big bang, well, it only yields matter and energy. It doesn’t even begin to address the origin of life. So, how do you get life from non-life?
How did abiogenesis occur? I mean, the notion that something can come from nothing. Where's the evidence?
You’re going to need another something-from-nothing leap of faith, some kind of biological, second big bang. For all the mind-blowing advancements we’ve made in physics, biology, and chemistry in just the past 100 years, we’re still no closer to making it happen. We don’t have a clue. The closer we look, the wider the chasm.
I mean, sure, we’ve learned a lot about how to manipulate life forms, how to add and subtract DNA material, even map the human genome, but we have no idea how to literally create life from dead stuff. Now look, at this point we still only have physics, chemistry, and some basic biology--or matter, energy, and simple life, if you will.
But we still don’t have a way to account for the great diversity of life forms, I mean, the huge differences between bacteria, plants and animals. Nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal. We still don’t have an anthropology at this point.
We’re going to need a kind of anthropological third big bang to account for all this, which is of course what Darwin was after in his "Descent of Man" thesis. Darwin answered a lot of questions, but he could never answer the core question: How did evolution begin?
We’re still not done describing the world that is all around us. A final big bang is going to be required to explain how a mechanistic animal brain can become a self-reflective human mind. Even the lowest life forms have brains and central nervous systems. I mean, how does something like that become the mind of a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, a Beethoven? Animals don’t do art, and they don’t appreciate beauty.
But the problem is even more basic than that. How do you account for free will and introspection, let alone man’s pressing existential drive to ask, "why?"
We’re going to need some kind of psychological 4th big bang to account for man's moral and esthetic sense--his search for meaning, significance, and purpose, and of course his appreciation for the true, the good, and the beautiful. And again, you must understand, these problems require bangs—I mean, sudden binary pops into existence, since there’s no evidence for any gradual developments in any of these.
I, like you, have a choice. It’s either faith in these four big bangs of "somethings from nothings" to account for what we see all around us, or faith in some kind of creator God behind it all. So, next time someone asks you "Hey, what about the big bang?" make sure to ask them: "Which one? The cosmological, biological, anthropological, or psychological?" I’m Frank Pastore for Prager University.
I was challenged by my Christian teammates on the Cincinnati Reds to read some religious books, critique them, and then share with the guys where the authors were wrong, and why atheism is the only real and true outlook for anyone not deceived by fantasy, fiction, or mythology.
I mean, for someone who wants to base their beliefs and values upon evidence and argument, not emotion and tradition. Now look, simply put, I set out to disprove theism, which I didn’t think would take very long, but I ran into some difficulties along the way. Difficulties like: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas. I mean, in simple terms, I was confronted with the awareness that there are really four big bangs that have to be accounted for, not just one. I had never even really considered that before.
We’re all familiar with the first big bang, right? It’s usually the answer given to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It’s the idea that there was nothing, it popped, and—boom! -- there’s something! I mean, that time, matter and space all came into existence in some great cosmological flash about 16 billion years ago. There was no gradual development, no transitional forms, just a binary flip—a metaphysical, now you don’t see it, and now you do. Fine, I want to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
However, astrophysicists tell us that this first big bang yielded only a handful of fundamental elements, and that it would take billions and billions of years for the nuclear furnaces of trillions of stars to yield the 118 elements in the periodic table.
But the first theoretical cosmological big bang, well, it only yields matter and energy. It doesn’t even begin to address the origin of life. So, how do you get life from non-life?
How did abiogenesis occur? I mean, the notion that something can come from nothing. Where's the evidence?
You’re going to need another something-from-nothing leap of faith, some kind of biological, second big bang. For all the mind-blowing advancements we’ve made in physics, biology, and chemistry in just the past 100 years, we’re still no closer to making it happen. We don’t have a clue. The closer we look, the wider the chasm.
I mean, sure, we’ve learned a lot about how to manipulate life forms, how to add and subtract DNA material, even map the human genome, but we have no idea how to literally create life from dead stuff. Now look, at this point we still only have physics, chemistry, and some basic biology--or matter, energy, and simple life, if you will.
But we still don’t have a way to account for the great diversity of life forms, I mean, the huge differences between bacteria, plants and animals. Nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal. We still don’t have an anthropology at this point.
We’re going to need a kind of anthropological third big bang to account for all this, which is of course what Darwin was after in his "Descent of Man" thesis. Darwin answered a lot of questions, but he could never answer the core question: How did evolution begin?
We’re still not done describing the world that is all around us. A final big bang is going to be required to explain how a mechanistic animal brain can become a self-reflective human mind. Even the lowest life forms have brains and central nervous systems. I mean, how does something like that become the mind of a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, a Beethoven? Animals don’t do art, and they don’t appreciate beauty.
But the problem is even more basic than that. How do you account for free will and introspection, let alone man’s pressing existential drive to ask, "why?"
We’re going to need some kind of psychological 4th big bang to account for man's moral and esthetic sense--his search for meaning, significance, and purpose, and of course his appreciation for the true, the good, and the beautiful. And again, you must understand, these problems require bangs—I mean, sudden binary pops into existence, since there’s no evidence for any gradual developments in any of these.
I, like you, have a choice. It’s either faith in these four big bangs of "somethings from nothings" to account for what we see all around us, or faith in some kind of creator God behind it all. So, next time someone asks you "Hey, what about the big bang?" make sure to ask them: "Which one? The cosmological, biological, anthropological, or psychological?" I’m Frank Pastore for Prager University.
Who Changed Things? Dr. Michael Brown
Who changed things from the vibrant, Spirit-empowered “by life or by
death” faith of the New Testament to today’s spineless home-and-garden
Sunday-morning religion?
Who changed things from “Leave everything and follow Me” (see Luke 14:33) to “Pray this little prayer and you’re set for eternity”?
Who changed things from “All who live godly lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (see 2 Tim. 3:12) to “Ask Jesus into your heart and enjoy a comfortable life”?
Who changed things from a fearless proclamation of the truth, whatever the cost or consequences, to a watered down, compromised message that is afraid to offend anyone?
By what authority, by whose decree, based on what new revelation have we so blatantly departed from the faith of the apostles? Who changed things?
Who changed things from the New Testament faith, where even the disciples couldn’t minister without the Spirit’s enduement, to today’s version, where whole ministries are run with hardly any evidence of the Spirit’s work?
As A.W. Tozer once said, “If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95 percent of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference.”
This remains true of most of the contemporary church in the West.
Who changed things from a God-centered faith to a man-centered faith, from "Take up your cross and deny yourself" to "Bypass the cross and empower yourself"?
Who changed things from holiness being beautiful to holiness being bondage, from the early church being known for its high standards to the contemporary church being known for its scandals?
Who changed things from the people of God being a threat to the powers of darkness to the people of God being active participants in darkness?
In the early church, Paul instructed the Corinthians to separate themselves from people who claimed to be believers but were living in outward, unrepentant sin (1 Corinthians 5). Today, some of those people lead our churches and preach from our pulpits. Who changed things?
Who changed things from a faith that was so focused on the life of Jesus and so infused with the reality of His death and resurrection that no sacrifice was considered too great and no act of service considered too extreme—to the contrary, suffering for Him was considered a privilege (Matt. 5:10-12; Acts 5:41; Phil. 1:29)—to today’s convenience-store Christianity, where we have to “sell” salvation to the sinner by spicing up the deal with perks and benefits?
When did Jesus stop being enough?
When did obedience become an option?
When did keeping God’s commandments out of love for Him become “religious” (in the negative sense of the word)? Didn’t Jesus say that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (John 14:15, 21)?
Who changed things?
If we belonged to another religion that claimed to have other books that supplemented the Bible or traditions that superseded it, that would be one thing.
But we don’t. We believe the Scriptures alone are God’s Word and that nothing that comes after the Scriptures—no tradition, no alleged revelation, no consensus—can undermine or countermand the written Word of God.
So, who changed things from the biblical version of the Jesus faith to the modern American version?
We can debate church history and blame this group or that group, and we can point out what’s wrong with this denomination and that denomination. We might even have some great historical and contemporary insights.
But unless we get back to believing what is written and acting on what is written, we will continue to perpetuate our merry-go-round Christianity with lots of noise and action and bells and whistles but with little authority, little purity and little effect (if any).
I didn’t get the memo that God’s Word and Spirit were not enough, and I’m far more concerned with what He says than with what the latest polls say.
Really, now, since when did the Lord command us to fashion our preaching and our style of worship and even the way we look based on what’s trending?
If some church leaders choose to trust in worldly business models and carnal consulting firms, that’s their choice. I say that we go with the power of the name of Jesus and the wisdom of the Word of God and the fullness of the Spirit. I say that we go with the New Testament model, applied with boldness and with compassion to the needs of the day.
Years ago, Leonard Ravenhill said, “One of these days some simple soul will pick up the Book of God, read it, and believe it. Then the rest of us will be embarrassed.”
I want to be that simple soul. How about you?
Who changed things from “Leave everything and follow Me” (see Luke 14:33) to “Pray this little prayer and you’re set for eternity”?
Who changed things from “All who live godly lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (see 2 Tim. 3:12) to “Ask Jesus into your heart and enjoy a comfortable life”?
Who changed things from a fearless proclamation of the truth, whatever the cost or consequences, to a watered down, compromised message that is afraid to offend anyone?
By what authority, by whose decree, based on what new revelation have we so blatantly departed from the faith of the apostles? Who changed things?
Who changed things from the New Testament faith, where even the disciples couldn’t minister without the Spirit’s enduement, to today’s version, where whole ministries are run with hardly any evidence of the Spirit’s work?
As A.W. Tozer once said, “If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95 percent of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference.”
This remains true of most of the contemporary church in the West.
Who changed things from a God-centered faith to a man-centered faith, from "Take up your cross and deny yourself" to "Bypass the cross and empower yourself"?
Who changed things from holiness being beautiful to holiness being bondage, from the early church being known for its high standards to the contemporary church being known for its scandals?
Who changed things from the people of God being a threat to the powers of darkness to the people of God being active participants in darkness?
In the early church, Paul instructed the Corinthians to separate themselves from people who claimed to be believers but were living in outward, unrepentant sin (1 Corinthians 5). Today, some of those people lead our churches and preach from our pulpits. Who changed things?
Who changed things from a faith that was so focused on the life of Jesus and so infused with the reality of His death and resurrection that no sacrifice was considered too great and no act of service considered too extreme—to the contrary, suffering for Him was considered a privilege (Matt. 5:10-12; Acts 5:41; Phil. 1:29)—to today’s convenience-store Christianity, where we have to “sell” salvation to the sinner by spicing up the deal with perks and benefits?
When did Jesus stop being enough?
When did obedience become an option?
When did keeping God’s commandments out of love for Him become “religious” (in the negative sense of the word)? Didn’t Jesus say that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (John 14:15, 21)?
Who changed things?
If we belonged to another religion that claimed to have other books that supplemented the Bible or traditions that superseded it, that would be one thing.
But we don’t. We believe the Scriptures alone are God’s Word and that nothing that comes after the Scriptures—no tradition, no alleged revelation, no consensus—can undermine or countermand the written Word of God.
So, who changed things from the biblical version of the Jesus faith to the modern American version?
We can debate church history and blame this group or that group, and we can point out what’s wrong with this denomination and that denomination. We might even have some great historical and contemporary insights.
But unless we get back to believing what is written and acting on what is written, we will continue to perpetuate our merry-go-round Christianity with lots of noise and action and bells and whistles but with little authority, little purity and little effect (if any).
I didn’t get the memo that God’s Word and Spirit were not enough, and I’m far more concerned with what He says than with what the latest polls say.
Really, now, since when did the Lord command us to fashion our preaching and our style of worship and even the way we look based on what’s trending?
If some church leaders choose to trust in worldly business models and carnal consulting firms, that’s their choice. I say that we go with the power of the name of Jesus and the wisdom of the Word of God and the fullness of the Spirit. I say that we go with the New Testament model, applied with boldness and with compassion to the needs of the day.
Years ago, Leonard Ravenhill said, “One of these days some simple soul will pick up the Book of God, read it, and believe it. Then the rest of us will be embarrassed.”
I want to be that simple soul. How about you?
Drought in Ca is Political
The
two explain that California's system of aqueducts and storage tanks was
designed long ago to take advantage of rain and mountain runoff from
wet years and store it for use in dry years. But it's now inactive — by
design. "California's forefathers built a system (of aqueducts and storage facilities) designed to withstand five years of drought," said Nunes.
"We have infrastructure dating from the 1960s for transporting water, but by the 1990s the policies had changed," said Valadao.
Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.
"We have infrastructure dating from the 1960s for transporting water, but by the 1990s the policies had changed," said Valadao.
Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.
California's Drought Isn't Due To Global Warming, But Politics
news.investors.com
California has first-class infrastructure to deal with drought, but it
IS it BIBLICAL to be a Member of a Church?
I am a member of the human race. How do I know? I stood in front of a mirror and saw it was so. Not elephant, not monkey, not dolphin, Nope, human. variety male.
I am a member of the United States of America. Never signed in, just born here. Have used that membership to vote, travel with a passport, accumulate social security and align myself with fellow Americans.
I am a member of the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party. I never took a test, signed a document, went to school for it, I just realized one day that the tribe I belong to politically looks like me .. and therefore without fanfare I was. A member. I will so remain until and unless the folks I consider members in like standing go off into something with which I cannot abide. So, in that way my membership is not unconditional. It is voluntary and active by my participation.
I am a member of the global Body of Christ. My membership came because I was born again. My spirit which was dead came to life. I are alive in Christ. I didn't train for this. I didn't take a class. I came as the Spirit of God called and when He touched me I have never been the same since. Am I a faithful member, a good member, a loyal member? I do what I know to do and be what I am called to be. I read the Book I know many other members read and believe what it says. I talk to the author a lot. He talks to me. I am not exactly like every other member on the earth.. but I know as my spirit witnesses to their spirits that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't carry a card, wear a name tag or go thru ceremony. I am simply accepted in the beloved because I am HIS beloved. It's a wonderful place to be. It's a kingdom and I am part.
All those memberships matter to me. They identify me yet allow me to be who I am. There are memberships I carry that are far less important. I am a member of AAA, AARP (My wife signed me up), CVS discount card, used to be a Blockbuster member, believe it or not once was a member of a gym, Amazon prime and one restaurant that gives me a fee meal every tenth. Member.
I have a few affiliation memberships. I am a member of Impact because the people part of that network have the same passion towards the Kingdom I do. They share aligned beliefs. It is without stricture. Yet I am confident the leadership embraces things I know to be true. What is more important to me is I am encouraged to ask very hard questions and even disagree and not be ostracized. I was not required to sign in nor sign on to anything which restricted free inquiry. I didn't need to hang my brain and the voice of God at the front door to have someone tell me what I should abide. There was not a "What we believe" pledge.. just we do. I shall remain unless or until somehow humanity invalidates this and I cannot abide. It happens all the time.
This brings me to the paradox of membership in a church. One that I have been. One that is unlike and therefore to be questioned more than most. I have in my life been a member of 5 churches. Two Lutheran. Two Assembly of God. And ordained as a Member of a National Pentecostal Denomination. Four of those five memberships carried with them certain "Requirements". Not organic, imposed. Typically, Do you espouse all the teachings of our denomination, will you be faithful to keep a pew warm Sundays, will you make sure your tithe ends up in our coffers, will you put your picture in our directory, submit to our leadership and will you volunteer to do all the stuff that needs to be done? Say yes and you are in like Flynn.
Only one time was my church membership truly Organic and might I say HOLY. Pastor Dan. First Assembly. No class. No ceremony. No questionnaire. Just I said I would like to a member. He didn't ask if I bought the whole program, if I would tithe, show up or work. I was already doing all that. I was actively a member without formality. At an elder's meeting they brought my name up, no one had any serious doubts about me and boom; I was accepted in the fellowship. Sounds like the church in Jerusalem. Someone was Barnabas for me. And what I already was became formalized. The only change was that from that day forward I could vote on financial things if they came up (which they seldom did). In today's apostolic structures that is even less of an issue.
Long and short, I do not believe that church membership as it is routinely executed in most of the American Church has biblical or spiritual legitimacy. Membership should be akin to ordination. IF you are already participating at a high level in the ministry of the fellowship in which you are involved, if you are already doing all the things "Members" are asked to pledged to do in these formalities then church leadership will recognize and confirm your membership. Just as those who are ordained are. God does the gifting, ordination is the recognition. We have this really backwards in our churches and need to rethink this.
Here's a bit on that.. http://www.local-church-history.org/
I am a member of the human race. How do I know? I stood in front of a mirror and saw it was so. Not elephant, not monkey, not dolphin, Nope, human. variety male.
I am a member of the United States of America. Never signed in, just born here. Have used that membership to vote, travel with a passport, accumulate social security and align myself with fellow Americans.
I am a member of the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party. I never took a test, signed a document, went to school for it, I just realized one day that the tribe I belong to politically looks like me .. and therefore without fanfare I was. A member. I will so remain until and unless the folks I consider members in like standing go off into something with which I cannot abide. So, in that way my membership is not unconditional. It is voluntary and active by my participation.
I am a member of the global Body of Christ. My membership came because I was born again. My spirit which was dead came to life. I are alive in Christ. I didn't train for this. I didn't take a class. I came as the Spirit of God called and when He touched me I have never been the same since. Am I a faithful member, a good member, a loyal member? I do what I know to do and be what I am called to be. I read the Book I know many other members read and believe what it says. I talk to the author a lot. He talks to me. I am not exactly like every other member on the earth.. but I know as my spirit witnesses to their spirits that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't carry a card, wear a name tag or go thru ceremony. I am simply accepted in the beloved because I am HIS beloved. It's a wonderful place to be. It's a kingdom and I am part.
All those memberships matter to me. They identify me yet allow me to be who I am. There are memberships I carry that are far less important. I am a member of AAA, AARP (My wife signed me up), CVS discount card, used to be a Blockbuster member, believe it or not once was a member of a gym, Amazon prime and one restaurant that gives me a fee meal every tenth. Member.
I have a few affiliation memberships. I am a member of Impact because the people part of that network have the same passion towards the Kingdom I do. They share aligned beliefs. It is without stricture. Yet I am confident the leadership embraces things I know to be true. What is more important to me is I am encouraged to ask very hard questions and even disagree and not be ostracized. I was not required to sign in nor sign on to anything which restricted free inquiry. I didn't need to hang my brain and the voice of God at the front door to have someone tell me what I should abide. There was not a "What we believe" pledge.. just we do. I shall remain unless or until somehow humanity invalidates this and I cannot abide. It happens all the time.
This brings me to the paradox of membership in a church. One that I have been. One that is unlike and therefore to be questioned more than most. I have in my life been a member of 5 churches. Two Lutheran. Two Assembly of God. And ordained as a Member of a National Pentecostal Denomination. Four of those five memberships carried with them certain "Requirements". Not organic, imposed. Typically, Do you espouse all the teachings of our denomination, will you be faithful to keep a pew warm Sundays, will you make sure your tithe ends up in our coffers, will you put your picture in our directory, submit to our leadership and will you volunteer to do all the stuff that needs to be done? Say yes and you are in like Flynn.
Only one time was my church membership truly Organic and might I say HOLY. Pastor Dan. First Assembly. No class. No ceremony. No questionnaire. Just I said I would like to a member. He didn't ask if I bought the whole program, if I would tithe, show up or work. I was already doing all that. I was actively a member without formality. At an elder's meeting they brought my name up, no one had any serious doubts about me and boom; I was accepted in the fellowship. Sounds like the church in Jerusalem. Someone was Barnabas for me. And what I already was became formalized. The only change was that from that day forward I could vote on financial things if they came up (which they seldom did). In today's apostolic structures that is even less of an issue.
Long and short, I do not believe that church membership as it is routinely executed in most of the American Church has biblical or spiritual legitimacy. Membership should be akin to ordination. IF you are already participating at a high level in the ministry of the fellowship in which you are involved, if you are already doing all the things "Members" are asked to pledged to do in these formalities then church leadership will recognize and confirm your membership. Just as those who are ordained are. God does the gifting, ordination is the recognition. We have this really backwards in our churches and need to rethink this.
Here's a bit on that.. http://www.local-church-history.org/
www.local-church-history.org
Witness Lee and Watchman Nee speak concerning the history of the local churches as seen in the New Testament
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)