Criminalize Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. We have criminalized having the wrong sized car seats for infants and repeated offense can qualify one as a felon. We criminalize allowing adults to smoke in our restaurants and repeat offenses can qualify one as a repeat offender and felon. This is of course the Nanny-State at its micro-managing worst. But remember that abortion slogan, "Half of the people who go into abortion clinics for abortion services Never come out Alive!"? Well consider this. All the baby human embryos used with venture capital at universities and such around the country are KILLED when they could be adopted and become like the snowflake children.
Here is a video clip where Bush vetos funding such human destruction surrounded by young children who were formerly frozen human embryos who would have qualified for such science gone mad. Check it out here. Then ask yourself if John McCain, Rudy G., or any of the Democrat front-runners like Barack or Hillary for 2008 Presidential bid could or ever would do such. We know the answer is clearly NO. They would not only allow such human life destruction but would fund this losing and loser venture with our tax dollars if they could!
We need to criminalize this practice even when done in private research. It is another cultural cancer. Intriguingly for those with 'eyes to see', God in his providence has apparently graciously not allowed such stem cells (as opposed to those from adult sources where no unique human life is destoyed and have been productive in scores of treatments) to result in a single cure or treatment.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Alan Keyes was Right, Just like Dan Quayle
Alan Keyes was right! Remember the 'Dan Quayle was Right' article about his comments on the cultural corruption example of Murphy Brown? Well it turns out that Alan Keyes was also right, and not so appreciated at the time of his commentary. He was right about homosexuality, gay marriage, and the activism and modeling of the Cheney link in the Bush administration. How does this advisor's role not undermine his social conservatism and stance on gay marriage? It does. Its fine for him to keep Lynn and Dick Cheney but Mary needs to be totally out of the administration loop officially and unofficially. I'm not saying rudeness or mean-spirited-ness but being frank. She's the one continually pushing the envelope with her live-in gay lover and now with her having an IV baby as a gay couple. Come on! In an age when thousands of one man and one woman, relatively intact married couples wanting children, waiting to adopt, going overseas for such and spending tons of money, how is this high profile experimentation culturally helpful. Mary's removal from access doesn't need to be super high profile, but it needs to happen and be known as having happened. Such is overdue. She will just continue to push the envelope in the wrong directions and it is an example, frankly worse than Murphy Brown.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Baker Panel, Not repudiation, red white blue panel...
I have a red, white, and blue ribbon report that hasn't been released until now. Here are its conclusions on the Baker report.
---
1. The Baker group does NOT Totally repudiate Bush. But they do repudiate Kerry and Murtha in that its plan leaves us in Iraq through 2007 and increases our personnel there by tens of thousands, though it apparently seeks to foolishly disarm most of them.
2. The Baker plan will talk to everyone and be nice to all including terrorist and terror supporting organizations and will get them to do 'talking' and 'lying' by hurting Israel (called "the canary in the coal mine") by further forcefully pulling feathers out of the canary and perhaps sticking Israel with some voodoo needles to boot. Anyone who says negotiate with Iran is wrong-headed unless they are doing a fake, right before a sneak or surprise attack on Iran. The same can be said with Syria.
3. The Baker plan is planning for defeat like in SE Asia but without the instant visible 'boat people' TV viewing response. Baker is likely negotiating with Iran about limiting such coverage until we are totally out in two years. And thus inviting Iran to let us out so they can extend their influence in the region toward their intended first target the canary in the coal mine, Israel.
My red, white, and blue Panel of One, major report finding (smile) follows in nine short points.
1. Orchestrate through whatever channels are necessary, secretively with Israel or unilaterally a bombing campaign on known jihadist Iranian radical political, and jihadist political so-called religious leader(s) hangouts where they are most isolated and upon locations known for housing nuclear weapon research and development in after-hours to diminish unintended casualties. Even if we cannot be sure of being fully successful Iranian radical terror exporters and sword (nuke) rattlers need to be put on the defensive. They are currently engaged in terror and threatening global conquest similar to what Hitler was doing prior to WW2 but without the NY Times approval and nuclear weapons. They need something to gripe about and distract them.
2. We should tell Syria if they'd like to avoid such occuring in Damascus they can join us in Iraq expelling Iranian forces and giving us intelligence reports on happenings inside Iran. We can support the students who want freedom in Iran and worthy Syrians can help us weed out Iranians in Iraq aware that any slip up and Damascus jihadist-supporting politicals will suffer the same selective bombing fate. They can tell us what they did with the WMDs smuggled out of Iraq chemical and otherwise and be given a TIMETABLE for doing so in a verifiable way. And they should just start doing some democratic republic, power-sharing reforms now because contrary to what Rick Warren said, we know full well that they aren't that great on freedom of thinking, freedom of religious affiliation choices, and political pluralism. They also stink on human rights and we pretty much know they have also undermined our efforts to find the WMDs and to put down the radical jihadist terrorists in Iraq. They should even be called upon for a TIMETABLE of when such political reforms and intelligence information will be forthcoming before Damascus politicals encounters some fly-over wake-up calls. Oh yes, and they'll have to give Hezzbollah up too. We aren't asking for much. This is how you negotiate. Not by starting off with the kid gloves and inviting everyone to dinner as equally principled peace parnters.
3. Our military or better, our military forces supporting Iraqi military forces should forcefully remove Sodr and his top 5 generals from influence politically even if doing so involves killing them. Last I heard, they are at war with us and this is what happens in war. They are destabilizing and terrorizing and killing scores to undermine Iraq opportunities to exist as a unified nation under a rule of non jihadist law in a more democratic republic. There are people under Sodr's manipulative forces that would likely want a principled power-sharing government of genuine Islamic moderates but whose voices and personalities are unknown because of his tyranny and leadership style. Saddaam's capital punishment should be done immediately and confirmed by camera coverage.
4. Increase our military presence and training and protecting of Iraqi's who will endorse a MORE principled pluralistic government including Kurds, Christians, minority Jews, and the major Islamic parties who are willing with the blood of their lives proven to defend a more democratic republic. Give them one year to make these political changes in whatever configuration they'd like to but include any Judeo-Christian participation that lives there as well in the governing bodies as minority representatives. If they cannot do this, or are slow to do this, then we should inform them in no uncertain terms that they are signaling the Iranians that their attempts at a unified government without jihadist tyranny is a joke and is merely a welfare State short term benefiting from the blood of western soldiers for mere economic recovery. Nicety nice talk isn't going to win an Islamic negotiation debate. It may sound like crap to the NY Times and American sensibilities but it is the hard truth and it is time our media started telling the truth about such needs and interactions.
5. Mutha, Gates, Kerry, Kennedy, and Dean if they make a big stink about this should be asked for a TIMETABLE as to when they will be done with their temper tantrum, or else the Justice Department should begin investigations and bring them up on charges of treason under suspicion of inciting civil war in the USA, leaking our Iraq troop security issues to the NY Times and encouraging the enemy. They do this by extending opportunities to talk with the enemy but continue dissing, demonizing, and refusing to work at all with the elected President of the United States. My guess is there are other things needing investigation with these including campaign contributions, past taking bribes, slander, etc.
6. If the President is to be impeached out of childish revenge over Bill Clinton's which he did not participate and with whom his wimpy father has been overly-friendly, whether he (W) does anything or cooperates or works bi-partisan or not... and remember that Bill Clinton was impeached but could have likely been further impeached over the multiple legal, moral, ethical, and international including Chinese military hardware and technology empowerment and N.Korean nuke empowerment stupidities and illegalities... but the point is that IF President George W. Bush is to be impeached by these partisan ideological, leftist, haters of the USA in such a childish vengeful manner anyway, he might as well be impeached for the right reasons and causes and commence with #1-5 and do so sooner rather than later.
7. It is the conviction of this red, white, and blue panel of one that the Justice Department begin investigating the NY Times now for its role in leaking sensitive military information that has harmed our troops and done so as USA citizens operating their business on USA soil, paying USA taxes, and yet acting as if they are above the country and the rule of law at the cost of the lives of our troops and the liberation success of our mission and to the empowerment of radical, terrorist, Islamic, jihadists. If the NY Times is prosecuted fairly and thoroughly for their crimes, their want-to-be look-alikes like the LA Times, CNN, and the Washington Post might see the fairness, legal enforcement, 'writing on the wall' and start acting with more prudence. And if they don't like being under the rule of law and want to rant about it, talk radio is open to them as well. But they will have to find listeners willing to listen and advertise with them for their elitist, minority radical leftist views.
8. Our military personnel and NGOs and others should have restrictions on their free political speech as returning citizens in the USA, and those in Iraq should have religious speech codes and avoidance and correctness bans lifted and be given training in how to make their religious convictions understood in honest conversations with Iraqi military and civil defense colleagues. No coercions, no manipulations, not campaigning for faith in Iraq, but not exaggerated sensitivity to hush hush Christianity either.
9. Lastly Al Jazeera should be given the same warning as Syria and be put on a TIMETABLE for ending the broadcast of Jewish hate-speech about Jews being cannibals and they should provide intelligence for those who have been promoting the use of children for suicide missions and turn them in to Iraq and coalition of the willing enforcers. If the do not, their facilities should be taken out. It is true they can broadcast again elsewhere BUT it will cost them money, lives, inconvenience and put them on the defensive for supporting such genuine State sponsored bigotry and pro genocidal attitudes and abuse of children and murder. ---
Your input on the red, white, and blue report is valued in the comments.
---
1. The Baker group does NOT Totally repudiate Bush. But they do repudiate Kerry and Murtha in that its plan leaves us in Iraq through 2007 and increases our personnel there by tens of thousands, though it apparently seeks to foolishly disarm most of them.
2. The Baker plan will talk to everyone and be nice to all including terrorist and terror supporting organizations and will get them to do 'talking' and 'lying' by hurting Israel (called "the canary in the coal mine") by further forcefully pulling feathers out of the canary and perhaps sticking Israel with some voodoo needles to boot. Anyone who says negotiate with Iran is wrong-headed unless they are doing a fake, right before a sneak or surprise attack on Iran. The same can be said with Syria.
3. The Baker plan is planning for defeat like in SE Asia but without the instant visible 'boat people' TV viewing response. Baker is likely negotiating with Iran about limiting such coverage until we are totally out in two years. And thus inviting Iran to let us out so they can extend their influence in the region toward their intended first target the canary in the coal mine, Israel.
My red, white, and blue Panel of One, major report finding (smile) follows in nine short points.
1. Orchestrate through whatever channels are necessary, secretively with Israel or unilaterally a bombing campaign on known jihadist Iranian radical political, and jihadist political so-called religious leader(s) hangouts where they are most isolated and upon locations known for housing nuclear weapon research and development in after-hours to diminish unintended casualties. Even if we cannot be sure of being fully successful Iranian radical terror exporters and sword (nuke) rattlers need to be put on the defensive. They are currently engaged in terror and threatening global conquest similar to what Hitler was doing prior to WW2 but without the NY Times approval and nuclear weapons. They need something to gripe about and distract them.
2. We should tell Syria if they'd like to avoid such occuring in Damascus they can join us in Iraq expelling Iranian forces and giving us intelligence reports on happenings inside Iran. We can support the students who want freedom in Iran and worthy Syrians can help us weed out Iranians in Iraq aware that any slip up and Damascus jihadist-supporting politicals will suffer the same selective bombing fate. They can tell us what they did with the WMDs smuggled out of Iraq chemical and otherwise and be given a TIMETABLE for doing so in a verifiable way. And they should just start doing some democratic republic, power-sharing reforms now because contrary to what Rick Warren said, we know full well that they aren't that great on freedom of thinking, freedom of religious affiliation choices, and political pluralism. They also stink on human rights and we pretty much know they have also undermined our efforts to find the WMDs and to put down the radical jihadist terrorists in Iraq. They should even be called upon for a TIMETABLE of when such political reforms and intelligence information will be forthcoming before Damascus politicals encounters some fly-over wake-up calls. Oh yes, and they'll have to give Hezzbollah up too. We aren't asking for much. This is how you negotiate. Not by starting off with the kid gloves and inviting everyone to dinner as equally principled peace parnters.
3. Our military or better, our military forces supporting Iraqi military forces should forcefully remove Sodr and his top 5 generals from influence politically even if doing so involves killing them. Last I heard, they are at war with us and this is what happens in war. They are destabilizing and terrorizing and killing scores to undermine Iraq opportunities to exist as a unified nation under a rule of non jihadist law in a more democratic republic. There are people under Sodr's manipulative forces that would likely want a principled power-sharing government of genuine Islamic moderates but whose voices and personalities are unknown because of his tyranny and leadership style. Saddaam's capital punishment should be done immediately and confirmed by camera coverage.
4. Increase our military presence and training and protecting of Iraqi's who will endorse a MORE principled pluralistic government including Kurds, Christians, minority Jews, and the major Islamic parties who are willing with the blood of their lives proven to defend a more democratic republic. Give them one year to make these political changes in whatever configuration they'd like to but include any Judeo-Christian participation that lives there as well in the governing bodies as minority representatives. If they cannot do this, or are slow to do this, then we should inform them in no uncertain terms that they are signaling the Iranians that their attempts at a unified government without jihadist tyranny is a joke and is merely a welfare State short term benefiting from the blood of western soldiers for mere economic recovery. Nicety nice talk isn't going to win an Islamic negotiation debate. It may sound like crap to the NY Times and American sensibilities but it is the hard truth and it is time our media started telling the truth about such needs and interactions.
5. Mutha, Gates, Kerry, Kennedy, and Dean if they make a big stink about this should be asked for a TIMETABLE as to when they will be done with their temper tantrum, or else the Justice Department should begin investigations and bring them up on charges of treason under suspicion of inciting civil war in the USA, leaking our Iraq troop security issues to the NY Times and encouraging the enemy. They do this by extending opportunities to talk with the enemy but continue dissing, demonizing, and refusing to work at all with the elected President of the United States. My guess is there are other things needing investigation with these including campaign contributions, past taking bribes, slander, etc.
6. If the President is to be impeached out of childish revenge over Bill Clinton's which he did not participate and with whom his wimpy father has been overly-friendly, whether he (W) does anything or cooperates or works bi-partisan or not... and remember that Bill Clinton was impeached but could have likely been further impeached over the multiple legal, moral, ethical, and international including Chinese military hardware and technology empowerment and N.Korean nuke empowerment stupidities and illegalities... but the point is that IF President George W. Bush is to be impeached by these partisan ideological, leftist, haters of the USA in such a childish vengeful manner anyway, he might as well be impeached for the right reasons and causes and commence with #1-5 and do so sooner rather than later.
7. It is the conviction of this red, white, and blue panel of one that the Justice Department begin investigating the NY Times now for its role in leaking sensitive military information that has harmed our troops and done so as USA citizens operating their business on USA soil, paying USA taxes, and yet acting as if they are above the country and the rule of law at the cost of the lives of our troops and the liberation success of our mission and to the empowerment of radical, terrorist, Islamic, jihadists. If the NY Times is prosecuted fairly and thoroughly for their crimes, their want-to-be look-alikes like the LA Times, CNN, and the Washington Post might see the fairness, legal enforcement, 'writing on the wall' and start acting with more prudence. And if they don't like being under the rule of law and want to rant about it, talk radio is open to them as well. But they will have to find listeners willing to listen and advertise with them for their elitist, minority radical leftist views.
8. Our military personnel and NGOs and others should have restrictions on their free political speech as returning citizens in the USA, and those in Iraq should have religious speech codes and avoidance and correctness bans lifted and be given training in how to make their religious convictions understood in honest conversations with Iraqi military and civil defense colleagues. No coercions, no manipulations, not campaigning for faith in Iraq, but not exaggerated sensitivity to hush hush Christianity either.
9. Lastly Al Jazeera should be given the same warning as Syria and be put on a TIMETABLE for ending the broadcast of Jewish hate-speech about Jews being cannibals and they should provide intelligence for those who have been promoting the use of children for suicide missions and turn them in to Iraq and coalition of the willing enforcers. If the do not, their facilities should be taken out. It is true they can broadcast again elsewhere BUT it will cost them money, lives, inconvenience and put them on the defensive for supporting such genuine State sponsored bigotry and pro genocidal attitudes and abuse of children and murder. ---
Your input on the red, white, and blue report is valued in the comments.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Iraq not OK..Afghanistan OK..Haiti OK,..Iran not OK...
OK this post is for Devin and others for whom a discussion of embryonic stem cells apparently cannot help but mention the diabolical Bush on Iraq. Post away... But you might want to watch this first, CLICK HERE. I love Traffic's "Low Spark" background music.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
How many ways can cloning and stem cells be...
How many ways can the issue of human cloning for destruction and farming be misrepresented. Michael Fox sure fouled it up in his ad campaign, but fortunately St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan and stars Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton speak out against Missouri's Cloning ammendment coming up for vote in November. Watch their, non-emotional manipulation, informative ad by clicking here.
And then there is Dr. David Prentice who is maliciously and eroneously referred to in the title bar of this youtube video, but this man is the real deal. He is a scientist doing stem cell research of the ethical sort. E.g. on adult sources of stem cells, that do not necessitate the destruction of young, unique, human embryos which have been adopted and brought to full term. And Dr. Prentice is getting results, unlike the baby killing stem cell farmers who cannot get venture capital and promise hypothetical results decades into the future. It is rare to hear people differentiate between stem cell research A. Adult, and no unique humans are destroyed, and stem cell research B. B-rated, baby human embryos destroyed to get stem cells for research that isn't even promising research! Listen and watch Dr. Prentice, an ethical stem cell researcher who has come up with cures by clicking here.
And then there is Dr. David Prentice who is maliciously and eroneously referred to in the title bar of this youtube video, but this man is the real deal. He is a scientist doing stem cell research of the ethical sort. E.g. on adult sources of stem cells, that do not necessitate the destruction of young, unique, human embryos which have been adopted and brought to full term. And Dr. Prentice is getting results, unlike the baby killing stem cell farmers who cannot get venture capital and promise hypothetical results decades into the future. It is rare to hear people differentiate between stem cell research A. Adult, and no unique humans are destroyed, and stem cell research B. B-rated, baby human embryos destroyed to get stem cells for research that isn't even promising research! Listen and watch Dr. Prentice, an ethical stem cell researcher who has come up with cures by clicking here.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Free markets and Human commodification?
I've been impressed with the Acton Institute for its principled support of free markets, economic development, human development and creativity, and also for not being blind to greed and selfishness and the need for checks and balances.
It is unusual when such groups not known for such step out and comment on huge social justice concerns that are thought be some to be outside of their niche'. This article from Acton shows that while significant portions of the church may be asleep and evangelicals might be doing the well-marketted 'self help' seminars near exclusively, that some (can you believe it!) economists are actually thinking and writing from a Christian world view and doing so prophetically.
Enjoy the thoughtfulness of this challenging, short article HERE.
It is unusual when such groups not known for such step out and comment on huge social justice concerns that are thought be some to be outside of their niche'. This article from Acton shows that while significant portions of the church may be asleep and evangelicals might be doing the well-marketted 'self help' seminars near exclusively, that some (can you believe it!) economists are actually thinking and writing from a Christian world view and doing so prophetically.
Enjoy the thoughtfulness of this challenging, short article HERE.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Gary Bauer on Foley
I like Gary Bauer. What follows is Gary Bauer's musings on the Foley resignation and values voter issues and convictions related to such:
"By now I’m sure you have heard about the latest Washington scandal.
Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, long rumored to be a homosexual, suddenly resigned his seat in Congress late Friday afternoon after news outlets reported that he had been sending sexually explicit messages to teenage male pages. This morning, Foley’s attorney announced that he has entered an alcoholic rehabilitation center.
The instant messages Foley sent were obscene and disgusting. Resignation was the only appropriate response for someone who had so abused the public trust. It is unconscionable that any person would attempt to sexually seduce a child, but given Foley’s position as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, this scandal is even more outrageous. Ironically, the FBI has been called in to investigate Foley for possible criminal charges against Internet sexual predators based on a law he helped to write!
The Democrat leadership in Congress, leftwing blogs, and their media allies, not surprisingly, are taking the Foley scandal and attempting to use it to attack Republicans generally. Democrat campaign committees are suggesting that the Republican leadership, including Speaker Hastert, knew about this mess and didn’t do anything about it. Speaker Hastert denies that.
All we know for sure is that some earlier e-mails judged to be “overly friendly” were known to some in Congress. But the worst material, which was obscene and sexually explicit, was not discovered until last week. It was that material which resulted in Foley’s immediate resignation.
Speaker Hastert sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice demanding a formal investigation of “any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter—be they Members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives, or anyone outside the Congress.” We join him in that demand. That investigation should examine anyone of any party since there are rumors today that some Democrat leaders also knew and chose to wait five weeks before an election for their own advantage.
Hypocrisy? As I have written before, neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. As an evangelical Christian, I believe one of the central tenets of my faith is that all men are sinners, which is why we require the saving grace of the Son of God. For those charging hypocrisy in the Republican Party, I would only remind them that Mark Foley has been forced out of the House, as he should have been. In contrast, former Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts remained in the House after admitting to homosexual conduct with a teenage page, and won reelection numerous times. Rep. Barney Frank was implicated in a homosexual prostitution scandal run out of his house and continues to be a leader in the Democrat Party today.
One other point. The national Democrat Party is strongly supported by the radical homosexual rights movement and organizations like the ACLU, both of which have consistently argued that age of consent laws should be dramatically liberalized so that what Rep. Foley was apparently trying to do would no longer be against the law or even considered shameful. So, who is really engaged in hypocrisy in this controversy?
Bigger Picture. Let’s put politics aside for a second and look at what is happening to our country. Our popular culture has for years been making children the objects of sexual desire. Britney Spears dresses provocatively and within months countless ten year-old girls are running around dressed the same way. Hollywood routinely exploits young children sexually, as does Madison Avenue.
Groups like NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, continue to be given positions in “gay rights” parades and, without shame, continue to promote their governing slogan, “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” In addition, the entire culture, as well as many of our schools and universities, teaches the notion that there are no things such as right or wrong – that all these things are merely choices in the “lifestyle cafeteria.” At the end of the day, our virtue deficit is going to lay us low long before our budget deficit does.
Bottom Line. This latest scandal in Washington is just further evidence that the pro- family agenda is desperately needed for the country. We are the ones who have argued that human sexuality should be channeled through marriage. We are the ones who have argued that marriage is between one man and one woman. We are the ones who have argued that schools should teach kids how to read and write and stop handing out condoms and birth control pills. We are the ones who say that all our children should be welcomed into the world under law. We are the ones who say there are reliable standards of right and wrong. And we are the ones who have led the charge against the sexualization of our children.
If the Foley scandal wakes up both parties to a need to rediscover the values of family and faith, then maybe something good can come out of this mess."
"By now I’m sure you have heard about the latest Washington scandal.
Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, long rumored to be a homosexual, suddenly resigned his seat in Congress late Friday afternoon after news outlets reported that he had been sending sexually explicit messages to teenage male pages. This morning, Foley’s attorney announced that he has entered an alcoholic rehabilitation center.
The instant messages Foley sent were obscene and disgusting. Resignation was the only appropriate response for someone who had so abused the public trust. It is unconscionable that any person would attempt to sexually seduce a child, but given Foley’s position as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, this scandal is even more outrageous. Ironically, the FBI has been called in to investigate Foley for possible criminal charges against Internet sexual predators based on a law he helped to write!
The Democrat leadership in Congress, leftwing blogs, and their media allies, not surprisingly, are taking the Foley scandal and attempting to use it to attack Republicans generally. Democrat campaign committees are suggesting that the Republican leadership, including Speaker Hastert, knew about this mess and didn’t do anything about it. Speaker Hastert denies that.
All we know for sure is that some earlier e-mails judged to be “overly friendly” were known to some in Congress. But the worst material, which was obscene and sexually explicit, was not discovered until last week. It was that material which resulted in Foley’s immediate resignation.
Speaker Hastert sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice demanding a formal investigation of “any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter—be they Members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives, or anyone outside the Congress.” We join him in that demand. That investigation should examine anyone of any party since there are rumors today that some Democrat leaders also knew and chose to wait five weeks before an election for their own advantage.
Hypocrisy? As I have written before, neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. As an evangelical Christian, I believe one of the central tenets of my faith is that all men are sinners, which is why we require the saving grace of the Son of God. For those charging hypocrisy in the Republican Party, I would only remind them that Mark Foley has been forced out of the House, as he should have been. In contrast, former Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts remained in the House after admitting to homosexual conduct with a teenage page, and won reelection numerous times. Rep. Barney Frank was implicated in a homosexual prostitution scandal run out of his house and continues to be a leader in the Democrat Party today.
One other point. The national Democrat Party is strongly supported by the radical homosexual rights movement and organizations like the ACLU, both of which have consistently argued that age of consent laws should be dramatically liberalized so that what Rep. Foley was apparently trying to do would no longer be against the law or even considered shameful. So, who is really engaged in hypocrisy in this controversy?
Bigger Picture. Let’s put politics aside for a second and look at what is happening to our country. Our popular culture has for years been making children the objects of sexual desire. Britney Spears dresses provocatively and within months countless ten year-old girls are running around dressed the same way. Hollywood routinely exploits young children sexually, as does Madison Avenue.
Groups like NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, continue to be given positions in “gay rights” parades and, without shame, continue to promote their governing slogan, “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” In addition, the entire culture, as well as many of our schools and universities, teaches the notion that there are no things such as right or wrong – that all these things are merely choices in the “lifestyle cafeteria.” At the end of the day, our virtue deficit is going to lay us low long before our budget deficit does.
Bottom Line. This latest scandal in Washington is just further evidence that the pro- family agenda is desperately needed for the country. We are the ones who have argued that human sexuality should be channeled through marriage. We are the ones who have argued that marriage is between one man and one woman. We are the ones who have argued that schools should teach kids how to read and write and stop handing out condoms and birth control pills. We are the ones who say that all our children should be welcomed into the world under law. We are the ones who say there are reliable standards of right and wrong. And we are the ones who have led the charge against the sexualization of our children.
If the Foley scandal wakes up both parties to a need to rediscover the values of family and faith, then maybe something good can come out of this mess."
Family Research Council on PC homosexuality
Pro-Homosexual Political Correctness Sowed Seeds for Foley Scandal. This article is from the Family Research Council and I've inserted my own qualifying comments below.
Democrats seeking to exploit the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) are (Insert: "could be rightly motivated") right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders to his communications with male pages. But neither party seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys. While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia (Insert: "pederasty") is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys--and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership. They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior--probably because they did not want to appear "homophobic." (Insert: or because Democrat activists had more information than the Republicans and politically timed the 'surprising' release) The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children. (Insert: It seems good that Dennis Hasterd is asking who knew what, and when, and why it took so long to release the information. Stay tuned. One thing is good, Republicans take such seriously and effect resignations. Democrats who apparently have the chat logs and powerful politicals with interesting proclivities e.g. Clinton, Frank, Kennedy, not only do not force resignations but they still wield power and have a lot to say about such, of course with minimal credibility imho.)
Additional Resources
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Democrats seeking to exploit the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) are (Insert: "could be rightly motivated") right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders to his communications with male pages. But neither party seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys. While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia (Insert: "pederasty") is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys--and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership. They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior--probably because they did not want to appear "homophobic." (Insert: or because Democrat activists had more information than the Republicans and politically timed the 'surprising' release) The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children. (Insert: It seems good that Dennis Hasterd is asking who knew what, and when, and why it took so long to release the information. Stay tuned. One thing is good, Republicans take such seriously and effect resignations. Democrats who apparently have the chat logs and powerful politicals with interesting proclivities e.g. Clinton, Frank, Kennedy, not only do not force resignations but they still wield power and have a lot to say about such, of course with minimal credibility imho.)
Additional Resources
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Has Marriage become Partisan?
Gary Bauer in his mid September 2006 newsletter asks this question in light of rhetoric and reality. Here's how he addresses the question:
"Is Marriage Becoming Partisan? The citizens of 20 states have passed marriage protection amendments by such overwhelming margins that it’s safe to say traditional marriage is one issue that actually unifies Americans of both parties. That’s why I was surprised to read in this morning’s Washington Post that the Democrat governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, is vigorously opposing Virginia’s proposed marriage amendment.
During his campaign, he repeatedly stated his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman, and it was his ability to win in a conservative state like Virginia that earned Kaine high praise by national figures as an “up-and-coming moderate.” As the newly elected governor of Virginia, he was awarded the high-profile task of giving the Democrat response to President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address. However, this decision to oppose his state’s marriage amendment seems to be yet another sign that Democrats are prepared to allow same-sex “marriage.” STOP
So one wonders when we hear certain candidates saying they believe DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Amendment, passed under the Clinton administration) covered marriage protection and is sufficient (even in the face of numerous activist justices undermining DOMA), or that they are pro protecting 200 years of marriage law etc, whether they will really hold such convictions and uphold them in public policy, or whether something else is afoot. Perhaps a new kind of 'personally opposed but *won't impose*' kind of nonsense is emerging on a new deceptive front in the contest between the culture of life and the culture of death or the culture of 'whatever'. Clearly with activist judges and a slippery US Senate, and candidate duplicities like this one mentioned by Bauer above, there is much to wonder about.
It is too bad that it make those of us who want to know truthful convictions and political stances sometimes seem like we have a hobby horse when we ask questions from a number of different perspectives but the duplicities on issues protective of marriage, family, children, infants immediately before birth (partial birth abortion ban enforcement) and human cloning etc are just getting thicker and thicker and few are calling any to account. Thanks for the info Gary. Reading lips is nearly requiring a reading of minds in the current moral relativism. Pathetic and sad.
"Is Marriage Becoming Partisan? The citizens of 20 states have passed marriage protection amendments by such overwhelming margins that it’s safe to say traditional marriage is one issue that actually unifies Americans of both parties. That’s why I was surprised to read in this morning’s Washington Post that the Democrat governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, is vigorously opposing Virginia’s proposed marriage amendment.
During his campaign, he repeatedly stated his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman, and it was his ability to win in a conservative state like Virginia that earned Kaine high praise by national figures as an “up-and-coming moderate.” As the newly elected governor of Virginia, he was awarded the high-profile task of giving the Democrat response to President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address. However, this decision to oppose his state’s marriage amendment seems to be yet another sign that Democrats are prepared to allow same-sex “marriage.” STOP
So one wonders when we hear certain candidates saying they believe DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Amendment, passed under the Clinton administration) covered marriage protection and is sufficient (even in the face of numerous activist justices undermining DOMA), or that they are pro protecting 200 years of marriage law etc, whether they will really hold such convictions and uphold them in public policy, or whether something else is afoot. Perhaps a new kind of 'personally opposed but *won't impose*' kind of nonsense is emerging on a new deceptive front in the contest between the culture of life and the culture of death or the culture of 'whatever'. Clearly with activist judges and a slippery US Senate, and candidate duplicities like this one mentioned by Bauer above, there is much to wonder about.
It is too bad that it make those of us who want to know truthful convictions and political stances sometimes seem like we have a hobby horse when we ask questions from a number of different perspectives but the duplicities on issues protective of marriage, family, children, infants immediately before birth (partial birth abortion ban enforcement) and human cloning etc are just getting thicker and thicker and few are calling any to account. Thanks for the info Gary. Reading lips is nearly requiring a reading of minds in the current moral relativism. Pathetic and sad.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
First Things on Evangelical expulsion @ Georgetown
Evangelical groups booted from Georgetown "peace be upon them". The 'news of the hour' this fall semester 2006. But what could be the reasoning for such a decision where most recently the Islamic faith has been apparently so tolerated and included in this Catholic educational institution. Apparently this is still an open question. Catholic scholarly journal 'First Things', known for having a strong, living faith that is not afraid of serious academic reflection has some thoughts on the subject that are intriguing. I'm not sure they fully have it, but they are always quite informed and engaging. Read them here.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Media biases in strange but enlightening contexts
You may question this source but it rather clearly deals with WESTERN media bias. You might appreciate it anyway. It is in flash and goes pretty quickly. It is titled Photo Fraud in Lebanon:
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp
Pretty amazing documenting of anti-Israel, *western* news fraud. And these sources have the guts to even mention with feigned moral concern Mel Gibson's problems with his anti-Jewish/Israel issues?!. When Reuters, NBC, CNN, ABC, and the NY Times apologize multiple times, and require counseling for themselves, request insights in counsel from the grieving families of Israeli soldiers...vilified and fiercely fought in part because of such media creations, we'll be ready to read them less hyper-critically again.
On the more Arab free press (OK, that is a joke) Al Jazeers side comes this. An amazing, secular atheist woman appears in a TV interview with significant courage, on a show with an Imman who only states 'So you are a heretic then..'. You might get a kick out of this woman's gutsy-ness, though I'm sure she is portrayed in the media there as a kook. Here's that link for your entertainment.
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
I wish I could find more academics in the Western world with this secular woman's strength of conviction about principled pluralism. She is a rather inspirational feminist in several ways. Alas "the land of the complacent and the home of the 'correct'" has its own sets of issues in rebellion against God and people of all sorts who are in the image of God. We need grace and mercy too.
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp
Pretty amazing documenting of anti-Israel, *western* news fraud. And these sources have the guts to even mention with feigned moral concern Mel Gibson's problems with his anti-Jewish/Israel issues?!. When Reuters, NBC, CNN, ABC, and the NY Times apologize multiple times, and require counseling for themselves, request insights in counsel from the grieving families of Israeli soldiers...vilified and fiercely fought in part because of such media creations, we'll be ready to read them less hyper-critically again.
On the more Arab free press (OK, that is a joke) Al Jazeers side comes this. An amazing, secular atheist woman appears in a TV interview with significant courage, on a show with an Imman who only states 'So you are a heretic then..'. You might get a kick out of this woman's gutsy-ness, though I'm sure she is portrayed in the media there as a kook. Here's that link for your entertainment.
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
I wish I could find more academics in the Western world with this secular woman's strength of conviction about principled pluralism. She is a rather inspirational feminist in several ways. Alas "the land of the complacent and the home of the 'correct'" has its own sets of issues in rebellion against God and people of all sorts who are in the image of God. We need grace and mercy too.
Call it obvious, natural law, miraculous...amazing
This from the Family Research Council. Something that apparently doesn't escape the over-the-top rich and the over-the-top amorous. Hopefully the booing with help them think and grow stronger in obvious truth rather than second-guessing and dumbing down. From the FRC: "Bill Gates and former U.S. President Bill Clinton teamed up as a "Double Bill" of speakers at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Canada. Bill Gates' opening remarks were well received until he mentioned abstinence and fidelity within marriage as two possible strategies in combating the deadly disease. "ABC" means abstinence, be faithful, and condoms for specific populations that refuse "A" and "B." It is the centerpiece of the Bush administration's approach to AIDS in Africa. Gates said: "This approach has saved many lives, and we should expand it." At the mention of this, however, the hall erupted in loud boos. Their reaction is very instructive. We see here the open hostility of the international AIDS "community" to anything but the promotion of condoms as a means of combating the spread of AIDS. Today's Washington Post reports on a Philadelphia study that shows 48 percent of 662 black students in that city who received abstinence-only messages had had sex. But 61 percent of those who were exposed to the pro-condom message of "comprehensive sexuality education" had sex. Even former president Bill Clinton praised the ABC's of the Bush Administration's efforts in Africa."
Additional Resources
Africa Gives 'ABC' Mixed Grades
Why Wait: The Benefits of Abstinence Until Marriage
Additional Resources
Africa Gives 'ABC' Mixed Grades
Why Wait: The Benefits of Abstinence Until Marriage
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
How your Senator Voted on tax payer funding unethical, unproductive Human embryo experiments
Click below to see how your Senators voted on taxpayer funding for human embryo experimentation:
http://www.grassfire.org/21/senate_vote_hr810.htm
After reviewing the list, we encourage you to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about the way they voted on this legislation. For those here in Indiana, it is just another example of how both Lugar and Bayh have let the losing proposition of California go national.
More info on the 'experiments' here if you can view flash.
http://www.grassfire.org/21/senate_vote_hr810.htm
After reviewing the list, we encourage you to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about the way they voted on this legislation. For those here in Indiana, it is just another example of how both Lugar and Bayh have let the losing proposition of California go national.
More info on the 'experiments' here if you can view flash.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Destroying vulnerable young to assist wealthy old
To show my support for the unborn, I have signed Grassfire.org's "Petition for Life" petition calling on our legislative leaders to respect and protect the rights of the unborn in our nation who are being threatened by abortion.
A recognized grassroots leader in the fight for the unborn, Grassfire has rallied more than half-a-million citizens with their national petition--a petition that has already been presented to many key leaders in Washington and beyond.
Right now there are a number of key Pro-Life pieces of legislation in Congress--notably the suspension of RU-486, and the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
In support of these and other critical Pro-Life issues Grassfire is calling on Pro-Life citizens to help them rally an additional and mobilize an additional 30,000 citizen signers in time for our next petition presentation.
Please use your voice to support the rights of the unborn by adding your name to this important Grassfire petition:
http://grassfire.org/21/life.asp?PID=10343786&NID=1
Sincerely,
Mr. Joe Whitchurch
A recognized grassroots leader in the fight for the unborn, Grassfire has rallied more than half-a-million citizens with their national petition--a petition that has already been presented to many key leaders in Washington and beyond.
Right now there are a number of key Pro-Life pieces of legislation in Congress--notably the suspension of RU-486, and the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
In support of these and other critical Pro-Life issues Grassfire is calling on Pro-Life citizens to help them rally an additional and mobilize an additional 30,000 citizen signers in time for our next petition presentation.
Please use your voice to support the rights of the unborn by adding your name to this important Grassfire petition:
http://grassfire.org/21/life.asp?PID=10343786&NID=1
Sincerely,
Mr. Joe Whitchurch
Friday, June 30, 2006
Is the Jack Bauer of '24' a type of Christ?
I guess I'm not the only one who likes '24' but alas, Jack as a type of Christ...? You decide and I'd appreciate your comments too after you skim this blog.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
4th of July Courage on the Home front and abroad
This TV ad is short and to the point and a wonderful response to 'move on with cut n run dot extremists'. First view and enjoy it. Then think of those who may be strengthened and encouraged to see examples of such in public proclamation. Don't spam people but do send to friends by forwarding graciously 'outside the choir' and 'outside the committed' circles you normal post to. The other voices drone-on perpetually by the left, liberal, moral-equivocating mainstream media, university newspapers, and many of the same classroom captive audience of leftist authoritarian soapboxes. Why not graciously share another viewpoint?
Enjoy and forward as led. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvfRCwk8edg
And for the genuine risk takers, check out this political ad and ask yourself why such ads are not legion. Could it not be partly because so few are taking a stand for righteousness outside our little choirs. At least when someone runs for office they MUST go public but this gentleman really deserves some encouragement imho. Take a risk and view this one too, it is fabulous. You simply have to see this ad before it is censured.
http://vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone3.shtml
These are not endorsements but HEY, aren't these some of the issues we feel strongly about because they are rooted in our understanding of Biblical truth and Biblical revelation? And isn't it refreshing to see people in the public square being clear and not as namby pamby and hyper nuanced as some of our super sensitive church services? Rather, declaring truth clearly and setting it before peoples' consciences as per 2Cor 4:1-4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Enjoy and forward as led. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvfRCwk8edg
And for the genuine risk takers, check out this political ad and ask yourself why such ads are not legion. Could it not be partly because so few are taking a stand for righteousness outside our little choirs. At least when someone runs for office they MUST go public but this gentleman really deserves some encouragement imho. Take a risk and view this one too, it is fabulous. You simply have to see this ad before it is censured.
http://vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone3.shtml
These are not endorsements but HEY, aren't these some of the issues we feel strongly about because they are rooted in our understanding of Biblical truth and Biblical revelation? And isn't it refreshing to see people in the public square being clear and not as namby pamby and hyper nuanced as some of our super sensitive church services? Rather, declaring truth clearly and setting it before peoples' consciences as per 2Cor 4:1-4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The best web streaming Chicagoland talk radio
Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and also a guy who is too far over the edge for me, Michael Savage. Bennett, Ingraham, and Prager are top drawer scholars and frequently have distinguished guests who do not double-speak and they are clearly functioning from a Judeo-Christian understanding of rationality and justice. Quite refreshing. Here's the link.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Cool, cell phone charger
Here's a tiny item from hi-tech & cheaper than cell phone accessories I've seen. One AA battery in a lipstick-sized case for the low side of $30 with shipping. Not bad for battery hogging treo's, the camper, hiker, frequent flyer, campus or board meeting cell phone frequent caller..for iPods soon. See it here http://tinyurl.com/eo8sk I'm checking it out.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Fun and Funny Birthday and other Greetings
happy birthday from "the minister farrakhan" happy conservation birthday from "al gore" this ones more iffy but yes "the clinton/s" are running for high office again
Books of Note: Godless, America, and Showdown
Why does it take an outsider to reveal political correct nonsense in the church? That title is 'godless' not 'goddess'. LOL. Some appreciate Ann a bit too much. But sure, you can click here to get her book. And why not? She hasn't started calling the Presidents, former Presidents and/or her detractors 'Nazis' like so many other 'more respectable' books by media elites, and posturing, popular, political leftists, and university professors are doing.
Bill Bennett for President! Not likely but he is a good man and a clear thinker. Like the Ann Coulter book, if you buy this one for me, I will read it gladly. And yes, you can click here to buy it.
I'll admit it. I like Laura Ingraham's radio show and this is where I heard about this book. From the interview it sounds like another I'd love to read. Can someone tell me why our major media and a major political party want Bush censured but have nothing to say when China uses Yahoo and Google to censure Chinese access to democratic principles and resources on the web. Where is the library association's 'death cry'? Why isn't the ACLU going after Google and Yahoo? I didn't think there was any way to stop (porn) the internet information from coming into a country. Simply impossible. But not for the Chinese with the help of Google and Yahoo.
I suppose they are just keeping their CNN office open in Baghdad so they just HAVE to censure freedom. Click here to get the above mentioned book.
Speaking of censureship, here's one that seems reasonable for Jimmy... Carter.
Though George W. Bush isn't running for President again (someone tell the liberals!) Al Gore might be. Here is a very fun tribute to the main who rants and raves with the best of them. Click here for a 30 second ride with Al. Enjoy!
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Da Vinci Code Movie Not Off to a Good Start...
Well apparently the movie reviewers aren't too impressed with the Da Vinci Code movie. On the other hand, this could be a sign that it is a good one! Either way I'm sure you are likewise tired of the hype and responses. For a decent bibliography of the main points of contention with orthodox Christianity, and in conjunction with a dear friend, I offer these resources for your empathy, instruction in apologetics, edification, and use in evangelism.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Palestinian history rewriting and realities
Sometimes the ole Palestine and Palestinian jargon just rolls off the tongue compliments of religious diversity 'correctness' and the formerly mainstream media's unwillingness to critique anything nonwestern. Nevertheless, sometimes a clarifying moment occurs. This is one such.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Emoting on Gas and Big Oil
Of course when one views the lavish palaces of the really big oil barons in the middle east, the prodigal fleets of Rolls Royces and such and the surrounding poverty well...one may just emote rightly. Until then some economics might bring more light than mere obscenities related to our side of the pond. For the full story.
Brent Bozell focus on 'culture of corruption' charges
The analogy of the historically big, major networks, treating the news like the Capitol Police treated Kennedy, is outrageously funny and perfectly fitting. Enjoy the full story.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Free Speech on Campus ...?...
Here's one for professors and a new kind of vandalizing speech on campus. http://www.lifenews.com/state1590.html
Monday, April 17, 2006
An Email to Me & President Bush..from Dr. AA
Thanks for the letter (below) Dr. AA (abbreviated for anonymity sake).
I'm not sure why I am so distinguished to receive a copy of it, but wow, such distinguished company. Have we ever met? Greetings to all genuine evangelical Christian friends you may know in there in Australia who love Jesus more than mere pacifism and appeasement political posturings. I assume you are from Australia from
your email ending and from your letter below.
Three quick points your email to President Bush overlook. 1. Israel does have a political right and I believe a Biblical right to exist. You should know this as a '9th (or whatever) generation Christian' from Bethlehem originally. By the way, Christians in the West tend to not trace their 'living faith' in Christ to generations of political alliances so the "9th generation" thing likely only communicates a cultural preference and not so much a living faith in the Biblical Jesus and the NT teaching to many. Just FYI. 2. The Palestinian problem existed before Israel was a nation and is not the result of President Bush's policies, nor of Israeli 'occupation' after defending itself from invasive wars against multiple Muslim dominated nations. And related, 2.1 this problem was not only of prior existence but was created by Arab/Muslim countries not desiring their own people (so-called Palestinians) living within their own borders. And a connected subpoint 2.2; Israel frankly has been far more humane given how these peoples have been funded by those who initially rejected them to undo Israel. 3. Your apparent concern about the departure of Christians from Palestinian territories conveniently leaves out the Muslim *persecution* of genuine, outspoken, Christians in those territories. Not just traditionalist more secular political 'christian party' generational affiliates. You are correct about churches being taken over and I might add even in Bethlehem, and synagogues, historical sites, etc. vandalized, used to hide terrorist snipers, etc. And this is (you argue) Israel's problem or the creation of the religious right in the USA? Think about that. Doesn't that sound partisan?
Would you like to improve Palestinian conditions? I would. Here's a suggestion. Go there and mention that the people should vote for candidates who recognize Israel's right to exist and champion reforms in the territories interior structure and speak out against those who are practicing terror. Since you apparently aren't Jewish or necessariy an evangelical Christian (perhaps you are but you sound more committed to your eastern denominational-affiliation and political-philosophy of appeasement and pacifism than to Christ Jesus per se) you should be able to state these things in the Palestinian 'public square' freely.
What? You would be brutally killed?? No kidding! OK so what then? Israel should ceise to exist. And the so-called, and over-rated, USA religious-right, should encourage this? And President Bush will be loved by the Palestinians and radicals and jihadists for doing so and peace for youth retreats from TX will return to Bethlehem? Give me a break.
Condi Rice has done more 'land for peace' than even former President Bill Clinton offered Arafat. In my view, Condi has been misguided in this. But what has been (for instance) your response to such? Decrying Bush and fellow genuine Christians. And the Palestinian response? Electing Hamas and viewing USA compromises as signs of weakness and capitulation. Frankly Dick Army's statement you quote below is sounding more rational all the time and you Sir simply cannot be pleased and I am sorry about this, but only for your sake personally. Forgiveness, cooperation, and justice are going to take more than unilateral blame shifting. I believe I've shared herein, that there is plenty of blame to go around. Your letter does not seem to recognize this. It strikes me as tactless, blindly partisan, and frankly a sad read in these days when so much could be done for peace and democracy and principled pluralism.
But as you've rightly implied with your email below, in some places, with some people, freedom will not result in peace and principled pluralism and the flight of Christians and Jews will continue from such lands of the newly elected, free Palestine, and its 'liberating' Hamas leadership, inspite of their gaining new properties, access to the Sea, and appeasements on every side. Sir, YOU are the answer to the problem so DO something other than sending letters like this to people who are far more a part of the solution than you are being with communications like this one.
By the way, if going to Palestine isn't an option for you, try teaching in a near East university and saying the things I suggested you mention publicly above. I suspect your fate would be slower to arrive but similar to that if you lived on the so-called West Bank. This is why letters like yours are written from Ivory towers in the west, like from Australia, the UK, or universities in the USA and not from your likely home of origin...sadly.
Very sadly.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Joe B. Whitchurch
jbw@ingradiv.com
http://ingradiv.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr AA
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:55 PM
To: President@whitehouse.gov; to me and one other.
Subject: Palestinian Christians: persecuted, betrayed, forced out of their homes and sacrificed
Palestinian Christians: persecuted, betrayed, forced out of their homes and sacrificed
The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80000. Now it’s down to 60000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them for ever.
Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification ‘Christian’ includes some 20000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone.
Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right.
Strangely, they find the liberation of Iraqis from a vile dictator just, but do not find it unjust for us to be under military occupation for 38 long years. Said Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): ‘God Appeared to Abraham and said: “I am giving you this land, ”the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.’
Inhofe must have got it wrong. Promises are being made to earthly Jerusalem, that God did not make! The Holy Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, as stated in the Bible.
These are the Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who have been living in the land for thousands of years. The Bible never mentioned that God promised it solely to Jews. Anyone can be a Jew, but not anyone can be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. James Inhofe and followers are unable to tell the difference between Jew, Israelite, and Israel.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright:
’I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.’ There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing.
Silencing us, from seeking your support and enlightening you about our suffering, goes counter to what Jesus has mandated us to do. We all know that Muslims and Jews get ceaseless support (political, spiritual and financial) from Saudi Arabia and America respectively, while Palestinian Christians, get nothing from Australian and other western ‘Christian’ governments. (The Pope has been an exception.)
Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came from to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well… since Christ?
Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done.
Palestinian Christians: Anglican, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions: Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is - for centuries. And we want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair.
We are equally frightened by those who commit suicide bombings. None of us Christians have condoned it or even contemplated the idea. Our commitment to Jesus teachings will never shake our resolve in this matter.
American journalist Anders Strindberg makes a clearer conclusion. He says Palestinians are equated with Islamists, Islamists with terrorists. And presumably because all organised Christian activity among Palestinians is non-political and non-violent the community hardly ever hits western headlines. Suicide bombers sell more copy than people who congregate for Bible study.
What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people have lost more than us (the Ashkenazi Jews are one). But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.
(Signed Prof. AA, 9th generation Christian Palestinian born in Bethlehem; teaches in AUSTRALIA) Email and name deleted for privacy though Dr. AA did not afford me the same with his letter to the President of the USA.
I'm not sure why I am so distinguished to receive a copy of it, but wow, such distinguished company. Have we ever met? Greetings to all genuine evangelical Christian friends you may know in there in Australia who love Jesus more than mere pacifism and appeasement political posturings. I assume you are from Australia from
your email ending and from your letter below.
Three quick points your email to President Bush overlook. 1. Israel does have a political right and I believe a Biblical right to exist. You should know this as a '9th (or whatever) generation Christian' from Bethlehem originally. By the way, Christians in the West tend to not trace their 'living faith' in Christ to generations of political alliances so the "9th generation" thing likely only communicates a cultural preference and not so much a living faith in the Biblical Jesus and the NT teaching to many. Just FYI. 2. The Palestinian problem existed before Israel was a nation and is not the result of President Bush's policies, nor of Israeli 'occupation' after defending itself from invasive wars against multiple Muslim dominated nations. And related, 2.1 this problem was not only of prior existence but was created by Arab/Muslim countries not desiring their own people (so-called Palestinians) living within their own borders. And a connected subpoint 2.2; Israel frankly has been far more humane given how these peoples have been funded by those who initially rejected them to undo Israel. 3. Your apparent concern about the departure of Christians from Palestinian territories conveniently leaves out the Muslim *persecution* of genuine, outspoken, Christians in those territories. Not just traditionalist more secular political 'christian party' generational affiliates. You are correct about churches being taken over and I might add even in Bethlehem, and synagogues, historical sites, etc. vandalized, used to hide terrorist snipers, etc. And this is (you argue) Israel's problem or the creation of the religious right in the USA? Think about that. Doesn't that sound partisan?
Would you like to improve Palestinian conditions? I would. Here's a suggestion. Go there and mention that the people should vote for candidates who recognize Israel's right to exist and champion reforms in the territories interior structure and speak out against those who are practicing terror. Since you apparently aren't Jewish or necessariy an evangelical Christian (perhaps you are but you sound more committed to your eastern denominational-affiliation and political-philosophy of appeasement and pacifism than to Christ Jesus per se) you should be able to state these things in the Palestinian 'public square' freely.
What? You would be brutally killed?? No kidding! OK so what then? Israel should ceise to exist. And the so-called, and over-rated, USA religious-right, should encourage this? And President Bush will be loved by the Palestinians and radicals and jihadists for doing so and peace for youth retreats from TX will return to Bethlehem? Give me a break.
Condi Rice has done more 'land for peace' than even former President Bill Clinton offered Arafat. In my view, Condi has been misguided in this. But what has been (for instance) your response to such? Decrying Bush and fellow genuine Christians. And the Palestinian response? Electing Hamas and viewing USA compromises as signs of weakness and capitulation. Frankly Dick Army's statement you quote below is sounding more rational all the time and you Sir simply cannot be pleased and I am sorry about this, but only for your sake personally. Forgiveness, cooperation, and justice are going to take more than unilateral blame shifting. I believe I've shared herein, that there is plenty of blame to go around. Your letter does not seem to recognize this. It strikes me as tactless, blindly partisan, and frankly a sad read in these days when so much could be done for peace and democracy and principled pluralism.
But as you've rightly implied with your email below, in some places, with some people, freedom will not result in peace and principled pluralism and the flight of Christians and Jews will continue from such lands of the newly elected, free Palestine, and its 'liberating' Hamas leadership, inspite of their gaining new properties, access to the Sea, and appeasements on every side. Sir, YOU are the answer to the problem so DO something other than sending letters like this to people who are far more a part of the solution than you are being with communications like this one.
By the way, if going to Palestine isn't an option for you, try teaching in a near East university and saying the things I suggested you mention publicly above. I suspect your fate would be slower to arrive but similar to that if you lived on the so-called West Bank. This is why letters like yours are written from Ivory towers in the west, like from Australia, the UK, or universities in the USA and not from your likely home of origin...sadly.
Very sadly.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Joe B. Whitchurch
jbw@ingradiv.com
http://ingradiv.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr AA
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:55 PM
To: President@whitehouse.gov; to me and one other.
Subject: Palestinian Christians: persecuted, betrayed, forced out of their homes and sacrificed
Palestinian Christians: persecuted, betrayed, forced out of their homes and sacrificed
The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80000. Now it’s down to 60000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them for ever.
Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification ‘Christian’ includes some 20000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone.
Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right.
Strangely, they find the liberation of Iraqis from a vile dictator just, but do not find it unjust for us to be under military occupation for 38 long years. Said Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): ‘God Appeared to Abraham and said: “I am giving you this land, ”the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.’
Inhofe must have got it wrong. Promises are being made to earthly Jerusalem, that God did not make! The Holy Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, as stated in the Bible.
These are the Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who have been living in the land for thousands of years. The Bible never mentioned that God promised it solely to Jews. Anyone can be a Jew, but not anyone can be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. James Inhofe and followers are unable to tell the difference between Jew, Israelite, and Israel.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright:
’I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.’ There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing.
Silencing us, from seeking your support and enlightening you about our suffering, goes counter to what Jesus has mandated us to do. We all know that Muslims and Jews get ceaseless support (political, spiritual and financial) from Saudi Arabia and America respectively, while Palestinian Christians, get nothing from Australian and other western ‘Christian’ governments. (The Pope has been an exception.)
Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came from to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail. Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.
So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well… since Christ?
Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done.
Palestinian Christians: Anglican, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions: Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is - for centuries. And we want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair.
We are equally frightened by those who commit suicide bombings. None of us Christians have condoned it or even contemplated the idea. Our commitment to Jesus teachings will never shake our resolve in this matter.
American journalist Anders Strindberg makes a clearer conclusion. He says Palestinians are equated with Islamists, Islamists with terrorists. And presumably because all organised Christian activity among Palestinians is non-political and non-violent the community hardly ever hits western headlines. Suicide bombers sell more copy than people who congregate for Bible study.
What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people have lost more than us (the Ashkenazi Jews are one). But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.
(Signed Prof. AA, 9th generation Christian Palestinian born in Bethlehem; teaches in AUSTRALIA) Email and name deleted for privacy though Dr. AA did not afford me the same with his letter to the President of the USA.
Israel and Prophecy, Dissing, Hissing, missing?
Hi friends, I recently received an open letter asking a high profile, female, Bible expositor and teacher for a public apology but I did not hear what Kay Arthur allegedly said. Nor did I hear the context or tone it was said in, nor am I in an inside loop to see or know what her reply to this alleged event, and this letter (if indeed she received it) would be. That said, I do offer my own response to the letter as a covenant-based, non-traditional dispensationalist myself. My inserts in the letter are preceded with an asterisk (*) so you can know the contribution I am making to the information below. I realize mine is a minority view and that not giving the current nation of Israel any preference is currently widely en vogue among evangelicals, but I offer my thoughts briefly and hopefully for edification. Also I am speaking for myself and not any organization(s) I am loosely or officially affiliated with. See below FYI.
Yours in Christ Jesus gladly,
Joe B. Whitchurch
GFM IVCF, Indiana T.L.
M.A. Christian Thought:
Systematic Theology &
Philosophy of Religion
jbw@ingradiv.com
http://ingradiv.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: various ones Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:15 PM
To: various ministry friends and others
Subject: Fwd: Kay Arthur Open letter
Very insightful and worth studying.
CE
************************************
Dear Kay Arthur,
I sincerely appreciate the reply from your assistant, Becky Lucarelli, and the openness it implies. What I write does not come from a callow, carping critic. I write out of great concern for you and the many people you influence. Please take this in a spirit of love from a fellow Christian who has been involved in ministry for over fifty years. We all need to have input from those who are both competent to address an issue and committed to Christ and to the good of others.
You made a statement, which I had heard about secondhand before and heard firsthand in your own voice on the Monday night news segment on a local Christian station. What you said about preferring Israel over the United States is based on gratuitous assumptions and has very serious, far-reaching implications that you may have not thoroughly considered. I want to emphasize that I am a dispensationalist who rejects "replacement theology," and I believe that God has a special, covenant purpose for Jews which will come to fruition in the Millennium. We should not invoke biblical passages that pertain to the Tribulation and the Millennium to shape our perspective of Israel today.
* Apparently as a pre-tribulation rapture-believing person, the author of this letter takes the view that whatever kind of Israel may exist in the tribulation or millennium, we have no idea whatsoever whether or not it has any continuity with the Israel we see in the world today. This is a politically 'safe' kind of agnosticism about the current significance of the current nation of Israel. I am one who leans toward a pre-trib view myself, valuing primarily the "He could come at any moment" themes and teachings of the NT primarily for such a leaning. I do not view this radical agnosticism about a possible even likely continuity as being much other than being 'politically safe'. My guess is that the writer's convictions about the future and Israel, if they are what he says they are, will still be roundly criticized should he muse them openly or publicly, and likely with the same themes less one (American patriotism) that he attributes to Kay Arthur. JBW
I hope you will carefully read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. He has moved to my area, near Palm Springs, and I gave him and the pastor of the church that he has joined a copy of my OPEN LETTER. It was triggered by a message that I heard him give three months ago.
* Hal Lindsey in all caps above is an interesting kind of 'guilt by association' technique. If one is wanting to rebuke Kay, and if one's letter is worth study for theology and I assume methodology, this technique seems rather unwarranted and not so exemplary. That said, while I believe Hal has made theological speculation errors in the past, the tainting by association and caps doesn't affect me so much. I know a LOT of evangelicals who have made significant theological, cultural, and speculative errors. I don't know many who have been used evangelistically and in terms of speaking about prophetic Scripture as much as Hal has been used of God inspite his frailties. JBW
I am deeply concerned about the egregious errors of so-called Christian Zionism. I will briefly state some of the errors.
* 'Egregious erros' and 'so-called' and 'Zionism' all seem borderline pajorative in this letter's overall context. JBW
First, Genesis 12:3 has nothing to do with the State of Israel, per se, that was founded in 1948. I know this statement will strike you as absurd, but hear me out. Contemporary Israel is a nation-state, and all historians recognize that nation-states are a modern phenomenon, having come to efflorescence in the nineteenth century. Genesis 12:3 did not envisage the political entity that is Israel today. It refers to people, not to political structures. It refers to the covenanted physical and spiritual seed of Abraham.
* Did the author previously say that he believed their would be a national Israel identity that would turn in faith to Christ Jesus as Messiah? And does he not say similarly again at then end of his letter, regarding his understanding of Romans 11 the last several paragraphs of that chapter? If so, I would agree with him about this. But since anything that happens between now and the future is a modern phenomenon nation-state, how is it that anything that might exist in the future escapes not being what he says it will be, because it is a modern nation-state? Isn't this defining the terms, then eliminating the possibility via ones previous definings? I do not recall the name of this fallacy of reasoning but it is study-worthy. But not overly convincing. Clearly there is NT warrant for the 'seed' having reference to people of faith, and the Church is grafted into this historic work of God again according to Romans 11, but there is far more here than meets the 'define it out of bounds -name it- then declare it out of bounds'. This link might assist with further understanding though I have nuance issues with some of this material as well, but at least it isn't wholesale dismissive via definition of 'modern nation state'. http://www.yephiah.com/promises.html JBW
Second, it is therefore anachronistic to read the term "Israel" in the Bible as if the current nation-state of Israel is its equivalence. Even most of the population of Israel in the Bible were not of the spiritual seed of Abraham.
* The first sentence above illustrates my point in my paragraph above it. The second point is interesting because God has historically punished Israel (even prior to modern nation-state days) and apparently in those days of Babylonian exile and Assyrian exile the majority of the people dwellers in national Israel even then, do not fit the definition of the spiritual seed of Abraham. E.g. they didn't have a living faith in God (Yahweh). Not sure the point here other than to put-down people who live in any country named Israel. JBW
Third, a careful study of the remnant in the entire Bible shows that it is the seed of Abraham. Even then, it is only secondarily the seed of Abraham, for Christ is his preeminent Seed in whom and from whom the Abrahamic covenant must be understood (Galatians 3:16). From Genesis to Revelation, it is the remnant of true believers, whether in Israel or subsequently in the professing church that is the seed of Abraham. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). This church-age remnant consists of Jews and Gentiles who savingly trust in Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). Even the Israel that will enter the Millennium is a relatively small remnant (Romans 11:25), for two-thirds of the Jews in the land of Israel will perish during the Great Tribulation (Zechariah 13:8, 9), and all unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews will be purged and removed from the earth by divine judgment at the end of the Tribulation (Ezekiel 20).
* Somehow I am questioning whether the original forwarder or secondary forwarder of this email really want me to study the sentence beginning with 'Even the Israel that will enter the ..." above. (-: If I'm not mistaken the 1/3rds of populations destroyed in the great tribulation seem to be global, e.g. not singling out Israel per se. In fact if you read Rev.7:1-8 or chapter 12 it seems as if Israel at that time will have special protection. I know in this day when a global flood (Genesis 6) is questioned and a localized one preferred, and environmentalism would never allow a view of God orchastrating judgment even generally, and certainly not on the physical earth itself, that such a description is of judgment and protection of Israel are challenging, but this is my reading and it doesn't seem convulted to get this from the text. Not a reading that says 'the Jews are really going to get it and not be so significant anyway'. Is this kind of argumentation worth studying? JBW
Fourth, the contemporary State of Israel is largely secular—rejecting Christ and deriding the Bible as a hodge-podge of mythical folklore—and both its secularists and its so-called observant Jews reject Christ, thereby putting themselves outside the Abrahamic seed in both its primary (Christ, the Seed) and secondary (true believers who constitute the Body of Christ) senses. The Christian community in the State of Israel today is a very small remnant, constituted by "messianic Jews" and other ethnic individuals, including some Palestinians and ex-patriots who are residing in Israel. Therefore, if we want to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 12:3, we must focus our blessing on our fellow believers in Israel and in the rest of the world. A radically skewed view of Scripture ignores or twists the teaching of Romans 9-11. The passage teaches that the Jewish remnant in the church age are those Jews who receive Christ as Savior, Lord, and Messiah just as Gentile believers do (Romans 10:12).
* I think I pretty much agree with what is stated above though I do wonder whether underground Messianic convictions are not growing very significantly in Israel. I have heard reports from people on the ground there that a number of Nichodemus types exist even in high places there. And I wonder whether the spectacular mega church growth in the USA doesn't mask a gross biblical ignorance and lack of discipleship and understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and doesn't condone a lot of folklore paganism dressed up in christian-marketing terminologies. My guess is the author and readers will agree it is sadly so. JBW
Fifth, Scripture nowhere teaches that we should have ultimate or even penultimate loyalty to the nation-state of Israel. It clearly teaches that our ultimate loyalty should be to Christ, for "in everything he should have the supremacy" (Colossians 1:18).
* Again we are back at 'define it not so, then conclude it not so'. Historically from Biblical times through modern times, the continued existence of Jewish people and more recently again, a nation of Israel is frankly just plain miraculous. And those who have persecuted Jews or the nation of Israel historically, or even those who have multiple times attacked her and outnumbered her and surrounded her in recent wars since 1948 and including the 6-Day war in 1967 have been soundly well...I'd say judged but we might just say 'roundly defeated' and inspite of incredible advantage out, e.g. against Israel. Are we to believe Hitler and his advantages or the Soviet treatment of Jews and both of their treatment of Jews and Christians had *nothing* to do with God's activity in blessing and cursing? I suppose again it is safe these days to NOT say so, but among Christian, Bible believers, in light of what Scripture teaches, belief in God's providence (for crying out loud), we are suppose to believe and teach that it all means exactly nothing? Well...be safe. I guess I'll just have to disagree and entrust myself to God's mercy on such matters should I be giving Him too much credit for intervening in the world today.
Therefore, if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and Christ, I would choose Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. Or if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and the Body of Christ, I would choose the Body of Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. "We ought to lay down our lives for our brothers" (I John 3:16). The State of Israel is neither Christ nor Christ-honoring; nor is it part of the Body of Christ. To make a statement like yours is a reverse and perverse form of "replacement theology," for it substitutes the State of Israel for Christ and His Body.
* I think this is where the writers patriotism is clouding and emotionally charging his rhetoric. Clearly if I was a principled person living in Syria or Iran today, I would prefer the freedoms of Australia or the UK to my own country. I believe even Jesus said that more preferential faith was found in areas outlying his own political districts and Jewish people influenced territories in his own day. Of course those weren't political statements but statements of fairness, openess, comparison, affirming the good and not blindly following the status quo. Did Kay call for insurrection in the USA or did she call for Christians to not join the bandwagon of Israel bashing? Did she spit on the USA flag? Goodness. In some even sadly evangelical circles, she'd likely get more respect if she did! I think we are over-reacting here. Is she endorsing specific evil deeds done in Israel? Does the author in his rightful love of country endorse such deeds in the USA with a history of influence from the New Testament teaching and followers in its midst? Does not the Scripture teach that those who have been given much are held to a higher level of responsibility? Does any nation have more access to the NT and programming and we? How has Israel fared in light of certain Presbyterian boycotts, multiple invasive wars by groups of countries who don't believe she should exist? How has she fared against serious replacement theologies that have a 'biblically correct vindication motive' for proving she fails and falls and stays (according to these) where she should have stayed after 70AD? Well, she is a principled democracy and a friend of the USA and free people, showing tremendous restrain in the Gulf War, and more recent wars, is voting to give up land more and more, and the reward...more suicide bombers and Hamas elected in Palestine. If such were our plight, geography, victimization, etc I do not even for a fraction of a second believe we as the USA would be half or 1/4 as principled and restrained and deferring to the UN etc. I know it is hypothetical and the writer likely loathes the question but in light of actual full-testamental heritages from 1948 to today, who do you think God might be preferring? I wish I could say with confidence it is the good ole USA and my home denomination and my ethnicity and my my my, but hello, what do you THINK? My guess is you would say, even knowledgable as you appear that it is all a big moral equivelence thing. Israel is just like Syria and Iran and Hamas. Do you listen to middle eastern media. Have you seen the approved ads they run in our non-Israel coalition Arab Muslim States? Here are a couple links, the first to middle east media watch and another about how children are taught. The first is the Middle East Media Research Institute and this is right to the source and flabergastingly amazing. You want to talk about hate-speech, eek and ish. http://memri.org/video/index.html the next one is a web based item but the link on teachkids is well...have a look. http://www.persecution.org/newsite/storydetail.php?storycode=216&PHPSESSID=b http://teachkidspeace.com/flash.php and a USA university -Columbia I believe- speech of note, here http://tinyurl.com/z734z JBW
Sixth, the Bible teaches that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars. This means that we owe loyalty to the governmental authorities and country of which we are citizens, and that loyalty supersedes allegiance to any other government or country, Israel included. Your statement giving precedence to the State of Israel is a violation of Scripture and it is quasi-treasonous. Of course, if any government or authority commands a belief or action contrary to Christ, we must put Christ first. Acts 5:20 says, "We must obey God rather than men." This was said to those who opposed Christ and sought to silence the apostles. In fact, it was political-religious leaders in Israel who sought to do this. The apostles, therefore, opposed the government of Israel in their day no less than they opposed obeisance to the idolatries of the Roman empire. They were not victims of the wrongheaded notions of "Christian Zionism," however—which notions afflict countless undiscerning Christians today. As American citizens, our loyalty to our country, with the foregoing qualification, must be to the United States above any other nation, the State of Israel included. I am patriotic but I am not a jingoist for my country, the United States, but your statement reveals a lamentable jingoism for Israel.
* There was no Jewish national government in Jesus' day. Is your complaint of 'quasi-treasonous' really about now following King Jesus first and unrivaled? If so, I affirm it. Or is it about not having the USA be second? If so I encourage you to bloom and be a blessing where you are and be a responsible citizen but not let nationalism blind you to virtues elsewhere. JBW
If you or anyone else gives overriding loyalty to the State of Israel or any other country, the only honest, unhypocritical thing to do is to renounce American citizenship and emigrate to that country and become one of its citizens. The United States is far from being perfect, but it is still the best country in the world, and our democracy is far better than the putative and questionable democracy of the State of Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish-Zionist State, thereby denying the very pluralism that is essential to a true democracy.
* In a word, exaggerated overstatement again, and coming across as powerfully subjective. JBW
Your statement about the precedence of Israel is not only anti-biblical but it is also far more disastrous than you apparently suspect. It is very damaging to the Body of Christ. It will provoke more persecution of Christians in the United States and elsewhere in the world. We will be viewed as a traitorous fifth column that should be opposed and oppressed. That is what statements like yours will bring about.
* Whenever Christians are Christians and speak the truth, it will unintendedly provoke persecution. Frankly this is another part of the 'last days' (referring to the time immediately prior to the return of Christ and not the wider and more Biblical understanding of all the days from Pentecost to the return) NT teaching. Increased persecution. I'm not saying 'cause it' but I'm not sure existing as a Christian under Muslim law or existing under such law as a Jew doesn't necessitate persecution for other reasons. How do spell, Satan? Rev 12 again. JBW
Right now in Muslim countries the beleaguered, small communities of Christians are being blamed by their fellow-citizens for the heinous caricatures (heinous in Muslim eyes) of Muhammad.
* And whose fault is this? Think about it. You appear to be saying it is the cartoonist's fault. Are you a Muslim missionary? Love can be blind. If you are one, then I give you more latitude for love sake but friend, the fault is in Islam just as the fault for Christ hating, crucifix submerged in urine funding by the USA's NEA is the fault of pagan secularism.
Now add your statement to the fray. As word of your statement filters out to the world, it will add even more fuel to the flames. And who suffers? Our fellow-members of the Body of Christ for whom we should lay down our lives.
* I got your answer to my question immediately above. It will be Kay Arthur's fault. Thank you. JBW
You seem more intent on supporting the State of Israel and elevating it to some plateau of value that the Bible does not recognize. Suppose that our fellow Christians in other lands— especially Muslim countries—made the statement that you made and said, "If I have to choose between Egypt (put the name of any other Muslim country here) and Israel, I would choose Israel." They would not survive one day.
* Maybe if our missionaries just cut the words Jew, Jewish, 12 tribes, and Israel out their Bibles all together? Or maybe just never read it? Or just avoid the prophetic like the plague? Didn't Jesus say something about those who are ashamed of His words at His coming and where His shame will be before His holy angels? JBW
I lived in the Middle East for four years, and I know what I am talking about. Muslims will attribute your sentiment to the Christians who live among them, even if those Christians repudiate what you have said. You cannot imagine the untold suffering statements like yours and other Christian Zionists bring to fellow members of the Body of Christ.
* If it wasn't for this it would be for buying clothing from a western firm, or paying taxes in a western nation because all Christians and westerners are beer drinking drunks. Frankly, it is time for Islam to grow up and for Christians to ceise the 'dumbing down'. BTW, I lived in Zambia when after we bombed Lybia, the RSA bombed ANC in the city where I lived. Yes, I know about 'guilt by association' and you are doing a good job of it with Kay, in the name of 'not doing it.' JBW
If your statement should not be made a universal maxim among Christians, this also shows it to be blatantly wrong. It is your private opinion, and because of the freedom we have in the United States people are free to believe whatever nonsense they like. They are not rationally entitled to believe wrongheaded notions when the Bible, evidence, and logic do not support them. But a person who is in a position of substantial influence, as you are, is flagrantly irresponsible in making such a statement.
* It seems to me that unless we are going to start euthenizing the mentally ill, that people do have a right (in a political sense) to rationally believe whatever they want. If they act-out against just law, they will bear consequences but I'm not going to deprive a Christian Science cult person the right to believe all matter and evil is illusion. Are you? JBW
You may be well-meaning, but you know that sincerity is not guarantee of truth or goodness. Suppose one of our congressmen made a statement like yours, it would clearly be a case of treason and he or she would be thrown out of office or worse.
* Ahem, did you hear what they said about France and Germany when they decided the war they backed wasn't turning up WMDs? Goodness, one even assaulted a policeman recently. Unless they are principled or overseen by principled politicians, they can and do say whatever they want with minimal consequences. Don't kid yourself or exaggerate your accusations. JBW
Christian leaders, like yourself, should be extremely careful in what they say, for their statements have a way of reverberating throughout the world (consider the effect of some of the fatuous and reprehensible things Pat Robertson has said). Muslims, in particular, tend to take the statements of such visible Christians as indicative of the entire Christian community.
* Muslims in particular need to 'get over it' and read widely, and their Imman's need held accountable for violence and inciting riots. And by invoking Pat Robertson, I'm only surprised you didn't put his name in all CAPS like you did for Hal L. above. In the context of Pat's interview with a woman raped and brutalized by a dictator's thugs, I cut him some slack though I appreciate, even if late, his retraction. But again we are into 'guilt by association'. Why not toss in Jerry Falwell or Dallas Seminary or whatever? So, you are a dispensationalist. Interesting. Where do you find fellowship where you are not in a constant state of aggitation? (-: JBW
"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check" (James 3:1, 2). This applies even more powerfully to those whose public sphere of influence is especially great. I pray that you will have the grace to recognize the relevance of this passage to your statement and respond in humility. Even if you believe what you stated—and I think that such a belief is contrary to the word of God—you should have considered the consequences of publicly expressing such an opinion. To state it publicly was hardly a responsible thing to do, especially in view of its potential damage. Besides, there was nothing of value that could come from stating such an opinion.
* How about awakening the western evangelicals to the whole council of God, some international news awareness, and the shame of the continued demonizing, marginalizing and placing at-risk that our government (which we are responsible to influence) is doing to Israel in the name of Muslim radical appeasement? I think something good could come of it. JBW
In order to combat the immense harm that your statement is bringing, please have the humility to public admit that you were wrong to make it. For the sake of the Lord and the Body of Christ, retract that statement and make it clear that although you believe that God has a special, covenantal role for the Jewish people, your loyalty as a Christian is ultimately to Christ and as an American citizen to the United States and not to Israel. If you do not do so, and do so soon, you will reveal that you have either no understanding of the relevant facts or that you do not care that such a statement brings reproach on the name of Christ and brings persecution to Christians everywhere.
* I humbly disagree. Perhaps she will find some nuancing point for which to apologize but I do not see a substantive need for apology in anything you have stated above and your ultimatum doesn't seem to reveal a lot of theological diversity respect or humility. I am wondering what you think of Kay being a female and a Bible teacher? In addition to the Red White and Blue overstatements, I wonder if there isn't more afoot here than meets the eye. JBW
Pat Robertson is to be commended for finally apologizing publicly for his insensitive and gratuitous comment about Ariel Sharon. He made an unfortunate mistake, and I think your statement is much worse than his. Please have the courage to apologize and set the record straight—unless you want to persist in misleading people and hurting the Body of Christ. No one can compel you to do this; it is your choice, but remember that "we who teach will be judged more strictly."
* Of all the things Pat has said, you bring this one to mind. You do seem to wish Israel will totally give itself away. Do you feel the same regarding the USA and our borders? Just curious. JBW
Furthermore, if no retraction is forthcoming in the next few days, I will be compelled to use whatever resources I can muster—including fellow dispensationalist scholars—to expose the horrendous error
* Horrendous error? Amazing. JBW
that you and other Christian Zionists have espoused and propagate. Christian Zionists do not understand the hermeneutical priority of the New Testament in understanding the diachronic and synchronic role and meaning of Abraham’s seed. We are not living in Old Testament times, nor in the Tribulation, nor in the Millennium when the redeemed remnant of Jews will be the special vehicle of God’s blessing in the world. We are in the church age in which the Body of Christ is His special means of blessing the world. We need to understand the implications of this, especially in terms of the perspective we should have regarding Jews and the State of Israel.
* I agree with levels of continuity and discontinuity related to Abraham's seed if this is what the author is referring to. To some extent it is us in the body of Christ, other aspects seem for future, some related to property. I agree with the now and the not-yet of the kingdom of course the details we may have differing views concerning and I respect your right to those views and to share them as you believe appropriate with biblical backing as you best exegete the texts. I also agree with the last two sentences as well though I believe we should have as much concern with how Jewish people view our attempts to contexualize the gospel to them, as we do to Islamic peoples and sensitivities. On that point let me propose a test for you in the dear old USA which I also love. Take ten neighbors, all fly a USA flag at the top of the mast in front of their house. Each of the ten gets to fly their national heritage home country flag underneath the USA flag as is appropriate. Which house will be vandalized, the one with the Palestinian flag, the one with the Syrian flag, the one with the Zimbabwe flag, the one with the .... you name it flag....OR the one with the Jewish flag and the Star of David? Now, if you've answered honestly, what was it you were griping about again? JBW
I am not anti-Semitic nor do I want to hurt the State of Israel. Christians should believe and act like New Testament believers, however. I plead with you to read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. It will present a more comprehensive case for a New Testament perspective than I have written in this letter.
* Hey Mark, take it up with Hal, OK? It amazes me that people still love to loathe him even after all these years since he's had a best seller. Let go of it Mark. (-: Thanks. JBW where JBW = Joe Whitchurch jbw@insightbb.com and wishing all the best in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Sincerely in Christ,
MMH, Ph.D.
Yours in Christ Jesus gladly,
Joe B. Whitchurch
GFM IVCF, Indiana T.L.
M.A. Christian Thought:
Systematic Theology &
Philosophy of Religion
jbw@ingradiv.com
http://ingradiv.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: various ones Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:15 PM
To: various ministry friends and others
Subject: Fwd: Kay Arthur Open letter
Very insightful and worth studying.
CE
************************************
Dear Kay Arthur,
I sincerely appreciate the reply from your assistant, Becky Lucarelli, and the openness it implies. What I write does not come from a callow, carping critic. I write out of great concern for you and the many people you influence. Please take this in a spirit of love from a fellow Christian who has been involved in ministry for over fifty years. We all need to have input from those who are both competent to address an issue and committed to Christ and to the good of others.
You made a statement, which I had heard about secondhand before and heard firsthand in your own voice on the Monday night news segment on a local Christian station. What you said about preferring Israel over the United States is based on gratuitous assumptions and has very serious, far-reaching implications that you may have not thoroughly considered. I want to emphasize that I am a dispensationalist who rejects "replacement theology," and I believe that God has a special, covenant purpose for Jews which will come to fruition in the Millennium. We should not invoke biblical passages that pertain to the Tribulation and the Millennium to shape our perspective of Israel today.
* Apparently as a pre-tribulation rapture-believing person, the author of this letter takes the view that whatever kind of Israel may exist in the tribulation or millennium, we have no idea whatsoever whether or not it has any continuity with the Israel we see in the world today. This is a politically 'safe' kind of agnosticism about the current significance of the current nation of Israel. I am one who leans toward a pre-trib view myself, valuing primarily the "He could come at any moment" themes and teachings of the NT primarily for such a leaning. I do not view this radical agnosticism about a possible even likely continuity as being much other than being 'politically safe'. My guess is that the writer's convictions about the future and Israel, if they are what he says they are, will still be roundly criticized should he muse them openly or publicly, and likely with the same themes less one (American patriotism) that he attributes to Kay Arthur. JBW
I hope you will carefully read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. He has moved to my area, near Palm Springs, and I gave him and the pastor of the church that he has joined a copy of my OPEN LETTER. It was triggered by a message that I heard him give three months ago.
* Hal Lindsey in all caps above is an interesting kind of 'guilt by association' technique. If one is wanting to rebuke Kay, and if one's letter is worth study for theology and I assume methodology, this technique seems rather unwarranted and not so exemplary. That said, while I believe Hal has made theological speculation errors in the past, the tainting by association and caps doesn't affect me so much. I know a LOT of evangelicals who have made significant theological, cultural, and speculative errors. I don't know many who have been used evangelistically and in terms of speaking about prophetic Scripture as much as Hal has been used of God inspite his frailties. JBW
I am deeply concerned about the egregious errors of so-called Christian Zionism. I will briefly state some of the errors.
* 'Egregious erros' and 'so-called' and 'Zionism' all seem borderline pajorative in this letter's overall context. JBW
First, Genesis 12:3 has nothing to do with the State of Israel, per se, that was founded in 1948. I know this statement will strike you as absurd, but hear me out. Contemporary Israel is a nation-state, and all historians recognize that nation-states are a modern phenomenon, having come to efflorescence in the nineteenth century. Genesis 12:3 did not envisage the political entity that is Israel today. It refers to people, not to political structures. It refers to the covenanted physical and spiritual seed of Abraham.
* Did the author previously say that he believed their would be a national Israel identity that would turn in faith to Christ Jesus as Messiah? And does he not say similarly again at then end of his letter, regarding his understanding of Romans 11 the last several paragraphs of that chapter? If so, I would agree with him about this. But since anything that happens between now and the future is a modern phenomenon nation-state, how is it that anything that might exist in the future escapes not being what he says it will be, because it is a modern nation-state? Isn't this defining the terms, then eliminating the possibility via ones previous definings? I do not recall the name of this fallacy of reasoning but it is study-worthy. But not overly convincing. Clearly there is NT warrant for the 'seed' having reference to people of faith, and the Church is grafted into this historic work of God again according to Romans 11, but there is far more here than meets the 'define it out of bounds -name it- then declare it out of bounds'. This link might assist with further understanding though I have nuance issues with some of this material as well, but at least it isn't wholesale dismissive via definition of 'modern nation state'. http://www.yephiah.com/promises.html JBW
Second, it is therefore anachronistic to read the term "Israel" in the Bible as if the current nation-state of Israel is its equivalence. Even most of the population of Israel in the Bible were not of the spiritual seed of Abraham.
* The first sentence above illustrates my point in my paragraph above it. The second point is interesting because God has historically punished Israel (even prior to modern nation-state days) and apparently in those days of Babylonian exile and Assyrian exile the majority of the people dwellers in national Israel even then, do not fit the definition of the spiritual seed of Abraham. E.g. they didn't have a living faith in God (Yahweh). Not sure the point here other than to put-down people who live in any country named Israel. JBW
Third, a careful study of the remnant in the entire Bible shows that it is the seed of Abraham. Even then, it is only secondarily the seed of Abraham, for Christ is his preeminent Seed in whom and from whom the Abrahamic covenant must be understood (Galatians 3:16). From Genesis to Revelation, it is the remnant of true believers, whether in Israel or subsequently in the professing church that is the seed of Abraham. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). This church-age remnant consists of Jews and Gentiles who savingly trust in Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). Even the Israel that will enter the Millennium is a relatively small remnant (Romans 11:25), for two-thirds of the Jews in the land of Israel will perish during the Great Tribulation (Zechariah 13:8, 9), and all unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews will be purged and removed from the earth by divine judgment at the end of the Tribulation (Ezekiel 20).
* Somehow I am questioning whether the original forwarder or secondary forwarder of this email really want me to study the sentence beginning with 'Even the Israel that will enter the ..." above. (-: If I'm not mistaken the 1/3rds of populations destroyed in the great tribulation seem to be global, e.g. not singling out Israel per se. In fact if you read Rev.7:1-8 or chapter 12 it seems as if Israel at that time will have special protection. I know in this day when a global flood (Genesis 6) is questioned and a localized one preferred, and environmentalism would never allow a view of God orchastrating judgment even generally, and certainly not on the physical earth itself, that such a description is of judgment and protection of Israel are challenging, but this is my reading and it doesn't seem convulted to get this from the text. Not a reading that says 'the Jews are really going to get it and not be so significant anyway'. Is this kind of argumentation worth studying? JBW
Fourth, the contemporary State of Israel is largely secular—rejecting Christ and deriding the Bible as a hodge-podge of mythical folklore—and both its secularists and its so-called observant Jews reject Christ, thereby putting themselves outside the Abrahamic seed in both its primary (Christ, the Seed) and secondary (true believers who constitute the Body of Christ) senses. The Christian community in the State of Israel today is a very small remnant, constituted by "messianic Jews" and other ethnic individuals, including some Palestinians and ex-patriots who are residing in Israel. Therefore, if we want to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 12:3, we must focus our blessing on our fellow believers in Israel and in the rest of the world. A radically skewed view of Scripture ignores or twists the teaching of Romans 9-11. The passage teaches that the Jewish remnant in the church age are those Jews who receive Christ as Savior, Lord, and Messiah just as Gentile believers do (Romans 10:12).
* I think I pretty much agree with what is stated above though I do wonder whether underground Messianic convictions are not growing very significantly in Israel. I have heard reports from people on the ground there that a number of Nichodemus types exist even in high places there. And I wonder whether the spectacular mega church growth in the USA doesn't mask a gross biblical ignorance and lack of discipleship and understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and doesn't condone a lot of folklore paganism dressed up in christian-marketing terminologies. My guess is the author and readers will agree it is sadly so. JBW
Fifth, Scripture nowhere teaches that we should have ultimate or even penultimate loyalty to the nation-state of Israel. It clearly teaches that our ultimate loyalty should be to Christ, for "in everything he should have the supremacy" (Colossians 1:18).
* Again we are back at 'define it not so, then conclude it not so'. Historically from Biblical times through modern times, the continued existence of Jewish people and more recently again, a nation of Israel is frankly just plain miraculous. And those who have persecuted Jews or the nation of Israel historically, or even those who have multiple times attacked her and outnumbered her and surrounded her in recent wars since 1948 and including the 6-Day war in 1967 have been soundly well...I'd say judged but we might just say 'roundly defeated' and inspite of incredible advantage out, e.g. against Israel. Are we to believe Hitler and his advantages or the Soviet treatment of Jews and both of their treatment of Jews and Christians had *nothing* to do with God's activity in blessing and cursing? I suppose again it is safe these days to NOT say so, but among Christian, Bible believers, in light of what Scripture teaches, belief in God's providence (for crying out loud), we are suppose to believe and teach that it all means exactly nothing? Well...be safe. I guess I'll just have to disagree and entrust myself to God's mercy on such matters should I be giving Him too much credit for intervening in the world today.
Therefore, if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and Christ, I would choose Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. Or if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and the Body of Christ, I would choose the Body of Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. "We ought to lay down our lives for our brothers" (I John 3:16). The State of Israel is neither Christ nor Christ-honoring; nor is it part of the Body of Christ. To make a statement like yours is a reverse and perverse form of "replacement theology," for it substitutes the State of Israel for Christ and His Body.
* I think this is where the writers patriotism is clouding and emotionally charging his rhetoric. Clearly if I was a principled person living in Syria or Iran today, I would prefer the freedoms of Australia or the UK to my own country. I believe even Jesus said that more preferential faith was found in areas outlying his own political districts and Jewish people influenced territories in his own day. Of course those weren't political statements but statements of fairness, openess, comparison, affirming the good and not blindly following the status quo. Did Kay call for insurrection in the USA or did she call for Christians to not join the bandwagon of Israel bashing? Did she spit on the USA flag? Goodness. In some even sadly evangelical circles, she'd likely get more respect if she did! I think we are over-reacting here. Is she endorsing specific evil deeds done in Israel? Does the author in his rightful love of country endorse such deeds in the USA with a history of influence from the New Testament teaching and followers in its midst? Does not the Scripture teach that those who have been given much are held to a higher level of responsibility? Does any nation have more access to the NT and programming and we? How has Israel fared in light of certain Presbyterian boycotts, multiple invasive wars by groups of countries who don't believe she should exist? How has she fared against serious replacement theologies that have a 'biblically correct vindication motive' for proving she fails and falls and stays (according to these) where she should have stayed after 70AD? Well, she is a principled democracy and a friend of the USA and free people, showing tremendous restrain in the Gulf War, and more recent wars, is voting to give up land more and more, and the reward...more suicide bombers and Hamas elected in Palestine. If such were our plight, geography, victimization, etc I do not even for a fraction of a second believe we as the USA would be half or 1/4 as principled and restrained and deferring to the UN etc. I know it is hypothetical and the writer likely loathes the question but in light of actual full-testamental heritages from 1948 to today, who do you think God might be preferring? I wish I could say with confidence it is the good ole USA and my home denomination and my ethnicity and my my my, but hello, what do you THINK? My guess is you would say, even knowledgable as you appear that it is all a big moral equivelence thing. Israel is just like Syria and Iran and Hamas. Do you listen to middle eastern media. Have you seen the approved ads they run in our non-Israel coalition Arab Muslim States? Here are a couple links, the first to middle east media watch and another about how children are taught. The first is the Middle East Media Research Institute and this is right to the source and flabergastingly amazing. You want to talk about hate-speech, eek and ish. http://memri.org/video/index.html the next one is a web based item but the link on teachkids is well...have a look. http://www.persecution.org/newsite/storydetail.php?storycode=216&PHPSESSID=b http://teachkidspeace.com/flash.php and a USA university -Columbia I believe- speech of note, here http://tinyurl.com/z734z JBW
Sixth, the Bible teaches that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars. This means that we owe loyalty to the governmental authorities and country of which we are citizens, and that loyalty supersedes allegiance to any other government or country, Israel included. Your statement giving precedence to the State of Israel is a violation of Scripture and it is quasi-treasonous. Of course, if any government or authority commands a belief or action contrary to Christ, we must put Christ first. Acts 5:20 says, "We must obey God rather than men." This was said to those who opposed Christ and sought to silence the apostles. In fact, it was political-religious leaders in Israel who sought to do this. The apostles, therefore, opposed the government of Israel in their day no less than they opposed obeisance to the idolatries of the Roman empire. They were not victims of the wrongheaded notions of "Christian Zionism," however—which notions afflict countless undiscerning Christians today. As American citizens, our loyalty to our country, with the foregoing qualification, must be to the United States above any other nation, the State of Israel included. I am patriotic but I am not a jingoist for my country, the United States, but your statement reveals a lamentable jingoism for Israel.
* There was no Jewish national government in Jesus' day. Is your complaint of 'quasi-treasonous' really about now following King Jesus first and unrivaled? If so, I affirm it. Or is it about not having the USA be second? If so I encourage you to bloom and be a blessing where you are and be a responsible citizen but not let nationalism blind you to virtues elsewhere. JBW
If you or anyone else gives overriding loyalty to the State of Israel or any other country, the only honest, unhypocritical thing to do is to renounce American citizenship and emigrate to that country and become one of its citizens. The United States is far from being perfect, but it is still the best country in the world, and our democracy is far better than the putative and questionable democracy of the State of Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish-Zionist State, thereby denying the very pluralism that is essential to a true democracy.
* In a word, exaggerated overstatement again, and coming across as powerfully subjective. JBW
Your statement about the precedence of Israel is not only anti-biblical but it is also far more disastrous than you apparently suspect. It is very damaging to the Body of Christ. It will provoke more persecution of Christians in the United States and elsewhere in the world. We will be viewed as a traitorous fifth column that should be opposed and oppressed. That is what statements like yours will bring about.
* Whenever Christians are Christians and speak the truth, it will unintendedly provoke persecution. Frankly this is another part of the 'last days' (referring to the time immediately prior to the return of Christ and not the wider and more Biblical understanding of all the days from Pentecost to the return) NT teaching. Increased persecution. I'm not saying 'cause it' but I'm not sure existing as a Christian under Muslim law or existing under such law as a Jew doesn't necessitate persecution for other reasons. How do spell, Satan? Rev 12 again. JBW
Right now in Muslim countries the beleaguered, small communities of Christians are being blamed by their fellow-citizens for the heinous caricatures (heinous in Muslim eyes) of Muhammad.
* And whose fault is this? Think about it. You appear to be saying it is the cartoonist's fault. Are you a Muslim missionary? Love can be blind. If you are one, then I give you more latitude for love sake but friend, the fault is in Islam just as the fault for Christ hating, crucifix submerged in urine funding by the USA's NEA is the fault of pagan secularism.
Now add your statement to the fray. As word of your statement filters out to the world, it will add even more fuel to the flames. And who suffers? Our fellow-members of the Body of Christ for whom we should lay down our lives.
* I got your answer to my question immediately above. It will be Kay Arthur's fault. Thank you. JBW
You seem more intent on supporting the State of Israel and elevating it to some plateau of value that the Bible does not recognize. Suppose that our fellow Christians in other lands— especially Muslim countries—made the statement that you made and said, "If I have to choose between Egypt (put the name of any other Muslim country here) and Israel, I would choose Israel." They would not survive one day.
* Maybe if our missionaries just cut the words Jew, Jewish, 12 tribes, and Israel out their Bibles all together? Or maybe just never read it? Or just avoid the prophetic like the plague? Didn't Jesus say something about those who are ashamed of His words at His coming and where His shame will be before His holy angels? JBW
I lived in the Middle East for four years, and I know what I am talking about. Muslims will attribute your sentiment to the Christians who live among them, even if those Christians repudiate what you have said. You cannot imagine the untold suffering statements like yours and other Christian Zionists bring to fellow members of the Body of Christ.
* If it wasn't for this it would be for buying clothing from a western firm, or paying taxes in a western nation because all Christians and westerners are beer drinking drunks. Frankly, it is time for Islam to grow up and for Christians to ceise the 'dumbing down'. BTW, I lived in Zambia when after we bombed Lybia, the RSA bombed ANC in the city where I lived. Yes, I know about 'guilt by association' and you are doing a good job of it with Kay, in the name of 'not doing it.' JBW
If your statement should not be made a universal maxim among Christians, this also shows it to be blatantly wrong. It is your private opinion, and because of the freedom we have in the United States people are free to believe whatever nonsense they like. They are not rationally entitled to believe wrongheaded notions when the Bible, evidence, and logic do not support them. But a person who is in a position of substantial influence, as you are, is flagrantly irresponsible in making such a statement.
* It seems to me that unless we are going to start euthenizing the mentally ill, that people do have a right (in a political sense) to rationally believe whatever they want. If they act-out against just law, they will bear consequences but I'm not going to deprive a Christian Science cult person the right to believe all matter and evil is illusion. Are you? JBW
You may be well-meaning, but you know that sincerity is not guarantee of truth or goodness. Suppose one of our congressmen made a statement like yours, it would clearly be a case of treason and he or she would be thrown out of office or worse.
* Ahem, did you hear what they said about France and Germany when they decided the war they backed wasn't turning up WMDs? Goodness, one even assaulted a policeman recently. Unless they are principled or overseen by principled politicians, they can and do say whatever they want with minimal consequences. Don't kid yourself or exaggerate your accusations. JBW
Christian leaders, like yourself, should be extremely careful in what they say, for their statements have a way of reverberating throughout the world (consider the effect of some of the fatuous and reprehensible things Pat Robertson has said). Muslims, in particular, tend to take the statements of such visible Christians as indicative of the entire Christian community.
* Muslims in particular need to 'get over it' and read widely, and their Imman's need held accountable for violence and inciting riots. And by invoking Pat Robertson, I'm only surprised you didn't put his name in all CAPS like you did for Hal L. above. In the context of Pat's interview with a woman raped and brutalized by a dictator's thugs, I cut him some slack though I appreciate, even if late, his retraction. But again we are into 'guilt by association'. Why not toss in Jerry Falwell or Dallas Seminary or whatever? So, you are a dispensationalist. Interesting. Where do you find fellowship where you are not in a constant state of aggitation? (-: JBW
"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check" (James 3:1, 2). This applies even more powerfully to those whose public sphere of influence is especially great. I pray that you will have the grace to recognize the relevance of this passage to your statement and respond in humility. Even if you believe what you stated—and I think that such a belief is contrary to the word of God—you should have considered the consequences of publicly expressing such an opinion. To state it publicly was hardly a responsible thing to do, especially in view of its potential damage. Besides, there was nothing of value that could come from stating such an opinion.
* How about awakening the western evangelicals to the whole council of God, some international news awareness, and the shame of the continued demonizing, marginalizing and placing at-risk that our government (which we are responsible to influence) is doing to Israel in the name of Muslim radical appeasement? I think something good could come of it. JBW
In order to combat the immense harm that your statement is bringing, please have the humility to public admit that you were wrong to make it. For the sake of the Lord and the Body of Christ, retract that statement and make it clear that although you believe that God has a special, covenantal role for the Jewish people, your loyalty as a Christian is ultimately to Christ and as an American citizen to the United States and not to Israel. If you do not do so, and do so soon, you will reveal that you have either no understanding of the relevant facts or that you do not care that such a statement brings reproach on the name of Christ and brings persecution to Christians everywhere.
* I humbly disagree. Perhaps she will find some nuancing point for which to apologize but I do not see a substantive need for apology in anything you have stated above and your ultimatum doesn't seem to reveal a lot of theological diversity respect or humility. I am wondering what you think of Kay being a female and a Bible teacher? In addition to the Red White and Blue overstatements, I wonder if there isn't more afoot here than meets the eye. JBW
Pat Robertson is to be commended for finally apologizing publicly for his insensitive and gratuitous comment about Ariel Sharon. He made an unfortunate mistake, and I think your statement is much worse than his. Please have the courage to apologize and set the record straight—unless you want to persist in misleading people and hurting the Body of Christ. No one can compel you to do this; it is your choice, but remember that "we who teach will be judged more strictly."
* Of all the things Pat has said, you bring this one to mind. You do seem to wish Israel will totally give itself away. Do you feel the same regarding the USA and our borders? Just curious. JBW
Furthermore, if no retraction is forthcoming in the next few days, I will be compelled to use whatever resources I can muster—including fellow dispensationalist scholars—to expose the horrendous error
* Horrendous error? Amazing. JBW
that you and other Christian Zionists have espoused and propagate. Christian Zionists do not understand the hermeneutical priority of the New Testament in understanding the diachronic and synchronic role and meaning of Abraham’s seed. We are not living in Old Testament times, nor in the Tribulation, nor in the Millennium when the redeemed remnant of Jews will be the special vehicle of God’s blessing in the world. We are in the church age in which the Body of Christ is His special means of blessing the world. We need to understand the implications of this, especially in terms of the perspective we should have regarding Jews and the State of Israel.
* I agree with levels of continuity and discontinuity related to Abraham's seed if this is what the author is referring to. To some extent it is us in the body of Christ, other aspects seem for future, some related to property. I agree with the now and the not-yet of the kingdom of course the details we may have differing views concerning and I respect your right to those views and to share them as you believe appropriate with biblical backing as you best exegete the texts. I also agree with the last two sentences as well though I believe we should have as much concern with how Jewish people view our attempts to contexualize the gospel to them, as we do to Islamic peoples and sensitivities. On that point let me propose a test for you in the dear old USA which I also love. Take ten neighbors, all fly a USA flag at the top of the mast in front of their house. Each of the ten gets to fly their national heritage home country flag underneath the USA flag as is appropriate. Which house will be vandalized, the one with the Palestinian flag, the one with the Syrian flag, the one with the Zimbabwe flag, the one with the .... you name it flag....OR the one with the Jewish flag and the Star of David? Now, if you've answered honestly, what was it you were griping about again? JBW
I am not anti-Semitic nor do I want to hurt the State of Israel. Christians should believe and act like New Testament believers, however. I plead with you to read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. It will present a more comprehensive case for a New Testament perspective than I have written in this letter.
* Hey Mark, take it up with Hal, OK? It amazes me that people still love to loathe him even after all these years since he's had a best seller. Let go of it Mark. (-: Thanks. JBW where JBW = Joe Whitchurch jbw@insightbb.com and wishing all the best in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Sincerely in Christ,
MMH, Ph.D.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Yes Virginia, Mad-Scientists still in fact exist!
Save the world through intentional, mass killings through a painful death via Ebola. Sound like a radical jihadist group? Or does it sound like what it is, the guest speaker scientist at a Texas university, just prior to getting a standing ovation and a nice little award. Read it for yourself here at Mad Scientists Still Exist, get funding, applause, and awards.
I suppose I should be shocked but given the fact that the USA Today in its March 27th edition, Section D, Page One can't seem to differentiate between intelligent science and a 'flying spaghetti monster', giving the former almost no news space and the latter free advertising, I guess I'm forced to accept that loons exist in the academe and in pop-culture science pages of mainstream media newspapers owned by the huge Gannett publication firm. What is it about April and Earth Day? Can't we be environmentally responsible and rational without camping-out on April 1st?
I suppose I should be shocked but given the fact that the USA Today in its March 27th edition, Section D, Page One can't seem to differentiate between intelligent science and a 'flying spaghetti monster', giving the former almost no news space and the latter free advertising, I guess I'm forced to accept that loons exist in the academe and in pop-culture science pages of mainstream media newspapers owned by the huge Gannett publication firm. What is it about April and Earth Day? Can't we be environmentally responsible and rational without camping-out on April 1st?
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Bird Flu, Millions Die, Preparedness and Funding
Today I read in the Gannett Newspaper local, the front page story about the coming Bird Flu and how millions will die. Of course our local university is doing its Under-Dog, super-hero best to 'save the day' with its research, etc. Then on the back page you get to read how it hasn't mutated (yet!) and of the hundreds of countries in the world, there have been globally only about 100 cases. Of course it doesn't really work out this way, and the nature of the "cases" is interesting, but that's about one per country using rough numbers. Actually less. But 'readiness' read (funding) and 'we aren't promoting fear' are all part of the closer on the frontpage story.
Just the other day I read that in the USA we now have 4 cases of women being dead from taking the latest, FDA pushed fast-track, abortion RU 486 pill. This and the forced abortions in the home country of the Bird Flu, and human cloning without ethics in Korea, just next door celebrated as 'the second coming' and I wondered about a Gannett Newspaper story on the Coming Human Cloning Disaster. It isn't here yet, but it is coming and we must be ready. The UN has called for a ban on all human cloning (this part is actually underreported and TRUE) but we know that big biotech is going to rush into it anyway funded by our tax money because venture capitalists so far do not see a profit to be had or enjoyed by destoying or created millions of human lives for 'higher purposes'. Only forty million intentional prenatal human deaths so far in the USA, and the new drug with its septic shock deaths only has four women (truly) dead this year, but please send the local university pharmeceutical studies and other elitists your tax money to protect us! Millions will die! But we aren't promoting fear, just public awareness and safety.
Oh but the Bird Flu has happened before in human history and many *died* while Bush *lied* (oops, that's another media montra...it just sang-out-of-me so programatically, sorry). Yes, these kinds of horrid judgments and 'acts of God' have befallen us before and we must be prepared. Ever read Genesis 6-9? Nevermind. Gannett won't be able to figure out the reference and will ridicule eternal preparedness.
I do commend research to prevent chemical and biological warfare attacks from being as severe and limiting even hypothetical flu outbreaks etc. I'm glad we have an FDA. But can't people just do their jobs with integrity without all the double-speak, profiting from the 'culture of death' and sing-song alarmist, frontpage, propogandizing?! Guess not.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Evangelicals and Global Warming absolutism iffy?
Which group has it wrong--
1. These evangelicals?
Read New York Times article on the group of evangelicals' statements here.
2. The British?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
The British scientist in the article curiously states that the possible coming ice age in Europe is caused by global warming! Ice Age - Global (not regional) Caused by Global (not regional) Warming(?). I'll bet they all chafe at a human history with a global flood, while buying it on the planet Mars!
Or the Russians?
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r
The posturing over the issue of global warming seems to contain a lot of pseudo guilt about economic prosperity. The capacity of human beings to effect worldwide climate change is questionable at best and most likely quite negligible. Some like me are more likely to prefer the Russian explanation. The sun is a weightier factor than anything we mortals are doing. Others have pointed out that volcanic activity (again outside human agency) is yet another humongous factor dwarfing ours.
For a more scholarly view, by a female academic on global warming as an issue and as science, go to: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm
Thanks K.O. for the good forward of your friend S.'s comments with the great links.
1. These evangelicals?
Read New York Times article on the group of evangelicals' statements here.
2. The British?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
The British scientist in the article curiously states that the possible coming ice age in Europe is caused by global warming! Ice Age - Global (not regional) Caused by Global (not regional) Warming(?). I'll bet they all chafe at a human history with a global flood, while buying it on the planet Mars!
Or the Russians?
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r
The posturing over the issue of global warming seems to contain a lot of pseudo guilt about economic prosperity. The capacity of human beings to effect worldwide climate change is questionable at best and most likely quite negligible. Some like me are more likely to prefer the Russian explanation. The sun is a weightier factor than anything we mortals are doing. Others have pointed out that volcanic activity (again outside human agency) is yet another humongous factor dwarfing ours.
For a more scholarly view, by a female academic on global warming as an issue and as science, go to: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm
Thanks K.O. for the good forward of your friend S.'s comments with the great links.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Evangelicals Global Warming and Gospel
What do you make of the new evangelical movement to stop the humanity-caused warming of the globe and equating the necessity of doing so and the truthfulness of the enterprise with the necessity and truthfulness of sharing the gospel? What do you think of how I phrased that question? Is it an honest question based on how they are portraying themselves and if so, what do you think of it/them and equating it -the scientific accuracy of human causation of global warming- with the authority of the gospel?
This equating of authorities strikes me as the kind of civil-religion and weddedness to a 'cause' that has a lot of potential to undermine their authority and the authority of whatever their understanding of gospel might be. Should newer scientific discoveries and measuring sophistication shift current viewpoint, or (tongue in cheek) like when a democrat president is in office and the economy is growing for instance or when the trading in fossil fuels helps 'fund' bigger goverment and bigger research grants for instance, whatever might they do and say and equate with the gospel then?!
I also confess that I wonder about the science and the wisdom of this variety of environmentalism by evangelicals. It isn't as loopy as tree-hugging, but I'm not sure it is a wise or prudent tact. It might gather short-term favor with a few in the academe for a season but will it really come with respect or be seen as a pragmatic move when for instance this or that preacher signs-on to this or that scientific theory? I'm inclined to think Charles Colson has this one correct. and that the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship is a far more balanced and less 'civil religionist' position paper.
This equating of authorities strikes me as the kind of civil-religion and weddedness to a 'cause' that has a lot of potential to undermine their authority and the authority of whatever their understanding of gospel might be. Should newer scientific discoveries and measuring sophistication shift current viewpoint, or (tongue in cheek) like when a democrat president is in office and the economy is growing for instance or when the trading in fossil fuels helps 'fund' bigger goverment and bigger research grants for instance, whatever might they do and say and equate with the gospel then?!
I also confess that I wonder about the science and the wisdom of this variety of environmentalism by evangelicals. It isn't as loopy as tree-hugging, but I'm not sure it is a wise or prudent tact. It might gather short-term favor with a few in the academe for a season but will it really come with respect or be seen as a pragmatic move when for instance this or that preacher signs-on to this or that scientific theory? I'm inclined to think Charles Colson has this one correct. and that the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship is a far more balanced and less 'civil religionist' position paper.
NY Times will apparently even sell deceit
The NY Times is apparently willing to even sell deceit. There is a legal term for this and hopefully someone will assist Dr. James Dobson in obtaining punative damages. Here is their ad (and don't even imagine they do not consider the legal implications of the paid ads they receive and run) and Dr. Dobson's response.
Click here to see the ad. http://www.afa.net/pdfs/defcon_religiousright.pdf
Click here to read Dr. Dobson's response to the ad. http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039768.cfm
Why is it that people who are in bed with Vegas and State Lotteries and Tax increase vehicles of every conceivable variety are so quick to assume those who have opposed gambling (and done so publicly and at no small cost) are doing just exactly what THEY themselves are doing? Why didn't the newly careful NY Times catch the misinformation? Likely Answer: Like Urban legends and Tabloid news, those who placed the Ad and those that profitted from the sale of the ad WANTED to believe it was true.
Click here to see the ad. http://www.afa.net/pdfs/defcon_religiousright.pdf
Click here to read Dr. Dobson's response to the ad. http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039768.cfm
Why is it that people who are in bed with Vegas and State Lotteries and Tax increase vehicles of every conceivable variety are so quick to assume those who have opposed gambling (and done so publicly and at no small cost) are doing just exactly what THEY themselves are doing? Why didn't the newly careful NY Times catch the misinformation? Likely Answer: Like Urban legends and Tabloid news, those who placed the Ad and those that profitted from the sale of the ad WANTED to believe it was true.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Parents of Iraq War lost soldiers not given Sheehan
Kind of reminds one of 'spiritual warfare'. Those that are sharing their faith, doing good interpersonal apologetics and seeing lives changed and dignified are often demonized and intentionally misunderstood in those large parts of the university and journalism careers that are affected by emotivism, naturalism, and radical relativisms. You might enjoy these censored ads.
The vets are saying. Or view this one of the parents of fallen soldiers who apparently can't buy ad time in Minnesota that national media gave Cindy Sheehan for free. Click here.
Apparently some Democrats in MN are saying these should not be allowed to speak, and this link provides a brief response to such. Click here.
I found this article and the link to the advert by parents of Iraq vets who do not apparently measure-up to the 'Cindy Sheehan gold standard' of objectivity in the Paul Wellstone funeral dignifying State of Minnesota, quite interesting.
The vets are saying. Or view this one of the parents of fallen soldiers who apparently can't buy ad time in Minnesota that national media gave Cindy Sheehan for free. Click here.
Apparently some Democrats in MN are saying these should not be allowed to speak, and this link provides a brief response to such. Click here.
I found this article and the link to the advert by parents of Iraq vets who do not apparently measure-up to the 'Cindy Sheehan gold standard' of objectivity in the Paul Wellstone funeral dignifying State of Minnesota, quite interesting.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Valentines Day
A Valentines Present just for you. Perhaps a bit rough but the context was a university graduate student conversation related to marriage.
Friday, February 10, 2006
SuperBowl Ads all in one place online
In case you haven't seen them yet...the Superbowl Ads online are HERE.
I will admit to having a (sick?) sense of humor at times and will tell you (at no small 'sensitivity risk') that my favorites were all in the first quarter and were in order of funny (again, just to me) #1 funny Fedex, #2 maybe because of the magic-theme, the Rube Goldberg motiff, or the imbicilic actions of the guys, it was the Bud Lite Man in Kitchen, 'magic fridge'. LOL.
I will admit to having a (sick?) sense of humor at times and will tell you (at no small 'sensitivity risk') that my favorites were all in the first quarter and were in order of funny (again, just to me) #1 funny Fedex, #2 maybe because of the magic-theme, the Rube Goldberg motiff, or the imbicilic actions of the guys, it was the Bud Lite Man in Kitchen, 'magic fridge'. LOL.
Cartoon Riots, the secular 'Crusade' against religion
Did you see in WND.com that the US Supreme Court has an 'image' of Mohammed with sword engraved in its wall? Clearly it is meant to be repectful of people associated with moral law. But if the radicals' issue is; 'no image of the prophet or riot' then what now...
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695
See article above. It kind of makes one want to post the cartoons not to condone them but to say, "Here's what we don't like about secularist treatment of religion in general and what is causing shame versus law-based societies to 'kill and vandalize by association', just FYI." Then just to make the point of relative safety by association, put up the picture from the U.S. Supreme Court (see above) along side it. (-:
Humorously speaking only; If some jihadists, and Iran nuke problem-obfuscating radicals want to vandalize our High Court say..for passing Roe v Wade and doing so right in the presence of a picture of the 'prophet', well...OK..they'd be wrong and in some very deep water.. LOL... It kind of puts the 'evils' of the peaceful, pro-life, 'Operation Rescue' protesters and their nonviolent, sit-ins, to protect human life in perspective, doesn't it? Oh the troubles of the naturalists/secularists/atheists. May *God* YHWH help them.
OK, some new 'blame evangelicals first' book titles just for fun. "Why do all these people HATE the Euro secularists?" LOL "Why do the rest HATE the secular Euro West?" (-: I guess these are the unasked questions of the day because of course we *all* know they really only hate Bush. "Why do secularists HATE religion?", might be another unasked question. Alas the pits the pagans do seem to perpetually dig for them/our/selves.
BTW, I think the cartoon of Mo. with the bomb in his turbin is clearly disrespectful. Honestly. I do. I don't care for it at all. I'm not sure it goes to the level of depictions of Deity (Jesus) on the cross, submerged in human urine and funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or the ones of other Christian revered depictions smeared with Elephant dung and likewise funded, but yes I find it in poor taste and worthy of the secular Euro elites making a sincere apology for publishing. What a wake up call for them. Suppose they might stop demonizing the war on terror? Doubt it. See the cartoons (most of which are benign imho) here.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48674 but really the other link above, to the Supreme Court is the one that really has me chuckling inside. And of enormous surprise I'm sure to the secularists who seem to control the mainstream, western media, it was actually put there long before Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Imagine! LOL uncontrolably.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695
See article above. It kind of makes one want to post the cartoons not to condone them but to say, "Here's what we don't like about secularist treatment of religion in general and what is causing shame versus law-based societies to 'kill and vandalize by association', just FYI." Then just to make the point of relative safety by association, put up the picture from the U.S. Supreme Court (see above) along side it. (-:
Humorously speaking only; If some jihadists, and Iran nuke problem-obfuscating radicals want to vandalize our High Court say..for passing Roe v Wade and doing so right in the presence of a picture of the 'prophet', well...OK..they'd be wrong and in some very deep water.. LOL... It kind of puts the 'evils' of the peaceful, pro-life, 'Operation Rescue' protesters and their nonviolent, sit-ins, to protect human life in perspective, doesn't it? Oh the troubles of the naturalists/secularists/atheists. May *God* YHWH help them.
OK, some new 'blame evangelicals first' book titles just for fun. "Why do all these people HATE the Euro secularists?" LOL "Why do the rest HATE the secular Euro West?" (-: I guess these are the unasked questions of the day because of course we *all* know they really only hate Bush. "Why do secularists HATE religion?", might be another unasked question. Alas the pits the pagans do seem to perpetually dig for them/our/selves.
BTW, I think the cartoon of Mo. with the bomb in his turbin is clearly disrespectful. Honestly. I do. I don't care for it at all. I'm not sure it goes to the level of depictions of Deity (Jesus) on the cross, submerged in human urine and funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or the ones of other Christian revered depictions smeared with Elephant dung and likewise funded, but yes I find it in poor taste and worthy of the secular Euro elites making a sincere apology for publishing. What a wake up call for them. Suppose they might stop demonizing the war on terror? Doubt it. See the cartoons (most of which are benign imho) here.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48674 but really the other link above, to the Supreme Court is the one that really has me chuckling inside. And of enormous surprise I'm sure to the secularists who seem to control the mainstream, western media, it was actually put there long before Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Imagine! LOL uncontrolably.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The United States Senate is the problem.
The polls say people are upset with Congress. They also said our current President would lose the election both times. Nevertheless I believe people are upset with PART of Congress and that part is the United States Senate. Sure Kennedy and Durbin have led the parade of imbiciles in 'over the top' rhetoric, but even RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Arlen Specter and others who tout 'super duper' precedence and such are really 'leading' and manifestly manipulative. Someone is buying these guys a lot of carrots or threatening them with big sticks to get them to do such crazed performances.
Friday, January 27, 2006
January 2006 and Roe v Wade music
http://ingradiv.com/images/mp3s/System.mp3
January is almost over and I haven't shared with my own blog my pro-life activism song. Admittedly it utilizes the rhetoric of evil to make the point in contrast with the culture of life. Hope you enjoy the jazz. Sorry for my 'old voice' as old, pre-conversion rock bands had me do the screaming and growling vocals. Ha!
Here's another far more pleasant and softer jazz, pro-life song I wrote (music not the lyrics) based on Psalm 139, a powerful pre-birth, human life affirming Psalm. Enjoy this one.
http://ingradiv.com/images/mp3s/ps139.mp3
January is almost over and I haven't shared with my own blog my pro-life activism song. Admittedly it utilizes the rhetoric of evil to make the point in contrast with the culture of life. Hope you enjoy the jazz. Sorry for my 'old voice' as old, pre-conversion rock bands had me do the screaming and growling vocals. Ha!
Here's another far more pleasant and softer jazz, pro-life song I wrote (music not the lyrics) based on Psalm 139, a powerful pre-birth, human life affirming Psalm. Enjoy this one.
http://ingradiv.com/images/mp3s/ps139.mp3
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Gun Control, Illusionist Productions, a good laugh
A friend sent me this cool animated .gif file with a little tagline that went something like this; "Hooded-sweatshirt to hide identity and firearm, $15. 'Saturday night special' from Paul's Pawn Shop, $150. Inability to hold on to your leverage, Priceless."
I forwarded it to some Christian Illusionists under the tag line... "In the illusionists' trade there are substitutions and changes, there are penetrations, levitations, vanishes, and productions. And sometimes we are quite happy when the productions go poorly. Sometimes we are glad when people do not have 'gun control'." Enjoy the mini movie picture here.
I forwarded it to some Christian Illusionists under the tag line... "In the illusionists' trade there are substitutions and changes, there are penetrations, levitations, vanishes, and productions. And sometimes we are quite happy when the productions go poorly. Sometimes we are glad when people do not have 'gun control'." Enjoy the mini movie picture here.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Michelle on Hillary
Michelle (of color) is awesome on Hillary (as poser). Read for yourself.
For a fun flash of outlandish fun related to the rantings in the Alito confirmation hearing, you've got to see this to believe it!
Is this blog fun or what?!
For a fun flash of outlandish fun related to the rantings in the Alito confirmation hearing, you've got to see this to believe it!
Is this blog fun or what?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
