Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
I really dislike the writing style with one or two sentences per paragraph. It's very common in AP news stories, as if the average reader can't be counted on to have a sufficient attention span to read an entire paragraph.
----------------------
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Christians, Muslims, and the reference of “God” - Edward Feser
Originally found here. Quite interesting presentation, although I don't necessarily agree with where he draws his lines.
-----------------------------
The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God has become the topic du jour in certain parts of the blogosphere. Our friends Frank Beckwith, Bill Vallicella, Lydia McGrew, Fr. Al Kimel, and Dale Tuggy are among those who have commented. (Dale has also posted a useful roundup of articles on the controversy.) Frank, Fr. Kimel, and Dale are among the many commentators who have answered in the affirmative. Lydia answers in the negative. While not firmly answering in the negative, Bill argues that the question isn’t as easy to settle as the yea-sayers suppose, as does Peter Leithart at First Things. However, with one qualification, I would say that the yea-sayers are right.
-----------------------------
The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God has become the topic du jour in certain parts of the blogosphere. Our friends Frank Beckwith, Bill Vallicella, Lydia McGrew, Fr. Al Kimel, and Dale Tuggy are among those who have commented. (Dale has also posted a useful roundup of articles on the controversy.) Frank, Fr. Kimel, and Dale are among the many commentators who have answered in the affirmative. Lydia answers in the negative. While not firmly answering in the negative, Bill argues that the question isn’t as easy to settle as the yea-sayers suppose, as does Peter Leithart at First Things. However, with one qualification, I would say that the yea-sayers are right.
Referring to God
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is worse than Bernie Sanders
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
I have followed this fellow's blog for some time, waiting for something of substance to be posted. He's a self described liberal reverend, and routinely mocks Christians who actually believe the Bible.
So he finally posted something that sounds like he actually put a bit of thought into it.
----------------------
I have followed this fellow's blog for some time, waiting for something of substance to be posted. He's a self described liberal reverend, and routinely mocks Christians who actually believe the Bible.
So he finally posted something that sounds like he actually put a bit of thought into it.
----------------------
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
In The River - Jesus Culture - FB conversation
I posted this:
This is a worship song? Ugh.
Me: I like a lot of their songs, usually they have some depth and doctrinal clarity. Not this one.
FS: I don't see what the problem is …
Vague, vapid lyrics that repeat and repeat, nothing that extols God directly, in fact a song that is a lot more about us than Him …
it has all the ingredients of most modern "worship" sings.
SL: yep Frank way to worldly for me
BH: I would advise caution when judging someone else's expression of worship!
Me: I will judge this expression of worship, because it is a poor expression of worship.
FS: Well, weak theology is weak (or absent) theology! This is not to say that there is no worth to these songs on a personal level, but in a corporate setting they fall woefully short, in my humble opinion.
Worship is not for us, but for HIM. Songs that are designed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy miss the mark. We are often blessed with such a feeling as a result of worshiping, but that feeling must never be the goal or barometer of worship. Worship is a sacrifice, meaning that it comes at a cost to us.
PH: That's right, it may be a great song to sing along with in the car on the way to work. In fact, its probably better than anything you'd hear on secular radio. However, I agree that it has no place in a worship service.
Me: My yardstick for worship songs is if they articulate they awesomeness of God, if they speak to a deep yearning for His presence and holiness, and if they give Him the glory due His name. They don't have to be particularly elegant or profound, but they do have to have something to say to Him and about Him that places Him front and center.
BH: "Worship is not for us, but for HIM." Precisely!!! Expressions of worship are directed toward Him. They are personal, intimate and honest. I am sure it puts a smile on his face when He hears others describe those heartfelt expressions as "vague" and "vapid"! He probably thinks, "Awe, aren't they cute when they are being critical!"
When our spouses speak sweet nothings into our ears, those word move us because of the relationship. They may appear to be "nothings" to others, but they are sweet to us. Dare I say they may even "extol" us! And to hear someone who may have overheard those "nothings" describe them as "vague" and "vapid" would certainly not make us very happy!
"Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation." Romans 12:15-16
BH: Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Phil. 4:8
Me: We are not talking about personal expression, we are talking about corporate gatherings. Thus, the ways a church body expresses worship are different than the personal worship we are moved to express. There is no room in a worship service for arbitrary standards (or no standards) regarding worship songs.
Otherwise, anything goes, including the contents of the sermon, the choice of holy book that is valued (pr portions thereof), and even the interactions of the attendees toward each other. We cannot demand a standard for these other things and then say that whatever song we sing is fine.
IW: "I like a lot of their songs, usually they have some depth and doctrinal clarity. Not this one." So the point of this post is...what?
Me: My point is that this is a bad worship song.
ND: The only thing I would say is if they call it a worship song u have a point but they also have licence to make music other than worship and the word says do everything u do unto Him so the argument is circular
ND: Make a joyful noise and so on
Me: It is a worship song written for public worship. In The River - Jesus Culture Lyrics and Chords | Worship Together
AF: Indeed worship is for Him, not us. It's all about Jesus.
With that in mind....lyrics matter. Is this the best we can do in worshipping our Creator & Savior??? Really???
There are so many powerful worship song lyrics. Isn't the idea in corporate worship that we be honoring Him with Praise Thanksgiving & Worship?? All of us corporately.
I agree Rich. Those lyrics are weak. Thank you for bringing up the topic & discussion
AF: I am reminded of a worship song we endured several years ago where the worship leader shrieked at the top of her lungs "God is good""!!!" About 100 times...& no one else was singing along. It was a stunning display of self....which had nothing to do with corporate worship. Several people actually walked out of the church before the message.
TH: Huh, that's funny... I can worship Him alongside this song. I worship Him for His presence being the river or every other water like reference in these lyrics. Read it that way and see if that may sit better with you. It is certainly what the writer is conveying.
I have an easy time listening to this song and worshipping the Father. That is where these lyrics take me. I can look at every line here and my interpretation expresses itself by worshipping the Father. If you don't understand that, it's totally fine with me and if you'd like I can explain my interpretation to you easily. I can tell you with certainty that I am not alone in my thinking. But you know what? I am totally fine with people not getting our interpretation. Scripture is full of people judging other people's expressions of worship, but God liked it.
Judging other BELIEVER'S expressions of worship based upon your own revelations or interpretations is beneath you, Rich and we can't afford this in the Church today. When I read posts like this it saddens me to my core. What good is happening here? Were you truly wanting an answer to your question "This is a worship song?" or were you stating an opinion?
This looks like divisiveness and judgement. Or am I not seeing something? Seriously, please fill me in.
AF: I think this is a great discussion among Believers. I don't view it as divisive and I like it as a song. I think this discussion is an opportunity to discuss corporate worship. Somebody makes the decision what songs to sing at Church and most worship leaders I have met in my 62 years welcome input.
TH: From my perspective, and it may be flawed, there is little "discussion" happening. Looks like people labeling a song as, to quote you, "weak". My question is- Who are we to label someone else's form of worship? If it doesn't work for you... then don't listen to it. It works for countless others, in a corporate setting none the less! And to boil it all down, what do you think God thinks about it? Did he give you these parameters of "This qualifies as a worship song in private" and "That qualifies as a worship song in public"? How about "This is what qualifies as a 'weak' song."? How about "You can call this song 'weak' and say things like 'Is this the best we can do? Really?' when the lyrics don't say this or that"? Seems like a judgement to me. Not a discussion. Was there not a time during your life when the Church largely discredited something just to have God use that very thing in His Kingdom. Just think about the use of drums in a worship setting and the amount of push back from most churches or Rock Music as a whole. Today nearly everything on KLOVE would be considered Rock Music compared to the mainstream worship music in the 80s. Yet the Church judged and condemned and turned so many away and hurt so many more with trivial differences like this. That is not Jesus. Not the Jesus I know.
Me: My Lord deserves better than this song. It's fluff. Compare it to a hymn like "Solid Rock" and you'll see that excusing a substandard song is nothing more than accepting less than the best.
David would not accept anything but the most skilled musicians and the most profound expressions of worship. The Christian church lacks depth and power because it so willingly compromises. We've forgotten who we are because we've forgotten the fear of the Lord.
I will pass judgment, because the Scriptures command us to. Nothing less than the best is the standard toward which we strive.
TH: I'm curious what scriptures you are referring to?
"It's fluff" is your opinion, Rich. Is there even a slight chance that you could be missing something here or have you convinced yourself you are right?
Me: 1Th. 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1Co. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
Jn. 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Of course I could be wrong. It's just my opinion, based on decades of my Christian walk.
Me: As an aside, I'm a songwriter. I want my songs to carry the Presence, and carry people into the Presence. I spend a lot of time considering what God is saying for me to put in the words so that the Body will be edified and brought into worship.
My craft is not for the sake of writing cool songs, it is for for the glory of God. I've abandoned many a song when they've come up short.
Last thing. I know God is leading me somewhere when I'm writing, because things come to mind I wouldn't ordinarily be contemplating. It is this anointing that allows us to express God's heart. Without the anointing, I might as well not even write songs.
TH: And so this gives you the insight into how this song came about? The writers were writing a cool song? Did these writers definitely not go to the same place you do in your mind? Was this song not the result of an encounter with Holy Spirit? I can tell you that I have sat through your worship sessions. There have been songs that have felt anointed and songs that have not. But I don't feel the need to discredit the song when I don't connect with the lyrics. When I don't understand them. When I don't feel as if it was worshipping the Father.
TH: By the way- I have always been blessed when you worship. I seriously honor that gift and I hope you feel nothing less!
Me: Ty, is any and every song ever written permissible in church? Secular, Hindu, satanist songs? Would you as a watchman over the flock permit everything?
What about holy books? Is the Book of Mormon ok? Why or why not? If you draw the line at any of these things, then we are not far apart, because I simply am drawing the line in a slightly different place than you when it comes to worship music.
I demand excellence in the lyrics, you not as much. So where's your line, and couldn't the same charges you leveled at me for my line be leveled at you for your line? If Joe Blow can worship the Father to a Buddhist song, on what basis could you object it be included in a worship service? Otherwise you would be judgmental, right?
AF: Just to balance this a bit....our retired Pastor is 87 and pretty much thinks anything short of the old Hymms and singing Psalms is weak. lol I don't hear Rich saying that at all. It's not about me. Or any of us. It's about Jesus. And we as Individuals can pick you & choose what we listen to. However, corporate worship rises to a higher level. Worship leaders are teachers. A higher level of Biblical responsibility and accountability. I don't need to love every song I sing. But the words should be powerful Biblical messages of Worship, Thanksgiving and Praise!
EH: I just wanted to simply say that I love any song that sings praises to our loving Jesus. In the world today there are so many songs that sing of sadness and worldly things. I am overjoyed to hear worship in any form, as long as we all worship the same loving God, it makes my heart happy. smile emoticon Just as my heart sings when my five year old enters the room singing "Jesus loves me", my heart would sing if I heard someone singing this song as well. To me it's not the complexity of the lyrics, it is the heart behind it.
This is a worship song? Ugh.
Verse 1
There is a river where goodness flows
There is a fountain that drowns sorrows
There is an ocean deeper than fear
The tide is rising, rising
Verse 2
There is a current stirring deep inside
It’s overflowing from the heart of God
The flood of heaven crashing over us
The tide is rising, rising
Bursting, bursting Up from the ground we feel it now
Bursting, bursting Up from the ground we feel it now
Chorus
We come alive in the river
We come alive in the river
We come alive in the river
We come alive in the river
BridgeSL: Jesus Culture has MANY problems
Break open prison doors
Set all the captives free
Spring up a well, spring up a well
Spring up the well in me
Nothing can stop this joy
We’re dancing in the streets
Spring up a well, spring up a well
Spring up the well in me
Me: I like a lot of their songs, usually they have some depth and doctrinal clarity. Not this one.
FS: I don't see what the problem is …
Vague, vapid lyrics that repeat and repeat, nothing that extols God directly, in fact a song that is a lot more about us than Him …
it has all the ingredients of most modern "worship" sings.
SL: yep Frank way to worldly for me
BH: I would advise caution when judging someone else's expression of worship!
Me: I will judge this expression of worship, because it is a poor expression of worship.
FS: Well, weak theology is weak (or absent) theology! This is not to say that there is no worth to these songs on a personal level, but in a corporate setting they fall woefully short, in my humble opinion.
Worship is not for us, but for HIM. Songs that are designed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy miss the mark. We are often blessed with such a feeling as a result of worshiping, but that feeling must never be the goal or barometer of worship. Worship is a sacrifice, meaning that it comes at a cost to us.
PH: That's right, it may be a great song to sing along with in the car on the way to work. In fact, its probably better than anything you'd hear on secular radio. However, I agree that it has no place in a worship service.
Me: My yardstick for worship songs is if they articulate they awesomeness of God, if they speak to a deep yearning for His presence and holiness, and if they give Him the glory due His name. They don't have to be particularly elegant or profound, but they do have to have something to say to Him and about Him that places Him front and center.
BH: "Worship is not for us, but for HIM." Precisely!!! Expressions of worship are directed toward Him. They are personal, intimate and honest. I am sure it puts a smile on his face when He hears others describe those heartfelt expressions as "vague" and "vapid"! He probably thinks, "Awe, aren't they cute when they are being critical!"
When our spouses speak sweet nothings into our ears, those word move us because of the relationship. They may appear to be "nothings" to others, but they are sweet to us. Dare I say they may even "extol" us! And to hear someone who may have overheard those "nothings" describe them as "vague" and "vapid" would certainly not make us very happy!
"Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation." Romans 12:15-16
BH: Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Phil. 4:8
Me: We are not talking about personal expression, we are talking about corporate gatherings. Thus, the ways a church body expresses worship are different than the personal worship we are moved to express. There is no room in a worship service for arbitrary standards (or no standards) regarding worship songs.
Otherwise, anything goes, including the contents of the sermon, the choice of holy book that is valued (pr portions thereof), and even the interactions of the attendees toward each other. We cannot demand a standard for these other things and then say that whatever song we sing is fine.
IW: "I like a lot of their songs, usually they have some depth and doctrinal clarity. Not this one." So the point of this post is...what?
Me: My point is that this is a bad worship song.
ND: The only thing I would say is if they call it a worship song u have a point but they also have licence to make music other than worship and the word says do everything u do unto Him so the argument is circular
ND: Make a joyful noise and so on
Me: It is a worship song written for public worship. In The River - Jesus Culture Lyrics and Chords | Worship Together
AF: Indeed worship is for Him, not us. It's all about Jesus.
With that in mind....lyrics matter. Is this the best we can do in worshipping our Creator & Savior??? Really???
There are so many powerful worship song lyrics. Isn't the idea in corporate worship that we be honoring Him with Praise Thanksgiving & Worship?? All of us corporately.
I agree Rich. Those lyrics are weak. Thank you for bringing up the topic & discussion
AF: I am reminded of a worship song we endured several years ago where the worship leader shrieked at the top of her lungs "God is good""!!!" About 100 times...& no one else was singing along. It was a stunning display of self....which had nothing to do with corporate worship. Several people actually walked out of the church before the message.
TH: Huh, that's funny... I can worship Him alongside this song. I worship Him for His presence being the river or every other water like reference in these lyrics. Read it that way and see if that may sit better with you. It is certainly what the writer is conveying.
I have an easy time listening to this song and worshipping the Father. That is where these lyrics take me. I can look at every line here and my interpretation expresses itself by worshipping the Father. If you don't understand that, it's totally fine with me and if you'd like I can explain my interpretation to you easily. I can tell you with certainty that I am not alone in my thinking. But you know what? I am totally fine with people not getting our interpretation. Scripture is full of people judging other people's expressions of worship, but God liked it.
Judging other BELIEVER'S expressions of worship based upon your own revelations or interpretations is beneath you, Rich and we can't afford this in the Church today. When I read posts like this it saddens me to my core. What good is happening here? Were you truly wanting an answer to your question "This is a worship song?" or were you stating an opinion?
This looks like divisiveness and judgement. Or am I not seeing something? Seriously, please fill me in.
AF: I think this is a great discussion among Believers. I don't view it as divisive and I like it as a song. I think this discussion is an opportunity to discuss corporate worship. Somebody makes the decision what songs to sing at Church and most worship leaders I have met in my 62 years welcome input.
TH: From my perspective, and it may be flawed, there is little "discussion" happening. Looks like people labeling a song as, to quote you, "weak". My question is- Who are we to label someone else's form of worship? If it doesn't work for you... then don't listen to it. It works for countless others, in a corporate setting none the less! And to boil it all down, what do you think God thinks about it? Did he give you these parameters of "This qualifies as a worship song in private" and "That qualifies as a worship song in public"? How about "This is what qualifies as a 'weak' song."? How about "You can call this song 'weak' and say things like 'Is this the best we can do? Really?' when the lyrics don't say this or that"? Seems like a judgement to me. Not a discussion. Was there not a time during your life when the Church largely discredited something just to have God use that very thing in His Kingdom. Just think about the use of drums in a worship setting and the amount of push back from most churches or Rock Music as a whole. Today nearly everything on KLOVE would be considered Rock Music compared to the mainstream worship music in the 80s. Yet the Church judged and condemned and turned so many away and hurt so many more with trivial differences like this. That is not Jesus. Not the Jesus I know.
Me: My Lord deserves better than this song. It's fluff. Compare it to a hymn like "Solid Rock" and you'll see that excusing a substandard song is nothing more than accepting less than the best.
David would not accept anything but the most skilled musicians and the most profound expressions of worship. The Christian church lacks depth and power because it so willingly compromises. We've forgotten who we are because we've forgotten the fear of the Lord.
I will pass judgment, because the Scriptures command us to. Nothing less than the best is the standard toward which we strive.
TH: I'm curious what scriptures you are referring to?
"It's fluff" is your opinion, Rich. Is there even a slight chance that you could be missing something here or have you convinced yourself you are right?
Me: 1Th. 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1Co. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
Jn. 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Of course I could be wrong. It's just my opinion, based on decades of my Christian walk.
Me: As an aside, I'm a songwriter. I want my songs to carry the Presence, and carry people into the Presence. I spend a lot of time considering what God is saying for me to put in the words so that the Body will be edified and brought into worship.
My craft is not for the sake of writing cool songs, it is for for the glory of God. I've abandoned many a song when they've come up short.
Last thing. I know God is leading me somewhere when I'm writing, because things come to mind I wouldn't ordinarily be contemplating. It is this anointing that allows us to express God's heart. Without the anointing, I might as well not even write songs.
TH: And so this gives you the insight into how this song came about? The writers were writing a cool song? Did these writers definitely not go to the same place you do in your mind? Was this song not the result of an encounter with Holy Spirit? I can tell you that I have sat through your worship sessions. There have been songs that have felt anointed and songs that have not. But I don't feel the need to discredit the song when I don't connect with the lyrics. When I don't understand them. When I don't feel as if it was worshipping the Father.
TH: By the way- I have always been blessed when you worship. I seriously honor that gift and I hope you feel nothing less!
Me: Ty, is any and every song ever written permissible in church? Secular, Hindu, satanist songs? Would you as a watchman over the flock permit everything?
What about holy books? Is the Book of Mormon ok? Why or why not? If you draw the line at any of these things, then we are not far apart, because I simply am drawing the line in a slightly different place than you when it comes to worship music.
I demand excellence in the lyrics, you not as much. So where's your line, and couldn't the same charges you leveled at me for my line be leveled at you for your line? If Joe Blow can worship the Father to a Buddhist song, on what basis could you object it be included in a worship service? Otherwise you would be judgmental, right?
AF: Just to balance this a bit....our retired Pastor is 87 and pretty much thinks anything short of the old Hymms and singing Psalms is weak. lol I don't hear Rich saying that at all. It's not about me. Or any of us. It's about Jesus. And we as Individuals can pick you & choose what we listen to. However, corporate worship rises to a higher level. Worship leaders are teachers. A higher level of Biblical responsibility and accountability. I don't need to love every song I sing. But the words should be powerful Biblical messages of Worship, Thanksgiving and Praise!
EH: I just wanted to simply say that I love any song that sings praises to our loving Jesus. In the world today there are so many songs that sing of sadness and worldly things. I am overjoyed to hear worship in any form, as long as we all worship the same loving God, it makes my heart happy. smile emoticon Just as my heart sings when my five year old enters the room singing "Jesus loves me", my heart would sing if I heard someone singing this song as well. To me it's not the complexity of the lyrics, it is the heart behind it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
HOW TO DEAL WITH YOUR UNCLE BOB - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
It's interesting that the Left views the holiday season as a time for advancing their political talking points, and doing it by shutting down opposition. Leftist websites are replete with scripted talking points designed to end the conversation.
Friday, December 18, 2015
These Students Are Leading a Movement for Free College in the United States - BY REBECCA NATHANSON
This post originally appeared at In These Times. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Blanket religious conclusions miss the point - By Bruce Gourley, PhD
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
Here we have another leftist informing us as to the proper way to believe, coupled with an attempt at moral equivalence.
First is Daniel Klusmann's letter.
------------------------
--------------------------
Here we have another leftist informing us as to the proper way to believe, coupled with an attempt at moral equivalence.
First is Daniel Klusmann's letter.
------------------------
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Obama created 12 million jobs, brought the stock market to record highs, got Bin Laden...
One of those Occupy memes that so typically has trouble with the facts.
12 million jobs: Actually, between January of 2009 and September of 2015 the number is 8,414,000 jobs, none of which were created by President Obama, because presidents don't create jobs, businesses do.
And by the way, the labor force participation rate in January of 2009 was 65.7%, while in September of 2015 it was 62.4%. In other words, although the number of jobs increased, the number of people not employed increased more. People are dropping out of the labor force because they can't find work.
And it is worth noting that some have asserted that most of those jobs went to non-Americans.
Stock market to record highs: A great thing for the fatcats on Wall Street I'm sure, but the middle class is not flush with a stock portfolio and corporate perks. Oh, and by the way, presidents don't increase the stock market, businesses do.
Got Bin Laden: I believe that was Seal Team 6, not Obama.
Got 17 million health insurance: I believe that was insurance companies, not Obama. And by the way, how is it that only 17 million of the 50 million uninsured got insured? With Obamacare being mandatory and all?
Saved the American Auto Industry: Both Chrysler and Chevrolet filed for bankruptcy AFTER receiving their bailouts. Ford, which did not take a bailout, did not file for bankruptcy.
Friday, December 11, 2015
What to Do About Disloyal Corporations - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
I find myself commenting on Dr. Reich's missives rather frequently, mostly because he is billed as an intellectual, yet his thinking and presentation lacks nuance and thoughtful consideration.
-----------------------
----------------------------
I find myself commenting on Dr. Reich's missives rather frequently, mostly because he is billed as an intellectual, yet his thinking and presentation lacks nuance and thoughtful consideration.
-----------------------
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
GOP Nutcase Louie Gohmert Just Perfectly Displayed The Insanity Driving Today’s Republican Party - By Allen Clifton
Found here (Link disabled due to possible virus). My comments in bold.
------------------------------
The author asserts that Republicans are insane and Rep. Gohmert is a nutcase. Just to be clear, Gohmert and the Republicans aren't mistaken. They aren't factually incorrect. They aren't deceived or deceivers. No, they are insane. Crazy. Flat-out nuts. Ridiculous. Radical. Delusions. Cartoonish. Depravity. Nonsense. Paranoid. These are all words offered by the author.
This over-the-top hyperbole is more and more common on the Left, where their opponents are always clowns, Hitlers, and/or certifiably crazy. This has a handy effect in that one does not have to offer a refutation or rebuttal. All one has to do is label and dismiss.
This is exactly what happens below. As you read, you will note that there isn't a single fact, statistic, argument, logical construct, or systematic examination of the issue. Nothing but "label and dismiss."
---------------------------
------------------------------
The author asserts that Republicans are insane and Rep. Gohmert is a nutcase. Just to be clear, Gohmert and the Republicans aren't mistaken. They aren't factually incorrect. They aren't deceived or deceivers. No, they are insane. Crazy. Flat-out nuts. Ridiculous. Radical. Delusions. Cartoonish. Depravity. Nonsense. Paranoid. These are all words offered by the author.
This over-the-top hyperbole is more and more common on the Left, where their opponents are always clowns, Hitlers, and/or certifiably crazy. This has a handy effect in that one does not have to offer a refutation or rebuttal. All one has to do is label and dismiss.
This is exactly what happens below. As you read, you will note that there isn't a single fact, statistic, argument, logical construct, or systematic examination of the issue. Nothing but "label and dismiss."
---------------------------
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun - by Dorothy Samuels
This post originally appeared at The Nation. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
Much like when they try to tell you about Christianity, the Left seldom gets it right when it comes to the Constitution.
---------------------------
----------------------------
Much like when they try to tell you about Christianity, the Left seldom gets it right when it comes to the Constitution.
---------------------------
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Bernie Sanders’s Odd Case Against Socialism - By Robert Tracinski
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. A very good analysis.
----------------------------
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
WHY THE SHARING ECONOMY IS HARMING WORKERS – AND WHAT MUST BE DONE - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------
In this holiday season it’s especially appropriate to acknowledge how many Americans don’t have steady work.
The so-called “share economy” includes independent contractors, temporary workers, the self-employed, part-timers, freelancers, and free agents. Most file 1099s rather than W2s, for tax purposes. (This "sharing economy" he dismissively puts in scare quotes is a creative way for people to exchange value, including bartering, co-ops, communal living, and various other independent ways of satisfying peoples' needs. So, a person who isn't interested in a 9-5 job, or who has a skill or service they want to market, or who has a product they think people will want, will embrace the "sharing economy" as a means to operate outside of the typical storefront, corporate economy.)
----------------------
In this holiday season it’s especially appropriate to acknowledge how many Americans don’t have steady work.
The so-called “share economy” includes independent contractors, temporary workers, the self-employed, part-timers, freelancers, and free agents. Most file 1099s rather than W2s, for tax purposes. (This "sharing economy" he dismissively puts in scare quotes is a creative way for people to exchange value, including bartering, co-ops, communal living, and various other independent ways of satisfying peoples' needs. So, a person who isn't interested in a 9-5 job, or who has a skill or service they want to market, or who has a product they think people will want, will embrace the "sharing economy" as a means to operate outside of the typical storefront, corporate economy.)
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
8 Ways to Deal With Your Conservative Relatives' Fox News Talking Points - By Kali Holloway,
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------
---------------------------
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Single-payer system could cure U.S. healthcare - By Richard A. Damon, MD
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
--------------------------
First, Dr. Damon's letter:
----------------------------
----------------------------
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
How to turn America Socialist
This is a primer for you if you're a budding socialist and want to know how to bring revolution.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Why I am a cessationist - by Jesse Johnson
Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------------
Another installment in our quest for the biblical argument for cessationism. Again, we are not interested in arguments derived from the failures of contemporary charismatics, arguments from silence, or arguments based on post-biblical history. We want the BIBLICAL case.
------------------------------
Another installment in our quest for the biblical argument for cessationism. Again, we are not interested in arguments derived from the failures of contemporary charismatics, arguments from silence, or arguments based on post-biblical history. We want the BIBLICAL case.
But the author will not do this. In this long, speculative, undocumented screed the author manages to quote only a single Scripture. One. That's it. Astounding.
This may be one of the worst defenses of cessationism we have ever read. Yes, it's that bad.
---------------------------
---------------------------
Friday, November 20, 2015
Good government both liberal and conservative - By Jerrold E. Johnson
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
Dr. Johnson doesn't seem to understand what conservatives believe. Or liberals for that matter.
--------------------------
--------------------------
Dr. Johnson doesn't seem to understand what conservatives believe. Or liberals for that matter.
--------------------------
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Fake Pregnancy Centers Will Say Some Ridiculous Things To Trick Women Away From Abortion- BY ALEX ZIELINSKI
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
The Left is on a never-ending quest to stifle dissent and quash intellectual diversity. Basically, they can't stand someone having another opinion. Thus, anyone who deigns to utter even the slightest divergence from the leftist Handbook of Approved Ideas will be subject to merciless sanction.
Notice even the title of the article is suggestive of this. "Fake pregnancy centers" means that these facilities aren't about pregnant women. But actually, they are about helping women keep their baby and not kill it. Now certainly a pro-choicer would object to the idea that a pregnancy center would actually be about continuing the pregnancy, but by virtue of not being in favor of abortion, they conclude these centers are fake.
-----------------------
----------------------------
The Left is on a never-ending quest to stifle dissent and quash intellectual diversity. Basically, they can't stand someone having another opinion. Thus, anyone who deigns to utter even the slightest divergence from the leftist Handbook of Approved Ideas will be subject to merciless sanction.
Notice even the title of the article is suggestive of this. "Fake pregnancy centers" means that these facilities aren't about pregnant women. But actually, they are about helping women keep their baby and not kill it. Now certainly a pro-choicer would object to the idea that a pregnancy center would actually be about continuing the pregnancy, but by virtue of not being in favor of abortion, they conclude these centers are fake.
-----------------------
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
10 Serious Problems with Jesus Calling - by Tim Challies
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
I should state at the onset that I'm not particularly interested in defending Sarah Young or her book. I am, however, going to examine Tim Challies' arguments.
----------------------------
I should state at the onset that I'm not particularly interested in defending Sarah Young or her book. I am, however, going to examine Tim Challies' arguments.
As I've mentioned previously, it's almost become a quest of mine to find a genuine biblical argument for cessationism. John MacArthur has failed. George Faull fell short. Steve Finnell couldn't step up. Tom Pennington, Phil Johnson, David Vaughn Elliot, Nathan Busenitz, Lyndon Unger and Nancy Guthrie didn't make the cut.
Let's see how Mr. Challies does:
------------------------------
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
What I Learned on My Red State Book Tour - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------
Dr. Reich is shocked that there are thoughtful, reasonable people out there in "red" America. A typical leftist elitist, he reflexively looks down on anyone not like him, whether it's ideology, education, or whatever.
I imagine it was quite an eye-opener to find people who are part of the unwashed masses who are actually smart, sophisticated, and informed.
-----------------------------
-------------------------------
Dr. Reich is shocked that there are thoughtful, reasonable people out there in "red" America. A typical leftist elitist, he reflexively looks down on anyone not like him, whether it's ideology, education, or whatever.
I imagine it was quite an eye-opener to find people who are part of the unwashed masses who are actually smart, sophisticated, and informed.
-----------------------------
Friday, November 13, 2015
Who owns Gallatin County? The Bozeman area’s biggest property owners ranked - By Eric Dietrich Chronicle Staff Writer
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------
What struck me about this article is it never does the math about who are the real big players in land ownership in Gallatin County. So, we shall do the math. The county has a total of 2603 square miles of area, of which 29 square miles is water. That's 2574 square miles, or 1,647,360 acres.
According to the article, the following public entities own land: US Government, 723,893 acres; State of Montana, 62,889; City of Bozeman, 3,879; MSU, 2255; Gallatin County, 1273; Bozeman Schools, 272; City of West Yellowstone, 63; City of Belgrade, 37; City of Manhattan, 40. Total owned by government entities is 794,601 acres, or 48.2% of the county.
That's nearly half the county that is off the taxpayer rolls.
---------------------------
What struck me about this article is it never does the math about who are the real big players in land ownership in Gallatin County. So, we shall do the math. The county has a total of 2603 square miles of area, of which 29 square miles is water. That's 2574 square miles, or 1,647,360 acres.
According to the article, the following public entities own land: US Government, 723,893 acres; State of Montana, 62,889; City of Bozeman, 3,879; MSU, 2255; Gallatin County, 1273; Bozeman Schools, 272; City of West Yellowstone, 63; City of Belgrade, 37; City of Manhattan, 40. Total owned by government entities is 794,601 acres, or 48.2% of the county.
That's nearly half the county that is off the taxpayer rolls.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Holy Crap - Ben Carson thinks our tax system should be based on the Bible - Adam Chodorow
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
(Now that Dr. Carson has risen up in the polls, the Left's cannon fire turns towards him. That's what the Left does, doubly so to Republican people of color. They cannot permit a smart, accomplished, educated black to be honored or respected, because their entire world view rests on the idea that the only hope for blacks is with them.
-------------------------
(Now that Dr. Carson has risen up in the polls, the Left's cannon fire turns towards him. That's what the Left does, doubly so to Republican people of color. They cannot permit a smart, accomplished, educated black to be honored or respected, because their entire world view rests on the idea that the only hope for blacks is with them.
So now the Left is going to tell us what the Bible really says, because they really believe it and all. And as everyone knows, they're expert theologians.)
Friday, November 6, 2015
The Rigging of the American Market - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
Having commented on several of Dr. Reich's posts, I am increasingly convinced that his ideology make him incapable of seeing what is right before his eyes. Yet he resolutely spouts leftist rhetoric time after time, completely unaware of the present economic situation.
------------------------
-------------------------
Having commented on several of Dr. Reich's posts, I am increasingly convinced that his ideology make him incapable of seeing what is right before his eyes. Yet he resolutely spouts leftist rhetoric time after time, completely unaware of the present economic situation.
------------------------
Thursday, November 5, 2015
The GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge - by Mike Lofgren
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------
Here is a typical smug, condescending "analysis" from a leftist.
--------------------
---------------------
Here is a typical smug, condescending "analysis" from a leftist.
--------------------
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Carly Fiorina’s Utterly Bonkers Take On The Constitution - BY IAN MILLHISER
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------
The leftist tendency toward hyperbole is here on full display. "Utterly bonkers?" Some synonyms to bonkers are bananas, nuts, crazy, wild, ballistic, and cuckoo. In other words, according to the author, it is beyond any standard of normalcy of intellectual processes to think the way Fiorina does.
Let's see if the author actually demonstrates this.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
The leftist tendency toward hyperbole is here on full display. "Utterly bonkers?" Some synonyms to bonkers are bananas, nuts, crazy, wild, ballistic, and cuckoo. In other words, according to the author, it is beyond any standard of normalcy of intellectual processes to think the way Fiorina does.
Let's see if the author actually demonstrates this.
-----------------------------
Friday, October 30, 2015
University Statement on Diversity and Inclusion - Notre Dame
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------
University Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
(The author offers a snippet of Matthew 11:28. One might be led to think that this is as far as it goes with Jesus. However, just prior to this in 11:20-24, Jesus pronounces judgment on certain cities. And Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus calls people to repent and stop sinning, viciously condemns the religious leaders of the day, and speaks extensively on the coming judgment.
The author, however, isolates the welcoming nature of Jesus to establish his entire case.)
-------------------------------
University Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
(The author offers a snippet of Matthew 11:28. One might be led to think that this is as far as it goes with Jesus. However, just prior to this in 11:20-24, Jesus pronounces judgment on certain cities. And Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus calls people to repent and stop sinning, viciously condemns the religious leaders of the day, and speaks extensively on the coming judgment.
The author, however, isolates the welcoming nature of Jesus to establish his entire case.)
Thursday, October 29, 2015
13 Ridiculous Things Ben Carson Actually Believes - BY KIRA LERNER
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------------
Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson has become an unlikely frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, leading recent polls in Iowa and surpassing all of the other Republican candidates’ recent fundraising totals.
Though he has never held political office, his short time in the spotlight has given him plenty of opportunity to make controversial and often factually incorrect statements. In May, ThinkProgress highlighted seven ridiculous things that Ben Carson believes. But in the past six months, Carson (Um, Dr. Carson. You will note in this article that the author never refers to Dr. Carson as Dr. I suspect this is a subtle way to diminish him. The author refers to him as "Carson" 27 times, and "Ben Carson" twice.)
-----------------------------------------
Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson has become an unlikely frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, leading recent polls in Iowa and surpassing all of the other Republican candidates’ recent fundraising totals.
Though he has never held political office, his short time in the spotlight has given him plenty of opportunity to make controversial and often factually incorrect statements. In May, ThinkProgress highlighted seven ridiculous things that Ben Carson believes. But in the past six months, Carson (Um, Dr. Carson. You will note in this article that the author never refers to Dr. Carson as Dr. I suspect this is a subtle way to diminish him. The author refers to him as "Carson" 27 times, and "Ben Carson" twice.)
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Letter writer doesn’t understand Constitution - By Judith Heilman
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
Richard Holper wrote a letter, and Judith Heilman wrote a response.
First, Mr. Holper's letter:
--------------------------------------
Richard Holper wrote a letter, and Judith Heilman wrote a response.
First, Mr. Holper's letter:
--------------------------------------
Friday, October 23, 2015
Why Do We Say, ‘God Told Me’? - By Nancy Guthrie
Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------------------
It's almost become a quest of ours to find a genuine biblical argument for the cessation of the supernatural gifts. John MacArthur has failed. George Faull fell short. Steve Finnell couldn't step up. Tom Pennington, Phil Johnson, David Vaughn Elliot, Nathan Busenitz, and Lyndon Unger didn't make the cut.
We are not a biblical scholars. Nor are we particularly smart. We are not here to decimate theological enemies and proclaim our superiority. We simply want to know the biblical case for cessationism. Not the failings of contemporary charismatics. Not the extrapolations from the silence of the Bible. Not the error of prosperity teachers or televangelists. No, we want the biblical case.
Let's see what Ms. Guthrie is able to do for us:
-------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
It's almost become a quest of ours to find a genuine biblical argument for the cessation of the supernatural gifts. John MacArthur has failed. George Faull fell short. Steve Finnell couldn't step up. Tom Pennington, Phil Johnson, David Vaughn Elliot, Nathan Busenitz, and Lyndon Unger didn't make the cut.
We are not a biblical scholars. Nor are we particularly smart. We are not here to decimate theological enemies and proclaim our superiority. We simply want to know the biblical case for cessationism. Not the failings of contemporary charismatics. Not the extrapolations from the silence of the Bible. Not the error of prosperity teachers or televangelists. No, we want the biblical case.
Let's see what Ms. Guthrie is able to do for us:
-------------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
What One Historian Wishes Bernie Sanders Said About Being a Socialist - by Bernard Weisberger
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
I enter this article with the hope that some cogent, logical points will be made without dissembling or obfuscation. It is so rare that we get an analytical, on-topic analysis from the Left.
Maybe today?
---------------------------------
-----------------------------------
I enter this article with the hope that some cogent, logical points will be made without dissembling or obfuscation. It is so rare that we get an analytical, on-topic analysis from the Left.
Maybe today?
---------------------------------
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
5 Reasons Christians Need to Stop Using the Term 'Illegal Immigrant' - By Benjamin Corey
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------------
It's interesting how the "religious" Left loves to make up rules about what we can say or think or have opinions about, but they chafe under the principles the church has been governed by for centuries. In essence, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." because they prefer their own rules, they are offended by the Bible, and they want to exercise power over people, cheerfully policing peoples' thoughts, bank accounts, and hate level.
This from Sojourners:
--------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
5 Popular Conservative Talking Points Debunked By Common Sense - By Allen Clifton
Found here. (Link disabled due to virus.) My comments in bold.
------------------------------------------
This is another attempt to debunk conservatives with supposedly devastating arguments, but it's just another failure. In fact, it's such an embarrassing failure that I'm surprised forwardprogressives.com published it. (Now defunct...) Oh. The writer is also the website owner...
Read on:
----------------------------------------
The words “common sense” and “conservative” don’t often go together. Especially since the rise of the tea party. You know, the people who base facts and reality based on what they want to be real instead of what actually is real. (First an insult, a distinctly non-intellectual approach.)
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Our new moral framework (part 3 of 3) - by David Murrow
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. A very good article.
---------------------------------------
When PC (politically correct) thinking made its debut in the 1980s, it was widely mocked. PC ideas such as gay marriage, multiculturalism, affirmative action, transgender pronouns and hate speech were once derided as follies of the loony left.
Here we sit three decades later. Many PC ideas are no longer laughable distractions — they’re moral imperatives.
Political Correctness didn’t just appear out of the ether. It’s rooted in a new moral framework which I call maternalism. I define maternalism as the belief that society and institutions exist to provide care for their citizens and customers. Key words are protection, nurturing, loving, and affirmation. Modern society places a premium on protecting the weak, leveling the playing field and being nice to one another.
This differs greatly from the old paternal framework, which is rooted in the idea that society and institutions exist to enforce standards and create order. Paternalism believes that society should challenge people to conform to agreed-upon social norms. We place a premium on developing the best and brightest, accumulating wealth and power, and speaking the truth – even when it offends.
When PC (politically correct) thinking made its debut in the 1980s, it was widely mocked. PC ideas such as gay marriage, multiculturalism, affirmative action, transgender pronouns and hate speech were once derided as follies of the loony left.
Here we sit three decades later. Many PC ideas are no longer laughable distractions — they’re moral imperatives.
Political Correctness didn’t just appear out of the ether. It’s rooted in a new moral framework which I call maternalism. I define maternalism as the belief that society and institutions exist to provide care for their citizens and customers. Key words are protection, nurturing, loving, and affirmation. Modern society places a premium on protecting the weak, leveling the playing field and being nice to one another.
This differs greatly from the old paternal framework, which is rooted in the idea that society and institutions exist to enforce standards and create order. Paternalism believes that society should challenge people to conform to agreed-upon social norms. We place a premium on developing the best and brightest, accumulating wealth and power, and speaking the truth – even when it offends.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Letter writer misconstrues liberal positions - By Jay Moor
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------------
I have commented a number of times regarding Mr. Moor in these pages. In the below letter he attempts to refute an observation about the Left from another letter writer, Jack Levitt. What I find delightful is that Mr. Moor actually deals with the matter at hand and addresses the points Mr. Levitt raised. This is indeed rare in leftism.
Mr. Moor ultimately fails, but I commend him for the effort.
Read on:
Monday, October 5, 2015
Constitution authors never envisioned mass shootings - By Rev. Jim Shelden
Friday, October 2, 2015
Strange Fire Redux - One Year After - by JohnMacAurthur
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------------
Dr. MacAuthur follows up with his assessment of the condition of the cessationist church after his conference.
-----------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Dr. MacAuthur follows up with his assessment of the condition of the cessationist church after his conference.
-----------------------------------
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Ministering at Burning Man - a postscript about a seeking generation
My friend is part of a team who goes to Burning Man every year. They have a tent on the playa, and invite people in to interpret their dreams. It's cutting edge stuff, perhaps even controversial.
Rather than beat them over the head with the Gospel, they love these people, they listen to them, they minister to them at their point of need.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
Rather than beat them over the head with the Gospel, they love these people, they listen to them, they minister to them at their point of need.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Strange Fire Conference - by John MacArthur
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------------
We always find it dangerous for pastors and ministry leaders to single out and criticize and condemn other groups or ministers from the pulpit. The danger is to those pastors and ministry leaders, for they are tearing down, not edifying. They are creating enmity, not restoring. They are driving their followers to an ideology, not encouraging them to pray.
Dr. MacArthur does this, and in a most egregious fashion, for he lumps everyone who disagrees with his doctrine into the same category, all of them having the same practices, understandings, failings, and motives. He seems to believe charismatics are all deceived, all are preaching false doctrine, and all are believing unbiblical things. And there is absolutely no good at all that comes from charismatic churches.
This is cultic thinking. It is a fear of someone having an independent thought. It is an intellectual and spiritual rigidity that demands that everyone who calls themselves Christian to walk in lock-step conformity with his ideas and practices. Any deviation invites condemnation, exclusion, derision, and persistent attack.
We'll be deleting (...) large sections of his presentation which do not come to bear on his argument.
Finally, we'll note that Dr. MacArthur will rarely quote or even reference Scripture in this long missive. For the most part, he will level unsubstantiated charges and make undocumented claims as well as broad generalizations.
It is a truly embarrassing presentation.
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
We always find it dangerous for pastors and ministry leaders to single out and criticize and condemn other groups or ministers from the pulpit. The danger is to those pastors and ministry leaders, for they are tearing down, not edifying. They are creating enmity, not restoring. They are driving their followers to an ideology, not encouraging them to pray.
Dr. MacArthur does this, and in a most egregious fashion, for he lumps everyone who disagrees with his doctrine into the same category, all of them having the same practices, understandings, failings, and motives. He seems to believe charismatics are all deceived, all are preaching false doctrine, and all are believing unbiblical things. And there is absolutely no good at all that comes from charismatic churches.
This is cultic thinking. It is a fear of someone having an independent thought. It is an intellectual and spiritual rigidity that demands that everyone who calls themselves Christian to walk in lock-step conformity with his ideas and practices. Any deviation invites condemnation, exclusion, derision, and persistent attack.
We'll be deleting (...) large sections of his presentation which do not come to bear on his argument.
Finally, we'll note that Dr. MacArthur will rarely quote or even reference Scripture in this long missive. For the most part, he will level unsubstantiated charges and make undocumented claims as well as broad generalizations.
It is a truly embarrassing presentation.
--------------------------------------------
Monday, September 28, 2015
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN - sermon notes
I
apologize for too many Scriptures. Each is worth a sermon. I'm focusing on concept, the
Kingdom, and how these connect.
I
will point out where there is gold, you go dig for it!
PART
ONE:
Kingdoms
have kings. Brief history. Ancient kings were kings of cities, sometimes an
area, less frequently a region, or even a nation. Barbaric. A king holds life
and death in his hands.
The kings of the O.T. speak of promises of a
coming king, a warrior king, a savior king, a priest-king.
Early important O.T. King: Ge. 14
Melchizedek king of Salem Jerusalem
God
makes Abraham a promise, that his kingdom would never cease: Ge. 17:6-7
I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come
from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me
and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your
God and the God of your descendants after you.
Moses
on the Holy Mountain
An
interesting parallel for us: 1Pe. 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may
declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful
light. Are you destined?
I HAVE A DESTINY – BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN CALLED
Sunday, September 27, 2015
30 Common Fallacies Used Against Libertarians - by BlameThe1st
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. THIS IS GOOD STUFF.
------------------------------------------
I have all but given up on arguing against statists and anti-libertarians. It’s clear that they do not want an honest debate, especially since most of their arguments amount to strawman and ignorance.
If I have to hear someone ask “who will build the roads?” or tell me to “move to Somalia!” or call me a “Koch Brother shill!” for the umpteenth time, I would sooner bitch slap them senseless rather than waste my time replying to their ignorance. They’d only end up plugging their ears and screaming “la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
But for those with the patience of a saint to argue with this subspecies of human beings we sadly have to share the planet with, Max Borders from The Freeman compiled a list of 30 common fallacies used against libertarians and the rational responses to counter them.
I doubt statists would heed them. They love to plug their ears and scream like little children when people rationally demolish their arguments with logic and evidence. Most die-hard ideologues are that way!
I have all but given up on arguing against statists and anti-libertarians. It’s clear that they do not want an honest debate, especially since most of their arguments amount to strawman and ignorance.
If I have to hear someone ask “who will build the roads?” or tell me to “move to Somalia!” or call me a “Koch Brother shill!” for the umpteenth time, I would sooner bitch slap them senseless rather than waste my time replying to their ignorance. They’d only end up plugging their ears and screaming “la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
But for those with the patience of a saint to argue with this subspecies of human beings we sadly have to share the planet with, Max Borders from The Freeman compiled a list of 30 common fallacies used against libertarians and the rational responses to counter them.
I doubt statists would heed them. They love to plug their ears and scream like little children when people rationally demolish their arguments with logic and evidence. Most die-hard ideologues are that way!
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Those against ordinance should mind own business - By Guy Crawford
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------
True believer Guy Crawford steps up yet again to obscure the issues and misdirect.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
I read with interest your recent story in reference to the lawsuit that attempted to overturn Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
The irony of a group of entitled non-LGBT individuals (The writer assumes they are non-LGBT, but he doesn't know this.)
------------------------------------
True believer Guy Crawford steps up yet again to obscure the issues and misdirect.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
I read with interest your recent story in reference to the lawsuit that attempted to overturn Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
The irony of a group of entitled non-LGBT individuals (The writer assumes they are non-LGBT, but he doesn't know this.)
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Why Do Kindergarten Teachers Pay More Taxes Than Hedge Fund Managers? - by Theresa Riley
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------------
A popular meme that made the rounds last year revealed that the top 25 hedge fund managers in America made more money than all the kindergarten teachers combined. That’s right — just 25 men managed to take home more money in a year than all 157,800 kindergarten teachers in the entire country. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
These hedge fund managers make millions — sometimes billions — of dollars investing other people’s money with the expectation of realizing large capital gains. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
And a new video produced by Brave New Films points out an even greater absurdity: These millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than those teachers — and almost surely a lower rate than you, unless you’re part of the top .01 percent. (The author never explains why this is bad.
These types of investments gains are taxed at 20%, while income is taxed at rates up to 39.6%. Thus the author is comparing the income tax rate of kindergarten teachers with the capital gains tax rate of investors.
-------------------------------------------
A popular meme that made the rounds last year revealed that the top 25 hedge fund managers in America made more money than all the kindergarten teachers combined. That’s right — just 25 men managed to take home more money in a year than all 157,800 kindergarten teachers in the entire country. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
These hedge fund managers make millions — sometimes billions — of dollars investing other people’s money with the expectation of realizing large capital gains. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
And a new video produced by Brave New Films points out an even greater absurdity: These millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than those teachers — and almost surely a lower rate than you, unless you’re part of the top .01 percent. (The author never explains why this is bad.
These types of investments gains are taxed at 20%, while income is taxed at rates up to 39.6%. Thus the author is comparing the income tax rate of kindergarten teachers with the capital gains tax rate of investors.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
The right’s deeply misleading new gun-control meme: America should be more like… Switzerland? -- by HEATHER DIGBY PARTON
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to delete the first half of this piece, because it's obsessed with trivial matters.
Read on:
----------------------------------------
If you follow gun rights and gun safety issues at all, you’ve undoubtedly seen this viral meme in your social media stream:
(...)
The second part of the argument, that large scale gun ownership doesn’t cause a high crime rate is more complicated. Certainly nobody is saying that guns fire bullets all by themselves. What most people who seek restrictions on gun ownership believe is that having easy access to firearms makes it too easy for flawed humans to make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal. (I have to hand it to the author. This cleverly phrased statement deceptively sidesteps the issues at hand with an obfuscation. This statement is meaningless.
"It's too easy for flawed humans..." "Flawed humans" is a emotionally manipulative statement that does not advance the logic. One could pick any topic at random and insert "flawed humans" as justification. "We need dietary controls because of our flawed humanity." "I favor internet censorship because we are flawed humans." Try it. It works for any topic you are arguing for.
"...make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal." Ok, so you're bent on murder. You're making a choice to be lethal. Does it matter what weapon you choose to inflict your desires? Does it matter if you kill with a cinderblock as opposed to a pistol?
These kinds of statements, typical for leftists, are emotional fluff for lazy intellects.)
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to delete the first half of this piece, because it's obsessed with trivial matters.
Read on:
----------------------------------------
If you follow gun rights and gun safety issues at all, you’ve undoubtedly seen this viral meme in your social media stream:
(...)
The second part of the argument, that large scale gun ownership doesn’t cause a high crime rate is more complicated. Certainly nobody is saying that guns fire bullets all by themselves. What most people who seek restrictions on gun ownership believe is that having easy access to firearms makes it too easy for flawed humans to make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal. (I have to hand it to the author. This cleverly phrased statement deceptively sidesteps the issues at hand with an obfuscation. This statement is meaningless.
"It's too easy for flawed humans..." "Flawed humans" is a emotionally manipulative statement that does not advance the logic. One could pick any topic at random and insert "flawed humans" as justification. "We need dietary controls because of our flawed humanity." "I favor internet censorship because we are flawed humans." Try it. It works for any topic you are arguing for.
"...make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal." Ok, so you're bent on murder. You're making a choice to be lethal. Does it matter what weapon you choose to inflict your desires? Does it matter if you kill with a cinderblock as opposed to a pistol?
These kinds of statements, typical for leftists, are emotional fluff for lazy intellects.)
Monday, September 21, 2015
Signs you might be brainwashed by corporate media
A FB friend posted this:
So I came up with my own list:
So I came up with my own list:
How Well Does Your Church Understand the Role of the Pastor? - by DAN REILAND
Found here. Excellent article.
---------------------------------
Whenever I hear someone say ... "I'm helping my pastor get his ministry accomplished" ... I cringe a little. I know that comes from a good heart, but there is a better and biblical principle still to be discovered.
Ephesians 4:11-13 seems clear enough, but a striking number of churches don't fully understand, embrace and practice this biblical plan.
There are three interpretations commonly practiced within the local church when it comes to understanding the role of pastor and the congregation:
1. The church hires the pastor to do the ministry. This is common in long-standing small churches, almost always under 100 people. The church board has long been established and owns the real authority in the church. It's the group who "runs" the church and hires the pastor to "preach and visit." Other than a few of the most dedicated people who do a few things like help in the nursery, serve as an usher, or play the piano, the pastor does the work. This is a very difficult scenario in which to lead change and move forward.
2. The people help the pastor do his or her ministry. This is the next level and better than the "Hired Gun" illustrated in the first point. In this scenario, there are some, sometimes many, people who eagerly jump in to serve in all the ministries of the church. The pastor is the encouraging shepherd who expresses gratitude for helping him carry the load. But the pastor is still the spiritual hero of the church. It's often a positive environment, willing to embrace change. It has potential to grow, but sometimes slowly. It is a friendly environment, but has not yet embraced the biblical model in Ephesians 4.
3. The pastor helps the people do their ministry. This approach represents the biblical principle found in Ephesians 4:11-13. The pastor is the leader who equips the people to do the work of ministry that God called them to do! The pastor is the coach and the people are the spiritual heroes who build the church! The pastor expresses gratitude to the people not for helping him or her, (although I'm sure, like me, they are appreciative) but for serving Jesus and advancing the kingdom vision of the church. In this model the people are empowered to serve and lead according to their gifts and calling, and the potential for change and growth is significantly higher.
"He gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, and for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a complete man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," (Eph. 4:11-13, MEV).
Verses 12-13 reveal the purpose: We are to build the body of Christ until we become mature in our faith and experience unity in the fullness of Christ!
Whenever I hear someone say ... "I'm helping my pastor get his ministry accomplished" ... I cringe a little. I know that comes from a good heart, but there is a better and biblical principle still to be discovered.
Ephesians 4:11-13 seems clear enough, but a striking number of churches don't fully understand, embrace and practice this biblical plan.
There are three interpretations commonly practiced within the local church when it comes to understanding the role of pastor and the congregation:
1. The church hires the pastor to do the ministry. This is common in long-standing small churches, almost always under 100 people. The church board has long been established and owns the real authority in the church. It's the group who "runs" the church and hires the pastor to "preach and visit." Other than a few of the most dedicated people who do a few things like help in the nursery, serve as an usher, or play the piano, the pastor does the work. This is a very difficult scenario in which to lead change and move forward.
2. The people help the pastor do his or her ministry. This is the next level and better than the "Hired Gun" illustrated in the first point. In this scenario, there are some, sometimes many, people who eagerly jump in to serve in all the ministries of the church. The pastor is the encouraging shepherd who expresses gratitude for helping him carry the load. But the pastor is still the spiritual hero of the church. It's often a positive environment, willing to embrace change. It has potential to grow, but sometimes slowly. It is a friendly environment, but has not yet embraced the biblical model in Ephesians 4.
3. The pastor helps the people do their ministry. This approach represents the biblical principle found in Ephesians 4:11-13. The pastor is the leader who equips the people to do the work of ministry that God called them to do! The pastor is the coach and the people are the spiritual heroes who build the church! The pastor expresses gratitude to the people not for helping him or her, (although I'm sure, like me, they are appreciative) but for serving Jesus and advancing the kingdom vision of the church. In this model the people are empowered to serve and lead according to their gifts and calling, and the potential for change and growth is significantly higher.
"He gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, and for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a complete man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," (Eph. 4:11-13, MEV).
Verses 12-13 reveal the purpose: We are to build the body of Christ until we become mature in our faith and experience unity in the fullness of Christ!
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Hillary Clinton Is Speaking At Her Former Church This Weekend. Here’s Why That Matters. BY GUTHRIE GRAVES-FITZSIMMONS
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------------
It appears the author thinks that religion is a useful political tool. Will speaking at a church help Ms. Clinton's image? What will she talk about? Will she remind these hateful Christians that gays love each other too? Will she talk about climate change? Will she talk about the universal truths shared by various faith traditions?
Mind you, I have not actually read the article yet as I type this introduction.
Oh, and I need to ask. Why isn't the Left howling about the separation of church and state? Why aren't the media vilifying Hillary for her quaint belief in mythical god or gods? Why aren't they questioning her character in that she might be making presidential decisions that are influenced by her faith?
And this: It was highly promoted in the media that Ms. Clinton would be speaking at this church. Today, I can find no record of her actual remarks. No transcript. No press at all. Strange.
Read on:
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
It appears the author thinks that religion is a useful political tool. Will speaking at a church help Ms. Clinton's image? What will she talk about? Will she remind these hateful Christians that gays love each other too? Will she talk about climate change? Will she talk about the universal truths shared by various faith traditions?
Mind you, I have not actually read the article yet as I type this introduction.
Oh, and I need to ask. Why isn't the Left howling about the separation of church and state? Why aren't the media vilifying Hillary for her quaint belief in mythical god or gods? Why aren't they questioning her character in that she might be making presidential decisions that are influenced by her faith?
And this: It was highly promoted in the media that Ms. Clinton would be speaking at this church. Today, I can find no record of her actual remarks. No transcript. No press at all. Strange.
Read on:
-------------------------------
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Conservatives Reject Common Core Standards, An Idea First Championed By Reagan and Bush Sr. - BY CASEY QUINLAN
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------------------
The Common Core standards have earned much hatred on the right, (um, yeah. There are a lot of Democrats who don't like it either. Thus, the author sets up a false premise.)
-------------------------------------------------
The Common Core standards have earned much hatred on the right, (um, yeah. There are a lot of Democrats who don't like it either. Thus, the author sets up a false premise.)
Monday, September 14, 2015
Anti-Discrimination Statutes Vs The First Amendment - By Brian Ferguson
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Interesting article.
------------------------------------------------
A clever analogy can be a valuable aid to rational thinking, and consequently a great force for good. a false analogy can be just as destructive to clear thinking and understanding if it is allowed to take root. The most effective type of false analogies do not ultimately appeal to an individual’s sense of logic but to his emotion. Two situations with some superficial similarity are compared to one another, and the emotions that are associated with one of them is exploited in order to bolster the case for the other. What influences the listener is not a legitimate logical parallel, but an emotional reminder of what has occurred in some other situation, and a fear of the possibility of that scenario being repeated again. But this fear is irrational and meaningless until one is able to demonstrate through sheer logic that the two things in question can be legitimately compared to one another in the first place.
The current debate over the rights of business owners to refuse to cater to certain kinds of events on the basis of religious conviction has been dominated by a false analogy with the American segregation era. Now what is the obvious difference between these two cases? It is that the Jim Crow laws of the segregation era were in fact laws that required all businesses to discriminate against a particular group of people. It did not matter what an individual business owner actually wanted to do, he had to comply with the laws.
A clever analogy can be a valuable aid to rational thinking, and consequently a great force for good. a false analogy can be just as destructive to clear thinking and understanding if it is allowed to take root. The most effective type of false analogies do not ultimately appeal to an individual’s sense of logic but to his emotion. Two situations with some superficial similarity are compared to one another, and the emotions that are associated with one of them is exploited in order to bolster the case for the other. What influences the listener is not a legitimate logical parallel, but an emotional reminder of what has occurred in some other situation, and a fear of the possibility of that scenario being repeated again. But this fear is irrational and meaningless until one is able to demonstrate through sheer logic that the two things in question can be legitimately compared to one another in the first place.
The current debate over the rights of business owners to refuse to cater to certain kinds of events on the basis of religious conviction has been dominated by a false analogy with the American segregation era. Now what is the obvious difference between these two cases? It is that the Jim Crow laws of the segregation era were in fact laws that required all businesses to discriminate against a particular group of people. It did not matter what an individual business owner actually wanted to do, he had to comply with the laws.
This scenario is of course the complete opposite of what we are dealing with in the current debate. The uniquely oppressive nature of state sponsored legal discrimination is what is missed here by Progressives. It is the universal scope of those laws that renders the particular group in question second class citizens within the society as a whole. a decision by a private individual not to serve a cake for a particular kind of event does not remotely compare to this; for the prospective client may merely move on to the next bakery. The only actual harm that he suffers, as other commentators have have pointed out, is that he is offended.
Friday, September 11, 2015
So you want the government to "Stop giving poor people free stuff?"
Recently found posted on FB:
Here's the transcript:
Couple that with a tendency to misstate the position of their adversaries, and you have all the ingredients that constitute leftist thought in the U.S.. So let's look at the claims one by one and see where the Occupiers go astray.
So you want the government to "Stop giving poor people free stuff?" Funny how you don't care about the $70 billion a year we spend on subsidizing Wall St. banks, the $38 billion in subsidies given to oil companies, the $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are stashing abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and the $153 billion a year we spend to subsidize McDonald's & Walmart's low-wage earners?There's been a lot of Occupy memes posted on FB lately, and they are invariably misleading, misinformed, or deliberately obfuscating. They are presented through the lens of socialism, a perspective that seems to make the Occupiers unable to accurately evaluate economics.
Couple that with a tendency to misstate the position of their adversaries, and you have all the ingredients that constitute leftist thought in the U.S.. So let's look at the claims one by one and see where the Occupiers go astray.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Economic Myths: The 5 Day Work Week And The 8 Hour Day
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Interesting article.
------------------------------------------
How many times have you been in an economic discussion with someone, discussing the benefits of competition, the power of markets, and the overall benefits of capitalism when someone blurts out that in any competitive system, unions and regulations are necessary, for without them, without their interference, we wouldn’t have a middle class, we wouldn’t have a five day work week or eight hour work days? I hear this all the time, I see it on bumper stickers, and it is so often repeated that I thought I’d blog on it and give the readers of my blog an edge on what really happened, and how to respond if they encounter the same topic.
So, who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week? Was it really the unions, was it really higher regulations? No, the historical answer is that it was Heny Ford who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week. Ford was tired of continuously losing good employees, he was trying to increase employee retention and at the same time increase profits, so he basically doubled wages and implemented a 5-day work week, and in the process effectively invented the modern weekend. It is Henry Ford who is widely credited with contributing to the creation of a middle class in the United States.
In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.
What makes those who believe it was unions look even more ridiculous is the fact that Henry Ford despised unions. The tensions were so strong, that Ford hired a former Navy boxer to help him stop the unions from unionizing Ford Motor Company.
Many of those who hold the view that it was unions – or regulations – who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, at least according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse.
So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.
------------------------------------------
How many times have you been in an economic discussion with someone, discussing the benefits of competition, the power of markets, and the overall benefits of capitalism when someone blurts out that in any competitive system, unions and regulations are necessary, for without them, without their interference, we wouldn’t have a middle class, we wouldn’t have a five day work week or eight hour work days? I hear this all the time, I see it on bumper stickers, and it is so often repeated that I thought I’d blog on it and give the readers of my blog an edge on what really happened, and how to respond if they encounter the same topic.
So, who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week? Was it really the unions, was it really higher regulations? No, the historical answer is that it was Heny Ford who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week. Ford was tired of continuously losing good employees, he was trying to increase employee retention and at the same time increase profits, so he basically doubled wages and implemented a 5-day work week, and in the process effectively invented the modern weekend. It is Henry Ford who is widely credited with contributing to the creation of a middle class in the United States.
In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.
What makes those who believe it was unions look even more ridiculous is the fact that Henry Ford despised unions. The tensions were so strong, that Ford hired a former Navy boxer to help him stop the unions from unionizing Ford Motor Company.
Many of those who hold the view that it was unions – or regulations – who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, at least according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse.
So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Labor Day 2028 - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” (Keynes, the hero of the Left, was wrong about this, and just about everything else. His economic ideas have been at work in our country for decades, and have nearly destroyed us.)
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever. (Are Americans really working harder than ever? By what measure? Dr. Reich throws out this statement as if it were self-evident.
Surprisingly, his statement, if true, contradicts Keynes. With all the technology we have, we should be working less if Keynes is correct. So which is it, Dr. Reich?)
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide? (It's not a big question for those of us who believe that the person who earned his money owns his money. There is nothing to redistribute, because redistribution means taking money from some to give it to others. That is known as theft.)
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies. (We have such a mechanism. The income tax code, and it is oppressive, confiscatory, and so complex that the average person cannot comply with it. This is what Dr. Reich want more of?)
-----------------------------------
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” (Keynes, the hero of the Left, was wrong about this, and just about everything else. His economic ideas have been at work in our country for decades, and have nearly destroyed us.)
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever. (Are Americans really working harder than ever? By what measure? Dr. Reich throws out this statement as if it were self-evident.
Surprisingly, his statement, if true, contradicts Keynes. With all the technology we have, we should be working less if Keynes is correct. So which is it, Dr. Reich?)
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide? (It's not a big question for those of us who believe that the person who earned his money owns his money. There is nothing to redistribute, because redistribution means taking money from some to give it to others. That is known as theft.)
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies. (We have such a mechanism. The income tax code, and it is oppressive, confiscatory, and so complex that the average person cannot comply with it. This is what Dr. Reich want more of?)
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - By Joel Achenbach
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------------
(Hot on the heels of our prior post, we have yet another person anguishing over why they can't get people to believe in climate change. Joel Achenbach represents himself as a reporter, but he's actually a PR man. He's an advocate, a pusher of agitprop, a partisan with an agenda. So when he writes, you have to remember he's pushing a point of view, not giving you facts.
---------------------------------------
(Hot on the heels of our prior post, we have yet another person anguishing over why they can't get people to believe in climate change. Joel Achenbach represents himself as a reporter, but he's actually a PR man. He's an advocate, a pusher of agitprop, a partisan with an agenda. So when he writes, you have to remember he's pushing a point of view, not giving you facts.
---------------------------------------
Monday, August 31, 2015
Prophetic Dream: Death of the House of Prayer- by JOHN BURTON
Found here. Great article.
-----------------------------------
I recently had a dream that really shines the light on the coming battle in the church. As I've said, the church is to be a House of Prayer. Any other dominant defining attributes than intercession dilute and compromise the church's mission.
The church isn't to be a house of teaching, a house of friendships or a house of evangelism. It's a House of Prayer, a place that facilitates a lifestyle of night and day intercession. We are all called to pray at that level, not just some mystical, elite group of prayer warriors. The coming church will be a church on fire. No longer will we gather around a fire to warm our flesh, but rather we'll lay across it as burning ones who allow the Consuming Fire to do just that—consume us.
As we pray and live on fire, much trouble will come. We will threaten those who don't choose to pray, those who don't see the need. There are already strategies and theologies that are opposing and assaulting the prayer movement, and my dream brings clarity to that reality.
-----------------------------------
I recently had a dream that really shines the light on the coming battle in the church. As I've said, the church is to be a House of Prayer. Any other dominant defining attributes than intercession dilute and compromise the church's mission.
The church isn't to be a house of teaching, a house of friendships or a house of evangelism. It's a House of Prayer, a place that facilitates a lifestyle of night and day intercession. We are all called to pray at that level, not just some mystical, elite group of prayer warriors. The coming church will be a church on fire. No longer will we gather around a fire to warm our flesh, but rather we'll lay across it as burning ones who allow the Consuming Fire to do just that—consume us.
As we pray and live on fire, much trouble will come. We will threaten those who don't choose to pray, those who don't see the need. There are already strategies and theologies that are opposing and assaulting the prayer movement, and my dream brings clarity to that reality.
"And He taught them, and said, 'Is it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations"? But you have made it a "den of thieves."'" (Mark 11:17).
Assisted Suicide—The Dream
In the dream, I was walking up a dirt hill where my dad was. In the dream, my dad represented the prayer movement. In the Branson, Missouri area he gave leadership to a significant regional prayer effort called the Uninterrupted Prayer Team (the UP Team).
My dad was on the top of that dry, dirty hill for a very specific reason. He was going to be executed. It was a public execution. I was shocked at how passive my dad was. He was on a bed, like a hospital bed, and he was submitted to the demand that he die.
I sensed that the forces were too strong for me to fight against them. He was to be executed, and there seemed to be nothing I could do about it.
I asked my dad what in the world was going on. He was pleasant in his demeanor, and in fact, most of the people around him who were helping facilitate the public execution were casually going about their day, and they were good friends of my dad. They were "good Christians" who were focused on having a great day and did what they could to eradicate anything that would threaten that.
My dad said, "John, this is going to be an assisted suicide."
I couldn't believe it! The pressure of the church as it opposes the prayer movement will be so great, that many will be overwhelmed and will lose hope that their mandate to pray will have impact. The prayer movement is at risk of agreeing with its own death!
The church today is threatened by the prayer movement, and it will do much to embrace the spirit of the age and execute the spirit of intercession.
As the dream continued, I then left his side and walked down the dirt road in deep, troubling thought. I looked down and saw a lighter, that looked like it was broken. I picked it up and I understood that if I could only get it to light, the execution would be called off.
If we pray, the fire of God will burn, and the opposing spirits will lose their strength.
Believe me, this is a very real situation. Someone actually contacted me online recently and arrogantly told me that they and others in a local church were actually praying for a local house of prayer to close down—and it did close down.
It's absolutely stunning that supposed Christians can oppose prayer with such zeal that they actually pray against the prayer movement!
We can't even call people to prayer today due to the fear that they will leave our churches! My God! How can we presume revival is near?
I met with a House of Prayer network leader the other day who said that people leave churches when leaders shift time, energy and attention from them to God. I've watched that happen myself, and it rips me up!
The coming church will be marked by constant prayer, and there will be a divide along this line. If we don't pray, I do believe it's a serious issue with eternity hanging in the balance. If we truly know God, we will understand the desire and need to connect with Him in prayer.
In the dream, I was walking up a dirt hill where my dad was. In the dream, my dad represented the prayer movement. In the Branson, Missouri area he gave leadership to a significant regional prayer effort called the Uninterrupted Prayer Team (the UP Team).
My dad was on the top of that dry, dirty hill for a very specific reason. He was going to be executed. It was a public execution. I was shocked at how passive my dad was. He was on a bed, like a hospital bed, and he was submitted to the demand that he die.
I sensed that the forces were too strong for me to fight against them. He was to be executed, and there seemed to be nothing I could do about it.
I asked my dad what in the world was going on. He was pleasant in his demeanor, and in fact, most of the people around him who were helping facilitate the public execution were casually going about their day, and they were good friends of my dad. They were "good Christians" who were focused on having a great day and did what they could to eradicate anything that would threaten that.
My dad said, "John, this is going to be an assisted suicide."
I couldn't believe it! The pressure of the church as it opposes the prayer movement will be so great, that many will be overwhelmed and will lose hope that their mandate to pray will have impact. The prayer movement is at risk of agreeing with its own death!
The church today is threatened by the prayer movement, and it will do much to embrace the spirit of the age and execute the spirit of intercession.
As the dream continued, I then left his side and walked down the dirt road in deep, troubling thought. I looked down and saw a lighter, that looked like it was broken. I picked it up and I understood that if I could only get it to light, the execution would be called off.
If we pray, the fire of God will burn, and the opposing spirits will lose their strength.
Believe me, this is a very real situation. Someone actually contacted me online recently and arrogantly told me that they and others in a local church were actually praying for a local house of prayer to close down—and it did close down.
It's absolutely stunning that supposed Christians can oppose prayer with such zeal that they actually pray against the prayer movement!
We can't even call people to prayer today due to the fear that they will leave our churches! My God! How can we presume revival is near?
I met with a House of Prayer network leader the other day who said that people leave churches when leaders shift time, energy and attention from them to God. I've watched that happen myself, and it rips me up!
The coming church will be marked by constant prayer, and there will be a divide along this line. If we don't pray, I do believe it's a serious issue with eternity hanging in the balance. If we truly know God, we will understand the desire and need to connect with Him in prayer.
A CHURCH ON FIRE
Where are the ones who aren't looking first for human friends, personal affirmation or a sense of belonging but who are seeking after every available minute to minister to God in prayer? The prayer rooms must be full—and the main prayer room in the American church is the Sunday morning sanctuary!
And don't you even think of using the excuse that you need to create a non-threatening environment for the new believer! Every person, young or old, immature or seasoned must be in the prayer room—and it must be their primary focus! What if the Upper Room were toned down in the hopes of drawing a bigger crowd and interested seekers?
We must absolutely refuse to tone down the activity of the Holy Spirit out of respect of those less hungry! God is a consuming fire, and He is about to consume what is unholy and compromised. Who are we to presume we know better how to facilitate a service? Is inviting the Holy Spirit to step aside as we give preference to human wisdom the way to go? I've heard it said that the main Sunday service should be a toned-down meeting so as not to freak out visitors and seekers. Apparently the meeting where the Holy Spirit has liberty to move in freedom should be reserved for a night when there's little risk of the unconverted showing up.
This is humanistic religion at its best! Did those in the Upper Room tone down the Holy Spirit so as not to confuse and trouble the seekers in the city? Absolutely not! In fact, the power was so extreme and so unusual that the people were provoked to wonder and proclaim, "they must be drunk!" What was happening was off of their grid.
When man moves, it's naturally familiar. When God moves, it's supernaturally shocking. Keep in mind, there's always a spirit giving leadership in a service—the spirit of man, a demonic spirit or the Holy Spirit.
I told God one day many years ago that if I responded to His extreme call to facilitate a white hot environment of prayer in our church I would lose my reputation. People would sever relationship with me and hurl accusations my way.
God said, "Good. My Son was of no reputation, why should you be?" I was rocked. It was that day, many years ago, that I stopped trying to look good and build a ministry and make people happy about running with me. Selfish ambition died that day. The moment we make decisions based mostly on attracting people, keeping people or raising money is the moment we have failed as leaders.
Trust me, the resulting remnant of burning ones will rejoice at such an atmosphere of clarity and fire! Those who are lukewarm today just may awaken and burn tomorrow—if we have the courage to preach the very difficult, costly truth and call every person to the fire of continual prayer!
I'm sure there are some who translate boldness and refusal to soft-step issues as arrogance—but I do not apologize. Yeah, I know that sounds arrogant! The reason I don't apologize is because I wrestle with the call to humility continually, and I check my heart nonstop. The possibility of pride and arrogance is there, without question, and I take that very seriously. I check my heart to ensure I'm humble and full of love. It's wisdom to receive insight from your critics, at least to a point!
People that are close to me do know my heart—and they know I'm broken before the Lord. My call is to aggressively sound alarms, gather people around the mission of revival and provoke people to pray night and day. It can't be a soft-spoken suggestion if we hope to awaken a great end-time army!
Several years ago in Colorado, the Lord directed me very urgently to learn how to walk in extreme humility and extreme boldness at the same time. It was a full year of intense prayer and discovery—a personal school of the Holy Spirit. In that school, I learned much, including this—I was not to attempt to appear humble, I was to be humble. Why was this important? Because the Elijah-level boldness that is required to impact a region would often look like anything but humility. It would appear as arrogance and selfish ambition.
We are not in a season where we need to gather around a table and water down the message in the hopes of finding common ground that results in handshakes and smiles. The message of the hour will overturn that table with violence.
I endeavor to love every person deeply, but I refuse to affirm systems, methodologies, theologies and lifestyles that are an offense to the Word of God. I will, in humility and boldness, be relentless in provoking the sleepers to awaken and those given to a lukewarm life to be shaken. Prophetic threats against human systems and unholy altars results in accusation, gossip and resistance.
The assault against the prayer movement is extreme and we must advance against the spirit of the age with fire in our veins and tears in our eyes.
Where are the ones who aren't looking first for human friends, personal affirmation or a sense of belonging but who are seeking after every available minute to minister to God in prayer? The prayer rooms must be full—and the main prayer room in the American church is the Sunday morning sanctuary!
And don't you even think of using the excuse that you need to create a non-threatening environment for the new believer! Every person, young or old, immature or seasoned must be in the prayer room—and it must be their primary focus! What if the Upper Room were toned down in the hopes of drawing a bigger crowd and interested seekers?
We must absolutely refuse to tone down the activity of the Holy Spirit out of respect of those less hungry! God is a consuming fire, and He is about to consume what is unholy and compromised. Who are we to presume we know better how to facilitate a service? Is inviting the Holy Spirit to step aside as we give preference to human wisdom the way to go? I've heard it said that the main Sunday service should be a toned-down meeting so as not to freak out visitors and seekers. Apparently the meeting where the Holy Spirit has liberty to move in freedom should be reserved for a night when there's little risk of the unconverted showing up.
This is humanistic religion at its best! Did those in the Upper Room tone down the Holy Spirit so as not to confuse and trouble the seekers in the city? Absolutely not! In fact, the power was so extreme and so unusual that the people were provoked to wonder and proclaim, "they must be drunk!" What was happening was off of their grid.
When man moves, it's naturally familiar. When God moves, it's supernaturally shocking. Keep in mind, there's always a spirit giving leadership in a service—the spirit of man, a demonic spirit or the Holy Spirit.
I told God one day many years ago that if I responded to His extreme call to facilitate a white hot environment of prayer in our church I would lose my reputation. People would sever relationship with me and hurl accusations my way.
God said, "Good. My Son was of no reputation, why should you be?" I was rocked. It was that day, many years ago, that I stopped trying to look good and build a ministry and make people happy about running with me. Selfish ambition died that day. The moment we make decisions based mostly on attracting people, keeping people or raising money is the moment we have failed as leaders.
"But He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:7-8).I'm not trying to build a ministry—I'm devoted to obeying God and delivering the messages He has given me. I know these messages will directly hit theologies and ideals that so many hold dear. That's the point. I crave people's freedom from those harmful ideals! I desire the truth of Jesus to invade everybody's life!
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34).One reason I'm OK with this divisive strategy (that Jesus affirmed above) is that it clearly reveals who's for and who's opposed. I'd rather make the message clear and know who I'm running with than to tone it down and have those who are opposed to it in our camp. So, we love and serve everybody in the camp, but we can't get sidetracked from our mission for the sake of their comfort.
Trust me, the resulting remnant of burning ones will rejoice at such an atmosphere of clarity and fire! Those who are lukewarm today just may awaken and burn tomorrow—if we have the courage to preach the very difficult, costly truth and call every person to the fire of continual prayer!
I'm sure there are some who translate boldness and refusal to soft-step issues as arrogance—but I do not apologize. Yeah, I know that sounds arrogant! The reason I don't apologize is because I wrestle with the call to humility continually, and I check my heart nonstop. The possibility of pride and arrogance is there, without question, and I take that very seriously. I check my heart to ensure I'm humble and full of love. It's wisdom to receive insight from your critics, at least to a point!
People that are close to me do know my heart—and they know I'm broken before the Lord. My call is to aggressively sound alarms, gather people around the mission of revival and provoke people to pray night and day. It can't be a soft-spoken suggestion if we hope to awaken a great end-time army!
Several years ago in Colorado, the Lord directed me very urgently to learn how to walk in extreme humility and extreme boldness at the same time. It was a full year of intense prayer and discovery—a personal school of the Holy Spirit. In that school, I learned much, including this—I was not to attempt to appear humble, I was to be humble. Why was this important? Because the Elijah-level boldness that is required to impact a region would often look like anything but humility. It would appear as arrogance and selfish ambition.
We are not in a season where we need to gather around a table and water down the message in the hopes of finding common ground that results in handshakes and smiles. The message of the hour will overturn that table with violence.
I endeavor to love every person deeply, but I refuse to affirm systems, methodologies, theologies and lifestyles that are an offense to the Word of God. I will, in humility and boldness, be relentless in provoking the sleepers to awaken and those given to a lukewarm life to be shaken. Prophetic threats against human systems and unholy altars results in accusation, gossip and resistance.
"When the men of the city got up early in the morning, the altar of Baal was torn down, the Asherah pole beside it was cut down, and the second bull had been offered on the new altar that had been built. They said to each other, 'Who has done this?' When they had inquired and asked, they responded, 'Gideon son of Joash has done this.' Then the men of the city said to Joash, 'Bring out your son so that he may die, for he tore down the altar of Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.' Joash then said to all who stood against him, "Would you plead for Baal? Would you save him? Whoever fights for him will be killed by morning. If Baal is a god, let him fight for himself, for someone has torn down his altar" (Judg. 6:28-31).I know the accusations will continue, but you need to know that, if you are bold, you will provoke. You must be OK with that! Love people deeply, hate the enemy powerfully and know there will be a crisis in the middle as God, people and demons step into the ring. Don't wrestle against flesh and blood! Be innocent! But don't presume a passive spirit is the same thing as a humble spirit.
The assault against the prayer movement is extreme and we must advance against the spirit of the age with fire in our veins and tears in our eyes.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Camaro Highs and Lows - by Barry Kluczyk
Found here. (dead link)
-------------------------------
Contrasting the best and worst from the first five generations of Chevy’s iconic performer
With the introduction of the sixth-generation Camaro, it’s worth looking back over the car’s long, storied history to contrast the milestones that helped make it an automotive icon with a few of the admitted misfires. It all weaves a colorful and important tapestry for a car that is inextricably linked with American culture and affordable, attainable performance. We’ve selected 10 highlights and lowlights; so let’s get started.
High: Camaro goes on sale on September 29, 1966, and is an instant success, racking up 220,906 sales in its first model year – including 602 built with a special handling package known by the order code Z/28.
The Camaro debuted in late 1966 to enthusiastic Baby Boomers clamoring for Chevy’s entry in the all-new “ponycar” segment. More than 220,000 were sold in the first year.
Low: For the sake of development expediency and production value (read: low cost), the original Camaro is based on the existing Chevy II architecture. It wasn’t a sports car, but then again, neither was the Falcon platform on which the original Mustang was built. So there.
First-year Camaros featured a single-leaf rear suspension design that hobbled performance. This RS/SS owner is clearly calling the dealer to ask about axlehop during her stoplight-to-stoplight run-ins with Mustangs and Barracudas.
High: Camaro paces the Indianapolis 500 for the first time on May 30, 1967, and again on May 30, 1969. Production replicas of the 1969 models, with their distinctive Hugger Orange stripes and orange houndstooth interiors, go on to become iconic examples of the Camaro’s first generation and remain popular collector models.
Low: Camaro convertible production ceases after 1969 and won’t return until 1987.
Working in conjunction with Chevrolet Racing Director Vince Piggins, Bill “Grumpy” Jenkins helped establish the Camaro’s racing cred on the dragstrip. It is believed this car may have been the first Camaro built with the L78-code 396 engine, rated at 375 hp. Regardless, it’s a piece of drag racing history.
High: Camaro’s racing legacy starts strongly on the dragstrip and road course with Bill “Grumpy” Jenkins claiming the 1967 NHRA Super Stock championship in his all-new, L78 396-powered Camaro, and Penske-backed Camaros driven by Mark Donohue ripping through SCCA’s Trans-Am series. Donohue was the winningest driver in 1968 and 1969, claiming the unofficial driver championships. They weren’t officially awarded until 1971, which Donohue won.
After an inauspicious start with the 1967 Camaro, the Penske racing team experimented with a lightweight body using acid-dipped sheetmetal. It worked, and the car was updated with 1968 Camaro body components in an effort to field two cars at the Sebring 12-hour race that year. This car, owned by Patrick Ryan, has been restored to its 1968 Sebring appearance, where it won the Trans-Am class and finished Third overall.
Low: Bill Jenkins switched to a Vega in 1972, ultimately revolutionizing NHRA Pro Stock with a 1974 model featuring a purpose-built chassis with a strut-type suspension. It would become the blueprint for Pro Stock race cars – and it was a Vega, not a Camaro. Mark Donohue also ditched the Camaro and drove an AMC Javelin when he won the championship in 1971.
High: Second-generation Camaro debuts in 1970 with an all-new, purpose-built architecture shared by no other vehicle in Chevy’s lineup. It was also the pinnacle for second-gen performance, with the 360hp LT-1 engine in the Z28 and 375 hp from the available 396 big-block (it really displaced 402 cubes).
With solid lifters, an aggressive camshaft, and a stout 11:1 compression ratio, the 1970 Z28’s LT-1 engine represented the pinnacle of performance for second-gen Camaros. They are fairly rare these days. Fewer than 9,000 of the nearly 125,000 1970 Camaros built were Z28s.
Low: Industry-wide regulatory changes cause precipitous drops in compression ratios and consequently power ratings by 1971 – a factor exacerbated by a change from gross power ratings to more realistic net ratings. The LT-1’s horsepower rating therefore drops from 360 to 275 hp. The big-block exited the scene after 1972. The muscle car era was over.
High: For 1975, organizers of the International Race of Champions replace Porsche race cars with identically prepared Camaro race cars. Camaros would be used in the series from 1975-’80 and 1984-’89 (the series wasn’t run from 1981-83). The popularity of the IROC series eventually drove Chevrolet to release the IROC-Z model in 1985.
The Camaro was a track star in the IROC racing series from the mid-1970s through late-1980s. The series featured identically prepared race cars driven by the best drivers from different forms of racing, from open-wheel and Sprint cars to NASCAR.
Low: Camaro V-8 output bottoms out in 1981 with an anemic 267ci (4.3L) version of the small-block rated at a measly 115 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. It was also the year Chevy Chase did the flick Modern Problems and the national unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In other words, it was a tough year.
The Camaro’s popularity exploded through the mid- and latter-parts of its second generation, even though performance dropped like the watermelons off the roof in an old David Letterman bit. This ’76 Camaro is wheezing its way up the mountain, pulling every lb-ft out of its 140hp 305 small-block.
High: Camaro production hits its all-time high in 1979, with 282,571 – including nearly 85,000 Z28 models. Wow. Numbers like that today would make the Camaro one of the best-selling cars in the industry.
The Camaro helped define the late 1970s and sales reached their all-time high in 1979, at 282,571. Nearly 85,000 of them were Z28s. Most ended up on the cover of Car Craft.
Low: Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn) wrecks Charles Jefferson’s (Forest Whitaker) 1979 Z28 while cruising with Jefferson’s brother in the classic 1982 movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Not to worry, though. He can fix it. His father is a television repairman with the ultimate set of tools.
At least one of the nearly 85,000 1979 Z28s built was sacrificed for cinematic art in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, when Jeff Spicoli’s time at the wheel ended in disaster – although he offered to fix it with his father’s “TV repairman” tools. More than 30 years later, we have to ask: What the heck is a TV repairman?
High: All-new, third-generation Camaro introduces a radical redesign in 1982 that would help define the high-tech cultural aesthetic of the decade. The 1982 Z28 was the first American production car to incorporate ground effects in its design and all models incorporated modern strut-type front suspensions. It was also named the Motor Trend Car of the Year.
The third-generation Camaro was a radical departure that, like the preceding generation, would help define the culture of its decade. It was also designed as more of a true performance car, with a greater emphasis on aero and a more responsive suspension system, including rack-and-pinion steering and a strut-type front suspension.
Low: Yes, Virginia, they made four-cylinder Camaros from 1982-86 – and the less said about those Iron Duke-derived anchors, the better. Output ranged from a struggling 88 hp to a lackluster 92 hp.
Behold the glory of the four-cylinder third-gen Camaro powerplant – and we use “power” subjectively. The 151-cubic-inch Iron Duke derivative was offered in carbureted and throttle-body injection versions, but none cracked the 100-horsepower threshold. Sad.
High: The Gen III small-block V-8 known as the LS1 is introduced in the 1998 Z28 and SS models, ushering in a new era in high performance. It’s hard to understate the impact the LS1 and the subsequent members of the LS engine family have had on the automotive performance world. They have fundamentally changed the way hobbyists and racers alike approach performance and established new benchmarks for streetable performance cars. Seriously.
The LS1 engine, introduced in the Camaro in 1998, returned a level of performance that hadn’t been seen since the heyday of the muscle car. Better still, it responded to upgrades such as camshafts and cylinder head porting like a fedora-wearing hipster let loose in a vinyl-only record store.
Low: The LS1 is not enough to save sinking Camaro sales. They bottom out at only 29,009 worldwide in 2001 and GM pulls the plug on the F-body on August 27, 2002, ending production after 35 years. Bummer.
The Camaro’s timeline came to a temporary end in 2002, when production ended after 35 years. This is the very last fourth-gen Camaro built, and it is part of GM’s collection of historic vehicles.
High: Chevrolet shows a retro-styled Camaro concept vehicle at the 2006 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, previewing the 2010 production model that would go on to become a cultural icon through channels such as the Transformers movies. It also proved to be the right car at the right time, as Gen 5 sales have exceeded 500,000 and outpaced Mustang for four straight years. USA-1, indeed.
Chevrolet signaled the Camaro’s return with a decidedly retro interpretation introduced as a concept vehicle in 2006. The production Gen 5 model would thankfully be executed almost identically to this dramatic, expressive concept.
Low: Not that we’re complaining or anything, but the production Gen 5 Camaro debuted on the porky side; and its junk in the trunk made handling and overall performance a bit less than sharp or exhilarating. Outward visibility wasn’t so hot, either. Hey, we’re still fans, but just sayin’.
The Gen 5 Camaro was a sales and cultural phenomenon, helped in no small part by its role in the Transformers movies. Chevrolet even built a Transformers Edition in 2010.
High: The Gen 5 Camaro Z/28. Yes, the SS, 1LE, and supercharged ZL1 are mucho terrifico, but the Z/28’s driving experience is from another plane of existence – and comparing it with other Camaro models is like comparing the Millennium Falcon with a Cessna 172. It’s that good. In fact, in a Motor Trend comparison that helped solidify the Z/28’s position as the magazine’s 2014 Best Driver’s Car – the first American car so-awarded – it was pitted against a Nissan GT-R Track Edition and a Porsche 911 Turbo S. The rear-wheel-drive Z/28 lapped the track faster than both all-wheel-drive competitors, prompting the editors to proclaim, “It stands as one of the absolutely best track-focused cars in the world.”
Chevrolet showed the Transformers movie cars at the Gen 6 reveal event in Detroit, in May 2015.
Low: 2015 was the final year for the Gen 5 Z/28, and there ain’t one on the docket for 2016. Get one now while you can.
The Camaro Z/28 returned to its road course roots in the fifth generation and the result was nothing short of spectacular, amazing, and all the other superlatives one could pry out of a thesaurus. Its track-ready suspension and 505hp LS7 engine compose a literally world-beating combination – and represents Chevrolet at its very best.
-------------------------------
Contrasting the best and worst from the first five generations of Chevy’s iconic performer
With the introduction of the sixth-generation Camaro, it’s worth looking back over the car’s long, storied history to contrast the milestones that helped make it an automotive icon with a few of the admitted misfires. It all weaves a colorful and important tapestry for a car that is inextricably linked with American culture and affordable, attainable performance. We’ve selected 10 highlights and lowlights; so let’s get started.
High: Camaro goes on sale on September 29, 1966, and is an instant success, racking up 220,906 sales in its first model year – including 602 built with a special handling package known by the order code Z/28.
The Camaro debuted in late 1966 to enthusiastic Baby Boomers clamoring for Chevy’s entry in the all-new “ponycar” segment. More than 220,000 were sold in the first year.
Low: For the sake of development expediency and production value (read: low cost), the original Camaro is based on the existing Chevy II architecture. It wasn’t a sports car, but then again, neither was the Falcon platform on which the original Mustang was built. So there.
First-year Camaros featured a single-leaf rear suspension design that hobbled performance. This RS/SS owner is clearly calling the dealer to ask about axlehop during her stoplight-to-stoplight run-ins with Mustangs and Barracudas.
High: Camaro paces the Indianapolis 500 for the first time on May 30, 1967, and again on May 30, 1969. Production replicas of the 1969 models, with their distinctive Hugger Orange stripes and orange houndstooth interiors, go on to become iconic examples of the Camaro’s first generation and remain popular collector models.
.
Chevrolet built 3,675 convertible replicas of the 1969 Camaro Indy Pace Car, some with 350 engines and others with the 396. All wore Hugger Orange stripes and interior trim. It would be the final year for Camaro convertibles for more than 15 years.
Chevrolet built 3,675 convertible replicas of the 1969 Camaro Indy Pace Car, some with 350 engines and others with the 396. All wore Hugger Orange stripes and interior trim. It would be the final year for Camaro convertibles for more than 15 years.
Low: Camaro convertible production ceases after 1969 and won’t return until 1987.
Working in conjunction with Chevrolet Racing Director Vince Piggins, Bill “Grumpy” Jenkins helped establish the Camaro’s racing cred on the dragstrip. It is believed this car may have been the first Camaro built with the L78-code 396 engine, rated at 375 hp. Regardless, it’s a piece of drag racing history.
High: Camaro’s racing legacy starts strongly on the dragstrip and road course with Bill “Grumpy” Jenkins claiming the 1967 NHRA Super Stock championship in his all-new, L78 396-powered Camaro, and Penske-backed Camaros driven by Mark Donohue ripping through SCCA’s Trans-Am series. Donohue was the winningest driver in 1968 and 1969, claiming the unofficial driver championships. They weren’t officially awarded until 1971, which Donohue won.
After an inauspicious start with the 1967 Camaro, the Penske racing team experimented with a lightweight body using acid-dipped sheetmetal. It worked, and the car was updated with 1968 Camaro body components in an effort to field two cars at the Sebring 12-hour race that year. This car, owned by Patrick Ryan, has been restored to its 1968 Sebring appearance, where it won the Trans-Am class and finished Third overall.
Low: Bill Jenkins switched to a Vega in 1972, ultimately revolutionizing NHRA Pro Stock with a 1974 model featuring a purpose-built chassis with a strut-type suspension. It would become the blueprint for Pro Stock race cars – and it was a Vega, not a Camaro. Mark Donohue also ditched the Camaro and drove an AMC Javelin when he won the championship in 1971.
High: Second-generation Camaro debuts in 1970 with an all-new, purpose-built architecture shared by no other vehicle in Chevy’s lineup. It was also the pinnacle for second-gen performance, with the 360hp LT-1 engine in the Z28 and 375 hp from the available 396 big-block (it really displaced 402 cubes).
With solid lifters, an aggressive camshaft, and a stout 11:1 compression ratio, the 1970 Z28’s LT-1 engine represented the pinnacle of performance for second-gen Camaros. They are fairly rare these days. Fewer than 9,000 of the nearly 125,000 1970 Camaros built were Z28s.
Low: Industry-wide regulatory changes cause precipitous drops in compression ratios and consequently power ratings by 1971 – a factor exacerbated by a change from gross power ratings to more realistic net ratings. The LT-1’s horsepower rating therefore drops from 360 to 275 hp. The big-block exited the scene after 1972. The muscle car era was over.
High: For 1975, organizers of the International Race of Champions replace Porsche race cars with identically prepared Camaro race cars. Camaros would be used in the series from 1975-’80 and 1984-’89 (the series wasn’t run from 1981-83). The popularity of the IROC series eventually drove Chevrolet to release the IROC-Z model in 1985.
The Camaro was a track star in the IROC racing series from the mid-1970s through late-1980s. The series featured identically prepared race cars driven by the best drivers from different forms of racing, from open-wheel and Sprint cars to NASCAR.
Low: Camaro V-8 output bottoms out in 1981 with an anemic 267ci (4.3L) version of the small-block rated at a measly 115 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. It was also the year Chevy Chase did the flick Modern Problems and the national unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In other words, it was a tough year.
The Camaro’s popularity exploded through the mid- and latter-parts of its second generation, even though performance dropped like the watermelons off the roof in an old David Letterman bit. This ’76 Camaro is wheezing its way up the mountain, pulling every lb-ft out of its 140hp 305 small-block.
High: Camaro production hits its all-time high in 1979, with 282,571 – including nearly 85,000 Z28 models. Wow. Numbers like that today would make the Camaro one of the best-selling cars in the industry.
The Camaro helped define the late 1970s and sales reached their all-time high in 1979, at 282,571. Nearly 85,000 of them were Z28s. Most ended up on the cover of Car Craft.
Low: Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn) wrecks Charles Jefferson’s (Forest Whitaker) 1979 Z28 while cruising with Jefferson’s brother in the classic 1982 movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Not to worry, though. He can fix it. His father is a television repairman with the ultimate set of tools.
At least one of the nearly 85,000 1979 Z28s built was sacrificed for cinematic art in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, when Jeff Spicoli’s time at the wheel ended in disaster – although he offered to fix it with his father’s “TV repairman” tools. More than 30 years later, we have to ask: What the heck is a TV repairman?
High: All-new, third-generation Camaro introduces a radical redesign in 1982 that would help define the high-tech cultural aesthetic of the decade. The 1982 Z28 was the first American production car to incorporate ground effects in its design and all models incorporated modern strut-type front suspensions. It was also named the Motor Trend Car of the Year.
The third-generation Camaro was a radical departure that, like the preceding generation, would help define the culture of its decade. It was also designed as more of a true performance car, with a greater emphasis on aero and a more responsive suspension system, including rack-and-pinion steering and a strut-type front suspension.
Low: Yes, Virginia, they made four-cylinder Camaros from 1982-86 – and the less said about those Iron Duke-derived anchors, the better. Output ranged from a struggling 88 hp to a lackluster 92 hp.
Behold the glory of the four-cylinder third-gen Camaro powerplant – and we use “power” subjectively. The 151-cubic-inch Iron Duke derivative was offered in carbureted and throttle-body injection versions, but none cracked the 100-horsepower threshold. Sad.
High: The Gen III small-block V-8 known as the LS1 is introduced in the 1998 Z28 and SS models, ushering in a new era in high performance. It’s hard to understate the impact the LS1 and the subsequent members of the LS engine family have had on the automotive performance world. They have fundamentally changed the way hobbyists and racers alike approach performance and established new benchmarks for streetable performance cars. Seriously.
The LS1 engine, introduced in the Camaro in 1998, returned a level of performance that hadn’t been seen since the heyday of the muscle car. Better still, it responded to upgrades such as camshafts and cylinder head porting like a fedora-wearing hipster let loose in a vinyl-only record store.
Low: The LS1 is not enough to save sinking Camaro sales. They bottom out at only 29,009 worldwide in 2001 and GM pulls the plug on the F-body on August 27, 2002, ending production after 35 years. Bummer.
The Camaro’s timeline came to a temporary end in 2002, when production ended after 35 years. This is the very last fourth-gen Camaro built, and it is part of GM’s collection of historic vehicles.
High: Chevrolet shows a retro-styled Camaro concept vehicle at the 2006 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, previewing the 2010 production model that would go on to become a cultural icon through channels such as the Transformers movies. It also proved to be the right car at the right time, as Gen 5 sales have exceeded 500,000 and outpaced Mustang for four straight years. USA-1, indeed.
Chevrolet signaled the Camaro’s return with a decidedly retro interpretation introduced as a concept vehicle in 2006. The production Gen 5 model would thankfully be executed almost identically to this dramatic, expressive concept.
Low: Not that we’re complaining or anything, but the production Gen 5 Camaro debuted on the porky side; and its junk in the trunk made handling and overall performance a bit less than sharp or exhilarating. Outward visibility wasn’t so hot, either. Hey, we’re still fans, but just sayin’.
The Gen 5 Camaro was a sales and cultural phenomenon, helped in no small part by its role in the Transformers movies. Chevrolet even built a Transformers Edition in 2010.
High: The Gen 5 Camaro Z/28. Yes, the SS, 1LE, and supercharged ZL1 are mucho terrifico, but the Z/28’s driving experience is from another plane of existence – and comparing it with other Camaro models is like comparing the Millennium Falcon with a Cessna 172. It’s that good. In fact, in a Motor Trend comparison that helped solidify the Z/28’s position as the magazine’s 2014 Best Driver’s Car – the first American car so-awarded – it was pitted against a Nissan GT-R Track Edition and a Porsche 911 Turbo S. The rear-wheel-drive Z/28 lapped the track faster than both all-wheel-drive competitors, prompting the editors to proclaim, “It stands as one of the absolutely best track-focused cars in the world.”
Chevrolet showed the Transformers movie cars at the Gen 6 reveal event in Detroit, in May 2015.
Low: 2015 was the final year for the Gen 5 Z/28, and there ain’t one on the docket for 2016. Get one now while you can.
The Camaro Z/28 returned to its road course roots in the fifth generation and the result was nothing short of spectacular, amazing, and all the other superlatives one could pry out of a thesaurus. Its track-ready suspension and 505hp LS7 engine compose a literally world-beating combination – and represents Chevrolet at its very best.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
9 Sins the Church Is Okay With - by Frank Powell
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
This feels to me like an attempt to include things that are not really sin, with a pop psychology spin. Admittedly there are some sins here, but most are states of mind that may be damaging in some way, but are not sin. This has the effect of cheapening real sin by including contemporary cultural viewpoints in the absence of Scriptural condemnations.
I've included an occasional Scripture that either refutes the claim or explains another dimension of the supposed "sin."
Read on:
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
This feels to me like an attempt to include things that are not really sin, with a pop psychology spin. Admittedly there are some sins here, but most are states of mind that may be damaging in some way, but are not sin. This has the effect of cheapening real sin by including contemporary cultural viewpoints in the absence of Scriptural condemnations.
I've included an occasional Scripture that either refutes the claim or explains another dimension of the supposed "sin."
Read on:
---------------------------------
I was in an engineering class the first time I watched the tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Even though I wasn’t alive when it happened, I caught a glimpse of the horror thousands must have felt as the events unfolded.
And, the first question everyone wanted to know was, “What happened?”
After months of investigation, here’s what the Rogers Commission (the group commissioned to investigate the explosion) discovered: an o-ring seal in the right solid rocket booster failed at take-off. I won’t bore you with the details, but an o-ring is a small device relative to the size of a space shuttle. Very small.
It wasn’t something huge, like a puncture in the rocket booster or a hole in the cabin, that caused this disaster. It was a small, seemingly insignificant, o-ring failure.
I think there’s a lesson here for the church. What if the big sins, you know the ones you try hardest to avoid, aren’t the greatest threat to your joy and the church’s mission?
Maybe it’s the sins lying underneath, the ones considered normal or acceptable, the ones going undetected, that are affecting the church the most. I want to address 9 of these sins.
1.) FEAR
The phrases “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” appear 365 times in the Bible. Ironic? I think not. And here’s what I think the church misses about fear. Let me pose this as a question. What is the opposite of fear? Courage? Bravery? William Wallace?
Wrong. Wrong. And right, but you’re ruining my point.
The opposite of fear is…LOVE. Add to this the reality that God is love. So, according to the Transitive property of mathematics, the opposite of fear is…God.
If you’re a child of God, the one sin that shouldn’t plague you is…fear.
Yet, Christians are the most fearful people on earth. Even our salvation is rooted in fear. Does it bother anyone that the primary method of bringing people to Jesus has been to scare them away from hell?
That’s fear language, the antithesis of God. Look at what John says.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.1 John 4:18
The church is scared to make decisions out of fear. Christians are hesitant to step into dangerous situations out of fear. The catalyst for our obedience is fear. Where’s the love?
Several weeks ago, I decided to remove the words “fear, scared, and terrified” from my vocabulary. Maybe you should do the same. It could change how you see the world. And God.
(Ph. 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed — not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence — continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling...
Ep. 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear...
1Pe. 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.)
The phrases “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” appear 365 times in the Bible. Ironic? I think not. And here’s what I think the church misses about fear. Let me pose this as a question. What is the opposite of fear? Courage? Bravery? William Wallace?
Wrong. Wrong. And right, but you’re ruining my point.
The opposite of fear is…LOVE. Add to this the reality that God is love. So, according to the Transitive property of mathematics, the opposite of fear is…God.
If you’re a child of God, the one sin that shouldn’t plague you is…fear.
Yet, Christians are the most fearful people on earth. Even our salvation is rooted in fear. Does it bother anyone that the primary method of bringing people to Jesus has been to scare them away from hell?
That’s fear language, the antithesis of God. Look at what John says.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.1 John 4:18
The church is scared to make decisions out of fear. Christians are hesitant to step into dangerous situations out of fear. The catalyst for our obedience is fear. Where’s the love?
Several weeks ago, I decided to remove the words “fear, scared, and terrified” from my vocabulary. Maybe you should do the same. It could change how you see the world. And God.
(Ph. 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed — not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence — continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling...
Ep. 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear...
1Pe. 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.)
2.) APATHY
Apathy’s best friends are passivity and entitlement. Together, they’re a vicious threesome.
There’s nothing mediocre or normal about God. His power is beyond comprehension. His beauty is beyond description. His love is beyond measure. The same God who created the universe and formed stars desires a relationship with you.
Yet, the attitude is often, “Okay, God loves me. That’s great. What’s for lunch?” No. You don’t get it, bro. God loves you. And you’re content with, “That’s great.”
What?!
Our apathetic approach to God explains a lot about why people in America aren’t lining up to become Christians.
I mean, think about it. How many Christians have you met that left you thinking, “Wow, I want to be like them?” But this should be the norm, right? Am I way off here? Shouldn’t you be so transformed by God that people want to ask about your life, even if they hate God?
In Scripture, when men and women truly experience God, everything changes. Everything. So, that begs the question, “Have you experienced God?”
Apathy’s best friends are passivity and entitlement. Together, they’re a vicious threesome.
There’s nothing mediocre or normal about God. His power is beyond comprehension. His beauty is beyond description. His love is beyond measure. The same God who created the universe and formed stars desires a relationship with you.
Yet, the attitude is often, “Okay, God loves me. That’s great. What’s for lunch?” No. You don’t get it, bro. God loves you. And you’re content with, “That’s great.”
What?!
Our apathetic approach to God explains a lot about why people in America aren’t lining up to become Christians.
I mean, think about it. How many Christians have you met that left you thinking, “Wow, I want to be like them?” But this should be the norm, right? Am I way off here? Shouldn’t you be so transformed by God that people want to ask about your life, even if they hate God?
In Scripture, when men and women truly experience God, everything changes. Everything. So, that begs the question, “Have you experienced God?”
3.) GLUTTONY
In my younger days, I would literally eat myself sick. I mean, if I ordered food, I ate all of it. Period. Naturally, this presented a problem when I ate buffets.
Looking back, I see that my attitude was gluttonous. And the gluttony wasn’t that I ate myself sick. It was that I used a gift God gave me on myself…in excess.
Gluttony is primarily about the heart. It’s a craving for excess. Gluttony says, “Those voids God is supposed to fill…don’t worry about that. I will fill them.” Gluttony happens when you lose your awe of God. You see, as long as your eyes are fixed on Jesus, your heart’s desire is for him.
Is the world not desperate for this message? As we gorge our stomachs with food and flood our houses with trinkets, our discontent only increases.
Where are the Jesus followers who will fix their eyes completely on him, throwing away anything that treads the line between want and need? Where are the Christians who will feast in excess on God?
In my younger days, I would literally eat myself sick. I mean, if I ordered food, I ate all of it. Period. Naturally, this presented a problem when I ate buffets.
Looking back, I see that my attitude was gluttonous. And the gluttony wasn’t that I ate myself sick. It was that I used a gift God gave me on myself…in excess.
Gluttony is primarily about the heart. It’s a craving for excess. Gluttony says, “Those voids God is supposed to fill…don’t worry about that. I will fill them.” Gluttony happens when you lose your awe of God. You see, as long as your eyes are fixed on Jesus, your heart’s desire is for him.
Is the world not desperate for this message? As we gorge our stomachs with food and flood our houses with trinkets, our discontent only increases.
Where are the Jesus followers who will fix their eyes completely on him, throwing away anything that treads the line between want and need? Where are the Christians who will feast in excess on God?
4.) WORRY
Worrying gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.
The great philosopher Van Wilder once said, “Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.” That’s right. But Van Wilder isn’t the only one who talked about worry. Jesus said you shouldn’t worry about anything (Matt. 6:25-34). But Jesus wasn’t serious was he? I mean, really Jesus? Anything?
He was serious. You see, worrying is symptomatic of a larger issue…lack of faith. And for followers of Jesus whose primary mission is to show the glory and nature of God to the world, worrying is a problem.
Recently, I asked a good friend why worry plagues the church, and he said something profound, “My greatest concern is that we don’t want to need God. We’re Americans. We’re independent.”
That’s hard-hitting stuff right there.
Americans will do anything to maintain the illusion of control and responsibility, so no wonder worry plagues us. Worry is the by-product of bearing a weight only God can bear.
Do you see the irony here? The more independence you desire, the more worry you will experience. So, why not give everything to God and let his peace reign over your life?
Worrying gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.
The great philosopher Van Wilder once said, “Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.” That’s right. But Van Wilder isn’t the only one who talked about worry. Jesus said you shouldn’t worry about anything (Matt. 6:25-34). But Jesus wasn’t serious was he? I mean, really Jesus? Anything?
He was serious. You see, worrying is symptomatic of a larger issue…lack of faith. And for followers of Jesus whose primary mission is to show the glory and nature of God to the world, worrying is a problem.
Recently, I asked a good friend why worry plagues the church, and he said something profound, “My greatest concern is that we don’t want to need God. We’re Americans. We’re independent.”
That’s hard-hitting stuff right there.
Americans will do anything to maintain the illusion of control and responsibility, so no wonder worry plagues us. Worry is the by-product of bearing a weight only God can bear.
Do you see the irony here? The more independence you desire, the more worry you will experience. So, why not give everything to God and let his peace reign over your life?
5.) FLATTERY
I erased this like five times, but God kept telling me to put it back. So, I did. With hesitancy. I love you, God.
I like performing. I always have. And while there’s nothing wrong with the spotlight, there’s a lot wrong with making yourself the center of it.
If your identity is tied to man’s praise, you’ll be eternally discontent.
If your identity is tied to man’s praise, you’ll be eternally discontent. People are fickle. They’re here today and gone tomorrow. They’re for you one day, against you the next. They love you when you agree with them, dislike you when you don’t.
Yet, we love human praise, at least I do. Exhibit A: Instagram, SnapChat, and Facebook. While I love social media, they’re also platforms that perpetuate flattery. You post pictures about your life hoping the world will “like” it. Who cares if it’s not the real you? You need the approval. So, even if you need 30 minutes to find that perfect selfie, it’s worth the time.
Jesus, however, didn’t need the praise and glory of men. He didn’t care what they thought. His only concern was doing the will of God. This attitude is what the world is desperate to see.
It’s hard to point people to Jesus if you need their approval.
Let’s be honest, it’s hard to point people to Jesus if you need their approval.
And when you need the approval of others, your life will have more ups and downs than the Goliath at Six Flags in Atlanta.
I rode that beast. I know.
6.) COMFORT
Comfort might be the patriarch of the “church approved” sins family. When the church becomes comfortable, Christianity starts to die.
Christians must be extremely intentional with their thoughts and actions to avoid comfort. If not, you become resistant to change. You start making secondary issues primary. You begin to see the mission as catering to insiders rather than reaching outsiders.
And here’s the thing about the sin of comfort. Once it shows up, it’s extremely difficult to remove. When you challenge comfort, people don’t just get angry. They get fightin’ mad. Comfort will even tell you to crucify an innocent man.
The church can’t be missional and comfortable at the same time.
The church can’t be missional and comfortable at the same time. It’s time to make a decision.
(Mt. 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
1Co. 14:3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
2Co. 1:4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.
7.) CONSUMERISM
I grew up watching Sesame Street. My favorite character?…Cookie Monster. I felt like we were the same person. And what I mean is we both loved cookies. I would often go around the house saying, “Gimme da cookies.”
It never worked.
Many Christians are like Cookie Monster. Their mantra is, “Gimme more…well anything. Just give me more. More. More. More.”
The essence of this sin is a false understanding of God, that God is a taker. But nothing could be further from the truth. God is a giver. He’s the Giver. And, as a man or woman created in his image, you should be a giver.
So, what are you creating? What are you giving back to the world? What are giving back to others?
I grew up watching Sesame Street. My favorite character?…Cookie Monster. I felt like we were the same person. And what I mean is we both loved cookies. I would often go around the house saying, “Gimme da cookies.”
It never worked.
Many Christians are like Cookie Monster. Their mantra is, “Gimme more…well anything. Just give me more. More. More. More.”
The essence of this sin is a false understanding of God, that God is a taker. But nothing could be further from the truth. God is a giver. He’s the Giver. And, as a man or woman created in his image, you should be a giver.
So, what are you creating? What are you giving back to the world? What are giving back to others?
8.) PATRIOTISM
Cue the nasty e-mails. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t picture Jesus waving an American flag while showing off his “I love ‘Merica” tattoo. Jesus wasn’t against the government. In fact, if you’re a Jesus follower, the Bible calls you to pray for your nation and for your leaders (1 Tim. 2:1-4). But Jesus was very clear about how God’s name would become famous throughout the world…the church. Not the government. Not a nation. The church.
When your allegiance is torn between your country and your God, American ideals begin to shape your faith more than God. And you transpose American values onto God, believing God would be an American and think like an American.
Celebrate American values. That’s great. But, at the end of the day, your citizenship is not with America. It’s in heaven.
Cue the nasty e-mails. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t picture Jesus waving an American flag while showing off his “I love ‘Merica” tattoo. Jesus wasn’t against the government. In fact, if you’re a Jesus follower, the Bible calls you to pray for your nation and for your leaders (1 Tim. 2:1-4). But Jesus was very clear about how God’s name would become famous throughout the world…the church. Not the government. Not a nation. The church.
When your allegiance is torn between your country and your God, American ideals begin to shape your faith more than God. And you transpose American values onto God, believing God would be an American and think like an American.
Celebrate American values. That’s great. But, at the end of the day, your citizenship is not with America. It’s in heaven.
9.) LYING
If gluttony is the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one talks about, lying is the elephant in the room no one sees. Lying is so socially acceptable, even in Christian circles, that it often goes undetected. We’re desensitized to it.
And here’s why this is dangerous for Christians.
There’s a rarely-discussed passage in Matthew 5:33-37 where Jesus confronts the Pharisees about oaths. Most Americans only hear the word oath when a celebrity lies in court (under oath). But Jesus isn’t talking about oaths in this passage.
He’s talking about INTEGRITY.
Here’s what Jesus is saying. You should live with such high integrity that your word doesn’t need attachments to make it legitimate. So, typical phrases like, “I promise,” “I swear,” and “I put it on my mom’s grave” should never come from your mouth.
“Frank, c’mon on man. Are you interpreting that correctly? Say you promise.”
These words are a kick in the pants, right? If you’re like me, you say things all the time and never follow through. You lie to make yourself sound better. You lie to stay out of trouble. You lie to get ahead. Sometimes you lie just to lie.
Jesus says there’s no place for that if you’re a Christian. Your word matters. If you say something, God expects you to do it. It’s better to tell the truth and lose your job than lie and keep it.
How serious is this? Jesus says anything more than our word is from the evil one, Satan. That’s real.
______________
Sometimes the undetected sins are the most toxic. My hope is you will see this as an opportunity to grow. I also realize there are some “church approved” sins I didn’t mention. It’s your turn.
If gluttony is the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one talks about, lying is the elephant in the room no one sees. Lying is so socially acceptable, even in Christian circles, that it often goes undetected. We’re desensitized to it.
And here’s why this is dangerous for Christians.
There’s a rarely-discussed passage in Matthew 5:33-37 where Jesus confronts the Pharisees about oaths. Most Americans only hear the word oath when a celebrity lies in court (under oath). But Jesus isn’t talking about oaths in this passage.
He’s talking about INTEGRITY.
Here’s what Jesus is saying. You should live with such high integrity that your word doesn’t need attachments to make it legitimate. So, typical phrases like, “I promise,” “I swear,” and “I put it on my mom’s grave” should never come from your mouth.
“Frank, c’mon on man. Are you interpreting that correctly? Say you promise.”
These words are a kick in the pants, right? If you’re like me, you say things all the time and never follow through. You lie to make yourself sound better. You lie to stay out of trouble. You lie to get ahead. Sometimes you lie just to lie.
Jesus says there’s no place for that if you’re a Christian. Your word matters. If you say something, God expects you to do it. It’s better to tell the truth and lose your job than lie and keep it.
How serious is this? Jesus says anything more than our word is from the evil one, Satan. That’s real.
______________
Sometimes the undetected sins are the most toxic. My hope is you will see this as an opportunity to grow. I also realize there are some “church approved” sins I didn’t mention. It’s your turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)