Praying vs doing - FB Conversation

This prayer request was posted by a FB friend. Don't get me wrong, praying is a good thing, but please note that every comment is an agreement to pray with no one actually stepping up to help.

I am not wanting to toot my own horn here. But it's the way I think about things that causes me to respond with actual help. 

It seems to me that the world's thinking has infiltrated the church. We have acclimatized ourselves into thinking that it's other peoples' responsibility to help. Send them to Love, INC. Send them to government. Send them to a shelter or a charity. But under no circumstances get out your checkbook, or your hammer and saw.

You can put a stamp of spirituality on things by praying, and so relieved yourself of further responsibility. In reality we should pray, but we don't need to pray about stuff for which there is already an answer. "God, should I feed the hungry?" is a as nonsensical prayer as "God, should I commit adultery?" 

We need to remember that the hungry, the afflicted, the poor, and the orphan have a special place in God's heart. Mistreatment of the weak gets God's dander up. "

He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the 

children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." 

Ps. 72:4

So by all means, pray. But get off your butt and do something about it.

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

J.C.: Please pray I have three friends who need miracles. Their power is being shut off, Rent behind, Cars are breaking down and can't pay for repairs and their phones are going to be shut off.

M.M.: I know of some and feel so helpless because things are tight for us also.

J.C.: I know it's kinda crazy

J.F.: We know a God who give us miracles every day Amen! Prayers that way

L.F.: In jesus name we claim all miracles be supplied, for this family and many others around the valley too, amen

M.B.: Agreeing with you ladies for the many families struggling.

C.W.: J.C., you are such an awesome prayer warrior for others & yourself. Thank you for storming the gates of heaven & getting others to storm with you

Me: Have them contact me, I'll help them.

Me: Raised $200 so far. Anyone else want to chip in?

Corporation are not people - letter by Alanna K. Brown

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

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

What always strikes me about the Left when they talk about issues like economics is how incredibly colorblind they are. They are content to regurgitate talking points they read on Leftist websites, despite what must be a painful cognitive dissonance. Read on:

-------------------------------
What is so striking about our current political atmosphere is the utter denial by True Believers of the failure of the Voodoo economics of the Conservative Movement of the last 35 years. (Let's note for the record that Reagan left office 25 years ago, and we have had both Republicans and Democrats as president since then. "Voodoo economics," aka "trickledown," has not been in operation since then, if it ever really was. 

But more importantly, with the exception of 1995-1998 and 2001-2007, Democrats have been in control of Congress, and frequently with a Democrat president. It is Congress that has sole constitutional authority to appropriate and spend taxpayer dollars. So let's affix blame were it belongs. Leftist fiscal policies have continued unabated for decades, with only mild mitigation for brief periods. The big spenders, mostly Democrat, but with a number of complicit RINOs, have led this country to its financial devastation.)

Why History isn't Scientific (or, atheists are historically illiterate) - By Tim O'Neill

(This is a guest post I was invited to write for the atheist blog Deity Schmeity. Regular readers of Armarium Magnum or of my answers on Quora will recognise the general themes).


"History sucks."

In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted "History Isn't My Area", commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticising this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him:

"History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?"

Since history actually is my area, I responded by making some critical comments on this attitude and some points about how history , as an academic discipline, is studied. Grundy, unlike many so-called "rationalists" I've encountered over the years, was happy to listen, and he invited me to expand on my points in this guest post.


Atheists and Historical Illiteracy

I should begin, however, by pointing out that I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for my entire adult life, am a paid up member of several atheist and sceptical organisations and have a 21 year online record of posting to discussions as an unbeliever. I note this because I've found that when I begin to criticise my fellow atheists and their grasp of history or historiography, people tend to assume I must be some kind of theist apologist (which doesn't follow at all, but this happens all the time anyway).

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school. But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies. Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent. With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics. How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level. This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst. Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history. You can make hypotheses and test them in science. You can actually prove things. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. Compared to science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like.


History and Science

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, with its own rules and methodology much like the hard sciences. This does not mean it is a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in "a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge". But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how sciences differ from it.

ARE MEN CREATED TOTALLY DEPRAVED? - BY STEVE FINNELL

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

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

According to Calvinism all men are born guilty of the sin of Adam, and therefore are born totally depraved. (We note here the first assertion: Men are born depraved because of the sin of Adam. However, this assertion is different than his title question. there is a difference between being born and being created.)

Psalms 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. (NASB)

God did not create David totally depraved. God does not create people guilty of sin in the womb of their mother. (So, the first Scripture offered as proof that men are not born totally depraved does not speak of sin, it speaks of the wonder of creation. Interestingly, David himself was able to make that distinction: "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.” - Ps 51:5)

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)

God's image is not that of a totally depraved person that is guilty of sin. God is still creating men today in His image. (OK, so the second Scripture offered tells us we have been made in the image of God. That is, we have a spiritual nature, created by God, which reflects His nature. But something happened after that, when corruption entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned. 

All of creation fell, not just man himself: "Ge. 3:17b: “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." And Ro. 8:20-22: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Even Paul recognized he was a slave to this fallen nature: 

Ro. 7:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what good, but I cannot carry it out."

It was Christ who redeemed us, not just by taking our sin, but also dealing with the curse of the law: 

Ga. 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" [Deut. 21:23] 

Jesus' death that reversed the curse, and His resurrection that gives us life in His presence: 

Re. 22:3: "No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him."

We see this over and over in Scripture, that death came through Adam, and life through Christ:

Ro. 7:5: "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,  the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death."

Ro. 8:3: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man..."

1 Co. 15:21-22: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a ma n. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 

Ga. 5:24: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."

Col. 2:13-15: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

We therefore are commanded to take off the sinful nature and live in the new life we've been given:

Col. 3:9-10: "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

Ro. 8:13-14 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

How to fix Obamacare - The Economist

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

It is very nearly astonishing that the Left-leaning Economist would even admit there is anything wrong with the ACA. Generally speaking, the Left has steadfastly refused to even consider that their heroic legislation had even the slightest flaw, preferring instead to vilify detractors as being in favor of sick people.

So let's see if the Economist is able to accurately represent both the law and its flaws.
--------------------------------------

America’s health-care system remains dysfunctional, but it could be made better (The subtitle contains a subtle leftist meme, "America's health-care system," which suggests that it is an entity as opposed to an industry.)


It is now nearly a year since the roll-out of Obamacare. The launch was a shambles, and Obamacare is a totem for every American who hates big government. Republicans will deride it, yet again, in the mid-term elections. (The implication is that Republicans are out of bounds for being anti-ACA, and that they should shut up about it.)

Obamacare is indeed costly and overcomplicated. (And ineffective and ill-conceived and punitive and...) 

Yet it is not to blame for America’s health mess, (Let's see what the author says is to blame.)

and it could just contain the beginnings of a partial solution to it. But that will only happen if politicians treat health care like a patient: first, diagnose the disease, then examine whether Barack Obama’s treatment helped, and then ask what will make the patient better. (This is a job for politicians? Really? The same politicians who created the mess?)

A quick check-up

Begin with the disease. At the core of America’s problems with health care is a great delusion: it likes to think it has a vibrant private marketplace. (America thinks this? America is an entity with singular thoughts? In actual fact, very few, if any, think we have a "vibrant private marketplace." Almost everyone acknowledges that the healthcare system is broken. As we will see, the author likes to give unsupported assertions as if they were fact.) 

In fact the country has long had a subsidy-laden system that is the most expensive and complicated in the world, (This is what conservative have been complaining about for decades!) 

with much of the government cash going to the rich, (Unsupported assertion. Government healthcare cash went to the rich? What does this even mean?) 

millions of people left out and little individual responsibility. ( A free market, something we haven't had in decades, relies on individual responsibility. It is government intervention that has discouraged this and created our present problems. Healthcare has been heavily legislated and regulated, where government spent $.47 out of every healthcare dollar. Government forces insurance policy language and coverage, strictly limits choice, and dictates pricing and access. All of this is contrary to the free market.) 

America devotes 17% of GDP to health care, (Again note the implication that America is a singular entity, which "devotes" spending to this or that. The phrasing almost sounds like there's a deliberate allocation of America's collective money by some governing body.) 

compared with 9% in Britain, yet nearly 50m Americans were uninsured in 2012 and life expectancy is slightly below average for a rich country. And the taxpayer foots much of the bill: government health spending per head in 2012, before Obamacare’s main provisions took effect, was 50% higher than in Britain, which has a nationalised health system. Some spending, such as the huge Medicare programme for the elderly and Medicaid for the hard-up, is obvious. But much is opaque. (The author is swerving into the truth here. Much of the healthcare system operated totally outside the marketplace.)

Employer-sponsored coverage is tax exempt, costing the government at least $200 billion a year. (This is nonsense. Declining to tax something simply means those who were going to be taxed get to keep their money. This does not "cost" the government, as if government should tax something simply because it isn't. 

In addition, taxation does not happen in a vacuum. Taxes are an additional cost, which means money that could be spent elsewhere by those who actually possess it, gets turned over to the government instead. These economic effects filter all throughout the economy. And we know that taxation discourages the activity being taxed. That's the reason for tobacco taxes, isn't it? So if government taxed employer-provided health insurance benefits, fewer people would be insured, correct?)  

Democracy Alliance Political Action Network - A cadre of billionaires funding Democrats

Found here.

But the Koch brothers are the real problem...

SIGNS & MIRACLES? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We need to give this guy some credit for his unabashed certainty about his positions. As you read his blog you will find an enthusiasm for his own perspective coupled with an implied "there is nothing more to say" underlying everything. 

We wish we could be so certain about our "perfect" doctrine. This is the intellectual legacy of the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:22), so much so that we are trapped by intellectualism and thus remain closed to the renewing of our minds.

Paul tells us in Ro. 11:33: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" One thing that marks the beginning of our journey into the maturity in the faith begins when we finally admit we can't systematize God.  We can't figure Him out. He is so much more than we thought.

But all that is beside the point. Mr. Finnell is certain about a great many things, and being persuaded is not necessarily a bad thing. But God seems to delight in changing paradigms. Man thought one thing, God did another. Jesus said, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." and completely overturned everything. He destroyed the Pharisees' intellectual systems, and provided a new paradigm, a Kingdom paradigm. 

An important part of the new paradigm is our need to walk according to the Spirit (Gal 5:25), to abandon the thinking of the world, to stop thinking like children (1 Cor 14:20). Which means that we must be open to God bringing revelation about the truth of Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand the Bible, and we certainly cannot know the truth if we cling to our ways of understanding. 

OK, enough of that. Let's get on to analyzing Mr. Finnell's myopic presentation:

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

Signs and miracles, are they present today? No, they are not! (An emphatic response. Will his presentation be as conclusive? We shall see.)

John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The signs Jesus performed are written in Scripture. (This directly contradicts the quoted Scripture.)

We do not need new signs in order to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (This is an unsupported assertion which is not addressed by the quoted Scripture. Further, Mr. Finnell's original question was, "...are signs and miracles present today," not, "do we need signs to believe..." Two separate topics for which answering the second does not illuminate the first.)

Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?

This was posted by a FB friend. I wanted to analyze it (or over-analyze it), because it has so many logical fallacies and Leftist tropes in it.

First, there's that ubiquitous use of the word "we," which is never you and me, it's always government. To be sure, it will require heavy-handed government intervention into the private sector, a fundamental rework of every facet of peoples' lives, and a substantial reduction in the standard of living of everyone, in order to achieve environmental nirvana. By "substantial," we mean grass huts and berries.

Second, it asks a false binary question: "Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?" The question actually is, how much pollution is acceptable as we live our lives? Because that's what we have to do, no matter how clean we try make things. Pollution will never be zero, so the real issue is how much is acceptable. Therefore, everyone is in favor of some pollution.

There is a growing clamor in the environmentalist movement to reduce fossil fuel usage to zero by 2050. In order to achieve this, oppressive measures will need to be undertaken, and those measures are not restricted to lifestyles.

Clearly the world's population in 2050, projected to be 9.6 billion, cannot exist without fossil fuels. A substantial reduction of the world's population must be achieved. Thus, many organizations are advocating universal birth control, but even that will not be enough.

At least there are some environmentalists who are being honest about their goals, a 90% reduction in humanity from present levels. Can you imagine, a population of 700 million? There are actually people out there who want to eliminate billions of people for the sake of the environment, and want to empower governments to achieve such a goal!

And yet, 700 million people still will pollute, so even for these extremists, some amount of pollution is still acceptable. Enter VHEMT, which is calling for our extinction. The only zero-pollution people in the debate, a perspective the even the most ardent environmentalist would recoil from, these are the true believers, willing to die for their god. At least they are all-in. You know, I think they should take the first step themselves to demonstrate their commitment to their ideals.

So the second question in the picture is, "Why not make the environment the economy?" In light of the above discussion, we can see this question is nonsensical. Setting aside the fact that "clean energy" is economically unfeasible, we can see from the above discussion that it isn't even the real solution environmentalists are seeking.

However, you can be sure that if the world's government totally bought in to the idea of windfarms and solar energy and then took over the entirety of the population's choices about how they will lead their lives, they would soon see they could not stop there. VHEMT's ideas might start looking good, and then who can stop them?

That is the problem with these government lovers, they invest totally in government's ability to do good, which eventually leads to the possibility of going the whole way. But you can be sure that someone will stop and say, "hey, why should we wipe out everybody? We are rich and we control everything. What a shame to waste all that wealth and have no one to enjoy it." Thus, utopia is achieved, and it only cost a few billion lives.

It is clear that the typical environmentalist has not thought through the ramifications of their ideology. I suspect many of them have good intentions, although there is no reason to dismiss the idea that the real agenda at work is the destruction of capitalism, ala Naomi Klein.

These people really don't like humans. They're anti-life. The love abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics, though they will never admit it. For many of them, the agenda is far reaching and fundamental. They don't like freedom, choice, prosperity, or happiness. Theirs is a utopian vision, where everyone but them is out.

Welcome to the new order, paradise on earth.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, hero - FB conversation

FB friend S.B. posted this:

Just a few seats left for tonight, a few more tomorrow

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Tickets - Cordiner Hall - Walla Walla, Wa - September 12th, 2014


A.V.: how are any tickets left???

S.B.: Yeah I don't understand either

Me: It may surprise you, but most people don't regard him as some sort of hero.

S.B.: A lot of folks do respect him a great deal Rich. He's been selling out larger venues in major cities with tickets going in excess of $200.

I sure can't draw crowds like that. Lol

K.J.: Anyone who can influence even one child to be interested in science and learning is a hero in my book.

D.C.: @Rich, Neil is not your hero. What he is an amazing critical thinker that can cut through the BS in pretty much anyone's flawed way of thinking. He is very good at taking what people incorrectly call Theories and turns them back into crackpot hypothesis that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What makes him a hero to many is that he has a talent many people wish they had. In that sense he is the same kind of a hero as "name your favorite sports player or political figure or religious personality".

Me: I did not say he was not my hero. There's no need to defend him since I did not criticize him. I simply pointed out that he's not everyone's hero. He can be yours, but I really don't care.

D.C.: @Rich, so you just went out of your way to point out the obvious? No one in the history of mankind is a hero to "most" people. If you really don't care, then why do you just post random pointless thoughts? (these points are rhetorical - no need to answer; you can just think about them before you post comments)

Me: I think I was clear that I don't care who YOU find to be a hero. More power to you. Nor do I really care what you consider pointless or obvious. But please feel free to police the thread for people who violate your sensibilities.

M.P.: @Rich I think what folks are reacting to is why you felt the need to mention his non-hero status to us all when nothing in the post or comments before your line claimed him to be such, to the world or an individual, yet you felt the need to "go there".

Me: Someone expressed astonishment that there were tickets left. I supplied a reason.

M.P.: No, you talked about hero status, not ticket status. People can like a show just because, not thinking they need to see a hero.

Me:  Feel free to parse and analyze my brief comment about a man who is regularly lionized. As Scott said, a lot of folks respect him a great deal, and he commands $200 ticket prices. But using the word "hero," well, that's just beyond the pale.

Today's lesson in Irony - Christian charity and welfare

Posted by FB friend R.E.:

Food for thought... excuse the Pun, I thought it was Punny!

C.C.: A little bias, There are legitimate need for food stamps as well as food banks. You should read up on Social Justice in a Christian context.

R.E.: But government programs are good if they aren't abused or they don't become dependent on them instead of use them while you are down on your luck. The old hand up instead of a hand out.

C.C.: True, There is some abuse, but Republicans seem to want to scrap the safety nets which is BS. They are despicable. Always wanting to balance their spending on the backs of the poor. A loaf of bread costs a rich man the same as a poor man. We always will have people who for whatever reason are unable to work. The solution is not to let them starve.

Me: Forcing some people to pay for others, no matter how needy, is abuse.

M.S.: Rich, would you not help out your neighbor if they were in need? Would you receive help from your neighbor if you were in need? We are all in this (life) together and everyone has the same basic needs, and for some, those needs are not being met. It is our duty as good human beings to assist those less fortunate.

Me: Agreed, M.S.. However, you have described something different. There is nothing compassionate about a government who by the use of force extracts money from some people and redistributes it to others. In fact, that is the opposite of compassion, because the government inserts itself into my compassion transaction, and chooses for me the time, place, and kind of exchange that will occur.

By way of illustration, if a person approaches you on the street and robs you, then gives the money to a poor person, is that compassionate? No, it's theft. If a group of people get together and vote to take money from you and then give it to the poor, is that compassion? No, that is also theft. A majority vote does not make theft moral or legitimate.

M.S.: Although I see your concern, most of the "1%" aren't spreading their wealth in compassionate ways or in sums that people are comfortable with. That is why there is a mandated "donation" in the form of tax. It's based under the assumption that people are greedy, and sadly, most people are.

Providence Is Remarkable - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long, meandering transcription (9361 words!), where the author attempts to make the case that cessationism does not lean towards deism. 

As is becoming increasingly apparent to us, cessationists content themselves with making unsupported assertions, and when they finally do quote a Scripture, they invariably try to make it say something it does not. Here  Mr. Johnson will quote Scripture to document ancillary claims, but none of them bolster any claim he makes the supposed difference between providence and the miraculous. Those claims are left undocumented.
--------------------------

One of the underlying presuppositions of the Charismatic world is that if God is not actively intervening in creation through miracles and signs and wonders and things like that, then you’ve got an absentee God. (Frankly, we've never heard this argument in charismatic circles. We suppose that if the author is citing it, it is his intent to suggest it is a widespread and common argument, so that he can set up a straw man to refute, and thus negate charismatics as a whole.

In addition, if the author is intent on explaining a Bible doctrine, the actions of other people are irrelevant to the biblical case.) 

If we don’t take the Charismatic position, they say, your God isn’t really there. (Who says this? We have never heard anyone say such a thing.)

Charismatics frequently (Frequently? How frequently? He does eventually cite some people who have perhaps done this, but the issue is not quite so cut-and-dried as he suggests.) 

lob this charge at non-Charismatics, that, you know, if you believe the miraculous Charismatic gifts have ceased, they say, then your view is a close cousin of deism, which is virtually a denial that God is present and at work in this world’s affairs. (Virtually? And how close is "close cousin?" 

Does the author intend to refute those who say that cessationism can be in some ways similar to deism, or does he instead intend to refute a supposed belief that cessationists are deists? There's a substantial difference.

Regardless, if author intends to refute either of these positions, We'll certainly examine his arguments, but his loose language and attempt to paint with a broad brush is not giving us confidence that he will make his case.

By the way, we googled the cessation-deism connection to see if we could find how widespread this line of thought is. We found precious little.)

If you doubt whether today’s Charismatics are truly speaking in tongues, and getting direct revelation from God, they (Each and every one... The reader will note the swerving back and forth between general and absolute terms.) 

will tell you that your skepticism is tantamount to materialistic rationalism. It’s essentially a form of rank unbelief. That’s because the only way (Absolutes.)

the typical Charismatic (Back to a generalization.) 

can envision God as active and personal is as if He is constantly (Back to absolutes.) 

displaying His presence in creation by miraculous means, you know, through constant, direct extra-biblical revelation or with supernatural signs and wonders in the heavens. And they think if He’s not doing that, then He’s not there. (Absolutes again. 

So really, do charismatics all think this? How does he know what people are thinking? Who has used language like what he has described, and why is it representative of what all charismatics say?)

That way of thinking comes dangerously close to the Gnostic notion that that’s how God is. (Now the author flings back a charge at charismatics, equally undocumented. It's almost like, "You calling me a deist? Well, you're a Gnostic. Take that!")

He stands outside His creation and therefore if He acts at all, it must be from outside the cosmos by overturning the natural order of things. And if you think I exaggerate, let me quote some fairly typical sources. (Ok, now we get some "typical sources." That is, prominent representatives of the charismatic line of thought, we should hope.

But more to the point, is Mr. Johnson going to actually explain providence?)

Here’s one from a blog post written by Dave Miller who is senior pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Sioux City, Iowa. (Who?) 

He actually edits fairly heavily blog (sic) known as SBC Voices, and he is a former cessationist and he wrote this article titled, “God told me that the Bible does not teach cessationism.” (How about a link, sir?)

I think he’s being…I think he’s trying to be humorous there, I don’t think he really means God sent him a private message on that. Maybe he does.

He cites some of the standard Charismatic arguments and then in a summary at the end of his article, he writes this, quote: (A quote is coming up from someone who is supposedly a representative opinion of the charismatic position. 

Thankfully, this documentation [albeit sparse] allows us to analyze the presentation to see if it jibes with Mr. Johnson's representation. Indeed, we will find that the author's claims about Miller are inaccurate and diversionary.)

“I think that some (First we notice, "some." Not all.) 

in the cessationist movement have adopted what I call biblical deism. (Miller has created a neologism, biblical deism, the concepts of which must be examined on their own merits. It is not enough to dismiss Miller as though he had asserted that deism and cessationism are synonymous. Miller quite clearly doesn't do this.) 

Deism believed in an impersonal God, one who created the world and then stood back and let it operate according to certain principles. Biblical deism creates a somewhat ("Somewhat." Not "exactly like.") 

impersonal God today. He does not walk with me and talk with me.”

And he sort of gratuitously tacks on a throwaway line in his closing paragraph saying that his criticism of cessationists was intended, these are his words, “was intended playfully, not in a belittling way.” But it’s clear that he’s seriously equating cessationism (Well, no. He's drawing comparisons. Unlike the author, who makes broad absolute statements about charismatics, Miller is looking at similarities.

These kinds of comparative analyses are certainly acceptable ways of drawing conclusions.) 

with the underlying principles of deism and we don’t really have a God, these are his words again, A God who is personal, who speaks and listens and enters in to relationship with us.

Labor is prior to, and independent of capital - President Lincoln

This was posted by a leftist friend on FB, in honor of labor day:

The quote comes from Lincoln's 1861 State of the Union address. One might get the impression that Lincoln was pontificating on the labor theory of value 6 years before Karl Marx published Das Kapital, which stuck me as ridiculous from the start. Indeed, that is exactly what my leftist friend thought, until I corrected him.

Being naturally skeptical, especially since it was a leftist that posted it, I googled the quote. This yielded me the previously cited link. Here we find that Lincoln's address was wide ranging, with budget figures, commentary on the "insurrection," as he called slavery issue, and information regarding territories and potential additions to the Union.

Late in the speech we arrive at the quoted sentences. What was Lincoln talking about? Was he a forerunner of socialist thought? Was he dissing corporations and extolling the labor movement? Was he talking about the worker rising up and taking over from the eeevil elite? Well, no. Turns out, he was really talking about the American dream: Working hard, pulling one's self up by his bootstraps, building up value by being diligent, and making a life in this land of opportunity.

Here's what he said in the next paragraph, as he expanded his thoughts:

"Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all."

Not exactly a treatise regarding the struggle of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois, eh?

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

FB friend S.L. Posted this:

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

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

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

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

Me: No, he didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS GOD’S NAME? - By Lockley Bremner

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

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

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

THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE DEMOTED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaVon D. Brillhart Dillon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible on Near-Death Experiences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossing the Boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Glories of Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Lourie Bozeman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eileen Hosking

Bozeman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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