"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not." : Matthew 24:23
The days are growing short, my friends. Wars, rumors of wars, "christs" popping up all over the place.
Just a thought for a Sunday.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
"Freedom = The distance between church and state."
That's the bumper sticker I saw recently. Bumper stickers bug me anyway as the almost always reflect a deep lack of understanding of a subject or a trite one liner. This one was no exception.
One could make an argument that the sticker was commenting on ALL religions. It would be a false argument, though. By using the word church, we come directly to the idea of keeping Christianity away from government. In a way, I agree. The "church" can't even agree on things like baptism and sex outside of marriage and they get VERY angry and bitter over it. Do I want the "us four and no more" mentality with the full force of law behind it? Under no circumstances. That is one of the major dangers of "official" religions. Constantine tried it and we got the Catholic Church...pieces of pagan religions thrown in with Christian theology.
The idea here is distinctly anti-religion or, as I said, anti-Christian. The people who sport these sort of bumpoer stickers don't want to be told that you have to be a believer to be in office, and rightly so. They are, however, more than willing to be able to tell you or I that we are unable to serve because we ARE a believer. It also shows a profound lack of knowledge.
First of all, take a step back, Hippie, and look at the world. Big, green and blue, and mostly impoverished and/or oppressed. Most of the world falls under the control of people espousing religions OTHER than the much- feared Christianity. Hinduism, Islam and Atheist Communism rule over at least half of the world's population. Pagan religions and other minor beliefs rule over much of Africa and Asia that isn't Communist. One would be hard pressed to successfully argue that China, India, North Korea, Africa, or any of the Islamic countries are warm and fuzzy places to live.
The Chinese oppress ALL religions, and political dissent. They will shoot you in the head and then bill your family for the bullet. India has had mass removals of Christians and Muslims. This deosn't even touch the fact of the horrid, mind boggling poverty in that country. Burhma is targeting Christians. Try being an atheist in one of the sand box Islamic countries. Even in Post Christian Europe the idea of free speech is being increasingly squashed or dominated by the Muslim immigrants.
The simple fact is that the very religion that these people are railing against is the very reason they have the RIGHT to do so. For the last 2000 years, those nations who consider themselves "Chirstian" nations are the ones who have driven the progress of the human race. Air Conditioners? Yep. Cars. Yep. Flight? Yep. Microwaves, free speech, the printing press, the end of slavery (except in Muslim countries), private property, the single most economically successful country in the history of the world? Yep. Allthese things and more spring from Christianity. It may not be a direct source, but it was the soil in which these things took root and grew. Things which are noticably lacking in those places, like modern day Europe or China, where the more enlightened idea of atheism holds sway.
So, where would you, dear Atheist, prefer to live? Or, as the case may be depending on the country, die?
That's the bumper sticker I saw recently. Bumper stickers bug me anyway as the almost always reflect a deep lack of understanding of a subject or a trite one liner. This one was no exception.
One could make an argument that the sticker was commenting on ALL religions. It would be a false argument, though. By using the word church, we come directly to the idea of keeping Christianity away from government. In a way, I agree. The "church" can't even agree on things like baptism and sex outside of marriage and they get VERY angry and bitter over it. Do I want the "us four and no more" mentality with the full force of law behind it? Under no circumstances. That is one of the major dangers of "official" religions. Constantine tried it and we got the Catholic Church...pieces of pagan religions thrown in with Christian theology.
The idea here is distinctly anti-religion or, as I said, anti-Christian. The people who sport these sort of bumpoer stickers don't want to be told that you have to be a believer to be in office, and rightly so. They are, however, more than willing to be able to tell you or I that we are unable to serve because we ARE a believer. It also shows a profound lack of knowledge.
First of all, take a step back, Hippie, and look at the world. Big, green and blue, and mostly impoverished and/or oppressed. Most of the world falls under the control of people espousing religions OTHER than the much- feared Christianity. Hinduism, Islam and Atheist Communism rule over at least half of the world's population. Pagan religions and other minor beliefs rule over much of Africa and Asia that isn't Communist. One would be hard pressed to successfully argue that China, India, North Korea, Africa, or any of the Islamic countries are warm and fuzzy places to live.
The Chinese oppress ALL religions, and political dissent. They will shoot you in the head and then bill your family for the bullet. India has had mass removals of Christians and Muslims. This deosn't even touch the fact of the horrid, mind boggling poverty in that country. Burhma is targeting Christians. Try being an atheist in one of the sand box Islamic countries. Even in Post Christian Europe the idea of free speech is being increasingly squashed or dominated by the Muslim immigrants.
The simple fact is that the very religion that these people are railing against is the very reason they have the RIGHT to do so. For the last 2000 years, those nations who consider themselves "Chirstian" nations are the ones who have driven the progress of the human race. Air Conditioners? Yep. Cars. Yep. Flight? Yep. Microwaves, free speech, the printing press, the end of slavery (except in Muslim countries), private property, the single most economically successful country in the history of the world? Yep. Allthese things and more spring from Christianity. It may not be a direct source, but it was the soil in which these things took root and grew. Things which are noticably lacking in those places, like modern day Europe or China, where the more enlightened idea of atheism holds sway.
So, where would you, dear Atheist, prefer to live? Or, as the case may be depending on the country, die?
Friday, February 02, 2007
Well, my Canadian friends out there, it's about time to pick a side.
It seems there are those in the Snowy North that want allegiance from the church. The idea is that any religious organization that does not adhere to what the State considers "good" should have their tax-exempt status revoked. It seems to be aimed at the Roman Catholic church, and "orthodoxy" in all Abrahamic religions in general. The simple truth of the matter is that the cowards on the Left will, at best wag their fingers at Islam for treating women like cattle but will go out of their way to shut down Catholic churches for not ordaining women clergy. Why? Because Father Bob isn't likely to walk into city hall with a bomb strapped to his chest or to behead a member of parliament. Muslims may, as the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the "cartoon riots" of last year demonstrate.
If this does happen, and your chruch decides to acquiesce to the government...run. I don't care what reason they give or how reasonable it sounds. They may say they are just submitting to the authorities over them like the Bible commands, or rendering unto Caesar, or how ordaining women or homosexuals or dogs is the loving thing to do...they will be lying!!! If your church submits, flee for the hills, knock the sand off your sandals and don't look back.
"A man cannot serve two masters (God and money) else he love the one and hate the other." (Matthew 6:24 KJV, paraphrased)
Either they will relinquish their tax-exempt status and serve God or they will chase after mammon, forsaking God's heritage.
"Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve God."( Joshua 24:15 ish, KJV, paraphrased)
It seems there are those in the Snowy North that want allegiance from the church. The idea is that any religious organization that does not adhere to what the State considers "good" should have their tax-exempt status revoked. It seems to be aimed at the Roman Catholic church, and "orthodoxy" in all Abrahamic religions in general. The simple truth of the matter is that the cowards on the Left will, at best wag their fingers at Islam for treating women like cattle but will go out of their way to shut down Catholic churches for not ordaining women clergy. Why? Because Father Bob isn't likely to walk into city hall with a bomb strapped to his chest or to behead a member of parliament. Muslims may, as the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the "cartoon riots" of last year demonstrate.
If this does happen, and your chruch decides to acquiesce to the government...run. I don't care what reason they give or how reasonable it sounds. They may say they are just submitting to the authorities over them like the Bible commands, or rendering unto Caesar, or how ordaining women or homosexuals or dogs is the loving thing to do...they will be lying!!! If your church submits, flee for the hills, knock the sand off your sandals and don't look back.
"A man cannot serve two masters (God and money) else he love the one and hate the other." (Matthew 6:24 KJV, paraphrased)
Either they will relinquish their tax-exempt status and serve God or they will chase after mammon, forsaking God's heritage.
"Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve God."( Joshua 24:15 ish, KJV, paraphrased)
Monday, January 22, 2007
So much for updating a couple times every week.
I've been mulling this one over for quite a while. Where do we, those of us who are Christians, draw the line between holiness and legalism?
Last fall I attended fall convention at the bible college/school I went to in the early 90's. Their conventions are always interesting; four days of good preaching, seeing old friends and making some new ones. This one was no exception, I am glad I went.
The message one night centered around the idea that when some one comes back to the Lord, or just comes to the Lord, that we seem to feel the need to put extra requirements on their repentance. Sure, Bob said he was sorry and asked for forgiveness and has turned his back on his old sin, but we want more. Bob needs to work scrubbing toilets for awhile. Or sit in the back of the sanctuary during services or some other payment for his debt or "proof" of his repentance. It was a good sermon and touched a nerve with me on several levels.
Immediately after the service, I went with the crowd for the offered refreshments and to see who I could see. I ran into a very attractive young woman who I knew from my time living in the area. We started talking, catching up on friends that one of us had heard from and the other hadn't. I told her that a number of people we knew could be found on MySpace. She gave me "that" look; the disapproving one that some Christians seem to get.
"Yeah, I know.", I told her, "But there are some good committed Christians on there too."
I understood the initial response. Anybody who has browsed through MySpace understands. There are a lot of girls in skimpy clothing taking pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror..and guys too. Interspersed in between these are people who are just using it to keep up with their friends, have a blog or just have some space of their own on the web. I found my chruch from a blog on MySpace, but that's a whole other story. It was her next comment that floored me.
"I don't think good Christians should be on MySpace."
I felt like asking why. There is smut on TV, yet very few would say that there shouldn't be Christians on TV. Radio is every bit as raunchy as MySpace, but if you shut down the local Christian radio station the out cry would be tremendous. People use cell phones to surf for porn, so no Christian should have one. Books and magazines contain filth but I hear no one calling for an end to Christian writing. Those that do preach such things are generally, and rightfully, considered nuts.
I wanted to ask her if she had been paying attention during the service. After listening to and probably "amening" the sermon about not putting extra requirements on repentance/salvation, she could sit there and in all earnestness, say that a person's salvation should be judged by their participation on MySpace. Why? Because she had taken the idea of holiness and crossed it over into legalism.
Is God, through his Holy Spirit, telling you not to go on MySpace? That is holiness. Questioning my walk with Jesus because I do go on MySpace...that's legalism. Don't drink because you feel God doesn't want you to? Holiness. Criticize Joe because he has wine with dinner or a beer every so often with the guys? Legalism. Dress up in a suit and tie for every service because you want to please God? Holiness. Won't go to church unless you're dressed up or you look down at somebody who isn't dressed up? Legalism.
The Bible speaks very clearly that God will write His law on our hearts. He is looking for people who will follow his voice, follow his law, not because they HAVE to but because they WANT to. When we look down on people who aren't dressing like we think they should, are listening to music we don't like, go places we don't feel free to go to, we are making a new law. The church places an extra burden on the believer. Sure, you believed and repented, but that's not enough. Never touch alcohol again. Don't listen to that sort of music. Don't go to eat at a bar. Don't associate with THOSE people. If you do these things, you must not be right with God, poor soul.
In the end, I think holiness is like a back brace. It supports you. It keeps you from injury. It helps you do more work. Holiness we do willingly out of love for the Lord.
Legalism is harder to define. It's like the back brace put on too tight; you can't breathe, it causes pain and may eventually be dangerous. But it is the same back brace, just used incorrectly.
Finally, any time we judge someone, or make them feel less accepted, because they are not walking the walk like we are or think they should, THAT's legalism. It's too bad to, because she really is beautiful.
I've been mulling this one over for quite a while. Where do we, those of us who are Christians, draw the line between holiness and legalism?
Last fall I attended fall convention at the bible college/school I went to in the early 90's. Their conventions are always interesting; four days of good preaching, seeing old friends and making some new ones. This one was no exception, I am glad I went.
The message one night centered around the idea that when some one comes back to the Lord, or just comes to the Lord, that we seem to feel the need to put extra requirements on their repentance. Sure, Bob said he was sorry and asked for forgiveness and has turned his back on his old sin, but we want more. Bob needs to work scrubbing toilets for awhile. Or sit in the back of the sanctuary during services or some other payment for his debt or "proof" of his repentance. It was a good sermon and touched a nerve with me on several levels.
Immediately after the service, I went with the crowd for the offered refreshments and to see who I could see. I ran into a very attractive young woman who I knew from my time living in the area. We started talking, catching up on friends that one of us had heard from and the other hadn't. I told her that a number of people we knew could be found on MySpace. She gave me "that" look; the disapproving one that some Christians seem to get.
"Yeah, I know.", I told her, "But there are some good committed Christians on there too."
I understood the initial response. Anybody who has browsed through MySpace understands. There are a lot of girls in skimpy clothing taking pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror..and guys too. Interspersed in between these are people who are just using it to keep up with their friends, have a blog or just have some space of their own on the web. I found my chruch from a blog on MySpace, but that's a whole other story. It was her next comment that floored me.
"I don't think good Christians should be on MySpace."
I felt like asking why. There is smut on TV, yet very few would say that there shouldn't be Christians on TV. Radio is every bit as raunchy as MySpace, but if you shut down the local Christian radio station the out cry would be tremendous. People use cell phones to surf for porn, so no Christian should have one. Books and magazines contain filth but I hear no one calling for an end to Christian writing. Those that do preach such things are generally, and rightfully, considered nuts.
I wanted to ask her if she had been paying attention during the service. After listening to and probably "amening" the sermon about not putting extra requirements on repentance/salvation, she could sit there and in all earnestness, say that a person's salvation should be judged by their participation on MySpace. Why? Because she had taken the idea of holiness and crossed it over into legalism.
Is God, through his Holy Spirit, telling you not to go on MySpace? That is holiness. Questioning my walk with Jesus because I do go on MySpace...that's legalism. Don't drink because you feel God doesn't want you to? Holiness. Criticize Joe because he has wine with dinner or a beer every so often with the guys? Legalism. Dress up in a suit and tie for every service because you want to please God? Holiness. Won't go to church unless you're dressed up or you look down at somebody who isn't dressed up? Legalism.
The Bible speaks very clearly that God will write His law on our hearts. He is looking for people who will follow his voice, follow his law, not because they HAVE to but because they WANT to. When we look down on people who aren't dressing like we think they should, are listening to music we don't like, go places we don't feel free to go to, we are making a new law. The church places an extra burden on the believer. Sure, you believed and repented, but that's not enough. Never touch alcohol again. Don't listen to that sort of music. Don't go to eat at a bar. Don't associate with THOSE people. If you do these things, you must not be right with God, poor soul.
In the end, I think holiness is like a back brace. It supports you. It keeps you from injury. It helps you do more work. Holiness we do willingly out of love for the Lord.
Legalism is harder to define. It's like the back brace put on too tight; you can't breathe, it causes pain and may eventually be dangerous. But it is the same back brace, just used incorrectly.
Finally, any time we judge someone, or make them feel less accepted, because they are not walking the walk like we are or think they should, THAT's legalism. It's too bad to, because she really is beautiful.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Why are we still pretending that these people can be reasoned with? By quoting someone who said Mohammed was violent and evil, the peace loving Muslims go absolutely buggy. Sure we killed some people and we WILL kill you, but it's your fault for saying something we don't like. WHAT?!
The simple fact of the matter is that at least 110 MILLION of these rabid dogs are out there. How many more agree with them but don't have the guts to actually cut someone's head off so they just give money, shelter etc. to the nutjobs? Why do we hem and haw and do our best not to say the truth out loud? Islam is a religion of murder. It always has been. From the day it was started it was spread by war. Has anything changed?
The sheik is right about two things. We are afraid. And we are losing. We are afraid to admit that this is a religious war. Islam declared war on the US and Israel and anyone who will not submit to their rule. If they want a war, let's give them a war. Quit playing games in Iraq like not killing Al Sadr when we had the chance because it might make the locals angry. They were ALREADY angry, so off the guy. The military is around to kill people and break things. LET THEM DO IT. If you want to throw a rock at our troops..bang. If you want to shoot at our troops..bang. If you hide the people who are trying to kill our troops...bang. Why is this so difficult?
We are afraid of what the "international community" will say or think about us so we hold back, letting our people die needlessly while the Iraqis either kill each other or run away to another country. We refuse to kill those who need killing. The bad guys have no such problems; they kill anybody who's not them. This is why we are losing, and why we will lose, this war. Unless we realize what's really going on, get ready to convert to Islam, maybe pay a tax for not being Islamic, or die.
The simple fact of the matter is that at least 110 MILLION of these rabid dogs are out there. How many more agree with them but don't have the guts to actually cut someone's head off so they just give money, shelter etc. to the nutjobs? Why do we hem and haw and do our best not to say the truth out loud? Islam is a religion of murder. It always has been. From the day it was started it was spread by war. Has anything changed?
The sheik is right about two things. We are afraid. And we are losing. We are afraid to admit that this is a religious war. Islam declared war on the US and Israel and anyone who will not submit to their rule. If they want a war, let's give them a war. Quit playing games in Iraq like not killing Al Sadr when we had the chance because it might make the locals angry. They were ALREADY angry, so off the guy. The military is around to kill people and break things. LET THEM DO IT. If you want to throw a rock at our troops..bang. If you want to shoot at our troops..bang. If you hide the people who are trying to kill our troops...bang. Why is this so difficult?
We are afraid of what the "international community" will say or think about us so we hold back, letting our people die needlessly while the Iraqis either kill each other or run away to another country. We refuse to kill those who need killing. The bad guys have no such problems; they kill anybody who's not them. This is why we are losing, and why we will lose, this war. Unless we realize what's really going on, get ready to convert to Islam, maybe pay a tax for not being Islamic, or die.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
This shouldn't surprise me, but it does. What's even worse is the response of the crowd there at The View. They applauded Rosie's comments. When Jesus said that men would revile us and the Bible says that they love darkness rather than light, this is what He was talking about.
The idea that "radical" (that would be you, me and all who actually try to put action to their faith) Christians are as big a threat to our country as Muslims is one that I have heard before. On September 11 or 12th 2001 as a matter of fact. CAIR has tried repeatedly to equate Eric Rudolph and Timothy Mc Veigh with Islamic nutjobs to show that there are threats in any religion. Except that it is false.
Did Christians bomb US Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Did Christians blow a plane out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland?
Did Christians float a raft of explosives out to the USS Cole?
Did Christians detonate a bomb in a club in Bali?
Did Christians blow up a senior center in Rio Degenaro?
Did Christians incinerate women and children at weddings, restraunts, busses etc in Israel?
Did Christians attack hotels in Egypt?
Did Christians hijack 4 planes and fly two into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and would've put number four who knows where?
Are Christians raping and slaughtering people in Sudan?
Did Christians kill scores in the London Subway and a bus?
Did Christians bomb trains in Spain?
Did Christians just release a religious order to kill all homosexuals? (Yet Christians are mentioned in that post because saying it is wrong is EXACTLY like killing people.)
Did Christians hatch plans to blow up 10 or so airliners bound for America?
The answer is no. Yet we are constantly lumped into the same category or exalted as being WORSE than Muslims. Why? Because we follow the truth. We preach the truth. Every time they see or hear us they are reminded that they are in sin and, instead of repenting when confronted with that guilt, they lash out at us for "oppressing" them.
They did it to the prophets. They did it to Jesus. They did it to the apostles. Foxe's Book of Martyrs tells tale after tale of it. Revelation says "And it was given to him to make war with the saints, and to prevail over them."
Face it; we are not welcome here. This world is NOT our home. This is just where we work.
DD
The idea that "radical" (that would be you, me and all who actually try to put action to their faith) Christians are as big a threat to our country as Muslims is one that I have heard before. On September 11 or 12th 2001 as a matter of fact. CAIR has tried repeatedly to equate Eric Rudolph and Timothy Mc Veigh with Islamic nutjobs to show that there are threats in any religion. Except that it is false.
Did Christians bomb US Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Did Christians blow a plane out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland?
Did Christians float a raft of explosives out to the USS Cole?
Did Christians detonate a bomb in a club in Bali?
Did Christians blow up a senior center in Rio Degenaro?
Did Christians incinerate women and children at weddings, restraunts, busses etc in Israel?
Did Christians attack hotels in Egypt?
Did Christians hijack 4 planes and fly two into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and would've put number four who knows where?
Are Christians raping and slaughtering people in Sudan?
Did Christians kill scores in the London Subway and a bus?
Did Christians bomb trains in Spain?
Did Christians just release a religious order to kill all homosexuals? (Yet Christians are mentioned in that post because saying it is wrong is EXACTLY like killing people.)
Did Christians hatch plans to blow up 10 or so airliners bound for America?
The answer is no. Yet we are constantly lumped into the same category or exalted as being WORSE than Muslims. Why? Because we follow the truth. We preach the truth. Every time they see or hear us they are reminded that they are in sin and, instead of repenting when confronted with that guilt, they lash out at us for "oppressing" them.
They did it to the prophets. They did it to Jesus. They did it to the apostles. Foxe's Book of Martyrs tells tale after tale of it. Revelation says "And it was given to him to make war with the saints, and to prevail over them."
Face it; we are not welcome here. This world is NOT our home. This is just where we work.
DD
Monday, September 11, 2006
It's hard not to stop and reminisce about where you were 5 years ago when you first found out what was going on. I was at Ivy Hills. We, the maintenance crew, had just finished preparing the course for the Ladies Member-Member (or Member-Guest) tournament. We were gathered in the shop getting ready to leave when the Super came out of his office.
"My wife just called. She said someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center.", he told us all.
As we moved into the break room to turn on the TV, I figured that some poor guys was drunk, out of control or suicidal and flew a Cessna into one of the towers. We turned the television on and the picture came up showing BOTH towers smoking. That didn't make sense to me. How does one plane hit both buildings, and apparently from different sides? Then they showed the replay of the second plane slamming into the tower. Oh.
We had just missed seeing it live by no more than a few minutes, maybe even just a few seconds. My first thought was that the Palestinians had figured out a way to hit us over here. We raged over what should be done to those responsible, and I am still NOT satisfied with what has been done. To sum it up, we have B-52's; let's use them. But I digress...
One of the guys was a volunteer fire fighter in a township just up the hill from where I live and occasionally in my little burg. At some point he mentioned the idea of all those firemen and police going into the buildings. Looking back, it seems almost prophetic.
I went home and watched the events unfold. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the first tower fall. Neither could Peter Jennings, the anchor I was watching at the time. "What? What just happened?", I remember him saying as the plume of dust rose into the air. I thought "At least there's one left." My heart really sank when the second one fell.
I'm sitting alone in my living room watching this happen live. There were reports of a car bomb going off near the Pentagon. We all know what that turned out to be, conspiracy nutcases aside...and I like a good conspiracy theory. My aunt lives a rifle shot or two away from the Pentagon and I was concerned. I called her. She called back later that night. She was fine.
An acquaintance of mine was attending Seton Hall at the time. We didn't hear from him for a few days. Finally, when we did, he told us he knew four people in the towers that day. Two made it out. Two didn't.
Some 2800 didn't.
200 or so never left the Pentagon.
40 more took fate in their own hands and died in a Pennsylvania field.
So, where were you at 9 am September 11, 2001?
DD
"My wife just called. She said someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center.", he told us all.
As we moved into the break room to turn on the TV, I figured that some poor guys was drunk, out of control or suicidal and flew a Cessna into one of the towers. We turned the television on and the picture came up showing BOTH towers smoking. That didn't make sense to me. How does one plane hit both buildings, and apparently from different sides? Then they showed the replay of the second plane slamming into the tower. Oh.
We had just missed seeing it live by no more than a few minutes, maybe even just a few seconds. My first thought was that the Palestinians had figured out a way to hit us over here. We raged over what should be done to those responsible, and I am still NOT satisfied with what has been done. To sum it up, we have B-52's; let's use them. But I digress...
One of the guys was a volunteer fire fighter in a township just up the hill from where I live and occasionally in my little burg. At some point he mentioned the idea of all those firemen and police going into the buildings. Looking back, it seems almost prophetic.
I went home and watched the events unfold. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the first tower fall. Neither could Peter Jennings, the anchor I was watching at the time. "What? What just happened?", I remember him saying as the plume of dust rose into the air. I thought "At least there's one left." My heart really sank when the second one fell.
I'm sitting alone in my living room watching this happen live. There were reports of a car bomb going off near the Pentagon. We all know what that turned out to be, conspiracy nutcases aside...and I like a good conspiracy theory. My aunt lives a rifle shot or two away from the Pentagon and I was concerned. I called her. She called back later that night. She was fine.
An acquaintance of mine was attending Seton Hall at the time. We didn't hear from him for a few days. Finally, when we did, he told us he knew four people in the towers that day. Two made it out. Two didn't.
Some 2800 didn't.
200 or so never left the Pentagon.
40 more took fate in their own hands and died in a Pennsylvania field.
So, where were you at 9 am September 11, 2001?
DD
Friday, September 08, 2006
For many months now, I've been contemplating starting my own blog. I can't keep my mouth shut during any conversation about mundane topics, let alone the controversial. However, wanting and doing are two different things. If I was going to do it, I wanted to start it off with a post that sums up "me"; something that lets everyone reading know exactly what they're dealing with. I had less than no idea how this was going to happen. Then I found this. And so my problem was solved.
Where to begin? The fact that someone is THIS ignorant of the Bible is astounding. It is also embarrassing. How do we let this happen? Or are we simply so out numbered that we can't reach them all?
Jesus would not encourage hate. By "hate" she means telling people they are in danger of hell. We don't call telling our kids not to play in traffic "hate", but tell someone that they're in sin and need a savior...that's not just mean, but hateful. So, I guess when Jesus called men to repent, he was just committing a hate crime.
Jesus would not judge a man by his color, religion, sexuality, etc. Color? No. Religion? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No man comes to the Father except by me." What exactly do you think that means? Sexuality? "Thou shall not lie with a man as thou would a woman". Not a lot of gray area there. A man's deeds are what his is accused by.
Jesus would not be a capitalist. He was selling his carpentry work, wasn't he? Again, he wasn't really concerned by governmental ideologies. The idea that a thief should work with his hands to give to the poor, that no work= no food, and Paul working on tents even while preaching shows that God is not opposed to the idea of selling the fruits of your labor. There's no mention of price fixing either.
Jesus would not watch MTV or FOXNEWS. It's really kind of hard to argue with. He probably wouldn't watch ANY TV, not even PTL.
Jesus would not support war, but he would support troops. Politicizing a man who cared nothing about politics (Render unto Caesar...). It's recorded at least twice in the New Testament that either Jesus or Peter had an encounter with a Roman Soldier. Neither time does it record the soldiers being told to quit being soldiers. That's a telling fact. See, soldiers kill people and break things. We call that war. Not only does Jesus never tell a soldier to not go to war, God repeatedly send Israel off to war in the OT. Of course, a good number of those times are after a period of sin and idolatry by Israel but...
And there we go. Post Number One.
Where to begin? The fact that someone is THIS ignorant of the Bible is astounding. It is also embarrassing. How do we let this happen? Or are we simply so out numbered that we can't reach them all?
Jesus would be fiercely Independent. He was.
Jesus would love love, no matter who its between. Except that "I and my Father are One" thing and the fact that God pretty clearly spelled out in Leviticus that "love" between two men, and by extension, two women was BAD! Other than that, sure....
Jesus would support welfare and welfare reform. Jesus didn't seem to be waiting around for the government to do much of anything...other than kill him. Paul said something about "If a man does not work he shall not eat"...I guess that would be welfare reform. Now, as believers, we should be giving to the poor, but I don't think that's what she means.
Jesus would be against capital punishment. Really? The guy who spoke of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and of a place where "the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die" and a lake of fire would be against the guilty being punished? Huh.
Jesus would understand there are varying degrees of life. In a way, she's right. There is Dead In Your Sins and Redeemed. Again, I don't think that was what she was talking about.
Jesus would appreciate style, but not fashion. And yet Jesus wore a costly robe. A King's robe even. He cares about neither. Thoughts and intents of the heart are more his er, style.
Jesus would value education. Yes, Jesus would think that sending your kids to public school to be taught that, at best, He didn't exist would be a wonderful idea. I mean, what's the kid's soul compared to being a good drone?
Jesus would protect the environment. Like the fig tree He cursed? In all his teachings, Jesus, nor his disciples, never once mentioned "Save the Whales". Subdue, yes, be wise, yes, sacrifice people to protect a Spotted Wood Owl...no. Now, there is some admonishment not to be cruel to animals but they still taste good.
Jesus would have friendly rapport with Muhammad, Buddah, Confuscious, etc. If by "friendly rapport" she means casting them into the lake of fire then, yes. When he was here in the flesh, he might have talked to them, warned them of the fate ahead but he would not have exchanged high fives with them.
Jesus would befriend a Jew. A good Jewish boy having Jewish friends? Like the 12 Apostles?!?!?! Like Lazarus and his sisters?
Jesus would enjoy sex. While he was involved in creating sex and declaring that it was "good", at least indirectly, and declaring, through Paul, that the marriage bed is undefiled, no he wouldn't. That whole fornication/adultery thing. The church is his bride.
Jesus would understand the advantages of socialism. One could make an argument for this one. The early church did share everything in common. Except that the church did it willingly. The one example of people doing it against their will didn't end well. Socialism, an authority forcing people to share by taking away their property, NEVER ends well. The fruits of socialism are atheism and murder...things not too high on Jesus' commandments.
Jesus would be scared of guns. Why? If he could call a legion of angels to help him, if he could simply tell a tree to die and it did, if he could RISE FROM THE DEAD, why would a gun bother him at all? Swords, staves, and spears never did.
Jesus would impeach Bush and imprison Cheney. This is just ignorant beyond belief. No matter what your view on this administration, or any other one, Jesus didn't care about the Roman Empire and their atrocities. He came for souls, not governments. As much as we Christians like to think that Republican=Christian, it does not. Does the Republican party at least pay lipservice to ideas that are the teachings of the Bible? Yes. And it ends there. God installs who He will on the thrones of this world, so in some way, Bush was ordained by God. Of course, so was Clinton. :)
Jesus would not encourage hate. By "hate" she means telling people they are in danger of hell. We don't call telling our kids not to play in traffic "hate", but tell someone that they're in sin and need a savior...that's not just mean, but hateful. So, I guess when Jesus called men to repent, he was just committing a hate crime.
Jesus would not judge a man by his color, religion, sexuality, etc. Color? No. Religion? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No man comes to the Father except by me." What exactly do you think that means? Sexuality? "Thou shall not lie with a man as thou would a woman". Not a lot of gray area there. A man's deeds are what his is accused by.
Jesus would not be a capitalist. He was selling his carpentry work, wasn't he? Again, he wasn't really concerned by governmental ideologies. The idea that a thief should work with his hands to give to the poor, that no work= no food, and Paul working on tents even while preaching shows that God is not opposed to the idea of selling the fruits of your labor. There's no mention of price fixing either.
Jesus would not watch MTV or FOXNEWS. It's really kind of hard to argue with. He probably wouldn't watch ANY TV, not even PTL.
Jesus would not support war, but he would support troops. Politicizing a man who cared nothing about politics (Render unto Caesar...). It's recorded at least twice in the New Testament that either Jesus or Peter had an encounter with a Roman Soldier. Neither time does it record the soldiers being told to quit being soldiers. That's a telling fact. See, soldiers kill people and break things. We call that war. Not only does Jesus never tell a soldier to not go to war, God repeatedly send Israel off to war in the OT. Of course, a good number of those times are after a period of sin and idolatry by Israel but...
And there we go. Post Number One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)