An Open Letter to the US Congress

To Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Majority leader Eric Cantor, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Majority whip, Kevin McCarthy and Democratic whip Steny Hoyer,

     I am writing this on behalf of myself, my family, my neighbors and my fellow Americans who are all extremely outraged with the policies and actions, and cover ups of gross negligence by the president and his administration.
The Obama administration has repeatedly shown his contempt for the citizens of this nation, for our military men and women and their families.  He has shown contempt of this nation's laws, specifically, the Constitution on which he, his administration and all of you and the representatives of the citizens of the United States all swore an oath to uphold and protect. 
   
     Might I remind you that the main purpose of the federal government is to provide for a common defense, to ensure domestic tranquility and keep the citizens of this nation safe?  That is the sole purpose of the federal government, yet under this current administration we the people have seen more lies, contempt, slander, dishonesty, disgraceful behavior unbecoming to the offices of this nation than at any other time in this nation's history.
This administration has allowed illegals and terrorists to flow over the southern borders, allowing for criminals to murder our Border Agents, police officers and innocent citizens, all the while bringing on a lawsuit against certain border States for trying to enforce the federal laws and protect their own citizens, is an absolute disgrace and a dangerous precedent which will have profound consequences to our future.  They have also allowed a program called Fast and Furious to be implemented, Which has resulted in the death of a Border patrol and over 200 Mexican citizens. The bloodshed on both sides of the border is atrocious and abhorrent to the citizens of this nation.

     We have witnessed this administration’s encouragement of a so called Arab spring in the Middle East, which has turned the whole of the Middle East and North Africa into a bloodbath and has promoted the wholesale take over by the terrorist organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Concerned citizens who have questioned congress on the obviously unconstitutional actions by our president, elected and non elected officials in both domestic affairs and the increase in Middle East/North African violence have been met with insults, false promises, and evasion by our congressional representatives.

I do not know of any of other time in the history of our nation that our government been so willing to allow persons with ties to our enemies who have not been vetted, and who have been placed in positions of handling secret information in national Security and Intelligence offices! 

     We have seen the number of our wonderful soldiers who have been brutally killed skyrocket under this administration. I don't claim to know anything about the Rules of Engagement during a time of war, but it does not take the mind of a General to know that when one is at war, one does not bow to the wishes of one's enemies, one does NOT treat the battlefield as if it were a courtroom battle, and one does NOT in essence require it's best trained warriors to ask questions first when being fired upon.   This is an absolute outrage!  Our military men and women deserve more than this!  They volunteer for their service, yet they are treated with as much contempt and derision from this administration as they are from the enemy they are ordered to help!  On top of all of this, we have a so called commander in chief who keeps letting the enemy know when our soldiers are to be withdrawn.  What sense could that possibly make except to allow the enemy to bide their time?  This government is creating situations that getting our best killed, and we the people demand it to stop!  Either allow our soldiers to do what they have trained for, and give them the means to do it, or bring them ALL HOME NOW! 

     There is so much more to be said, but I will bring up one last grievance,  Benghazi.  You had to know I would bring this up, and this is what the people of this country are saying, "We are furious, we are disgusted, we are outraged and we are sickened.  Our own government knew that attacks were likely and news reports are saying that the White House and other security and military knew about it real time and did nothing.  Ambassador Stevens and others in Libya begged the government for more security and were denied.  The compound became a hell hole, while our people were being attacked, the few brave men who were there trying to fight asked repeatedly for help, which was standing by and ready, yet NOTHING was done!!! While American citizens were being slaughtered, this president went campaigning for money.  This is a travesty.  This is treasonous and we the people demand that proceedings begin immediately for charges as such. 

     Two years ago, people were calling for impeachment of this president.  Now, after four years of lawlessness from this administration and a congress who done nothing except hold congressional hearings that have done nothing but anger Americans more, we are beyond waiting for simple impeachment and are demanding treason charges be laid against this administration.  There has been enough evidence for beginning an inquiry, and there are enough witnesses to this administration's actions and non actions to bring forth charges.   We the people of this United States of America demand Congress to address this publicly, investigate, and prosecute as necessary. 

The Forgotten Man

I don't normally do this, but this article is written by a sister blogger, Penny.  You can see her article at her own blog, Growin' Old Gracelessly.  I thought it was a very important message especially with Memorial Day coming up on Monday, so with her permission, I wanted to post her article here now.

The Forgotton Man

He's in his 60's now. Or is it his 20's? He left a piece of himself in a foreign land. Most of his soul is there, too. He may never find himself again. Do you know him?

I do.

He's my husband, my son, my friend, my nephew, my grandson. He's an American Veteran. He's alone in his grief and anger. He made a decision to serve his country. Still only 19 years old, he was sent to foreign soil to fight. What he saw while at war cannot be described. How many little kids with bombs in their hands? How many of his buddies died or were maimed for life? What was the mental cost when he came home and there were people protesting his service? When they called him a baby killer? When even his own family told him he was a loser for fighting that stupid war?

His country has denied him. He struggles to keep his head above water, his psyche intact. But then the dreams come and he's back there, stuck with no way home. He wakes up fighting and may hurt his loved one as he flails. Next day, the helicopters are searching for a fugitive and he runs to take cover. He cries out to God for help.


These men and women have been forgotten. They are the lowest persons on the totem pole. The military took them in, taught them skills, paid them low wages and sent them home with no help. Sure they get VA care up to a point. But who can they talk to about the real pain that lives inside them? A psychiatrist whose only experience is education? He or she has never seen or lived the terror that lives inside a man or woman with PTSD.

In this country, EVERYTHING seems to be more important than our Veterans. It's an election year. The men who would be "king" want our votes. They will sell their souls to get them. They will tell us what we want to hear. But they WON'T protect our country. They have their own agenda and a strong military is the last thing they want in their budget of trillions of dollars.


I want peace and safety at home. I want what our country was founded on. Do you? If you do, forget the millions of forwards you get from well meaning friends and relatives. Write your senator, congressman and the president. Ask your friends to do the same.

The Rock- Who or What is Your Foundation Built Upon?

A lot of times I get ideas for something to write about by conversations with others.  I've had the same topic come up in numerous places for the past few months about something which many people find themselves at odds with others about, and something which seems to be a stumbling stone for many in the Catholic Church- and that is, What or Who is the Rock that the Church is built on.

I want to address this from a couple of angles.  We need to understand Who Jesus is talking about when He tells Peter, "Upon this rock, I build my church", and we need to know what kind of foundation or props we have built our faith upon. As Jesus tells us, the foolish build their houses on sand, where storms can wash the house away, and the smart folks  build their houses on rock- a firm foundation where nothing can shake it.  We must be wise and build our faith on the strongest possible foundation- solid rock, so nothing will sway or shake our faith in Christ.   So- Who is the rock, and have you built your faith on this rock?

Let's begin in Matthew 16, where Peter has just proclaimed, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." When Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was. Peter answered correctly, and to this, Jesus replied, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Many people read Jesus' words here and believe that Jesus first changes Simon's name to Peter because Peter had a revelation from God about Jesus, and then Jesus says "upon Peter, I build my church".   It does look that way, however Jesus  changes Simon's name, which in Hebrew and Greek, Simo¯n, of Hebrew origin, Shimon, which means the name of nine Israelites, to Peter, in Greek, Petros, meaning a (piece of) rock and as a name, Petrus, an apostle.  Petros also means stone.  Jesus seems to be changing Peter's name not to infer that He will build his church upon the stone, but the stone will be the first one of the many stones which will be the church.   Why do I say this?  Because when Jesus says "upon this rock", the word rock here is taken from the Greek, petra meaning a mass of rock.
 
OK, so you're still wondering about rocks and stones- how do we know Jesus was talking about a different rock, the mass of rock instead of the stone, and what then is this massive rock He built His church on?  For that, we need to go to other parts of the Scripture, to see how Jesus is described.

Back in Deuteronomy 32:4, the Lord is described,  He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.  The word rock here, is from the Hebrew word sela,  an unused root meaning to be lofty; a craggy rock, literally or figuratively (a fortress): - (ragged) rock, strong hold.

The word rock in these next few verses is also from the same Hebrew root sela.

2 Samuel 22:2, the Lord is described as, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer.

Psalm 18:2  describes Him this way, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 

Romans  9:33 says,  As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.  Here, the word rock is from the same word as the rock referred to in Matthew 16.  It is petra, not petros, and clearly this verse is talking about the Lord when it refers to this stumbling block, and rock of offense as "him". 

1 Peter 2:3-5 says, If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

The words "stone" in these verses, is taken from the Greek word lithos, lee'-thos,  a primary word; a stone, (mill-, stumbling-) stone.  Now while the meaning of stone is the same root word for the description of Jesus as it also is for the followers, notice that the plural stones are built up as a spiritual house, that is the church.  The church is made up of stones- any follower of Christ is a stone in His church.  The fact that the different meaning of stone here describing Christ as lithos rather than petra, shows that He is too a stone, but He is still the foundation- Petra, but also the stumbling stone, the lithos and the capstone of His church.

For the last verse I'll use, lets go to 1Corinthians 10:4,   And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

We can't have it much more clearer than that.  The Rock is Christ.  He is also referred to as the stumbling block as we have seen, the cornerstone and the capstone.  In all verses, Christ is the Rock, Petra, the foundation of His church.  There are other reasons why it is impossible for Peter to be the foundation, the rock of Christ's church.   Some would argue that because Peter proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, that was worthy of his position as "the first pope" of the church.  However, others, just as important also proclaimed Christ.  What about  in John 1:29, when John the Baptist cried, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!"   That was a public confession of Jesus being Lord and Savior, and he proclaimed that before Peter had even heard of Jesus.  In fact, it was Peter's brother Andrew who became a disciple first and introduced Peter to Jesus.  Of John the Baptist, Jesus described him in Matthew 11:11  Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Now that's an interesting comment about someone.  What did Jesus mean by that?  Well, not that John  doesn't deserve a place of honor in heaven even if he was greater on earth- but he will not be given one, even though he was the one to make way for the Lord.  He is the last of the Old Testament prophets.  Even though his life is written about during the New Testament time, he is the last prophet who proclaimed the coming of the Lord, of His ministry and mission and purpose as the Spotless Sacrificial Lamb.  He was not one of the apostles, so a place in heaven will not be included for him among the apostles.  He was not a member of the Church, as the church was begun after his death on the day of Pentecost.  He will be among the old testament saints who rise up from sleep when Christ comes His final time to earth and the dead will be raised.   It's interesting though to think of the one who was Jesus' earthly cousin, the one who was a prophet and the voice heralding the coming of the Lord will not be among the New Testament saints in heaven.  Now, why do I bring all of this up about John? Because John was the first person alive during the time of Christ on earth to proclaim Jesus as Christ, the savior of the world.  Peter proclaimed this truth as well, but John was the first.  Why then, didn't Jesus make John the foundation of the church instead of Peter, if the belief that Peter is the foundation is true?  John did as much as Peter did, he baptized the people first, he told the people of Christ first, he preached first.  Why then, if Jesus meant for the church to be founded on a human person, why not John?  Because Jesus did not found the church on any human.  He is the foundation.  Jesus is the rock.  The solid rock of our foundation.

Who else held a special place for Jesus?  Certainly there was Lazarus, but he did not preach.  He did understand in human reasoning who Jesus was and is- but he was flawed in his humanity and understanding.  There was John, the beloved, the Revelator.  He was the beloved of the apostles, he was a believer and he was the only one saved from a martyr's death.  He also was blessed to have the visions, the Revelations of Jesus which he wrote for the world. In fact, he, along with Paul and Philip were the only three apostles who were raptured or "translated" to heaven or to another location as in Philip's case while in the Spirit of the Lord.  Peter never was given such a gift.   Why did Jesus not choose John the Beloved revalator to be the foundation of the church?  What about Paul?  Paul was not even an original apostle, and actually gave orders for the persecution, imprisonment and death of Christ believers!  Yet, when he was physically blinded on his way to Damascus, his spirit was given sight!  Surely being given knowledge of Christ by Jesus Himself, Paul would have been a good candidate to be the rock, the foundation of the church?

There were many people, disciples, and even among the apostles who were beloved, and blessed by Jesus- yet Catholics believe Peter was chosen as the foundation.  Peter was a human, with all the human frailties and made mistakes.  Yes he was praised by Jesus to have been given the knowledge from God, but he was also one to give into human will as demonstrated later when he said, "surely it is not meant for you to die!"   And what was Jesus' reply, but a rebuke of Satan when he told him to "get thee behind me!"  Peter when on the Mount at Jesus' Transfiguration still did not understand the full nature of Christ, when he said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”  He was thinking of physical worldly things and being prideful. Peter also denied Christ three times.  He lied, he ran and he denied.  At Pentecost, Peter wanted to vote for the one who would replace Judas, again, he did this out of a worldly reasoning, not depending on the Holy Spirit.  I'm not picking on Peter here, because we all fall into the same as he did- all I am trying to point out is that if a human, a sinful human was the Lord's church's foundation, that would be a mighty shaky one to build upon.  And one more point here, about the Roman Catholic Church, which has to do with marriage and the Pope.  Why would the church have the celibacy rule for the leaders of the church, because if Peter was the first Pope as they are taught to believe, he was married.

People might not understand, but when Jesus picked the apostles, they were all given powers to perform miracles yes, but only to draw people towards Jesus, and the Gospel message, as representatives of the Messiah who had come.  The apostles were chosen first to be evangelizers to Israel as it was not until later that Jesus sent them out into the world to the Gentiles.

People make people, places and buildings their props for their foundation. Moses as in the case of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, Peter, as in the case of a couple of thousand years of teaching that he is the foundation of the Catholic church, prophets, in the cases throughout history which shows people have based their foundation on the words of the prophets, but not on the Word of God.  Rome.  Mecca. Jerusalem.  Church buildings, denominations, synagogues.   What is it about people, places, things and buildings that we think we can use as props, when our only foundation, Jesus, said to the Samaritan woman at the well, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.  But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.  God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

While we must gather together in worship and fellowship and sound Biblical teaching, there is nowhere Biblically that says we must gather in a specific building,  acknowledge a specific city, follow a specific tradition or base our foundation on human beings.  When we do that, we do not build our faith on the true foundation which is Christ.  And what happens when the foolish man built his house on sand instead of on the Rock?  Sure, it crumbles. Just as the Israelite's faith crumbled in the desert when they believed Moses was gone for good- so they had Aaron build them a golden calf idol.  It crumbles when a person who claims to be a Christian says, "I could never go to that fake church"  meaning Baptist church, just because it does not follow or recognize the pope. To believe one must attend mass and follow all of the traditions and rites, and to believe the doctrines of the church history, they would be lost in a simple building made up of a few simple believers with nothing more than some chairs and a worn out Bible.  

Jesus is the foundation of the Church- not the Catholic church, not the Baptist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist, Pentacostal, or whatever other church people are brought up in.  He is the foundation of His People- those who follow Him, who trust only in Him, and who are saved by Him- we are His church.  His church is not a building, not a cathedral, not the vatican, not notre dame.  His church is His Bride, His believers.  And the gates of hell can not penetrate the Rock that is Christ.

Equal for Some....

Equal =The quality or state of being equal.

"The claim to equality is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior."  C.S. Lewis


We hear a lot about equality in our society.  Many people also equate the word equality with tolerance and justice, meaning that when we work towards an equal society, it will also be a just and tolerant society.    Most people however would probably not think of value and worth when they think of equality.

I want to do a bit of a comparison of thinking of justice and tolerance, versus value and worth when it comes to true equality.
When it comes to race issues, which it has come up a lot in the past three years, many people on the political left believe America has still a long way to go to make things equal for all races, yet this nation has black leaders and the person occupying the White House is Black.   How would this be possible if we were still far from having racial equality?  There are doctors, lawyers, congressmen and senate, there are sports stars, musicians, artists and judges, astronauts, physicists and scientists of every racial background, so how does this show us to be a racially unequal society?

Many people have claimed that racism is still alive and rampant, especially among groups of people on the political right.  I have been "unfriended" on face book by many people who I have known since high school, mainly because of my political views, my distrust and disgust with the occupant of the White House and because of my Christian faith.    Interesting though that these people assume that my disgust with Obama is becuase of his skin color, and not his marxist and dictatorial actions.  They are looking at his color, and assuming I am too.  Hmmm.  

Many people on the left believe in things such as affirmative action as a way to give minority groups, mainly blacks, a helping hand in education and jobs.  These people see affirmative action as a good thing and just thing.  They make the claim that they care about the underprivileged, who happen to be black because they assume that the majority of those who are poor are black.   Whenever someone comes along and disagrees with affirmative action, we are labeled as bigots, racist and intolerant.  We are accused of keeping minorities down and not providing equal opportunities to them.  They assume we don't believe they are deserving to know the self respect and their self worth because of their color, but never taking into account that we believe they don't need special treatment, because they are totally capable of doing great things because of who they are, not what they look like.

I have to wonder, what is equal about lowering the standards of certain jobs or grades required so as to give some groups of people an advantage at the expense of those who worked hard and can do the job which before the bar was lowered, were completely capable of doing it?    Now before people get to thinking I really am racist, think about things for a minute.  I, along with many, happen to believe in that little phrase which is found in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator to certain inalienable rights..."   See there, the word equal, with the word, created.   We are all, no matter what shade of skin we may have, created by our Creator, equally equipped with talents, gifts and abilities.  We may not all have the same talents, as I can't carry a tune in a bucket, but I can paint pictures.   I'm lousy at most sports which don't include baseball, I can't win a marathon, and I would never win a beauty contest. 
 
But since I like to sing, and I have to admit, it would be nice to have some extra portions of good looks, should I get to go attend the Julliard School of Music?   Should I enter a beauty contest and expect to win because of my limitations in the looks department and believe it woudn't be "fair" if I didn't win?   Sounds stupid doesn't it- yet this is what we are told to do every day when it comes to affirmative action. 

What exactly is affirmative action anyway?  Well, Merriam- Webster's defines affirmative action as: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons.

Now, go back and read that slowly.  An active effort to improve opportunities, yet, by improving opportunities for some, other people who are capable are being denied, why?  Because of the color of their skin, and their gender.   Affirmative action is not equality, it is basing achievements or the lack thereof on skin color only.  Removing one person's opportunity to do a job they are fit for, trained for and worked for- to give it to someone who may be a nice and educated person, but not fit for, is not equal treatment, it is a special right given by the government by demanding that workplaces and schools give a place to others based on race and gender.

If groups which supported things such as affirmative action truly cared about real equality, they would value each individual for their God given talents and gifts, their value, and help them find something that fit what they are able and gifted to do, not by taking a chance away from someone else, but by promoting the skills and gifts, and working towards attaining  a place on their own merits.

I understand that kids from poor neighborhoods have a hard chance of getting into a good college, just as there are more people who could not afford a Harvard education, but just because affordability is non existant, where does this mean that they are not treated equal because they aren't getting into an Ivy League school?  Color has nothing to do with education.  There are plenty of folks who have overcome poverty and hard childhoods to go on to do great things.  I don't think Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice had his position on the highest court in the land handed to him.   I think his hard work ethic, his willingness to put other things aside while he worked at laborious jobs to pay for his school, all the while studying to make good grades had something to do with where he is today.
 
Poor kids go to crappy schools- yes, I agree- but where does the fault lie?  With the teachers?  Most likely not, because there are many good teachers out there who love their kids, and try hard to see them succeed.  Could it be with the parents?  Maybe in some cases where the parent just doesn't care or is too busy living their own lives.  Could it be, the liberal idea of government mandated education, and unions?  That would be a big YES.   In areas which are mostly governed by conservative republicans, there are school vouchers, school choice and affordable community colleges.   Liberals on the other hand, are totally against school vouchers, which have proven successful.   They generally are not excited about charter schools, private schools (unless they have their own kids in them) or home schools.    In some strange way, they view equality by again, lowering standards, so all can be equally indoctrinated in substandard government controlled education.   They do not see vouchers as a more true version of equality- where a poor kid, who happens to be a genius can go across town to a better school, one which is most likely a charter or private school.  School choice is a big no no to those who claim to be pro choice.

So, where else do we see equality promoted?  Gender?  Men are feminized and women are masculinized so we can all be equal.  Oh Yay!  I want to be gender neutral- NOT.  I happen to think men are wonderfully strong, and good to look at.  They are smart, they are good with things I have no desire to learn, like mechanics, electrical and plumbing work.  Sure, it's nice to have my husband make breakfast for us because he's a good cook, but do I really want him to shave his chest, wear make up and cry over a hallmark commercial?!  No way!  Sure, I like to fish, like to play baseball, and drive heavy equipment when the opportunity arises, but face it, I do cry at lots of things, and I am built different and he is built different. Do we really need to be equal in every way? Not if you are comfortable with yourself and know who you are.  We are equal in the eye of our Creator,  and that is the only equality that matters.

What about economically equal?  I find it interesting that with all of these "OWS" demonstrations- you know the ones where the left agrees with these people who have been harassing people, blocking traffic, taking over buildings, defecating on police cars, throwing things and weapons at police, sexually molesting, raping and killing folks- the leftist politicians like these folks!  The Tea Party people, they hate, but the "OWS", they see people genuinely angry at injustice and inequality. 

So, these people who are living in tents on wall street, not looking for jobs,  they go around tweeting each other, posting on facebook, they get their Starbucks coffee given to them, their Ben and Jerry's ice cream, have sit ins with hippies who never left the 60's, they wear name brand clothes and all have picture phones, i pads, google, and whatever other kind of gadget available which I don't have, yet they are crying over the supposed 1% who go to work every day creating the very things they are tweeting and facebooking on, wearing, drinking and eating from?  They get catered meals, but forbid the real homeless folks to come and enjoy the same meal! OK- is that equal?

People on the left believe that the rich need to pay "their fare share" so everyone can be equal. Never bothering to mention that someone who earns one million dollars could give 90 percent of their earnings to taxes, yet the guy earning ten thousand and not paying anything is still not going to be as wealthy as the millionaire.  It's interesting to me that those who are wealthy are paying more than 40 percent of their earnings to federal income tax, and pay a multitude of other local and state taxes, but more than 50 percent of the people in this country don't pay any federal taxes at all.  How is that equal exactly?  And how is making the rich pay more making those who are still in poverty any wealthier?  Shoot, the ones who really crack me up are those "millionaires against the 1 percent"  who also say they ought to pay more, yet when shown that they can pay any time they want to, they refuse!  

See, this is not about equality- this is about control.  The left, progressives, socialists are only interested in promoting the ideas of equality, justice and tolerance because they know that when the people follow those mantras, they can be controlled.  They are controlled in what kind of education they receive, what kind of job they can get, what income level they can make.  Because when anyone tries to attain better for themselves and their families, they are breaking out of the mold the left has put them in.  That's why the left hates people of color like Mychal Massie, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas,  Allen West and so many others.  And the feminist groups can't stand women such as Sarah Palin!   They vilify her, and women such as Michelle Bachmann, Sharron Angle, Michelle Malkin.   All of these people show  that the only equality is that which is God given, and that they believe that God has given us all the same opportunities, and they have worked to attain them.  They were not given special breaks to get an education or land a job, they worked for it, and believe everyone else is talented enough, gifted enough, valued enough and made in God's image enough to earn things for themselves.  They manage good and moral families, they treat everyone with respect (everyone! That would be treating people equally, wouldn't it?!).  They have successful careers, yet still have time to be loving wives and husbands and raise their kids.  They have strong family values, morals and by the most part are charitable Christians who also contribute to those less fortunate.  The fact is, that Conservative Christians give more charity in money and time than liberal secularists who believe it is government's roll to take from one to give to another, and the left can't stand it. 

OK, last bit and I'm done.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that any who shall believe on Him shall have ever lasting life.   God loved who?  Some of the people?  Me? You?   He loved all the world.   He loves each and every human that has and will ever live- equally. He loves us so much that He sacrificed Himself on the cross because obviously, He values us, His creation.   This is what most Conservative folks know, and we tend to treat others as valued creations of God. 

We believe in it by believing that person of a darker skin shade is every bit as good as we are, we believe it by our pro life stance that every life is sacred, we believe it by the way we refuse to abort our children who might be born disabled or handicapped, and raising them in  a loving home and we feel sad and have pity when women are led to believe that that baby they have within them is nothing more than a lump of inanimate tissue that can be disgarded. We believe this in the way that we hope our children will respect themselves enough, and respect their peers enough to abstain from harmful practices and unlimited sex that is taught to them with the government's approval.  We believe this by the way we value our elderly and our parents.   We truly believe in real equality.  Those who claim us to be bigots, racists and intolerant will never understand this, because they are too busy calling us names and showing us intolerance to actually listen to us and trying to understand our views.

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato, You Say Allah, I Say Father..

Well, here we go again.  There is a new Bible translation out now, this time, designed specifically to make muslims comfortable to read it.  It's been a growing thing, this movement called Chrislam, which in itself is apostasy.  This new Bible, which is being put out by Wycliffe Bible Translators of all groups- who ought to know better, along with a couple of others is making, in my opinion, a mockery of the Word of God.

What could be done, to make Jewish/Christian Scriptures more sensitive to muslims, whose religion casts Jews and Christians as apes, pigs or dogs?  Well, first, there is that pesky fact that God- the Creator of everything, the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, Holy, Righteous, Omnipotent, Omniscient, the I AM, is OUR FATHER in heaven.  Why would the term "Father" be offensive to muslims?  The main reason is that they do not believe in the Triune nature of God- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.   They mistakenly believe that the Christian belief in the trinity is of God, Jesus and Mary.

" And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?' He said, 'To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen (Surah 5:116)

Moreover, the following verses from the quaran show that muslims believe God had sexual relations with Mary,  "Yet they ascribe to God, as associates, the jinn, though He created them; and they impute to Him sons and daughters without any knowledge. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above what they describe! The Creator of the heavens and the earth -- how should He have a son, seeing that He has no consort, and He created all things, and He has knowledge of everything? (Surah 6:100-101)
He -- exalted be our Lord's majesty! has not taken to Himself either consort or a son. (Surah 72:3)

Compared with, But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:20-22
These verses are so wrong for so many reasons which I'm not going to get into here, but the fact is, that they do not believe that Jesus is the second person of the trinity, God the Son, so the Word Father must be left out, because Father denotes the idea that God the Son is true.

Since the Father is removed, it would then be needed for Jesus THE SON to be removed also, for in islam, the quaran states: "Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender" (Qur'"an 4:171).

Compare to Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 
"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers . . . " (Surah 4:171)

So, Jesus, according to muslims is only a prophet, one of the great ones of course, after Mohammad, but still just a prophet, so no more calling Jesus the Son of God.  Sure, they call Him Messiah, but only in a sense of the human nature of Jesus and disregards all of the Godly nature.

Next thing that needs to be changed, is the word God, for allah.  Because muslims do not call God God, they call their god allah.  What most people of the West do not understand or realize, is that allah is an ancient moon god of Arabia.  Allah was the god worshiped before and during the time of Mohammad in the areas of Mecca and Arabia, but this is not God the Creator, God the Father.   Since muslims believe in allah, the name God must be removed from this translation and replaced with the acceptable muslim term allah.

So what to do with a pesky verse such as,  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)  ?
First of all, notice the words here.  We are commanded by Jesus to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in WHO'S NAME?  The NAME.   The word name, is taken from the Greek  , ὄνομα,onoma  meaning,  a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character)
So baptizing in the literal authority is what this part means, of the Father,  the word Father here in Hebrew and Greek, πατήρ, patēr, meaning (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.
and of the Son- the word Son, υἱός , uihos, used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.
and of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), πνεῦμα,  pneuma
Used here as (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind.

How does a Christian organization such as Wycliffe justify changing the above verse, knowing it's meaning, to now reading,  “cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

This may not seem so important to a lot of folks.  Many might see this as a good way to witness and evangelize to the Muslim population in a way that they can understand the Gospel better.    John 1:1-4 says,  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
This verse shows that Jesus is The Word, He is God.  If one believes the Bible, then one can not have any excuse for changing that Word in order to be sensitive to anyone.  What Wycliffe and others are doing is changing the very Word, twisting it and using it by spreading a false Gospel! 

These organizations which promote, translate or change the Bible in order to "witness" or make comfortable anyone who might read it, are spreading a false Gospel because they are presenting a different Jesus and a different God than what His Own Word tells us.   There is, contrary to what most people, even sadly among Christians today, no possible way of reconciling Biblical Christianity and Islam.  They are two separate beliefs all together.  One believes Jesus is the Christ, the Salvation of the World, the other believes he is one of the great prophets, second only to Mohammad.  One belief tells us to go into the world and share the Good News that Christ is our Savior- the other tells it's adherants to convert the infidel, at the point of a sword if necessary.  One belief tells us to love our enemy, the other says to kill the enemy.  One tells us Christ died on the cross as a punishment for our sins, the other tells us that Christ did not die, and that allah will punish or reward us at his own pleasure or discretion- as allah wills. 

Wycliffe was named the third largest religious charity based on private support, according to the 2011 Forbes “200 Largest U.S. Charities.  It may be that Bible believing Christians may want to withhold any donations until they stop perverting and twisting the Word to suit men.  
Jesus did warn of a great falling off of believers, and the rise of apostasy in the end days.  I just am sad to see that an organization which has done great things for the kingdom of God has fallen so far as to believe that man can put the Almighty God into a twisted human version of what they want Him to be.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Follow up:

I may have jumped the gun on this one, and if I have, I apologize to Wycliffe and others.   The original story was from WorldNetDaily, and in reading and researching it does seem as if there are already some translated Bibles which have been introduced into Muslim areas- and many pastors are not pleased with the new translations.
Wycliffe is affirming in their belief in the triune nature of God, and acknowleging Jesus as God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They have defended their position, and set the record on how they translate Bibles into languages in which others can understand the true meaning.  I will include all links here for those who wish to investigate this for themselves.

While I may not know fully the whole story, as I've not seen the new versions in Arabic that have been put out, we as Bible believing Christians must be sure that we hold true to the Bible Scriptures when witnessing, talking to, preaching about or translating anything having to do with the Gospel and the Bible.

New Bible Yanks Father, Jesus as Son of God from Bible

Wycliffe Canada

Mission Frontiers

Wycliffe Global Alliance

Wycliffe Son of God response

An Open letter to the UN and all who will be voting for or against Israel:

Are you aware that the Arab countries which border Israel are comprised of a total of aproximately 1,877,439 square miles? That is only counting Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. When you throw in Iran, Syria and Iraq, that total land size grows to 2,752,713 square miles.
Consider that size, when thinking of Israel which is a total of 7951.6 square miles.

For religious history, consider the city of Jerusalem, which the arab people who consider themselves "palestinians" wish for their capital should they become a state. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament 850 times and is called by the name Jerusalem or the Hebrew word Zion, and in the New, it is mentioned 142 times. Zion is the most Holy City on the face of the planet for Jews, and has been Israel's capital since the time of King David. The Most Holy place, along with the Temple, which now is only the base called the Temple Mount. Zion has been the center of Law and Religion for the Jewish people since King David. Even as the nation was scattered among other nations, the people always have longed for Jerusalem.
The country of Israel is steeped in religious history as well as archaeological history which supports Israeli claims to the land for well over 4000 years, and supports both Old and New Testament accounts of places and people of those times.

For Muslims, Jerusalem is considered the third holiest site for Islam, yet it is not mentioned one time in the Koran, except for a verse in an expanded interpretation of the Koran from the 12th century, in which one passage is said to refer to Jerusalem. It is claimed that Mohummad made a night pilgrimage to heaven, his foot leaving the mount which is Mount Moriah, that same on which Abraham a millenia before, offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to the Lord God.

The Dome of the Rock which is a part of Islam's third holiest site, has now sat on top of much of what is sacred to Jews- the offering of Isaac by Abraham to God, the threshing floor of Ruth and Boaz, the site of the first Temple built by their descendant, Solomon.

The land of Israel, and the surrounding territories was given the name Palestine by the Romans as a slur to the Jews and others living in this seemingly backward outpost. Since the name Palestine was given for all the people who lived there, this would include Jews as well, not only arabs, so the whole concept of a "palestinian race" is not supported by history. The closest claim to this would be that the arabs who live in the areas considered Palestine at the time of the Roman Empire believe that they may have been descendants of the Cannanites, which the tribes of Israel conquered in the time of Joshua.
Let us now turn to more recent history. What about the road to peace in which every world leader has been trying to achieve for at least 30 years? Is it really Israel's stubborness and intolerance towards Arabs which keeps the road from being constructed?
Five times Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state and five times the Palestinians have turned these offers down. Not only that, but Israel has continuously had rockets flying in from Palestinian areas, and more so from Gaza than any other place and time. Katusha rockets is what Israel gets for giving a slice of their land to the Arabs who demanded it.

What is life like for Arabs who live in Israel? Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship are allowed to vote, they have seats in the Knesset, and have every same right afforded to Israeli Jews. Thinking of life in a Palestinian state, one only has to listen to Maen Areikat, PLO Ambassador to the United States when answering a question about the legal status of a Jewish minority in the future state. Areikat apprently rejected the issue, saying: "I believe, I still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated... I think we can contemplate these issues in the future." Areikat added, "After the experience of the last 44 years, of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interest that the two peoples should be separated.."
So in other words, a Palestinian state which demands Jerusalem as the capital, the Holiest place of Israel, there would be no Jew allowed. No Jews allowed to live in Palestine. Tell me, what other nation in the world would be given a pass if they were to eradicate a single ethinicity? How about if Great Britain passed a law stating that no Muslims would be allowed to live there? I'm sure that would go over well.

I implore people to look at the issues facing Israel from all angles. Not everyone believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not everyone believes in Jesus Christ. I would invite those people who are more secular in their beliefs to look at the overwhelming evidence which shows that Jews belong to the land. In looking at the total square mileage of the numbers listed above, consider these are all arab lands. Jews are not allowed to live in that massive area. The only true Jewish homeland is the State of Israel, in which Jews and Arabs live. One would think that with the millions of miles surrounding this one tiny parcel of land, Arabs would be able to assimilate in any of these surrounding areas. They will not however, because the goal of these Arab nations has always been the annhilation of Israel.
It is interesting that one little seemingly insignificant nation comprising of such a small land area is the most hotly contested piece of real estate in the world. People can argue to no end about the history of the Jewish people, who more than any other race of people have been in slavery, have been persecuted and murdered only because they are Jewish. The persecution goes on still.

I implore the nations who will be voting in this upcoming UN vote, to choose now whether to stand with Israel or with the Arab people. Keeping in mind, those of you who even may slightly believe there may be something to this whole God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob thing, that when you choose- you will be choosing where to stand on the Great and Terrible Judgement Day. You will be sheep or goats. For or against the Lord God Almighty. Please choose wisely

Spirit Filled, But is it Holy?

Utterance
From Strong's Greek Dictionary:  from the Greek word apophtheggomai, meaning:
to enunciate plainly, that is, declare- to say, speak forth.

Music is powerful and is something that effects our emotions and feelings. It's no wonder that people are able to memorize song lyrics a lot more than memorize written words or, concerning the church, remember sermons. Some people in ministries and churches don't realize that the teaching they are giving, or receiving over and over again as they allow the song to repeat in their minds and by singing the words, are often more memorable than the Pastor's message. 
Some people in the Emergent, Apostolic Reform, Purpose Driven, Best Life Now type churches, no doubt, know all too well that these kinds of worship songs are memorable and take the focus away from empty messages.

In some of the churches I have been to in the past, I have noticed that much of the modern praise and worship music is too repetitive.  Even on the radio, some of the songs are short, yet sing the same few verses over and over again.  I have to wonder, with the focus on spirituality and the new ideas that church must be more of a feeling, or experience, than a lesson,  this newer form of praise and worship tends to send a person into a trance-like state, which clearly is unBiblical and occult in it's technique. The lyrics to much of the music used today in churches is simple, touchy feely, feel good about yourself, and some are even unBiblical in their message. Take this song for instance, written by Kathy Riss, wife of Dr. Richard Riss an apologist for the Third Wave movement (more on that later).

I have, thankfully, never heard this song- but you tell me, is this Biblical?

The Drinking Song
If you feel too serious and kind of blue, I've got a suggestion, just the thing for you! It's a little unconventional, but so much fun, That you won't even mind when people think you're dumb! Just come to the party God is throwing right now, We can all lighten up and show the pagans how Christians have more fun and keep everyone guessing, Since the Holy Ghost sent us the Toronto blessing! I used to think life was serious stuff; I didn't dare cry, so I acted kind of tough  'Til the Spirit of God put laughter in my soul, Now the Holy Ghost's got me, and I'm out of control! Now I'm just a party animal grazing at God's trough, I'm a Jesus junkie, and I can't get enough! I'm an alcoholic for that great New Wine, 'Cause the Holy Ghost is pouring, and I'm drinking all the time! Now I laugh like an idiot and bark like a dog, If I don't sober up, I'll likely hop like a frog! And I'll crow like a rooster 'til the break of day, 'Cause the Holy Ghost is moving, and I can't stay away! Now I roar like a lioness who's on the prowl, I laugh and I shake, maybe hoot like an owl! Since God's holy river started bubbling up in me, It spills outside, and it's setting me free! So, I'll crunch and I'll dip and I'll dance round and round, 'Cause the pew was fine, but it's more fun on the ground! So I'll jump like a pogo stick, then fall on the floor, 'Cause the Holy Ghost is moving, and I just want MORE!
Kathryn Riss

This song was used at the Toronto “Blessing”  (more on this as well a little later) meetings. It sets people up for unbiblical and even demonic oppression to sing such a song as this! To think this song could represent anything Christian, shows how far away from true Biblical literacy some of our modern churches have come.  This kind of music is and has been chanted over and over in many of the modern "charismatic" churches, and again, is meant to draw people into a mystical, spiritual experience, which some modern emergent and evangelicals think is necessary to experience the anointing of the Holy Spirit in a deeper way.  Hog wash!

When comparing such music and ideas as this, with Bible scriptures, it is clear, that some of the things experienced by people at meetings such as the Brownsville Revival, Toronto Blessing, International House of Prayer and others are anything but Biblical.

I know a few folks who believe these are legitimate, Spirit filled meetings, and my bringing this up may get me into hot water with more than a few of these precious folks, but I can't be quiet on this.  I pray they will not feel that I am attacking them personally, or their way of worshipping.  I know there are different ways to worship, and many of us do so in different ways, yet all love the Lord.  My fear is, knowing how easily disguised the occult can come into one's life, some godly people may not even realize they've been deceived and led into occultic practices where they are in the spirit, but that spirit is no way Holy.
I am only trying to "test" the spirits here, and ask that people discern for themselves to see if there is anything in the church which is not Scripturally sound.   I know many people, well meaning, and again, who love the Lord, but believe that when someone must be able to speak in tongues, a gift of the Holy Spirit, in order to at least  be fully experiencing the Christian faith.
 
Speaking in tongues, Biblically, does NOT include such things as barking like dogs, crowing like roosters, clucking like chickens, rolling in the aisles laughing or shaking uncontrollably, hopping like frogs, flopping on the ground or hooting.   Notice in the Book of Acts, chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost:

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.  And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another,  What  meaneth  this?
Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
For these are not drunken,as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:4-18

Now, is there anywhere which the people who were anointed by the Holy Spirit barking, flopping or clucking?  Did we miss something?  I don't think so.  These people were speaking in tongues for sure, as many of the foreigners recognized their languages!   Some did believe these people were drunk, as they didn't understand, they were most likely locals who knew these people and spoke only the same local language.  Peter quickly explained that they were not drunk, and the foreigners agreed, saying they were able to understand their own languages.  The Holy Spirit was speaking through these people, giving the gift of tongues, because there were so many people in Jerusalem for the Pentecost, the Holy Spirit used these local  believers to tell the Gospel in languages all the people could understand!  In this way God was glorified.
Any gift the Holy Spirit gives, if it is really the Holy Spirit, Glorifies God.  God was glorified the day of Pentecost because hundreds of people from all over the known world received the message that day- the message of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
There is no way a person, or people, acting in such ways as described as the norm for such gatherings as the Toronto Blessing, can be glorifying the Lord in front of unbelievers.  They act as if they are out of control, yet the Spirit of the Lord is One who helps us have control over our actions, and words.
 
Wrapping this up for now, lets look at 1 Corinthians:
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.1Corinthians 14:21-26

Right in the first part of these verses, it says, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.."   It clearly says that those who speak in tongues are for nonbelievers, such as those visitors to Jerusalem at Pentecost,  not like those at the Brownsville Revival type displays who, in most cases, make even believers uncomfortable- but how can unbelievers get the message of Christ by people barking liked dogs and rolling around on the ground?  Simply put, they can't- and it is any wonder why unbelievers think Christians are crazy with those kinds of antics.

Those last verses bare repeating (Italics mine): Let all things be done unto edifying.  Edifying the Lord Jesus..
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. Let one interpret, so unbelievers can understand the One who they are edifying...But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. If no one can understand what barking means, and no one can interpret clucking, please people- be quiet! 

People who claim to be believers-  need to spread the Gospel in such a way as to Glorify our Lord and Savior, Jesus, to an unbelieving world.  You who Love Jesus, need to utter, declare the Hope of Christ in such a way as those who are lost will understand His love for them, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that no one should perish, but all have everlasting life.

More later on The Toronto Blessing, the Third Way, International House of Prayer,  and the Response call to prayer by Texas' Governor, and Presidential Candidate, Rick Perry.