You don't see faith healers working in hospitals... FB conversation

FB friend S.L. Posted this:

A.M.: I have challenged many so called faith healers to heal just 1 floor of the local hospital.

They always say "it doesn't work like that." My reply is "that's exactly how it worked in the first century".

Me: Actually, there are people who do just that and people get healed.

A.M.: Rasputin did exactly that in Russia.

Me: No, he didn't.

A.M.: Yes he did. Rasputin did many miracles, but not all miracles come from God.
Rasputin was an evil monk that was using the power of the deceiver/the beautiful one/satan to achieve his goals

Me: Rasputin and Paul did the same thing? Really?

A.M.:that depends on your opinion of Paul, but Rasputin did all sorts of miracles yet everything he touched eventually resulted in a horrible outcome.

Me: Paul was an apostle! He wrote most of the N.T.. But Paul and Rasputin did the same thing, with the unfortunate caveat that Rasputin's miracles resulting in horrible outcomes? Whaa?

Me: You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

A.M.:Every time the hemophiliac heir to the throne became Ill, Rasputin did faith Healings to make him better.

Read up on Rasputin.
If one allows the beautiful one to do their evil through them, satan most certainly can and will.

As for Paul, you are the one that made the statement about Rasputin and Paul doing the same thing. If one is has such a twisted mentality that they believe that, they are beyond my help.

Me: "Rasputin did exactly that in Russia." This is your statement about healing. You compared satanic healing to the legitimate variety. You claimed that people who actually go to hospitals and ask God to heal the sick are just like Rasputin. You are the one thinks satan's evil is actually pretty good.

At least I have the good manners not to call someone twisted.

A.M.: You are correct, I know nothing about scripture or the power of God.

Here is a list of the scriptures I have and do study in chronological order:...

A.M.: If the deceiver removes sickness from someone, are they healed?

I do not believe the "holy roller" show healers are doing the work of God and here's why. When the Holy Spirit imparted spiritual gifts on the apostles, there was a very specific limitation involved. To share the miraculous gifts, one of the Apostles had to go and physically touch those that were to be receiving their abilities. There is absolutely no scriptural exception to this.

That being the case, once the firstfruit apostles passed away the ability to impart those gifts passed on with them.

So unless those that are going to hospitals and are healing were received the "laying of hands", then they are not doing the type of healing done in the the 1st generation after the resurrection of Christ.

If someone is claiming to be doing miracles that God commanded but are not, there is only one other source of the supposed miracles and that source is the same source that Rasputin had called upon.

This does not mean that if we pray for someone to get well and God answers those prayers that we are not doing God's will. God is in control and satan, the beautiful one is bound but if one wants help from the deceiver badly enough he most certainly can give it.

Me: Now you're just making stuff up. And I never defended "holy rollers."

WHAT IS GOD’S NAME? - By Lockley Bremner

The proper name of God has been hidden from the world, but is now being revealed to the "Sons of YHWH God” (Revelation 22:4). It has been said that the Old Testament is Jesus concealed, but the New Testament is Jesus revealed; I think we could change it to appropriately say, the Old Testament is the name of God revealed, and the New Testament is the name of God concealed. The Apostle Paul’s discovery of “the Alter to the unknown God” is once again relevant to our generation; “Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing His name, Him I proclaim to you,” (Acts 17:23)!

Does God have a name? If so why has it been hidden from us? And if He does, how is it, that the name of God has been completely eliminated from the vernacular of modern civilization? The answer to the first question is an emphatic, yes! God does have a name, and His name is clearly revealed to us from the Book of Genesis to the New Testament, and man can know the name of God if he searches the Word of God with an open heart, and allows the Holy Spirit to give him understanding. God revealed His name to Moses on Mount Sinai as “YHWH”. The proper name, YHWH, called the Tetragrammaton, is used 636 times in the Jewish Tanach. 

For many years I questioned why modern Bible translators never used God’s proper name, and why they substituted the title LORD, instead of using God's proper name? When reading modern Bible translations we see references to the supreme Deity as, The LORD, LORD God Almighty, The LORD of Hosts, God, or Almighty God, but we never see Him addressed by His proper name. The value of knowing someone’s name is relationship; there is no relationship if you don’t know their name. The omission of God’s proper name from the human conscience can only lead us to conclude that this is the greatest deception in human history. My discovery of this cover-up started me on a journey to find the proper name of God; THE NAME THAT IS ABOVE ALL NAMES! 

THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE DEMOTED

In the early seventeenth century, translators were commissioned by King James to translate the Bible into English. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a more accurate translation; however, it is my contention, that the bible translators were afraid to assign a higher title to Jesus than that of King James of England. The translators were afraid a higher title for Jesus would offend the King so they demoted the King of the Universe to that of a Lord. Why would Bible translators substitute a title, “LORD”, instead of using God’s proper name? The word, “Lord,” is defined as an aristocrat, a nobleman, a member of the aristocracy. The Lords originated from the rich British landlords who were property owners in Europe. You have heard of the "House of Lords", it is made up of the rich elite aristocracy of England? The title of Lord is a lower level of hierarchy in English aristocracy than King, but the supreme title of King was exclusively reserved for his highness the King of England, whom they believed to be God’s representative on earth. The problem was they assigned the title of Lord to the King of the Universe which removed God’s Name from the subconscious of man. Even Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, when translating the German Bible failed to use God’s proper name.

Is ‘democracy’ dead? - letter by LaVon D. Brillhart

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------

Here's an example of a guy who gets a lot of it right, but after chronicling the various failures of society, he comes to a completely astonishing conclusion. Read on:

-------------------
Is “democracy” dead? (If it were ever alive. We never had a democracy, despite some of the best efforts of the Left to create one. We are, and remain, a representative republic.) 

Is “democracy” on its last legs? It seems that government has become an appendage for the super rich and big corporations. (Quite true, but why?) 

But on the other hand, government has become an unwanted growth for the middle class and the working poor. (Again, quite true. But again, why?) 

Now we have a government that is grid locked. (Apparently the author thinks gridlock is bad. But gridlock, aka checks and balances, is a needed restraint on government to prevent the accumulation of too much power in one branch of government.)

It seems that with what has not been accomplished for America many in Washington are destroying America and “democracy.” (I think the author mistakes passing laws for accomplishment. Often, the prevention of passing laws is better, especially bad laws like ACA. It would have been nice to have some gridlock for that monstrosity. It would have spared us all a lot of pain.)

The Supreme Court has made it quite clear the middle class and the working poor have no voice in America. But the Supreme Court said that big corporations and the super rich have the right to invade and conquer “democracy.” (I think he's wandering off the tracks a little now. He's basing his statement on rulings like "Citizens United," I'm sure. Which means he's bought into the leftist narrative about what the ruling did. It had nothing to do with buying off elections, but try to tell that to a Leftist.)

Why do we need senators and representatives? There are more than 12,000 lobbyists in Washington. That is 22 lobbyists for every member of the House and Senate. Now representatives and senators do not win elections but they are bought. Then after they are bought, the lobbyists run and own the politicians. The lobbyists pull the strings of their puppets that we call elected officials. (Yes, exactly. But Mr. Brillhart, tell us why this happens?)

The propaganda machine is alive and working well for our so-called elected officials. They tell the same lies over and over and then the lies become the new truth. But for millions of Americans, they are still lies. (Again, exactly right. So once again, sir, why?)

Then we have many who say we need smaller government. (Actually, though some do say smaller government, the real issue is returning government to its constitutional limits. A smaller, still tyrannical government is no virtue.) 

No one seems to say we need a government that works for all the people in America. (Well, what does the author mean by "works?" Does he mean this from the perspective of a constitutionalist, or a quasi-socialist? Their remedies are quite different.) 

When we vote for those who say we need a smaller government what do they do? Give big tax breaks to corporations, give tax breaks to the super rich and create more taxes for the middle class. (Um, no. Because the Big Government Leftists are the ones in power, there is no way small government advocates have had any power at all to do what the author suggests they are doing.)

We know the system is rigged. But has rigor mortis set in? “Democracy” needs to be resuscitated. But the super rich, big corporations, and lobbyists want to destroy “democracy.” (Which means he wants even more of what is causing the problems. Wealth redistribution, high corporate taxes, more campaign money restrictions. It's astonishing that the author so ably illustrates the problems with Big Government, then calls for even more! The answer is to take power away from the perpetrators, not give them more.

With a constitutionally restricted government, legislators would have no power to pay off corporate cronies or do favors for special interests. They would have no power to redistribute wealth to buy votes. There would be no lobbyists, because there would be nothing to lobby. No discretionary spending powers. No fat government contracts. No deciding who has too much or too little.

Freedom is definitionally freedom from the oppression of government and its cronies.)

LaVon D. Brillhart Dillon

Co-op considers shelving products over birth-control coverage issue - By LAURA LUNDQUIST

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------

(It's truly odd how the Left picks and chooses its criteria for that which it supports or rejects. The very same reasons they do one thing do not apply to another if the other is something they despise. 

Example: The Left's defense of ACA is, it's "the law of the land." Roe V. Wade is the "law of the land." Gay marriage is "settled law." Yet the Bozeman Food Co-op is preparing to reject products that are made by companies who don't provide birth control to their employees, even though the matter is settled law. 

Apparently the Left is all-in on believing their own rhetoric. They actually think that a business that declines to pay for something for you is violating your rights, a patently nonsensical assertion that has the rest of us laughing at their absurdity. It is one of those strategies from their well-worn Playbook Of Slogans: Redefine, lather, then repeat. 

Here, the co-op wants to jump in on the culture wars, which has claimed many a participant. No business wins when they take sides and risk alienating 50% of their customer base. 

But the worst part is that it would never occur to the co-op to encourage their members to pay for those workers who lack contraceptive coverage themselves. No, it never works that way. The Left is perpetually interested in making sure other people pay their "fair share," but never include themselves. Other people must be forced to extend compassion, but they never get out their own checkbooks. They insist on choice, but deny it to those with whom they disagree.

On the other hand, the free market speaks. They are looking at a free market decision to end a voluntary, private, arrangement and direct their purchasing dollars elsewhere. I fully support this capitalistic activity. I shall also engage in similar free association and make sure my purchasing dollars never end up in their cash registers.

------------------------

The Bozeman Food Co-op is weighing a proposal to eliminate a line of food products because the manufacturer refused to provide its workers with birth-control coverage.

At a July Food Co-op board meeting, board members heard from several member-owners who questioned whether the Co-op should continue to stock products distributed by Eden Foods, a Michigan-based organic-food company.

Michael Potter, the sole owner of Eden Foods, is a devout Catholic who is opposed to providing his employees with health care insurance that covers birth control.

Some Food Co-op member-owners said Eden Foods was infringing on its employees’ human rights.

The Co-op defines its values as “self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity,” and some memberowners argued that supporting Eden Foods went against those values because it made the Co-op complicit in denying coverage for birth control to those who want it.

The Co-op board decided to put the issue out to its 15,000 member-owners for a two week comment period that ended Wednesday night.

Co-op spokeswoman Alison Grey Germain said she had yet to process the comments, but the issue had received a lot of feedback, both for and against.

“The Co-op does not have an opinion on this issue,” Grey Germain said. “In general, the Co-op always welcomes input from our member-owners on any issues or concerns they may have. The comment period is just that; a comment period.”

Grey Germain said it could take one to two months before the board considers any action.

At least one customer has jumped to the conclusion that the Coop’s consideration of the issue amounts to religious discrimination.

General manager Kelly Wiseman said the Bozeman Food Co-op was a cooperative, not a nonprofit organization, so it listens to its cooperative members.

“This kind of control over the product is 100 percent the decision of the members. This is one of the things that make a Co-op fun and interesting,” Wiseman said.

Valerie O’Connell, who said she represents the Glastonbury Landowners, which is aligned with the Church Universal Triumphant near Emigrant, said she’d encourage her group to boycott the Co-op if they eliminate Eden Foods. She said she had also contacted the Montana Family Foundation.

The Montana Family Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization that has lobbied against abortion and gay rights and for taxpayer funding of charter schools.

“We tolerate all religions. So for us to hear about this reverse discrimination after the Hobby Lobby decision, we’re just appalled,” O’Connell said. “They’re serving the public and they shouldn’t take sides. They’re taking a stance against religion.”

When the Affordable Health Care Act mandated coverage for birth control, Eden Foods joined about 70 other companies that insisted they should be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. In March 2013, Eden Foods sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In October, an appeals court ruled that a corporation, unlike a person, could not exercise religion.

But in June, the Supreme Court — following the precedent set by the Citizens United ruling that corporations are people — ruled in a split decision that small companies could object to birth control on religious grounds.

The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to apply the ruling to previous cases, including that of Eden Foods.

The Supreme Court ruling was narrow, but in her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that it opened the door for business owners with wideranging religious beliefs to deny employees coverage for almost anything on religious grounds.

Are Visits to Heaven for Real? - by Dr. John MacArthur

Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

A pastor’s book recounting his son’s visit to heaven rose to the top of the bestseller list and became a major motion picture. Christians were quick to spread the word, but could such visits be for real? (This is indeed the question. Let's see if Dr. MacArthur answers it.)

In recent years, Christian booksellers have inundated the evangelical world with testimonies from people who say they visited heaven in near-death experiences. Their stories are full of specific details about what heaven is like, who is there, and what is happening in the celestial realm. But when we compare their claims with Scripture, it becomes clear that they are merely figments of the human imagination, not true visions of heaven as it is described in God’s Word.

The best known of all these tales, Heaven Is for Real,1 is to be a major motion picture, released in April 2014. It is the story of Colton Burpo, whose parents believe he visited heaven when he was just four—during surgery after a burst appendix nearly took his life. Colton’s descriptions of heaven are full of fanciful features and peculiar details that bear all the earmarks of a child’s vivid imagination. There’s nothing transcendent or even particularly enlightening about Colton’s heaven. It is completely devoid of the breathtaking glory featured in every biblical description of the heavenly realm. (Pretty high standards to hold a 3 year old to, don't you think? Regardless of whether or not the child actually saw heaven, what did Dr. MacArthur expect the him to see? Does he think that he would provide a perfect account of his experiences? Does he expect a doctrinally correct, fully perceptive narrative? Does he think that a 3 year old is able to do anything else but filter his perceptions through his very limited life experiences?

John related his Revelation experience in terms he could himself could comprehend. It is we see fanciful descriptions, interpretations according to his ability to describe them, and all sorts of odd and even troubling imagery. Shall we dismiss John because of this?)

Stories like Colton’s are as dangerous as they are seductive. Readers not only get a twisted, unbiblical picture of heaven; they also imbibe a subjective, superstitious, shallow brand of spirituality. Studying mystical accounts of supposed journeys into the afterlife yields nothing but confusion, contradiction, false hope, bad doctrine, and a host of similar evils. ("Nothing but?" No one has received any benefit? How could Dr. MacArthur know this? No one has obtained solace from knowing their loved one has entered into the ultimate reward? No one has modified their belief away from "once you're dead, nothing awaits?" No one has gained anything by learning that something glorious awaits us on the other side? That's a pretty astonishing claim.)

We live in a narcissistic culture, and it shows in these accounts of people who claim they’ve been to heaven. They sound as if they viewed paradise in a mirror, keeping themselves in the foreground. They say comparatively little about God or His glory. (What does "comparatively little" mean? Is there some sort of secret chart Dr. MacArthur relies on to determine if a vision of heaven adequately expresses God's glory? And how about this? And this? And this? Do they measure up to the is standard of Dr. MacArthur's?) 

But the glory of God is what the Bible says fills, illuminates, and defines heaven. Instead, the authors of these stories seem obsessed with details like how good they felt—how peaceful, how happy, how comforted they were; how they received privileges and accolades; how fun and enlightening their experience was; and how many things they think they now understand perfectly that could never be gleaned from Scripture alone. In short, they glorify self while barely noticing God’s glory. (Painting with a broad brush, Dr. MacArthur summarily dismisses every account of the afterlife with a wave of the hand.) 

They highlight everything but what’s truly important about heaven.

It is quite true that heaven is a place of perfect bliss—devoid of all sorrow and sin, full of exultation and enjoyment—a place where grace and peace reign totally unchallenged. (Having just now dismissed this bliss, he now acknowledges it.) 

Heaven is where every true treasure and every eternal reward is laid up for the redeemed. Anyone whose destiny is heaven will certainly experience more joy and honor there than the fallen mind is capable of comprehending—infinitely more than any fallen creature deserves. But if you actually saw heaven and lived to tell about it, those things are not what would capture your heart and imagination.

You would be preoccupied instead with the majesty and grace of the One whose glory fills the place. (Which some do, coupled with the things he himself now acknowledges.)

Sadly, undiscerning readers abound, and they take these postmodern accounts of heaven altogether seriously. The stratospheric sales figures and far-reaching influence of these books ought to be a matter of serious concern for anyone who truly loves the Word of God.

The Bible on Near-Death Experiences

There is simply no reason to believe anyone who claims to have gone to heaven and returned. (We're not sure that these people are claiming bodily ascent into heaven. But whatever.) 

John 3:13 says, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” (Up until that time, no one had. Jesus makes no statement regarding what might be coming after.) 

And John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time.” (Um, yeah. Jn. 14:9: "Jesus answered: 'Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’'?")

Four biblical authors had visions of heaven—not near-death experiences. Isaiah and Ezekiel (Old Testament prophets) and Paul and John (New Testament apostles) all had such visions. Two other biblical figures—Micaiah and Stephen—got glimpses of heaven, but what they saw is merely mentioned, not described (2 Chronicles 18:18; Acts 7:55). ("Mentioned but not described," which means Dr. MacArthur arguing from silence.)

Only three of these men later wrote about what they saw—and the details they gave were comparatively sparse (Isaiah 6:1–4; Ezekiel 1, 10; Revelation 4–6). All of them focused properly on God’s glory. They also mentioned their own fear and shame in the presence of such glory. (Of course, the O.T. visions would not be in the context of grace.) 

They had nothing to say about the mundane features that are so prominent in modern tales about heaven (things like picnics, games, juvenile attractions, familiar faces, odd conversations, and so on). Paul gave no actual description of heaven but simply said what he saw would be unlawful to utter. (Arguing from silence again.) 

In short, the biblical descriptions of heaven could hardly be any more different from today’s fanciful stories about heaven.

Lazarus of Bethany fell ill and died, and his body lay decaying in a tomb for four days until Jesus raised him (John 11:17). A whole chapter in John’s Gospel is devoted to the story of how Jesus brought him back from the dead. But there’s not a hint or a whisper anywhere in Scripture about what happened to Lazarus’s soul in that four-day interim. (Again, silence. Had such accounts been germane to the story, would they not have been included?) 

The same thing is true of every person in Scripture who was ever brought back from the dead, beginning with the widow’s son whom Elijah raised in 1 Kings 17:17–24and culminating with Eutychus, who was healed by Paul in Acts 20:9–12. Not one biblical person ever gave any recorded account of his or her postmortem experience in the realm of departed souls. (Silence is not proof.)

Crossing the Boundaries

Far too much of the present interest in heaven, angels, and the afterlife stems from carnal curiosity. (Probably true, but irrelevant. We are not evaluating the quality of peoples' responses, we are, or should be, addressing the biblical basis of the matter at hand.) 

It is not a trend biblical Christians should encourage or celebrate. Any pursuit that diminishes people’s reliance on the Bible (A big assumption that such a thing automatically occurs. And what does he mean by "reliance on the Bible?" Shouldn't we also rely on God via the power of His Holy Spirit?) 

is fraught with grave spiritual dangers—especially if it is something that leads gullible souls into superstition, gnosticism, occultism, New Age philosophies, or any kind of spiritual confusion. (We meet a lot of spiritually confused Christians, and their confusion is usually related to various doctrines of the Bible...) 

Those are undeniably the roads most traveled ("Undeniably?" Another big assumption.) 

by people who feed a morbid craving for detailed information about the afterlife, (A charge he cannot document.) 

devouring stories of people who claim to have gone to the realm of the dead and returned.

Scripture never indulges that desire. (Now that he has invented the charge, he appeals to the Bible in support. This is intellectually dishonest.) 

In the Old Testament era, every attempt to communicate with the dead was deemed a sin on par with sacrificing infants to false gods (Deuteronomy 18:10–12). The Hebrew Scriptures say comparatively little about the disposition of souls after death, and the people of God were strictly forbidden to inquire further on their own. Necromancy was a major feature of Egyptian religion. It also dominated every religion known among the Canaanites. But under Moses’s law it was a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 20:27). (Having established his false premise, he runs with it.)

The New Testament adds much to our understanding of heaven (and hell), but we are still not permitted to add our own subjective ideas and experience-based conclusions to what God has specifically revealed through His inerrant Word. Indeed, we are forbidden in all spiritual matters to go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). (As is his modus operandi, Dr. MacArthur is loathe to actually quote the Scripture in its context. 1Co. 4:6-7: 

"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" 

We see that in context Paul is talking about something entirely different. This is what happens when your worldview filters everything, creating a false understanding of even Scripture.)

Those who demand to know more than Scripture tells us about heaven are sinning: (Whaaat? Scriptural reference, please. Quite to the contrary, Paul tell us that God has not told us everything, and we are to seek the wisdom of God, secrets that are revealed by His Spirit. 1Co. 2:6-7: 

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.") 

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). The limits of our curiosity are thus established by the boundary of biblical revelation. In the words of Charles Spurgeon,

"It’s a little heaven below, to imagine sweet things. But never think that imagination can picture heaven. When it is most sublime, when it is freest from the dust of earth, when it is carried up by the greatest knowledge, and kept steady by the most extreme caution, imagination cannot picture heaven. “It hath not entered the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” Imagination is good, but not to picture to us heaven. Your imaginary heaven you will find by-and-by to be all a mistake; though you may have piled up fine castles, you will find them to be castles in the air, and they will vanish like thin clouds before the gale. For imagination cannot make a heaven. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered the heart of man to conceive” it.2

What God has revealed in Scripture is the only legitimate place to get a clear understanding of the heavenly kingdom. (This is clearly false. It is the Spirit that reveals the wisdom of God.) 

God’s written Word does in fact give us a remarkably full and clear picture of heaven and the spiritual realm. But the Bible still leaves many questions unanswered. (? But we thought everything was revealed?)

We need to accept the boundaries God Himself has put on what He has revealed. It is sheer folly to speculate where Scripture is silent. (Whoa, quite a statement from a man who a few paragraphs ago did exactly that.) 

It is sinfully wrong to try to investigate spiritual mysteries using occult means. And it is seriously dangerous to listen to anyone who claims to know more about God, heaven, angels, or the afterlife than God Himself has revealed to us in Scripture.

The Glories of Heaven

It is, however, right and beneficial for Christians to fix their hearts on heaven. Scripture commands us to cultivate that perspective: “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on earth” (Colossians 3:1–2). “While we do not look at the things which are seen but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).

Such a perspective is the very essence of true faith, according to Hebrews 11. Those with authentic, biblical faith acknowledge that they are strangers and pilgrims on this earth (v. 13). They are seeking a heavenly homeland (v. 14). They “desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (v. 16). The “city” that verse refers to is the heavenly Jerusalem, an unimaginable place—the very capital of heaven. It will be the eternal abode of the redeemed. No wonder Christians are intrigued with the subject.

But no matter how much they might obsess over what heaven is like, people who fill their heads with a lot of fantastic or delusional ideas from others’ near-death experiences have not truly set their minds on things above. If the inerrant biblical truth God has given us is the only reliable knowledge about heaven we have access to (and it is), then that is what should grip our hearts and minds, not the dreams and speculations of human minds.

(We thought Dr. MacArthur was going to tell us if these experiences were real. He did not, but took a long detour into ancillary subjects. We're disappointed.) 

Koch brothers attempting to derail our democracy -Letter by Dan Lourie

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------
Mr. Lourie is becoming a regular fixture in these pages of my blog, largely because of his relentless pursuit of bumper-sticker slogans, regurgitation of pre-printed democratic talking points, and mindless repetition of the supposed dangers of those eeevil Kochs. Read on:
-------------------------

The billionaire Koch brothers, prime corrupters of our democracy, have opened a Bozeman war office, aka Joe Balyeat’s Americans For Prosperity. They promote tea party schills like Burnett, Vance and White, and it’s time we gave them a closer look. (Quite an accusation. Let's see if he offers any evidence for his assertions.)

It’s naive to presume that their extremist propaganda machine stops at purchasing elected offices for morality-deficient candidates, although it’s clear that they’re now at work buying Montana’s Legislature. (He tosses around some hyperbolic accusations, but supplies no names, dates, or any kind of evidence. Thus, we can summarily dismiss them.)

Their wealth and resulting influence have deleterious impacts on many aspects of American lives: the environment, education, campaign finance, access to health care, jobs, and labor rights. (Continuing in the same vein using the same inflammatory language, and of course, absent any specifics, facts, or data.)

They spend heavily on: gutting Social Security — $28+ million to popularize lies that it borders on collapse; (This has been covered many times by many writers, bloggers, economists, policy wonks, accountants, and actuaries. There is no dearth of information. In these very pages we have dealt at length with the issue. The SS Administration itself admits that the SS Trust Fund contains nothing but debt. The only ones who lie about Social Security's financial status are those who derive political power by pretending it is solvent.)

re-segregating school systems, (The only people I know of who want to re-segregate are blacks themselves.)

reversing hard-won policies promoting diversity; (Actually, forcing diversity as they define it.) 

voter ID laws in 38 states making voting difficult for the elderly, poor and minorities (No evidence this is true.) —

fabricating poverty, (Wait, I thought he just said that voting is difficult for the poor? But now poverty is fabricated? Whaaa?) 

joblessness, (Joblessness is fabricated too? Is Mr. Lourie's precious government lying?) 

and health issues. We’ll beat them by getting out the vote.

(Yet another litany of vague charges with no substance, no refutation, no attempt at analysis, and no intellectual engagement of any kind. This is what passes for proof that the Kochs are eeevil. Wow.)

Dan Lourie Bozeman

Bozeman has a growth problem; time to slow down - Eileen Hosking

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------

Thank you, Jennifer Paul (letter, Aug. 13), (That letter reproduced below.) for your cogent and even-tempered letter concerning the failure of Bozeman’s Chamber of Commerce to consider this community’s best interests, while resurrecting grand and inappropriate plans from other times and places.

I have been trying to compose a letter for months, directed to the City Commission, on the same topic — but I inevitably get lost in my anger. (A common Leftist malady, usually as a result of someone dissenting from their beliefs.) 

While our politicians, merchants and developers seem to be singing from the same songbook, our elected representatives do not seem to be in touch in the least with the rest of the population of this lovely, small city. (It's interesting that this extremely Left city commission is characterized as being too friendly to business, especially considering their implementing impact fees, sign codes, and requiring landscaped parking lots. And it seems a lot of Leftists have forgotten the $500,000 extorted from Wal-Mart for its supposed negative impact on mom-and-pop businesses. There are many other things the commission has done that are hostile to development and business, so the complaint that the City is in bed with business rings hollow.)

Clearly with the unemployment rate as low as it is, Bozeman does not have an employment problem. We have a growth problem, one that is being driven by city government and the chamber. (Like all good little leftists, the author is perfectly at ease to toss around these "problems" for government to solve. We don't have THIS problem, we have THAT problem, and we must have government "fix" yet another problem it has by and large caused by its prior economic interventions.) 

Growth — at least at the rate we are seeing — is not inevitable. In fact, public money is being spent to promote it. Yes, even our leftist government recognizes that prosperity is desirable.)

Associated with the myth of inevitable growth is the myth of tax relief through an expanding tax base. How many times already have current property owners been asked to pay for new schools, for instance? And soon for growing law enforcement and court needs. (It truly is ironic that the mismanagement of tax resources by the City commissioners is being laid at the feet of their victims. Does Ms. Hosking realize that taxes are levied by government, not factories? Indeed, factories pay taxes, but Ms. Hosking wants to prevent development and stop business from opening in Bozeman, and then is surprised that property taxes go up. 

I wonder, is she being racist? Because there's an influx of outsiders (read: people of color), who are ruining her little paradise and creating a need for additional law enforcement. And, we all know who it is who commits all these crimes, don't we, Ms. Hosking?

Ms. Hosking sounds like a debutante facing her first exposure to "them," and is horrified at the prospect of rubbing elbows. So she wants to retreat into her sanctuary, shut the door behind her, and keep out those who aspire to move into her neighborhood.)

There are beautiful, small communities that work successfully to maintain their health. (That is, they're squashed under the thumb of dictatorial central planners.)

Why don’t we try that tack? (Because we are already doing it, Ms. Hosking.) Make it difficult to erect buildings downtown that block the mountain views and sunshine, or to lay more asphalt, or build more box stores, chain restaurants or cramped, sprawling developments that could be anywhere in the country? (In other words, keep doing exactly what we are doing. Let's keep pushing development outside the doughnut zone and thus be denied the benefits of their success while simultaneously contributing to sprawl. Let's keep people in low-paying dead end jobs, and force them to live in surrounding, cheaper communities because they can't afford to live here in Ms. Hosking's virtual gated community. Let's kill the golden goose so that Ms. Hosking can gaze at the mountains while others collect their unemployment. 

Because indeed, growth is not inevitable. It can be eliminated by people like Ms. Hosking, whose attitude seems to be that she's here already, so no one else should have access to the lifestyle she enjoys.)

As Ms. Paul said, let’s take care of our community. Let’s not sell it down the road.

Eileen Hosking

Bozeman

----------------
Jennifer Paul's letter:
------------------

The Bozeman Chamber of Commerce announced plans that would bring large manufacturing plants and corporate businesses to Bozeman, Mont. Their aim? "To make Bozeman the commercial hub of Montana." While this idea may seem to be great for Bozeman's job and revenue growth, it is in reality, a fundamentally flawed plan. The two major oversights? First, Bozeman lacks the infrastructure to sustain a huge population boom. If such plans are given the go ahead, Bozeman's current residents will be forced to haul the financial responsibility in the form of higher taxes. The chamber also announced that the Environmental Protection Agency recently gave Bozeman an “F” grade due to its lack of infrastructure to properly dispose of raw sewage, polluted water runoff and toxic gasses emitted from the local landfill. This has resulted in a hefty fine placed on the city and unfortunately will result in higher taxes next year for both home and business owners alike.

Secondly, the other reason this "grandiose vision" of Bozeman is flawed is that it has not taken into account that people have and will continue to move to Bozeman because it is a beautiful place to live, raise a family and to get away from "big city attitude," crime, pollution and traffic. Furthermore, Bozeman thrives on tourism. It has marketed itself on the world stage as being a "pristine mountain paradise." What will people think about our picturesque high mountain town once every square inch of this valley is subdivided and given over to higher taxes and industry? The goal is to get the out-of-state visitors to keep coming to our town and spending money! It is not turn them away. Keep business small, keep it local. Lets take care of our community, both people and land alike.
---------------------

Why We Need a Retail Workers Bill of Rights - Mackenzie Baris

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

This post first appeared at Jobs with Justice on July 29, 2014.

Despite its high minimum wage, San Francisco has the second-highest rate of income inequality among major US cities. That's interesting. San Francisco, that bastion of liberal sensibilities, controlled by the extreme Left, the city where every cause celebre is implemented in the name of fairness, tolerance, and bigger better government; San Francisco, the model city of managed growth and unmanaged government, has the second highest rate of income inequality? How is this possible? How can it be that those who care-more-than-you have allowed this to happen?)  

One of the reasons why people aren’t earning enough money to make ends meet in the Bay Area, and across the country, is because they can’t get sufficient hours at their jobs. (Oh, THAT'S it. Here I thought it might be because the median home price there is $999,400, while the median rent is $3600/mo., or $43,200/yr. Commensurate with high home prices are property taxes that have just increased to $1.1880 per $100 of assessed value, which makes the annual tax bill for the afore-mentioned median home a staggering $11,872.

Currently, the minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.74/hr, or $22,339/yr. There is a proposal to gradually increase it to $15/hr., or $31,200/yr. So the care-more-than-you Left is going to help the downtrodden in San Francisco by forcing others to pay them more, leaving only a small gap of $12,000 left to cover the rent. Um, yeah.

But more specifically, the problem is, according to the author, that people aren't being able to work enough hours. However, if they're already working 40 hours, they would have to work an additional 21.5 hours per week, and that just covers the rent. 

So the author thinks that more hours would help, while S.F. wants to help by raising the minimum wage. Unfortunately, neither solution is going to help, but sounding compassionate is much easier than having results. In addition, we need to note that the author is simply providing talking points designed not to enlighten, but to paint her villain in a bad light.)

‘The Most Livable Place’ has a dirty secret - By GUY ALSENTZER

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------

I find it interesting that the author cannot see past his political filters as he analyzes the problem of a polluted creek. Read on:

---------------------
Confronting pollution in our local creeks should be a top priority for the city of Bozeman. A recent Chronicle article discussed the poor health of our city’s namesake urban waterway, Bozeman Creek, attributing the creek’s unhealthy levels of E. coli and nitrogen largely to wastes, lawn clippings and fertilizers. While these causal agents of poor health are becoming clear, what wasn’t discussed was the failure of our city to take responsibility and proactively manage those pollutants and, in turn, our urban water resources.

The crux of the issue is this: The greater Bozeman area has placed more emphasis on economic growth than on implementing scientifically sound infrastructure or environmental stewardship. (Note the binary nature of the this statement. The author thinks that the City prefers economic growth [which is a preposterous assertion in itself] over "science." This is loaded language, designed to misdirect. It's "science" vs. business. This is un-nuanced, black and white thinking, which excludes other factors in an effort to mainpulate the available choices and to steer thinking about the issue. Because science.) 

Democrats moving forward - letter by John Shellenberger

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------------

Mr. Shellenberg is a semi-regular letter writer, invariably Left, and invariably inscrutable. Read on:

------------------------

Are Democrats willing to concede the House of Representatives in the November election to the Know-Nothing Party? (I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually know what this means.) Are they so convinced of the witlessness of the American people (Yes. In fact, Democrats count on it.) that they expect the obstructionists to win? (Mr. Shellenberger has made this "obstructionist" charge before. He seems to think that the majority party in the House is or can be obstructionist, but the majority has the power and advances its own agenda. Only the minority [Democrats] can be obstructionist.) Are they intimidated by the meanness and arrogance of the far right? (Irony alert... Prepare for it:) Are they ready to cave in to the anti-scientific, economically illiterate, misogynistic, ethno phobic doomsayers now characterized by the Republican Party? (Having deemed the far right "mean," Mr. Shellenberger unleashes a stream of mean and hateful invective against them. Self-awareness is apparently not Mr. Shellenberger's strong suit.) 

The Democratic focus seems to be to hold on to the Senate while assuming the House of Representatives will remain Republic. But, who such a defeatist attitude, especially at a time when Republicans are so vulnerable with the Democratic success in reaching the deficit steadily over the past few years, the economic recovery and the steady increase in new jobs? (Let's go to the transcript. Yes, this is indeed what he typed. With words flying off his computer unencumbered by rational thought or proper grammar, Mr. Shellenberger attempts to sing the praises of democratic accomplishments, unconnected to any known reality.) The Republicans have nothing going for them and have shown their ineptness by shutting down the government, refusing to participate in budget and debt reductions, reusing to move forward with immigration reform and dragging their heels on needed infrastructure funding. (Titters of laughter from the audience. His spell correct yields unexpected lucidity to his otherwise pink unicorn and rainbow view of recent history.)

Only the Democrats have shown a willingness to move forward on issues such as campaign financing reform, health care for missions of American, immigration reform, environmental protections, energy efficiency and military restraint. (More accurately, "Only the Democrats have shown a willingness to move forward on their own agenda," while "Republicans are obstructionist/extreme/eeevil for moving ahead on theirs.")

John Shellenberger

Bozeman

Work and Worth - by Robert Reich

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. This post first appeared on RobertReich.org.
-------------------------

Dr. Reich is, as I mentioned before, a smart and educated man. And, he is obscenely well-paid. But even smart people say and do dumb things. Or at the very least, cannot see past their biases. 

It is certainly true that some people are paid much more than they're worth considering their perceived contribution to society, but that's irrelevant. Dr. Reich is operating from a false premise, that is, the value of work is or should be measured people who are not party to the transaction. "Value to society" does not come to bear because society is not paying them, so society has no say.

You see, people do not get paid according to the nobility and value of their work as it applies to the benefit of others, they get paid via a consensual, mutually beneficial private agreement known as employment. There is value willingly exchanged, labor for money. 

Pay is a known condition of the employment agreement. People who are "underpaid" entered into the transaction knowing their pay, and yet still agreed to the terms of the employment. In fact, many of them went to college for years in order to obtain the credentials necessary to obtain employment in those "underpaid" fields, all of them knowing full well what awaited them. 

So, Dr. Reich's complaint rings hollow.

Others are paid because they own businesses that market products people want and need. These entrepreneurs benefit from the fruit of their labor, their ingenuity,  and the willingness to take risks. They exerted the effort, and they benefit according to those parameters, not what society would impose on them.

Still others are highly paid because of some rare or unique skill. Professional sports players possess skills few others have, plus the ability to attract high amounts of revenue to their team. They are paid based on those criteria, plus the relatively small window of opportunity they have for being able to perform at those high levels before getting too old or injured.

Dr. Reich's world view, his paradigm, is quasi-socialist. He resents the idea that people make too much money as if such a thing were possible, that they do it in ways that are not properly beneficial, and that these people might spend their own money in ways that Dr. Reich disapproves of. Why does Dr. Reich get to make this determination? 

We know what Dr. Reich himself makes. Shall we pass judgment on that?
-----------------------

What someone is paid has little or no relationship to what their work is worth to society.

Does anyone seriously believe hedge-fund mogul Steven A. Cohen is worth the $2.3 billion he raked in last year, despite being slapped with a $1.8 billion fine after his firm pleaded guilty to insider trading?

On the other hand, what’s the worth to society of social workers who put in long and difficult hours dealing with patients suffering from mental illness or substance abuse? Probably higher than their average pay of $18.14 an hour, which translates into less than $38,000 a year.

How much does society gain from personal-care aides who assist the elderly, convalescents and persons with disabilities? Likely more than their average pay of $9.67 an hour, or just over $20,000 a year.

What’s the social worth of hospital orderlies who feed, bathe, dress and move patients, and empty their bed pans? Surely higher than their median wage of $11.63 an hour, or $24,190 a year.

Or of child care workers, who get $10.33 an hour, $21.490 a year? And preschool teachers, who earn $13.26 an hour, $27,570 a year?

Yet what would the rest of us do without these dedicated people?

Or consider kindergarten teachers, who make an average of $53,590 a year.

Before you conclude that’s generous, consider that a good kindergarten teacher is worth his or her weight in gold, almost.

One study found that children with outstanding kindergarten teachers are more likely to go to college and less likely to become single parents than a random set of children similar to them in every way other than being assigned a superb teacher.

And what of writers, actors, painters and poets? Only a tiny fraction ever become rich and famous. Most barely make enough to live on (many don’t, and are forced to take paying jobs to pursue their art). But society is surely all the richer for their efforts.

At the other extreme are hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders and top Washington lobbyists.

They’re getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do.

I don’t mean to sound unduly harsh, but I’ve never heard of a hedge-fund manager whose jobs entails attending to basic human needs (unless you consider having more money as basic human need) or enriching our culture (except through the myriad novels, exposés and movies made about greedy hedge-fund managers and investment bankers).

They don’t even build the economy.

Most financiers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists and management consultants are competing with other financiers, lawyers, lobbyists and management consultants in zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another.

They’re paid gigantic amounts because winning these games can generate far bigger sums, while losing them can be extremely costly.

It’s said that by moving money to where it can make more money, these games make the economy more efficient.

In fact, the games amount to a mammoth waste of societal resources.

They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off.

Meanwhile, the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society — if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems.

Graduates of Ivy League universities are more likely to enter finance and consulting than any other career.

For example, in 2010 (the most recent date for which we have data) close to 36 percent of Princeton graduates went into finance (down from the pre-financial crisis high of 46 percent in 2006). Add in management consulting, and it was close to 60 percent.

The hefty endowments of such elite institutions are swollen with tax-subsidized donations from wealthy alumni, many of whom are seeking to guarantee their own kids’ admissions so they too can become enormously rich financiers and management consultants.

But I can think of a better way for taxpayers to subsidize occupations with more social merit: Forgive the student debts of graduates who choose social work, child care, elder care, nursing and teaching.

IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

Although I understand where the author is coming from, we have to remember that churches entered into their tax free status knowing full well that they were not permitted to advocate for political candidates as a condition of getting certain benefits. Frankly, they gave their silence in exchange for money. That is the choice they made, a deal with the devil.

And certainly we can assert that such prohibitions on religious speech, no matter how tied to cash and prizes, violate the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law..." does not allow government agencies to create conditions where religious practice is curtailed. 

But beyond that, what the IRS says and what the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, are two different things. FFRF is the organization who brought suit against the IRS for not prosecuting offending churches. 

First, the IRS website tells us this: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

However, when we look at the FFRF website, we find a rather hyperbolic description of their victory over the IRS. They twice mischaracterize the regulatory prohibition. Rather than 501(c)(3) organizations not being able to advocate for any particular candidate, the FFRF says that the illegal issue is about "...partisan politicking from the pulpit..." "Partisan politicking" is not accidentally chosen language, it is a purposefully over-broad, so as to leave open the idea that the IRS prohibition extends to include advocacy about any issue that could be considered political, like abortion or gay marriage.

Why? Religion-haters like the FFRF want churches to shut up. Period. They do not want religious influence in society or government at all. You see, for the Left, everything is political. So any commentary at all about the moral issues of the day have political ramifications, and they would prefer it all to be illegal. It's a growing perspective, strangely, even within the Church.
--------------------------

First Amendment: Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage.

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit.

The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.

The irony of this agreement is that it's being enforced by the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.

Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"?

Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it's not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.

The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking.

The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling.

But is the Catholic Church "politicking" when it proclaims its "Fortnight for Freedom" dedicated to opposing ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate and the government's forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?

Are Protestant and evangelical churches "politicking" when they participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to "vote their faith," which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?

The FFRF says that such events at "rogue churches" have "become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity." But doesn't the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?

Rather than "rogue churches," it's the rogue IRS that needs to be stopped.



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073114-711290-irs-deal-with-atheists-to-monitor-churches.htm#ixzz39SGd3YtA

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Male Justices Didn’t Really Understand Hobby Lobby - by Matt Wilstein

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------

I think Ginsberg's criticism of her fellow justices is very unseemly. I can't recall a time where a sitting Supreme court justice has accused fellow Supreme court justices of ignorance. Read on:
--------------------------

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg became an even bigger hero on the left last month when she delivered a scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, which is now exempt from providing (No, it was forced to provide) certain types of birth control to its employees based on its founder’s religious beliefs. This week, she sat down for an extended interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric to explain why she found the decision so damaging.

“Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to in order to control her own destiny,” Ginsburg told Couric. (Really? Women can't control their own destiny without birth control? Does that mean when a person becomes a parent their rights have been violated because they have an obligation to care for their child? And since when has the concept of controlling one's destiny been a legal precept?

Further, why does she think the law should value "access," as in a method to obtain certain services or products? And how does declining to support something on moral grounds have anything to do with access? Do women who work for Hobby Lobby no longer have the ability to drive to a pharmacy and purchase birth control? Maybe they don't have a car. Wouldn't that be denying access to birth control as well?)

While she said she “respects the belief” of the Hobby Lobby owners, (Which means she doesn't.) she added, “they have no constitutional right to force that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work them who don’t share that belief.” (Which means that in her view the interests of women to get birth control that is paid by their employer exceeds the interests of the employer to decline to pay for it as the owners pursue their religious convictions. 

Notice that Ginsberg asserts there is no "constitutional right to force that belief," a truly ignorant statement. First, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right," because rights are not created by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants powers or makes restrictions on anyone except government.

Second, no religious belief is being forced per se. Hobby Lobby's specific reason is that some contraceptives have the effect of being an abortifacient, and scientifically speaking, ends a genetically human life. This is not a religious belief. But since the case was argued and decided based on religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law..." is definitive. Congress made a law that not only violated the Constitution, it violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Third, religion isn't being imposed. Government was being imposed, and the ruling reflected the fact that government policy was forcing private entities to do things.)

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Couric asked later in the interview of the men who made up the majority.

“I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied after a pause. “But, justices continue to think, and can change. So I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.” (So these justices are blinded by something. What would that be, Justice Ginsberg? They're not thinking, hmmm? Really? What an astounding claim! The fact that the majority is not on board with the feminist agenda is apparently sufficient cause to cast doubt on the intellectual skills of these justices.) Asked if she believes those five justices had a blind spot when it came to Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg said, “Yes.”

Does God Speak to Us Today? - by David Vaughn Elliott

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------------
Hot on the heels of yesterday's post is this article written by the same author. In our increasingly focused quest to find a coherent scriptural explanation of the cessationist viewpoint, we turn again to Mr. Elliot to see if he can lead us to the doctrinal promised land. Read on:
----------------------------------

Does God speak to us today--audibly, in visions, in dreams, via angels, via prophecy? Should we believe someone who says, "God spoke to me last night"? Or, did God terminate revelations to mankind with the writing of the last book of the Bible? (Yes, these are the key questions, properly asked and phrased. Let's see if he answers them with Scriptural elucidation.)

Let us not confuse prophecy with preaching. Men who preach must study. Prophecy involves no study; it is a revelation by inspiration with words directly from God. "I will raise them up a Prophet... and will put my words in his mouth" (Deut. 18:18). "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21). (Ah, the author touches on something important. What, if anything, is the difference between prophecy and preaching? Should there be an separation between the two? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Scripture treats them similarly, despite the author's protestations. 2 Peter 2:1: 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 

Notice that there is a shared dimension between prophecy and preaching. There is a common pitfall. There is a coexistence of both expressions in the Body. And as we read the next couple of verses in 2 Peter, we will find there is the same result that comes from their false expression: 2 Peter 2:2–3: 

Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Further, given the many verses in the N.T. regarding the testing of prophecy, it is clear that doctrinal and scriptural conformity is required. Therefore, those who engage in prophetic expressions must be trustworthy, learned, and mature people, as do those who discern prophecy.)

Are visions, dreams, revelations, and prophecies given to everyone? (Wrong question. The title of the author's presentation is, "Does God Speak to Us Today?" Apparently he wishes to change the subject.) 

As for Old Testament times, Heb. 1:1 gives the reply: "God, who at various times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets." God spoke TO the fathers BY the prophets. Mt. Sinai is the only time God spoke directly to all His people, and the people could not stand it (Ex. 20:18-19). In New Testament times there may have been a larger percentage of God's people receiving revelations; yet, even then, Paul asked the rhetorical questions: "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? (1 Cor. 12:29). The understood reply in each case is, "No." (The author has confused the limitations of the various offices in the Church with the general revelation that comes to all believers as they walk in the Spirit. No one in charismatic circles makes the claim that everyone should be apostles, prophets, teachers, or workers of miracles, so the author is refuting an idea that no one has asserted.)

Not only so, but Hebrews also indicates a finality with Jesus' coming. "God... spoke in time past" (1:1) is contrasted to "has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son" (1:2). "Last days." That has a ring of finality. Plus the fact that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God upon the earth. No one greater could come. (Indeed, Jesus is the Word of God, and we have His mind. 1Co. 2:14-16: 

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ.

We also have the Spirit of Christ. Ro. 8:9-11:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

This means that in these last days, we possess the presence and infilling of Christ via the Holy Spirit. His nature begins to transform us, His Word feeds us, corrects us, and enlightens our inner man to receive the truth, to understand Scripture, and to know the will of God for our lives. Romans 12:2: 

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Jesus is indeed the supreme revelation, and we have Him.)

Nevertheless, the Son, the night He was betrayed, told His apostles: "I have yet many things to say unto you... when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:12-14). Although Jesus completed His work on earth, the whole truth about Him was not revealed immediately. All truth would be revealed to and by His apostles after He ascended.

Speaking of the mystery of Christ, Eph. 3:5 says: "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." The fact that the apostles and prophets spoke by revelation is precisely the reason why the church of Jesus Christ is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20).

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into "all truth." (In our previous post we inferred that Mr. Elliot was implying that John 16:12-14 only applied to the apostles. We noted there that this passage is part of a much longer passage starting at 14:1, that clearly is addressed to every believer. 

And 1Jn. 2:20 creates a problem for Mr. Elliot: 

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Further, John is addressing his "little children," which means he is talking to everyday church people, not apostles, not pastors, not the supermen of faith. These are the rank and file, and he tells them something quite different than what Mr. Elliot says:

1 Jn 2:27: As for you, the Spirit which he gave you is still in you, and you have no need of any teacher; but as his Spirit gives you teaching about all things, and is true and not false, so keep your hearts in him, through the teaching which he has given you.

Mr. Elliot is attempting to yank Jn. 16:12-14 out of its context to make his point. Unless he is attempting to assert that long passages of the N.T. no longer apply. If that is true, we might wonder why they were included at all...) 

Since the apostles received "all truth" in the "last days," there is no more truth to be revealed before the end of time. (Now we know this is false. It really doesn't even stand up to the smell test. The Holy Spirit is in every believer. How is it possible that we would have Him but He is no longer guides us into all truth? How is it that only the Apostles had "all truth?" Where does this artificial distinction come from? It must be because the author goes into his investigation with preconceived notions, where he sets out to prove what he assumes.

"Truth" is ...not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity, truth in the moral sphere, divine truth revealed to man, straightforwardness. It goes far beyond knowing facts. Truth is revelatory, it is wisdom from above [James 3:17]. 

The Holy Spirit leads us all. His ministry is "...to to be a guide, lead on one's way..." It does violence to Scripture to suggest that only the Apostles benefited from the leading of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is a dangerous false teaching contradicted everywhere by Scripture. 

Ro. 8:9, 14: You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ... because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Therefore, Jude tells us to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). "Once." Many Bibles translate this, "once for all." All truth was delivered in the first century. (Mr. Elliot is term switching. He was talking about "truth," now he's talking about the faith. No one disputes that the one faith by which men can be saved is delivered "once for all." However, truth is what comes to us via the Spirit of truth, This truth saves us, disciples us, and matures us. It is the supernatural work of God in every believer.)

That is why 1 Cor. 13:8 says, "whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away." This does not mean when Jesus returns. Why? Because the same chapter says, "now abides faith, hope, love" (13:13). Faith and hope abide until Jesus returns. But while faith and hope remain, prophecy is done away. When? When the perfect, complete truth was delivered once for all (13:10). (We covered this in my prior post. "Perfect" cannot be the completed canon. This is simply false teaching. 

But again, notice how he substitutes the "truth" for the "faith.")

If someone today has a new vision or prophecy from God, let him add it to the Bible. (Why?) 

If he does not dare add it to the Bible, let him admit it is not a revelation from God. (Why?) 

The Bible is complete. (Agreed.)

We already have all truth. We just need to examine and follow it. (We'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the author actually answered the questions he asked. We don't think he even came close.)