you're reading...

Church History- Philosophy- 2013- a






Late happy father’s day to all you dads out there.


Yesterday I got up early and went to Wal Mart- I wanted to get presents for my girls and do a kind of raffle at my oldest daughter’s house [Bethany].


I had wanted to meet at the beach- but I realized that plan wasn’t going to work so we ended up at her house.


I bought some nice stuff for the kids- and had a home bingo game I bought a while back [my wife plays with her sister- so I got them a cheap home version] and I used the thing that turns/mixes the bingo balls in the cage- and stuck the names of my kids on the balls.


It was silly- but they liked the stuff.


So- after I bought the gifts I took a ride to the beach [about 2 miles from where I live] and jumped in the gulf- yeah- it was dad’s day- so I swam.


O- I forgot- while driving to Wal Mart we had one of those quirky storms- and I [and everyone else] spotted a Funnel Cloud over the bay.


I stopped and took a few pictures- we do get them in our area- but it might be only the second time that I spotted one live [you see them on the news at least once every year or so- from the area].


As I was walking back to the truck after the swim- I heard someone yell out ‘hey John’.


Sure enough it was my buddy Tim [carpenter Tim- I wrote about him in the last few weeks].


Yeah- I have not spoken with Tim in years- like I said- sometimes I’ll run into my homeless friends once or twice every 2-4 years.


That was the case with Tim.


He was on his bike- and he told me he just got back to the area.


He rode the thing to Roswell N.M. [no joke- he’s a real bike rider!].


So we talked for about 2 hours [yeah- was running late for the father’s day gig].


Tim shared with me all the times the Lord provided for him on the bike ride.


At one point the weather got real cold- and the day before he found some long John’s [thermal underwear] at a rest stop- they were still in the bag!


He told me how this was how God provided the whole time [a few week- month type trip].


He told me he still has a camp in the Bluff [where I live- many years ago I used to visit Tim regularly in the camps- many of the homeless have camps- Tim was a regular friend- I would trek thru the brush area- maybe half a mile or so- Tim would have a nice camp set up- he’d brew me some Folgers over an open fire].


As we were talking there at the beach- he had some of the old Folgers coffee in his bag- sure enough he broke it out and made some right there.


I gave Tim some money- he really did not want to take it- then he tried to give me something of value [he had some music C.D.’s].


I told Tim ‘no buddy- the last few weeks I have been giving 20’s away- felt like I needed to catch up’. I was slacking with helping the poor- so it was the lord that allowed this chance meeting.


Tim told me he still has a camp on the property of some rich lady who lives here in town.


He does work for her- at almost no cost- so she lets him live there- outside!


He has told me about her in the past- nice lady- but a staunch atheist.


You know- the type that really lets you know they don’t believe.


He was telling me how she’s an avid bird lover- has all the stuff on her property for birds.


I gave Tim a quick Apologetics argument he can use with her- if he ever gets the chance.


I have written a lot about this over the years- but let me give you the short version.


Apologetics is the field where you argue for the existence of God- you use the proofs from science and logic and philosophy to argue your case for the existence of God.


Okay- this is the short version.


The fact that ANYTHING EXISTS- is proof that God exists.


How so?


For many thousands of years- dating back to the time of the famous philosophers- Plato, Aristotle and Socrates [5- 600 years B.C.] people who studied the universe [Cosmologists] believed that the universe [time, matter, space- all things that make up the physical world] had no beginning point.


Most [though not all] believed that the universe was eternal- even the contemporary Carl Sagan said ‘the universe is all there ever was- and all there ever will be’.


So- when Christian thinkers argued for the existence of a creator- most used the Aristotelian argument that said ‘God is the Prime Mover’.


Which meant- He started all motion.


Even the great 13the century Catholic scholar- Thomas Aquinas- used this argument.


But- in the modern era- science has found out that yes indeed- there was in fact a time when no physical matter existed.


We learned this in the 20th century- men like Einstein made great breakthroughs in the field of Physics- and they showed us that there was a time- well- when there was ‘no time’.


It would take too much to cover this here- but men like Hubbell and a few others made some great scientific observations that backed up Einstein’s theory- and vice versa.


So- when SCIENCE [not religion- not bible- not ‘God talk’] showed us that all matter had a starting point- it left the atheist in a tough spot.


If there was a time when nothing existed- then how did everything get here?


The only logical conclusion is something [or someone] who exists outside of the physical realm [called the metaphysical realm] had to have been responsible for it.


Why is this the only logical explanation?


Because things cannot come FROM NOTHING [the ancient saying ‘out of nothing- nothing comes’].


So- we are left with the dilemma that there was indeed a time of NO MATTER- and therefore something- outside of the material realm- has to be responsible for it.


This is indeed- in my view- the greatest Apologetic argument used to ‘prove’ the existence of God.


Now- some say ‘but how do we know it’s God- maybe there is some other ‘non material’ thing/being that did this’?


Look- some of the so called ‘new atheists’ have gone down this line of reasoning- and made fools of themselves.


One quick example.


One of the famous present day atheists is Richard Dawkins.


He was pinned down in an interview- and he was confronted with this dilemma.


He actually said that he thought it was possible that some ‘being’ from another time might have made all things.


He said the being- well- would have to be eternal [because if he isn’t- you have the problem- where did he come from].


He said this being had to have been very smart [you can’t get intelligence from non intelligence- this is a scientific observation].


And this being had to be very powerful- because he created all things.


In short- when Dawkins was done- he described the attributes of God down to the last detail [omniscient, omnipotent, etc.]


So- any thinking person- even an avowed atheist- realizes the problem that they face in trying to explain the existence of all things.


I told Tim it was ‘funny’ that this lady loves birds- but ‘hates’ God.


The Apostle Paul said in Romans chapter one ‘they did not want to have God in their thoughts- so God gave them up to worship the created order- Birds, etc..’


Yeah- men who rejected the obvious proof of God- creation- became worshippers of creation [they made idols of animals and birds].


I found it interesting that Tim’s bird lady was living proof that the bible is true.


I had a good time talking with Tim- it’s been a while- he asked if he should come by the house and visit in the upcoming weeks- I told him sure.


Tim is one of the homeless guys who does not like to impose on people- that’s why I hardly ever see him- he won’t even go to the free mission to eat- he avoids the whole scenario of looking like your homeless.


He works- lives- and feels like it’s his right to not have a home- without being looked down upon.


Well- I’ll end with that for now- for those who want to read more about Apologetics- I have stuff on the blog you can find- have fun.









Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.











First we need to take care of some unfinished business.


Yes- I’ll admit- yesterday’s prediction failed.


The post warned of a possible sell off in the market [I guessed around 100 or so points- nothing real big].


But- the market went up around 100.


If I have learned anything in life- it’s when you blow it you need to fess up-  come clean- in Christian lingo ‘confess your sins one to another- so you will be healed’ [James].


So- to all who read this site- I have one thing to say.


My account was hacked [Anthony Weiner?]


Okay- let’s move on.


Actually- most of everything I posted was [is] still true.


I don’t want to do another whole post on economics- but some analysts think the market went up- not because we had good news [yesterday stats showed factory orders were down in May from the previous month] but because we had bad.


Like I wrote- if investors think things are bad- that makes them think the Fed will act [put more money into the system] and Walla- the Dow goes up.


There are a few other things too- like the Greek vote on Sunday [whether or not they will stay in the Euro] but overall I still stick to my post- absent that one line that was hacked!


Okay- did we have any other ‘big’ news yesterday?


There were a few things- some ‘bigger’ than the media [or the administration] would like us to know.


The president did a funny thing yesterday- he sent a letter to congress saying he ‘declassified’ info about our terror [drone] campaign in Yemen.


This is the first time he did this [as far as we know?] since he’s been in office.


Why does this really look suspicious?


His administration is under criticism right now- it looks like they have indeed been ‘leaking’ these stories to the press.


The whole recent scandal of national security leaks.


Of course he has denied it.


But- if he [and his political people] were behind it- then they obviously had a strategy about how much would come out each month.


This ‘late Friday’ release- seems to go along with this theory- it looks funny to me.


The president also did his ‘kinda’ executive order- by giving some type of cover to some illegal aliens.


For the record- I’m liberal when it comes to this subject [for those who think I’m too far right!]


I want for our nation to work out some type of deal for the kids of illegal’s- who were young when they came to the country- who are in school- basically grew up just like you and me- I don’t want these kids to be afraid of getting sent back.


I also realize the need to have some type of border enforcement- I just want to say I’m not against the principle that that the Pres laid out.


Of course it was politically timed- I mean you’re in office for 3.5 years- and now you do it.


In actuality there really is more ‘politics’ to it than meets the eye.


When the president’s real plan for immigration was shot down- The Freedom Act- he simply blamed it on the Repubs.


But something unsuspected happened.


Marco Rubio [the Cuban American Republican from Florida- possible V.P. pick for Romney] began working on a Repub plan to allow the minor kids of illegal’s to stay in the country.


The same basic thing that Obama wanted to do.


Okay- to the surprise of some- he seems to have convinced enough fellow Repubs to sign on.


Now- the part you don’t see is this.


What the Pres did- and the other Democrats- was they saw how bad it would look if the Repubs actually passed a law that favored immigrants- that if Rubio succeeds- than it will look like they did something Obama was not able to do- pass immigration reform.


So behind the scenes Obama and the Dems have been telling fellow Dems ‘don’t agree with Rubio!’


Some have jumped ship and simply said ‘look- we want reform- we [the Dems] had total control of the govt. for the first 2 years- you [our leader- Obama] spent all your capital on health care- so we don’t care if it’s Rubio- we simply want TO HELP THE KIDS AND GET THE REFORM DONE’.


Okay- that sounds principled to me.


So- Obama realized he was gonna look bad if the Rubio thing goes thru- and he came out- after 3 and a half years- and said ‘I must act now’.


He pulled the rug out from Rubio [which in reality hurt the long term solution- which would have been much better for the Hispanic kids].


And gave an ‘order’ to Janet Napolitano [the lady that oversees the immigration laws] and said ‘put a 2 year hold on deporting the kids of Immigrants’.


Now- there’s more to it- but this is the short story.


It really would have been better to just let the Rubio idea pass- because the new plan from the Pres still leaves the kids in limbo- they simply get 2 years to not get deported.


That’s politics.


Okay- lets end the week with a few verses.


I have been reading Isaiah chapters 26- 30.


Some notable verses ‘your dead sons will arise- together with MY DEAD BODY shall they arise’.


This week the more historic/traditional churches celebrated the Eucharist [communion- the actual term means Thanksgiving].


This past Sunday was a church memorial that always sticks in my mind each year it comes up.


It’s a special day that celebrates the Feast of Corpus Christi.


This feast is a celebration of the Body of Christ- but because that’s the name of my city- I usually make note of it when it comes up annually.


I like the above verse- I have quoted it every week for years [it’s one of the many prayer verses I have painted in my yard].


It’s a prophetic verse speaking about both the future resurrection of all men- and it’s also speaking about the Lords Table.


At the last Supper Jesus gave his men [and us] an ongoing memorial of his death for us.


‘Take Eat- this is my Body’.


He broke the bread and poured the wine.


We as believers have been keeping this memorial for 2 thousand years.


The apostle Paul told the Corinthians ‘as often as you do this- you do show the Lords death until he comes back’.


I love the celebration of the Eucharist- the Catholic scholar Scott Hahn says something I like.


He says ‘Jesus said DO THIS in remembrance of me- not- write this’.


His point- to us ‘scholarly’ types- is that we often emphasize the bible- the written word- while Jesus told us the doing of the memorial was what would ‘show his death’ till he comes.


I like that.


So- for you non church goers- maybe tomorrow [or in the near future] you can make an effort and go to church and celebrate the meal.


Isaiah said ‘your dead men shall rise- together with my dead Body they shall live’.


Gather ‘together’ with the confessing church- celebrate the meal- lets all live TOGETHER.









Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.













Let’s cover the ‘other’ news story of the day- the Elephant in the room.


Yes- with all the things going on in the news this week- we also have had the start of the Jerry Sandusky sex case.


Most of you know the scoop.


Sandusky is the famous coach from Penn state that worked for years with the famed Joe Paterno.


There were rumors- and ‘chance’ encounters where people saw Sandusky with young boys- and he was caught molesting kids.


As the defendants have been testifying this week- well- we heard bad stuff.


I don’t want to ‘defend’ the Sandusky’s of the world in any way- but I want to speak openly- and in a politically incorrect way about sexual orientations of all kinds.


I have a book here in my study- about 3 feet from where I’m sitting.


It’s the story of Jeffrey Dahmer’s conversion to the Lord after he was sent to prison.


I do realize that we see lots of jail house conversions- and for some people they will never believe that a Dahmer could convert.


But as I read the book- and also have watched the re play of the interview that Dahmer did with MSNBC- I do believe he was sincere.


One very interesting- and truthful part of the interview was when Dahmers dad was asked ‘why do you think this happened to your son’.


The dad- who is a Christian man- said he felt like somewhere along the line- Jeff associated- connected- the act of sex with dead things.


That he was fixated as a boy with skulls and dead things- and in time when he went thru puberty- that he also- somehow- connected the joy of collecting skulls and stuff with the act of sex.


Now- some might dismiss this as a lame excuse- and of course the crimes Jeff committed were very serious [for those not familiar- Dahmer is the famed serial killer who cannibalized his victims].


In point of fact- people- in all societies and in every age- can- and have ‘learned’ certain types of behavior- for good or ill.


The reason this debate is hard to have in our country- is because the present debate over gay rights pits one group against another.


For anyone to say ‘we actually do have proof that certain sexual behavior can indeed be learned’ seems to be bigoted and against the civil rights of people.


The purpose of this post is not to get into a long drawn out discussion over this.


I want to simply say- there are- and have been- all types of sexual associations that people have made with certain acts.


In the Sandusky case- with minors.


In the Dahmer case- with dead things.


The list does go on.


Is it possible to ‘un learn’ associations like this?


In short- yes.


Is it easy?


Probably not.


A few years ago I noticed that one of the major hospitals in the U.S. – famous for doing sex change operations- very quietly quit the practice.


As I listened and read about the story- I came to find out that the hospital- that was lauded for their non judgmental attitude- their willingness to break ‘the religious bigotry of our day’ that after doing the operation for years.


Admitted that the results were horrendous.




The rate of depression and suicide among most of the patients went sky high.


After years of doing the operation- the data showed that despite all the ‘political correctness’ the facts on the ground were these operations were doing more harm than good.


Yet- year after year we see people who have had the operation- on well meaning news shows being interviewed- and the interviewer- without fail- always comes across as ‘look how accepting I am of you- look how wonderful it is for us all to celebrate your freedom and to not judge’.


Yet- many of the times I get the impression that these people are under great pressure to go with this line.


That they are cast into the limelight as a great example of acceptance- and they seem at times to not want to let the interviewer- or the world- down.


But- if the data says the rate of suicide and depression sky rockets among those who have gone thru with the procedure- then if we really love these people- or our kids- or generations to come- then we would be more careful before we jump on the ‘what a great thing you did’ bandwagon.


In the whole debate about whether or not sexual orientation [or simple associations of sexual expression with particular acts] is changeable- we need to be aware of the overall effects we are having on all sorts of people.


In the Sandusky case- we do see an attraction that many men have.


There are entire organizations supporting man/minor ‘love’.


NAMBLA- North American Man Boy Love Association- being one.


Do these men make the same argument that some have made with the gay rights issue?




Many argue that that they have had this ‘orientation’ for as long as they can remember.


They argue that they share a common orientation with thousands of other men all over the world.


They argue that its’ the ‘Victorian era morality’- that religion wants to impose on people- that tells them- and society- that they are wrong.


After all- if ‘God created me this way- why should I not express it’.


Now- I- like you- do not accept these arguments- but in truth- they are basically the same type of arguments that others have made with the gay rights debate.


[Note- I do have gay friends- and I do not want to come off as saying I equate child molesters with gay people- I don’t. The point I’m making is the NAMBLA folk are saying ‘who has the right to say that Man/Boy sex is wrong’. And to be honest- if you reject the basis of natural/moral law- then they win the point.]


The point I’m making is if we- as a society- tell people that sexual orientation is never learned behavior- then we are in ways justifying the NAMBLA argument.


I was going to delve into the entire field of what we call natural/moral law.


Where does it come from?


Does society simply make up moral law?


Actually no.


This is a very long debate- going on since the days of Immanuel Kant [one of the great thinkers going back a few centuries].


In short- some have argued over the years that we need to rid society of moral law- that it’s these restrictions on men [particularly sexuality] that is the cause of society’s ills.


The famous thinker Freud [and Nietzsche] advocated this.


But after hundreds of years of debate- there are no examples of any successful society that has managed to develop any type of functioning ethic- apart from what we call the Judeo/Christian ethic.


I don’t mean to come off as judgmental- nor to offend any group of people- but if we are telling entire generations of people ‘you are a slave to your sexual orientation’.


If we are saying to people ‘you can never change’ or overcome your sexual associations.


Then we might be biting off more than we can chew.


If it simply makes us [the interviewer] feel better about ourselves when we say ‘see- you have done such a great thing- if only these religious bigots would stop judging you’.


But in reality- the data show that these people suffer tremendously- for the most part- after they get the sex change.


Then maybe we need to re think what we are saying to them as a whole.


Maybe we should tell people ‘yes- associating sexual expression with a particular act- or life style is a very strong thing’.


In most cases- even in cases like Sandusky- even if there are hundreds of thousands of people with the same ‘feelings’ all over the world.


Yet- if we do love people and are honest- we would tell them it is possible to change the feeling- the association- dare say ‘orientation’.


We must realize that there are many types of sexual expression- that society- and moral/natural law say is wrong.


Those in these lifestyles- often will argue that the orientation was with them for as long as they can remember.


Others argue that there are many others like them.


All this may be true- but in the end- this does not mean the association is right [NAMBLA] or can never be broken.


I’ll end with a couple of verses ‘I hate vain thoughts- but your law do I love’ ‘commit thy works unto the Lord and thy thoughts will be established’ ‘God will keep them in perfect peace whose minds are fixated on him’.


This entire debate is long- and even many Christians disagree on some points. There are movements within the church that seek to accept the gay lifestyle as an acceptable lifestyle.


Today’s point is- if we tell people- with all types of orientations- that you can ‘never change’ them- or overcome them- then we are not being honest.


If we think that the solution is ‘let’s just live with no moral law’.


That has been debated- and tried- and found wanting [Freud died in a mental hospital- going insane from a sexual disease].


If we love our kids- those around us- our neighbor- then we should not encourage those among us struggling with orientations to ‘go with what you feel’.


Or to be so accepting of an operation that the data shows does not solve anything- only makes it worse.


In short- if we love people- we must be truthful with them.


Yes- try not to judge- love them even if they don’t become what you think is best.


But be honest with people.


I feel sorry when I see Chaz Bono being interviewed- time and again- everyone telling her how happy they are for her.


When I know in reality the data says something different.


The statistics show that those who go as far as ‘changing’ their sex- many of them take their own lives.


And it’s not because they feel judged- it’s because many of them can’t believe what they have done.


Sad that we hide this- sad.










Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.












Got with the homeless brothers yesterday- found out Football Jim died a few months ago.


Sad to see him go- will write more on Jim another time.


Spent another few hours with Mike [few posts back- Scapegoat].


Mike shared more of his story with me- serious [bad] stuff- he knows I’m chronicling it on the site- he’s fine with it.


I will tell more about this also- but not today.


What I want to do today is a post for my Catholic friends.


Note- I have Protestant friends who get offended when I use examples from the church- or when I watch [or every so often attend] the Mass.


There are reasons they get upset- and it takes time to explain why I think it’s important for me to keep in touch with ‘the ancient church’.


For the most part- I have been a student of church history [and the early church fathers] for the past 25 years.


It’s impossible to read deeply into church history without having an appreciation for the older more traditional churches.


Over time you begin to view these churches [Catholic, Orthodox] as sort of older relatives- like an uncle or grandpa- maybe they don’t know all the current techniques and all [like using computers!]


But over time you realize they know more [or are right more often] then you thought when you were younger.


So this has been my experience on the journey.


Okay- this past Sunday I watched the Mass on TV.


Every so often if the church is celebrating a special memorial they will broadcast the service from Rome.


This past Sunday was Pentecost Sunday- so I watched the Pope give the homily from Rome.


Let’s cover the main verses he used.


The homily was good- but you have to pay attention to the verses/chapters to get a full understanding.


The chapters quoted from were Genesis 11, Psalms 103, Acts 2, John 16, and Galatians 5.


Because it was Pentecost Sunday the message was on the story we find in Acts chapter 2- when the Holy Spirit came to the church.


We read that the believers were gathered at Jerusalem- waiting for the ‘promise of Jesus’ that he would send them the Spirit [John 16].


When the Spirit came- all the disciples in the upper room began speaking Gods word to the multitudes that were gathered at Jerusalem for the special holiday.


They spoke ‘in tongues’ [unknown languages] and the people were amazed because they all heard the message in their own native tongue.


This was a Divine miracle that enabled the message to spread to all the different ethnic groups that were at the city.


After Peter preaches the gospel to them they repent and believe and are baptized- and the ‘Lord added 3,000 SOULS’ to the church that day.


The Pope contrasted this with the story in Genesis 11- The famous Tower of Babel.


This records the time when God divided the people by giving them different languages.


The people were building a tower and city that would reach ‘unto heaven’ [a symbol of mans efforts to reach God- or be like God- on his own- Humanism].


The bible says they ‘wanted to make a name for themselves’.


They were more interested in ‘leaving a legacy’ then in glorifying God.


God looked down and realized they were going to unite- in a wrong way- to build this city of man.


The bible says he came down and divided their languages in that day.


They were unable to communicate with each other and left off ‘building the city’.


This is where we get the term ‘babble ’ from- when you can’t understand what a person’s saying- he’s ‘babbling’.


In Galatians 5 we read about the fruit of the Spirit- and how we ‘thru the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness which comes by faith’ [a main theme of the Apostle Paul’s writings].


And in John 16 we read the promise Jesus made- that he would leave them and send ‘the comforter’- the Spirit- and he would guide them into all truth.


So we see the contrast of the biblical stories about language.


In Genesis 11 God divides the languages of men because they are rebelling against him.


In Acts 2 God ‘reverses’ this division by allowing them all to hear again in ‘one language’.


The Cross allows humanity to be united again.


The apostle Paul writes the Ephesians and says Jesus reconciled both groups [Jew and Gentile- which represented the major division of the time] by dying on the Cross for all men.


And that all men [who believe] now have ‘access to God by one Spirit’.


All in all- it was a good message.


The purpose of the gospel is to unite men- not divide them [I know Jesus said he came to bring division- families would be divided- mother- father against child. In context he was saying there was a reaction to being a follower of him. Sometimes families will even reject a child because they choose the Christian faith. We see this today among various religious groups.]


But the overall work of the Cross unities men- in Christ [2 become one- Ephesians- One New Man].


And we once again can share ‘a common language’.


The language of the Cross.










Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.












The other day I went thru the gospel of Mark.


Of course there’s a whole lot in the book- but I came across a story that I liked a lot.


In Marks gospel Jesus is with the disciples and they are going thru the fields picking the ‘ears of corn’ [note- you did not have corn- like we think- growing in the land at the time. They were picking grain. But the King James Bible- 1611- which I use- did translate the term corn].


Now- when the Pharisees saw this- it was the Sabbath day- they accused Jesus and his men of breaking Gods law.


Jesus responded by saying ‘have you never read the story of David when he was fleeing Saul- how he and his men ate the sacred bread- that is not lawful for men to eat- only the priests’.


I always liked this story because there is so much to unpack- let’s try to do a little.


Was it unlawful for the disciples to have done this?


Not really- the Pharisees were a group of religious leaders that rose up during the time of the captivity of the Jews a couple hundred years before the time of Christ.


They did serve a noble purpose at the start- they wanted to retain the culture and religious beliefs of Gods people during a time of displacement from their own land.


So this group established the synagogue system [sort of a Jewish ‘church’] and they would gather around on the Sabbath day and read the scriptures and be reminded of their heritage.


Okay- what happened to these brothers- like many other good things that meant well at the start- was after a while they became elitist.


They saw themselves as better than everyone else- they became judges of all other groups- and they developed a Tradition- called ‘The Tradition of the Elders’ which was an expansion on the law of God.


This is what Jesus often fought against in his day- the Tradition of the Elders [not all tradition in general!]


Why is this important?


It is common in our day for many well meaning believers- Born Again Christians- to disdain all Church tradition.


Many people [like myself] come from a former Catholic background- and one of the first things you normally hear is ‘look at all the bad traditions that the church taught’.


This mindset is often justified by Jesus condemnation of the ‘Traditions of men that make void the Word of God’.


Jesus was not throwing all tradition under the bus- he was rebuking THIS specific tradition.


Got it?


Okay- the reason I said ‘sort of’ [at the top] was because the defense Jesus gave said ‘didn’t you read what David did- when he ate the bread that was unlawful to eat’.


So Jesus really did not mind the ‘you broke the law’ accusation- but instead placed himself in the situation of King David and said ‘I too have authority over the Sabbath’.


In the Jewish mind of the 1st century- the statements like this that Jesus made [Moses said this- but I say this] these statements meant more than meets the eye.


They meant that Jesus saw himself as being equal with God.


If you carefully read the gospels you see this.


To the first century Jew- this was indeed a violation of what they were taught.


‘The Lord our God is One’.


So- Jesus defends himself and his men by saying ‘I am Lord over the Sabbath’


Strong words indeed.


The story of David is found in the book of Samuel.


He’s running from king Saul at the time- and he goes to the ‘House of God’ and needs food.


The priest [Abiathar] tells him he only has the sacred bread- which is reserved for the priests.


David makes up a story and says he’s on a special mission from Saul and the priest gives David the bread.


He eats- and gives to his men.


Now- when Jesus uses this story in the gospel- he does mention that David and his men both ate.


I find this interesting.


Because Jesus will sit down with his men at the last supper and do the same thing.


He tells them ‘take eat- this is my Body- drink- this is my Blood’.


How could Jesus ‘eat himself’?


The Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Christ.


Jesus said his meat [bread- the thing that sustained him] was to do the will of God and finish his work.


He was sustained too by the mission he was on- he lived to ‘give his Body and Blood’.


This mission was his life’s purpose- he too ‘ate the Bread’.


Jesus also came from the lineage of king David- he was a ‘son’ of David.


In the above verses- it said ‘David came to the house of God’.


We often see this as the Temple.


But remember- the temple was not built yet.


David’s son Solomon will build it in the future.


So what ‘house of God’ did David come to?


It was the tabernacle [of Moses].


This was a tent type system that God gave to the children of Israel during their wilderness journey.


It became the central place of worship and sacrifice when they entered the promised land.


Eventually the main piece of this tent system gets taken by Israel’s enemies [They stole the Ark- the box that held the 10 commandments].


And when David becomes king he gets it back.


As the Ark eventually winds up back in the hands of David- he builds another tent thing- called the Tabernacle of David- and he places the Ark under this tent.


Now- David is king at the time- the bible says he put on a Linen Ephod and worshipped God before this tent [he operated as a priest- which was unlawful for kings to do- normally!].


Understand- at the same time the Tabernacle of Moses still existed- it just did not have the Ark in it- David’s ‘new’ tent had the Ark.


This was symbolic of the New testament King/Priesthood of Jesus.


He in essence would usher the people into the presence of God- absent the Veil of the Temple- a covering that existed in the Tabernacle of Moses- which represented separation from God- but was not in the one David made.


So you see- when Jesus used David as an example- there was more than meets the eye- much more.


[Jesus is the New Testament King/Priest that died on the Cross- the Veil of the temple was ripped on that day- and he now represents us before the throne of God- absent the veil- the thing that separated man from God].










Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.















This past week I spoke with my Liberal friend from the North- yes- a real person- not a composite!


I always try and take the middle ground in these talks- showing my friend that to be too partisan clouds the mind.


One example- this friend has bought the whole media line that Romney- because of his wealth- is unfit to serve.


That his wife does just sit on the couch all day and does nothing- and they are unable to speak about real issues because of this.


Now- this person voted for Kerry a few years back.


I told my liberal friend ‘say if you found out that Romney actually never earned his money- but he married his wife- who also never earned it- but she inherited it from a rich father’.


And say if Romney was spending all of his wife’s money on yachts- expensive vacation homes- and all the ritzy stuff that Romney has [elevators for cars].


Of course my friend would be even more mad.


Yet this is exactly what happened to John Kerry.


He simply married a woman who was heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune.


Okay- does this make Kerry a bad man?




But this shouldn’t make Romney a bad man either- yet I never heard one story about Kerry being a free loader off of his wife’s money.


The point being we get mad at the other side- even though we allow those same things to slip by if it happens on ‘our side’.


Now- the other day I posted on the economy- that I felt we still had a ‘long hard slog’ ahead.


Others had too rosy of a picture in my view.


Now- economics/finances is like anything else- you look at the data and make the best ‘guess’ possible.


When I looked at the data at the end of last year- we had some bad signs ahead.


This year- the states and local govts [cities- towns] were not going to have anywhere near the revenue that they had for the past few years.




The federal govt. has cut back much of the funding that they gave to the states.


Obama care has also put a huge burden on the states.


One of the ways it ‘covers’ the uninsured is to simply mandate that the states put millions of more people on the Medicare rolls.


This is a tremendous cost to the states- money they don’t have.


Home prices.


Housing prices have gone down- in some places more than 50%- and the way most states/cities pay for their local expenses [schools] is this way [property tax].


So you basically have the states and cities having to come up with more money- and in reality they have nowhere to get the money.


Now- last night I watched the governor from Cali. say that the state is in almost double the debt that they we were expecting.


California is 16 billion in debt- not 9 billion as was projected.


Governor Brown- a smart guy- he once studied to be a Jesuit priest- they are top of the line intellectuals among Catholic priests.


[just as a side note- this order rose up during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. A soldier by the name of Ignatius Loyola was wounded and recovering in the hospital.


He read about the life of Christ and dedicated himself to the Lord.


The Jesuits were the order he founded.


They evangelized all the way into Asia- an area that the Protestant missionaries avoided.


The Jesuits played a major role in the scientific revolution- as a percentage of how few Jesuits there were- they had a huge impact on the development of modern science.]


So governor Brown said his state has lived beyond it’s means for too long- they spent money they did not have- and now the chickens have come home to roost.


Brown is a liberal Democrat.


The governor of N.Y. said the same thing a few months back.


When he got elected he actually worked with the unions in the state and worked out a deal where they were going to cut the huge expenses that the retirees managed to bargain for over the years.


Cuomo- another Democrat- said it was impossible for the state to continue to pay out these lavish benefits.


After the union leaders made the deal- the rank and file rose up [like Greece] and simply elected new leaders who would fight the changes.


I heard a clip from Cuomo- he was yelling ‘we can’t keep making the rich/businesses pay- they are all leaving the state’- just like Cali.


So- with unemployment at historic highs- with state and local govts having to lay off tons of teachers and cops and firefighters.


While the cost to the states is going up- a lot [Obama care].


With all these things in the hopper- besides the ‘unknowns’ like the banks [Morgan Chase] still making risky bets.


Yes- in my view I could not see how some financial guys were talking a huge recovery- some have said they thought the DOW would be at 17,000 next year- nuts!


As I spoke to my liberal friend- they said ‘so- do you think Romney would have been able to create more jobs than Obama’!


They were mad- I said I’m really not a Romney supporter- but being I live in oil state I know from firsthand experience that Obama has cost us jobs.


When he got in office the regulations and the EPA came down hard on the state- they cost lots of jobs.


I saw a clip- video- from Obama the other day- it was from January of 2008- he said he wanted to see the cost of opening up coal powered plants go so high that any sane business person would simply choose not to do it.


Okay- if you have said these things- and have actually done them- then yes- there have been very real jobs lost because of these things.


I assume Romney would not have done this- at least not as much as Obama.


So yes- it’s quite possible that the president’s agenda has cost jobs.


I also explained to my friend that many business owners have put off hiring for 3 years now- because if Obama care passes many of them will be mandated to pay the health care- or a huge fine- for each worker.


Now- as noble as these things might be- they cost real jobs.


My liberal friend- who is a nice person- has lived off of govt. programs for a long time- has only worked a real job for a small part of life.


This person simply had no idea how the private sector really worked- they just listen to the media talking points- and the real world is so much different.










Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.















This past week I read the 1st letter of Peter [in the New Testament].


I read a chapter a day- and meditated on some key points.


I marked all the verses that dealt with the Christian doctrine on suffering. This teaching- found thru out the bible- has been neglected in much of the modern type Christianity.


Many systems of preaching and belief in our day have developed an idea that because Jesus suffered for us- therefore we need not suffer.


I’m sure some of my readers/friends have in some way been aware [affected?] by this- it’s almost impossible to have not been.


Many of the number one bestselling books [Wal mart] have these themes- most of what you would call ‘TV Evangelists’ teach this type of thing.


And many of the most popular Mega Churches of our day have some form of it within their ranks.


So- in the old style of actually writing out each verse- here we go.


‘For this is thankworthy- if a man for conscience toward God- endure grief- suffering wrongfully’


‘But if you do well and suffer for it- and take it patiently- this is acceptable with God’


‘For even hereunto were ye called- because Christ also suffered for us- leaving us an EXAMPLE that ye should follow his steps’


‘But if ye suffer for righteousness sake- happy are ye’


‘For it is better- if the will of God be so- that ye suffer for well doing rather than evil’


‘For as much then as Christ hath suffered in the flesh- arm yourselves likewise with the same mind’


‘If any man suffer as a Christian- let him not be ashamed- but let him glorify God on this behalf’


‘Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing- as unto a faithful creator’


‘But the God of all grace – who hath Called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus- after that you have suffered a while- make you perfect- stablish- strengthen- settle you’.


Okay- that’s the jist of it.


‘So why John are there so many teachings that leave this out’?


Good question.


Many of the teachers are well meaning people- and they do have one side of the coin.


There are many verses in the bible that do speak about God blessing us- meeting our needs- delivering us out of trouble.


But none of these verses ‘do away’ with the ones I just quoted.


Peter himself said that Christ not only died to bring us back to God [redemption] but he also suffered for us- leaving us an example that we were to follow.


Peter says it’s better to suffer for well doing- then for evil doing.


Yet both are redemptive in nature.




Peter’s most famous suffering recorded in the bible is his very famous denial of Jesus.


The bible says after he did this he wept and was broken.


He went thru pain because of his sin- and even this suffering played a role in shaping the apostle.


Later on- we read in Christian history that when Peter was put to death in Rome- he requested that he be crucified upside down because he felt he was not worthy to die the same way as his Lord.


Geez- you would think he never got over the guilt.


Yes- the bible is clear on the matter- there are times when we are called to suffer.


We can’t ‘confess’ our way out of it- or ‘create our own world’ out of it.


We can’t rebuke the devil ‘out of it’.


There are simply times when we are called to suffer.


Now- this does not mean we sit around every day and wait for the thing to happen- no- we are commanded by God to take up our Cross daily and to follow him.


But the actual phrase ‘Take up the Cross’ carries with it the idea that there is a price to pay.


Okay- what’s my goal in covering this?


Am I trying to ‘put’ a bad confession on you?


No- but I’m trying to show you that if you are feeling guilty because in your mind things might not have turned out as well as you hoped.


Maybe years ago you started well- had good Christian friends- some who went on to ‘fame’ [Yikes!!]


Others had ‘good’ lives.


And maybe you have questioned God- ‘what did I do wrong- why am I different’.


You’re not!


That’s the point.


One of the verses I left out was Peter saying when you go thru these trials- don’t think it strange- but understand that you have many brothers and sisters in the world who are also experiencing the same pain as you feel right now.


Yeah- that’s the jist of it.


If we hold on to the ideas/teachings- that come to us by well meaning people- encouraging people- I mean who can dis like Joel Osteen!


But we need to balance it out with the Word.


Yes- many of these teachings go by the name ‘Word churches’ or ‘word people’ and I’m glad that they do quote the word.


But the Word also contains all these verses as well.


The Word shows us that there are things we will go thru in life- and we should not be taken by surprise when this happens- God told this to us from the start.


Okay- I was thinking I might throw in a few more things about the writings of Peter- some Non Canonical writings- the Gospel of Peter- and the Revelation of Peter [apocalypse].


Being I just ended a study form a liberal scholar- these writings came up.


They are early Gnostic writings that fall into the category of Pseudopigraphy [writing under the name of another person- note- I rarely use this word because my spell check does not have it- but I wanted you to see it- just beware I might have a letter or 2 off!].


I wanted to cover a few interesting tid bits from them- and to explain why we do not have them in our bibles today.


But I think I’ll let that wait for another post.


For today- re-read these verses on your own- if you haven’t read the book of Peter in a while- read it the next few days- look for these key themes.


The other day I mentioned the book of James.


I read it a couple of weeks ago.


I realized that I also mentioned ‘off the cuff’ that James was a leader at the first church we see in the bible- the Jerusalem church.


In Acts 15 we read that Peter, James and John are Pillars of the church.


They were spiritual ‘support beams’ if you will- what they said [and say] is very important.


If you remember- when I mentioned James I shared how he praises the poor- and warns the rich.


Here in Peter we see the biblical doctrine of suffering.


When I get to John [probably will do 1st John] I’ll hit on some key themes as well.


The point being- these key figures- these ‘Pillars’ they seem to be ‘out of touch’ with many of our modern day teachings.


I wonder who’s right?








Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.














I want to try and do both ‘politics and religion’- lets start with politics.


This story is a couple of days late [the big one this week is the anti Romney ad that the Obama campaign released- saying he would not have killed Bin Laden].


This story is last week’s fight over keeping the cost of federally funded student loans from doubling in July.


Basically in 2007 congress passed a law to keep the interest rates low- and it expires in a few months.


Now- both sides of the aisle actually agree on this- they just disagree on how to pay for it [around 6 billion in cost].


The Dems in the senate want to ‘tax the rich’ yes- they are not afraid to keep going to this pool- even though eventually this pool will run dry [not saying all the rich will become poor- but ultimately you drive the wealth from the country- people put their money where it won’t cost so much to keep!]


The Dems in the house want to tax the oil companies.


The Repubs want to pay for it by taking some money out of Obama care.


Okay- as the battle lines were drawn- the Repubs control the house- so they passed it- with about a dozen Dems on board- with the money coming from Obama care.


The President threatened to veto it- and the Dems began accusing the Repubs of waging ‘a war on women’s health’.


Boehner [speaker of the house] actually got mad and said the Dems are waging a phony fight.


Who’s right?


Okay- as an independent- there are some points on both sides- but the ‘war on women’ is a stretch.




The fund in the health care law that the Repubs want to use- is a fund for preventative care- less than 1 % of this fund is targeted for women’s health.


The President and the Dems were the first ones to tap into this fund- as sort of a slush fund- when they needed the money for- of all things- a tax cut!


Yes- in the recent fight over extending the payroll tax cut [Social Security] the Dems came up with the idea to tap into this same preventive fund- and they used the money [billions] to give people a tax cut.


Now- when they did it- it was not a ‘war on women’ it was a ‘good thing’.


When the Repubs did it- it was a war on women’s health.


So- this is gridlock- this is why our country is becoming more and more dysfunctional as the days go by.


I have said this over the past few years- if we don’t actually elect people who will deal with the real issues- the big one being the cost of Medicare- which at the current rate will consume around 50 % of all federal spending in a few years- if we don’t elect people who will do this- then all the other little ‘campaign’ talking points will mean nothing.


Okay- this past week I went thru a course by Professor Bart Ehrman.


He teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


He teaches Christianity and the New Testament and has been popular the last couple of years because he had a N.Y. times best seller- Misquoting Jesus.


Whenever I study a course- I usually do a parallel teaching on the blog.


Not word for word- I usually have a background in the subject already- and if the course goes too ‘off course’ I dump it and just finish the blog study by memory.


This time I never planned on covering the course from the get go- because I knew Ehrman was what you would call a Liberal scholar.


Now- Liberal and Conservative- in the field of Theology- are not political matters.


Liberals are those who hold to the critical view of the bible that was developed in the 19th century- primarily out of the German universities- men like Rudolph Bultman were leaders in the field.


This ‘way’ of interpreting the bible- called Higher Criticism- had some good points to it- but at the end of the day they came to reject the historical accuracy of scripture- and said that the Gospels were written by unknown men who wanted to simply convey spiritual truths that Jesus taught.


Conservative teachers [like me] hold to the belief that the bible is indeed historically accurate- and the ‘Inspired Word of God’.


Okay- as I went thru the course- I honestly expected Bart to make a better case for his side.


I really learned nothing knew- I was already familiar with the critic’s points- and he made the same ones that the conservative side has already refuted.


Now- let me give you a few examples.


When I first started reading thru the bible as a new believer- I did find some of these ‘discrepancies’ myself.


I noticed that in Matthews’s gospel the story about the denial of Jesus says Peter will deny Jesus 3 times before the ‘rooster crows’.


In Marks gospel it says ‘before the rooster crows twice’.


When I first saw this- it really wasn’t that big of a deal to me- and one time I mentioned it to my Pastor- a good Baptist man who was trained in a Fundamentalist school- and to my surprise he was not aware of this.


I also noticed a few more things like this over the years- and my pastor simply was never trained in these areas.


Now- I mention this only to point out that if you get a well rounded education- it really should include some of these so called discrepancies.


Some of the Higher Criticism is helpful- some not.


But to avoid these textual problems- simply because you’re a Fundamentalist- does more harm than good- especially when your parishioners are learning the stuff on their own!


Okay- I ‘solved’ the problem of the denials by simply seeing that even though one gospel says ‘before the rooster crows’ and the other ‘twice’- that at the end of the day one writer is simply giving you more detail.


It really is not a contradiction- if Matthew said ‘before the roster crows once’ then yes- that would be a problem.


But he simply gave less detail than the other writer.


Okay- after becoming familiar with Ehrman- and knowing that he is famous in the field of liberal scholarship- I thought for sure he would come up with something better than this.


But in actuality- this was one of his main examples of why the bible is not historically accurate.


I couldn’t believe it.


Now- to be fair- there are other things like this that do happen- but they are all minor details of the story [John’s gospel seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified on a different feast day than the other writers say].


But all these minor details in no way justify rejecting the gospels as historically accurate.


Let me just hit on a few things that the higher critics have right.


They do point to the fact that the early followers of Jesus lived in an Oral culture- things were passed along by word of mouth for the most part.


The writing of books [scrolls] did take place- but it was not an easy- or cheap trade.


We live in a day of books and internet access and all sorts of ways for the printed word to be distributed- but in the early church it was not like this.


So- the gospels were probably written about 20-50 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.




Yes- this is true.


The more conservative scholars go with the earlier date [some go as early as 15 years after Christ] but no one claims that the gospels were written at the same time as Christ walking the earth.


Yes- the stories were transmitted orally [oral culture] but they were written later on.


Now- the ultra liberal scholars say ‘see- how could they have known all the facts if they were written so much later’- and Ehrman uses the example of the game ‘telephone’ [or something like that?].


Where you have one person in class tell something to the next in line- and at the end of the line you get a different account.


Ehrman says ‘see- we have no idea what/who Jesus really was’.


Okay- the main discrepancy that Bart used- was the rooster crowing.


He actually sounded mad on the C.D. [I listen while I work!] and he said ‘well- which is it [damn it!!] did the rooster crow once- or twice!’


And then he jumped to the conclusion that the gospels were really fake stories that were made up by unknown men- well meaning men- but they had no real historical truth to them.


This my friends is what I call a ‘leap of faith’.


Geez- if we did this was all other biographies- we would have no ‘factual’ histories about anyone.


I’ll end with a note to my Catholic readers.


A couple of years ago I read the Popes book- Jesus of Nazareth- I did a brief review on the blog and I really liked the book a lot.


One of the things the Pope deals with [remember- Benedict was a priest from Germany- where the whole school of higher criticism arose] in the book is this whole debate over the historical accuracy of the bible.


At one point- as he graciously- yet boldly defends the conservative view- he is talking about the liberal view that the gospels were written by these unknown men who basically made the stories up.


The Pope asks ‘and just how did these men manage to write the most popular books of all time- books that came to be revered and known and loved by generations and generations- and yet no one even knows the names of the authors?’ [I did ad lib a little here]


The bottom line is- if the gospels were written by a bunch of anonymous men who simply wanted to convey some spiritual truths about Jesus- and they managed to stay hidden for all these centuries- this theory has more holes in it than say- a rooster crowing once or twice.








Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John






1826- JAMES



This past week I have been reading the letter of James found in the New Testament.


James has always been a favorite- it was written [more than likely] by the brother of Jesus and it is the same James we read about in Acts chapter 15- one of the 3 main church leaders at the Jerusalem church.


Note- to my Catholic friends- when I say ‘brother’ Protestants believe that Mary had other children after giving birth to Jesus.


We both believe in the Virgin birth- conceived by the Holy Spirit- but Protestants believe Mary had other children by Joseph.


Okay- not a big deal in my mind.


To defend the Catholic position somewhat- even though James is called the brother of the Lord in scripture- brother can refer to close cousins and also ‘Christian’ brothers- so that’s how our Catholic friends interpret it.


Okay- Just this morning I read the last chapter- and thru the week I tried to meditate on one chapter each day.


Key themes- defend the poor, praise the humble- and rebuke [warn] the rich.


Beware of the tongue- what you say ‘it is a world of sin’ and can start a great fire- just like a match starts a forest fire.


Works- was not ‘Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS’ ‘Rahab the harlot was JUSTIFED BY WORKS’.


To my scholarly friends- I believe a right understanding of these verses can bridge a 500 year old split between Protestants and Catholics.


I have tried my best to explain this in the past- and it takes time.


Suffice it to say that the normal Protestant interpretation does not do justice to the text.


Most Protestants try their best to say that James WAS ONLY saying ‘the faith that saves is working faith’.


While this is true- if you simply re-read the portions I quoted above- you can see there is more to it than this.


In a nutshell- Justification, Salvation, Righteousness [all words that speak about ‘being saved’] are not only static terms [one time events] but also fluent.


James uses the example from Genesis 22- when Abraham offered his son Isaac on the altar.


The apostle Paul uses Genesis 15- when Abraham ‘believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness’.


I believe if we see that James is speaking about the ongoing relationship that God has with his kids- and when these kids do right- obey God- it pleases God.


And God can continue to say ‘well done son- did well’ and in the mind of James- you can say ‘Abraham was justified by works’ God said ‘good job- you’re just’.


There is more to it than this- but I think this explanation is more in keeping with the text than simply seeing James thru the lens of Paul- James does not contradict Paul- but is simply coming at it from a different angle.


Okay- James deals with the ‘rights of the worker’ yes- this is a biblical issue- workers rights!


That’s why historically the church has sided with labor movements.


Many of my conservative brothers seem to equate all union movements with ‘the left’ but to be honest to the text- James [and in this case- Jesus] can be called liberal!


James is chock full of good stuff- try and read it this week if you haven’t all ready.


One of the key themes that I always see ‘jump out’ at me is the theme of defending and honoring the poor- and rebuking the rich.


Now- to my friends who are ‘rich’ its okay- the warnings are along the lines of what the apostle Paul told Timothy [1st Timothy 6] to simply keep wealth in its proper context.


Honor God with it [by helping the poor- not by making TV preachers rich!] and be humble.


This theme is important for our day- because there are many well meaning Christians- and movements- who have gone off track with the wealth issue and have made it a goal of faith.


James- Paul- and Jesus all had strong warnings for the rich- and had great praise for the poor [they inherit the kingdom- James and Jesus said it].


For more on this subject- referred to as the Prosperity gospel- I will post a few posts from the blog right below.


These are from the February posts of each year.


During the year when I write individual posts- I put them in categories and stick them in the February posts at the start of the New Year.


So these are from the Prosperity gospel section.


Also- if you go to the blog [or are on it now] look to the left and you will find my first little book- called House of Prayer or Den of Thieves- I talk about this issue there as well.


Okay- that’s it for now- might do another politics post in a few days- not sure what’s next.


Don’t forget to try and lift each other up in prayer- help someone who’s down on their luck- share with the less fortunate in some way this week- give- but give for the purpose of helping the poor- don’t always see it as ‘an investment with a return’ but give out of love- God will reward you for it.








Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John









1825- PHILOSOPHY [conclusion]





Today let’s wrap up the last philosophy post for now.


Over the last 6 months or so I have posted around 25 posts- covering the pre Socratic thinkers [800 B.C.] and we made it all the way up to the 19th century.


The main philosophical thought of the 20th century was called Logical Positivism.


This idea said there were 3 stages to Western thought/culture;


First- Infancy [religious/myth]


Second- adolescence [philosophy]


Third- adult [science/empirical]


This idea said that man in the 20th century has finally advanced beyond the silly stages of religion and has now moved into a stage where the only true things are empirical in nature.


That is- for something to be true- you must be able to show it scientifically [or mathematically].


It did not take too long before the critics figured out the major flaw with this idea.


This philosophy states ‘the only truth is empirical’ this statement in itself [as well as all the books written on it] is not an empirically proven statement.


Therefore- according to its own criterion- it is false.


This particular aspect of the philosophy was called The Verification Principle [had to be proven/verified scientifically to be valid].


Pragmatism- this is the only home grown philosophy that had its roots in the U.S.


Founded by Dewey and Peirce- this thought denied objective reality and states that ‘whatever works- use it’.


Of course being ‘pragmatic’ in a practical way is fine- we do want things to work.


But at its core Pragmatism says there are no real ethics- no right or wrong- just things people do.


In the beginning of the 20th century you had the British thinker/mathematician Bertrand Russell.


Russell was a good man- raised as a Christian.


But as a young man he read a book by John Stuart Mill [19th century] that questioned one of the classic arguments for the existence of God [the argument from first cause].


Mill said ‘if everything has to have a cause- then why not God- who caused him’.


Russell accepted Mills claim- and became an influential atheist/agnostic.


The main flaw with this argument- that everything ‘has a cause’ is that it’s false.


The law of Cause and Effect [Causality] does not state that everything has a cause- it says that ‘every effect has a cause’.


That is- there is nothing in existence- an effect- that came from nothing.


Some argued that there was no initial cause- but an infinite series of ‘little’ cause and effects that go on forever.


This too is wrong- it leads to another problem called the Infinite Regress.


If there is no First cause- then logically you can never arrive at ‘Now’


There had to have been a starting point somewhere [Einstein has since proved this] and the starting point [Big Bang] could not have come from nothing.


This too is a very common belief among many well meaning people- that somehow science has taught us that all things came from nothing.


This could not be further from the truth- this is referred to as Creation Ex Nihilo- which too is scientifically false.


The only other option- beside the Infinite Regress- and the creation out of nothing- is there had to have been some type of first cause- who is not limited to the material realm.


By nature this being would have to be Metaphysical [outside the physical realm] and would have to be self existent- having no beginning.


To have a First cause- who himself is infinite- is indeed consistent with the principals of logic- and at the end of the day is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of all other things.


Okay- as we end our posts on philosophy for now- why did I cover this?


Thru out the history of the church Christians have grappled and challenged the other world views- and have done a good job at it.


The Christian perspective is not some silly religious way of life that has no real proof.


To the contrary- the church has had the upper hand in all these debates down thru the centuries.


But in today’s ‘media market’ Christianity- the proliferation of self help books [everyday day a Friday?]


The nonstop talk about becoming rich- or sending your money to ‘my ministry’ as a ‘seed faith’ to become rich.


In this environment- many outsiders see the church as an irrelevant- never ending drum beat that they can’t wait to switch to another channel.


This is not the history of the church- and the church has historically won the debate on the reality of God.


It’s just the average person does not know it.


So- for the Christian to be learned in these fields- to have a working knowledge of the opposing world views- is a good thing.


Why do so many believers avoid a field like philosophy?


The apostle Paul warned the Colossians ‘beware of the philosophies of men’.


He also wrote to his protégé Timothy ‘beware of the oppositions of science- falsely so called’.


The word for science in this text is Gnosis- the Greek work for knowledge.


In the early days of the church there was a Christian cult that rose up- called Gnosticism.


More than likely- Paul was not saying that all science- as we use the term today- is bad- but he was warning against a particular from of science- called Gnosticism.


The same with the warning on philosophy- while you could apply it to all philosophy- that is to say that we should be careful when people try to give us opposing ways of thought- yet in context it seems like the apostle is dealing with the philosophies that oppose Christian thought.


For the first 1500 years of the Christian church the study of Theology and Philosophy went hand and hand.


After the Protestant Reformation [15th century] many Protestants avoided the field- which I think was a mistake.


So- as we close up this subject for now- maybe review a few of the posts on the blog that I did these last few months- become more familiar with the apologetic arguments for the existence of God.


Christians do not have to argue- or oppose atheists- or other religions that hold a different view than we do.


But we should be able to give a defense for the faith- to explain to society around us why we believe the things we do.


At the end of the day- we really do have the winning argument.







Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John







1823- BUDDY



Last night I had my wife search for some old friends on Facebook [she’s better than me] and I had one old firefighter buddy that kept coming to mind- Buddy Renninger.


I met Buddy about 10 years ago- he attended one of the fire/ems schools that my Dept. was putting on.


Every so often when a neighboring city puts on a class- the other depts. might attend.


Buddy was a ‘rookie’ from the city of Alice- about 20 minutes from Kingsville- where I retired from.


Buddy was my age- though I had already put in about 20 years- he was a new comer to the job.


We got along good- went out for a few drinks a couple of times- shot some pool.


And yes- Buddy ‘picked my brain’ on Christianity- he was eager to learn.


I lost touch with Buddy after I retired- actually before that.


So when my wife looked up the name- to my surprise she told me ‘John- Buddy died’.


I was shocked- I mean he was 48 years old.


The on line article just said he died at home- no other info.


They actually have a little tribute to him on line- look it up if you want- just Google his name and the city of Alice- he was a Lieutenant.


He died a couple of year’s back- sad to see him go.


By the way- for those of you who just got ‘friended’ by me this week- as I was searching for some old friends- I found the search where it says ‘you might know this person’ and I went down the list and sent out about 50 requests.


Some names I thought sounded familiar- others I knew- others just had that good old Italian last name- so if you’re a new friend- that’s the story.


Alright- I still need to do one last post on this never ending Philosophy study I have been on.


But in the last post when I mentioned the book of Ephesians- I came across a verse in chapter 6- it says for workers to ‘obey’ their employers in all things- with FEAR AND TREMBLING.


That short phrase reminded me of something that I did not cover in the philosophy posts.


In a few posts we covered 19th century thinking- and we hit on Soren Kierkegaard- the 19th century father of Existentialism [will not repeat it all- you can find it somewhere on the blog].


Soren wrote a few books- one was called FEAR AND TREMBLING- he looked at the story of Abraham in Genesis chapter 22- where he takes Isaac to be offered as a sacrifice to God.


Soren [it’s easier then repeatedly spelling the last name!] examined the process of God telling Abraham to do something that by all accounts seemed contrary to God- and to what Abraham believed to be right.


Yet- at that point of the journey- faith became more than just an intellectual exercise- it became a man [or woman] who passionately embraced God- even beyond the point of his own understanding.


Yes- Abraham did this with much Fear and Trembling- and he never had to sacrifice Isaac- it was a test- a test that the patriarch passed with flying colors.


Next week I will try and finish that last post on philosophy- and try and review the short letter of James [in the New Testament].


This letter is the only ‘wisdom’ literature we find in the New Testament [wisdom literature refers to a specific genre of writing- in the Old Testament we have about 5 books in this category- Proverbs, Psalms, Job- etc.]


So if you get a chance- try and read the letter- it’s a short read.


Okay- that’s it for now- to all my new Facebook friends- glad to see you.


And to Buddy- sad to see you go my friend- may God bless your soul.







Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John













Good morning to all my on line friends.


Today let’s cover the book of Ephesians and John 17.


I stumbled on them this past week- not realizing the similarity of themes.


In the past I have taught complete bible studies- both on radio and at the same time on the blog.


It took a little longer- because I would write on a chapter- then take 2 or 3 radio programs [15 minute shows] to cover it on air.


I’m not even sure- I think I might have already done a full Ephesians study on the blog?


Ephesians is written by the apostle Paul- though some scholars believe it was written by one of Paul’s disciples- they think it might be more of an elaboration on Paul’s other epistle to the Colossians.


There are various reasons that some scholars do stuff like this- won’t go into all the reasons- in my mind when a bible letter says within the text that Paul wrote it- then I go with that.


The short letter [6 chapters] starts off with a declaration that God chose the believers before he even made the world.


That God had a predestined purpose for them to have become children of God and for this new people of God to reveal the ‘manifold wisdom of God’ to everyone one [thing] else.


One of the verses says that even the angels and powers in heaven ‘learn’ the things of God thru the church.


This really is an amazing statement- that God uses the church to reveal Divine truths to the whole universe!


This theme of God choosing us [them] before the world- to fulfill a purpose that he planned before the world- is a major theme in the first 4 chapters of the book.


He wants them to see that this calling- this place where they are at at the present time- it is a sort of Divine appointment with destiny- that God had planned this before the creation of the world.


And it is now ‘in time’ that they are living out this Divine plan.


In John chapter 17 we read the prayer of Jesus.


Jesus says that he has ‘finished’ the work that God gave him to do- which was to reveal God to these disciples that God has given to him.


He says ‘all mine are thine- and thine are mine- and I am glorified in them’.


Jesus also hits on the theme of this being a work of God that he pre-planned before the world was made.


He prays ‘don’t take them out of the world- but keep them from the evil’.


The same theme that we see in the ‘Our Father’.


I find it interesting that one of the more popular ‘end times’ teaching of our day is the Rapture.


Tim Lahaye has popularized this idea in his very successful series of books about the end times.


In the 1980’s- the number one best seller among Christian books [I think it was actually number 1 for all categories?] was Hal Lindsey’s ‘late great planet earth’.


He too took the same line as Lahaye and taught the idea that God was going to take all the Christians ‘from the earth’ and that the world would wonder where they all went.


I have covered this in the past- how the church came to teach this- how the historic church did not teach it- and why I believe the Rapture- as a separate event from the 2nd coming- has no real biblical basis.


The point for this post is part of the prayer of Jesus is ‘I pray not that you would take them out of the world’ which on its face seems to be the opposite of what the Rapture doctrine teaches.


Okay- Jesus revealed the Father to his men.


The apostle Paul told the church ‘God chose you for this before the world was made’.


Jesus believed that these disciples [and by extension the church] were ‘given to him’ by the pre ordained will of God.


What all this means- in a nutshell- is that where you are at right now- all the things you are going thru- God knew it before it ever happened.


And he still picked you for the job!


The Apostle tells them to be strong in the Lord- to pray always- and put on the whole armor of God.


Yes- just because they were chosen- did not mean they could sit around all day doing nothing- they were chosen for a purpose- and it was up to them [by grace] to walk in that purpose.


I would encourage you to try and read these chapters this week- Ephesians is short- but has a lot of good stuff in it.


As you read- look for the theme of God choosing the church before the ‘world was made’.


Notice how often this idea ‘pops up’ in the writing of Paul- and how it plays a major part in the life of the church.


Read- and apply- the instructional aspects of the letter [on family- husbands and wives- children- workers and bosses].


And practice- as much as possible- the ‘put on the armor of God’ teaching found in chapter 6- that section ends with ‘pray for everyone’.


That- in my mind- is the most important part of the instruction.







Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John













This is the latest Will Ferrell flick to hit the big screen.


It’s in Spanish [no joke] and Ferrell speaks all his lines in Spanish.


I caught his interview on Jon Stewart- plugging the movie- and it looks funny.


I do like Ferrell- I clipped an article [so I would remember to mention it] and just about 5 minutes ago as I re-read the thing- I couldn’t stop laughing.


It shows a picture of Ferrell- all made up to look like a Mexican drug lord [I think he plays a brother of one in the movie] and he’s holding this rifle- in a real awkward way- and he looks like an idiot.


That’s what makes me laugh about the guy- he’s just funny.


The movie is a spoof of the Spanish Telenovela movies- he’s basically making fun of the genre- and at the same time trying to appeal to both Spanish and English speaking audiences.


As the week ends- there have been some surprises in the news world.


Most observers think the Health Care law has more of a chance of being struck down by the court than less of a chance.


It was not so last week- so this is a major story.


Also about 2 weeks ago I wrote some posts on the Syrian situation- if you remember both Russia and China rejected the U.S. lead effort [in the U.N.] to condemn Assad [the Syrian president] and call for his ouster.


At the time I said the U.S. needs to realize that we can’t keep calling for the ouster of leaders- even bad ones- every time a rebellion rises up.




Because the radical Islamist groups see this- and that’s why you started having various protestors calling for ‘NO FLY ZONES’.


They were reading us- and at times trying to simply manipulate us to do their bidding.


Now- after our U.N. resolution failed [because of China and Russia voting it down] Susan Rice- the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.- made a public statement- calling it ‘unconscionable’ and using language that you normally don’t see by ‘fellow negotiators’ from the U.N.


As I watched the fallout- I saw that experts at how the U.N. process works- they said Rice was incompetent- and her reaction showed her inability to handle the job.


These criticisms came from both sides- Russian and U.S.


I also said at the time that the U.S. needs to basically listen to what Russia’s objections are- and we need to move in their direction on this- and not the other way around.


Russia basically was fed up with the West coming in and backing rebel groups- unseating the leaders of the countries- and then leaving the place a mess [Libya- Egypt].


Russia [and China] saw the writing on the wall- and they called for a ceasefire on all sides- and for everyone to sit down at the table.


I thought this was the best way to go as well.


But Rice [U.S.] called for Assad to step down [which means he will get tried and executed- as various Al Qaeda groups take the country over].


So just the other day- the news headlines read ‘Russia capitulates to U.S. position’.


As I read the article- the opposite happened.


We agreed to the Russian position- not the other way around.


But every article on it- bar none- made it look like ‘we prevailed’.


That Obama and his team were the real experts- standing up for liberty- and the other side lost.


How many people knew enough to see that the articles were wrong- how many just read the headlines and thought ‘wow- what a bang up job that Susan Rice is doing at the U.N.’


This is how media bias works- sometimes I think they even believe their own stuff- even when it’s obviously wrong.


In the next week or so I’m going to try and wrap up a few more posts on Philosophy.


We started around 6 months ago- with the pre Socratic Philosophers [7-800 years B.C.] and made it all the way up to the Existentialists of the 19th century.


I hate to stop there- because we were right at the time of the rise of the Atheistic existentialists- the Nihilists- who saw no hope in existence.


These guys ‘stole’ existentialism from its founder- a Christian- Soren Kierkegaard- and developed a purposeless philosophy- a ‘man without hope’ future world.


Guys like John Paul Sartre and Camus [20th century] were writing/saying things like ‘the only question now left is the viability of suicide’.


Books with the simple title ‘Nausea’ or ‘no exit’ [a play]- describing the fate of man.


As I watch/read the current trends- it is tempting to see our future in this way.


I mean society is struggling for meaning- Arab nations are going thru tremendous times of questioning- and some observers are grasping at the solutions that the 19th century Atheists already espoused- and failed.


Men like Sam Harris [the End of Faith] blame all society’s ills on religion itself- pointing to Islamic terrorism- and making statements like ‘almost all wars are religion based’.


I mean his argument sounds good- he’s just wrong.


Out of all recorded major wars- around 1700- under 10 % are considered religious in nature.


But who really has time for facts like this?


So- over the next few weeks- as I watch the scene- maybe catch the Ferrell flick- I will keep in mind another famous line of Ferrell’s.


He was talking to Christina Applegate- in his classic film ‘Anchorman- the Legend of Ron Burgundy’.


And there sitting at some lookout- viewing the city of L.A.


And Ferrell waxes eloquent about the city- he says ‘L.A. – the city named after..’


Well- it’s kinda crass- he basically says it was named after the female part of a whale.


Christina looks at him- puzzled- and says ‘I think its name means City of Angels’.


Ferrell disagrees- he tells her ‘well- we will just have to agree to disagree’.


She says ‘no- I’m pretty sure I’m right’.


I’m glad the country is having a debate about what’s right and wrong- the Trayvon Martin case- the ethical responsibility that society has to the poor [Health care arguments].


Our role as a lead nation ‘among nations’- how to side with the protestors- in a responsible way that doesn’t leave the nations in a mess when where done.


All of these debates are ethical in nature- the questions we are asking is ‘is this right or wrong’.


And contrary to some modern thinkers- there is a right and a wrong on these issues- yes- sometimes we compromise- sometimes we ‘agree to disagree’ and sometimes it takes one side to tell the other ‘no- I think you are wrong on this’.


Do it in love- do it with boldness- ‘speaking truth to power’ but when you see the need- then do it.







Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John














I have been reading the San Antonio paper the last few weeks- and they have been running some ad for dental implants [fake teeth].


They have the ‘before/after’ pictures- whenever I see the ad- I think ‘before what? A complete head transplant’!


Yes- the before shots remind me much of my homeless buddies- the after shots look like glamour pictures for the ‘most beautiful person in the world’ contest.


This last week I have reached a sort of milestone- a few years ago I began praying [more than usual] for all types of criminal cases that I read about- or see- on the news.


I actually painted their names all over my gazebo- the back fence- and yes- right on the back and sides of the house [along with lots of bible verses].


I have hundreds of pictures/articles cut from the paper- their pinned to my office walls.


You say ‘John- I know you mean well- but do you think this is normal’.


Actually no- neither does my wife.


I have been threatened ‘if you keep doing this- I will paint the whole house’.


My paints [and brushes] have been hidden [by others!]- and when Christmas comes around- I tell the kids ‘hey- just get me another 5 gallon bucket of paint- I’m running low’ [yes- this part is a joke].


Some of the more severe cases- the ones that stick in my mind- I paint their names- the others I just pin up the article.


Sometimes I see the cases more than once- at the time of the crime- and then when they get sentenced.


This week Jacob Gonzales was sentenced to life without parole.


He plead guilty to a triple homicide he committed last year- shot 3 girls in cold blood.


The worst homicide the city has ever seen.


So I had written the name of Jacob down- and saved the article.


As I looked for a spot to paint the name- I realized that I already wrote the name Jacob- in big letters- on a ladder on my gazebo [long story- bible verse about Jacobs Ladder].


So it kinda just fit.


I knew his case was significant- I do ‘forever’ pray for these guys [and women] and being it was a local case- and he will be in jail for life- he would benefit more from the prayers.


During my normal reading for the week- I was reading Jeremiah chapter 31.


I usually focus on one or 2 chapters a week- and if I remember I comment on them at the end of the week.


As I read chapter 31- it starts with a verse that should be added to the previous chapter.


Sometimes you run into a chapter like that- our bible chapters and verses are really ‘man made’ that is the chapters themselves are not inspired- just the content [chapter divisions].


So I thought ‘heck- let me go ahead and see if the Lord has something for me in chapter 30’.


Now- this is the week where I added Jacob to my prayer group- again.


And I felt there was some special significance to his case.


In Jeremiah chapter 30 the Lord says ‘this is the time of Jacobs’s trouble- and I will save him out of it’.


It would take too long to teach the actual doctrine of Jacobs Trouble- but it is a long- and sometimes controversial teaching that we find all through the bible.


I say controversial because many [most?] Protestants have an ‘end time’ teaching about this [called Dispensationalism] that I don’t agree with.


I hold more to the historic churches’ view on these passages [Catholic, Orthodox, etc.]


But Jacob- in the bible- is the son of Isaac- the son of Abraham.


God changes his name to Israel [he is the father of the 12 tribes of Israel].


And the name obviously holds a lot of significance in the bible.


The ‘trouble’ part refers to the passages we find in the bible that speak about a very troubling time for Israel as a nation- in many of the End Time books/movies- it’s called ‘The Great Tribulation’.


But the significance for me- this week- was God kinda spoke to me thru the connection of this kid Jacob- who I prayed for all week.


Yes- Jacobs’ time of trouble.


In chapter 31 [Jeremiah] God tells Israel ‘there is coming a time when I will make a new covenant with you- not like the one I made with you during the time of Moses’.


This fits in with what I taught last week- how the apostle Paul said we are not under the old law [Moses and the 10 commandments] but under a new covenant- the new and everlasting covenant of the Blood of Jesus.


In the chapter it says God will write his law on our minds and hearts- it won’t just be an outward law- written on tables of stone- but one written on the inside.


Yes- he says ‘all things will be new- I will never remember your sins any more’.


You know- I guess complete head [heart] transplants can happen- but it takes a miracle from God.





Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John










1812- John 3- Ephesians 2 [and the chicken!]





I want to cover the 2 bible chapters that I mentioned the other day- John chapter 3 and Ephesians chapter 2.


But first- some business.


I wrote a post the other day about ‘confiscating’ the little plastic bags at my local grocery store [HEB].


And some of you might be thinking ‘see- crime does pay’.


For your information- the bags were probably worth about 25 cents.


The other day I went to take out the chicken thighs for dinner- I couldn’t find them!


Then I thought ‘gee- my truck has been smelling like dead bodies lately’.


Yes- the chicken was left under the back seat for 2 days- cost- about 6 dollars.


Lesson? Don’t steal the bags anymore- cost? Priceless.


Okay- John chapter 3 is the famous chapter where Jesus tells Nicodemus ‘a man cannot see the kingdom of God unless he is born again’ [or born from above].


We also have the famous John 3:16 verse ‘for God so loved the world…’


If you read the chapter- both Jesus- and John the Baptist speak about those who believe- they are not condemned- and those who do not believe are judged.


Yet Jesus says he came into the world- not to condemn it- but to save it.


In Ephesians chapter 2 the apostle Paul says we are ‘saved by grace- not of works- lest any man should boast’.


Both chapters emphasize the role faith plays in salvation.


Okay- where did I come up with these chapters for the reading of the week?


They were both quoted from during the mass on Sunday [as a Protestant- I always try and watch the mass on Sunday- as well as doing our own home church meeting].


‘John- do Catholics believe in being born again’?


Yes- very much so.


Being born again is actually a vital doctrine within Catholicism.


For a brief review of Catholic/Protestant teaching- on my blog- on the front page to the left- you will see a bunch of studies that I have highlighted- click the ‘Protestant Reformation- Luther’ and you will get a more in depth discussion on some of the differences- and points of agreement.


But for this brief post- Catholics [and Orthodox] believe the new birth takes place at baptism- for the most part Protestants/Evangelicals believe it takes place at the point of faith [added to a long list of ‘altar calls’ or ‘5 steps of conversion’ etc.- in short- Protestants have their own sacramental system- they just don’t know it!]


I say- mostly- because there are many various groups within the Protestant movement that also would agree that water baptism is the point of being saved [church of Christ- various Pentecostal groups- etc.].


Now- I hold more to the historic Reformation view [faith] but I do not see a ‘grave’ departure from scripture with those who put more of the emphasis on baptism.


There are verses in John 3- Jesus says ‘a man must be born of water and the spirit’.


Plus- the last half of the chapter starts with a discussion over ‘purifying’.


There was a debate- going on at the time- between Jesus and John’s followers- about baptism- the chapter says the debate was about ‘purifying’.


Overall- it’s not unreasonable- in my mind- to hold to the more traditional emphasis on the importance of the role of baptism.


Yet- Christians fight- vehemently- over this.


In this part of the country it’s common for a Baptist- Assembly of God- or Church of Christ believer to view the ‘other team’ as a cult over this- this to me is very sad.


The main point?


Regardless of how much of a role water baptism plays in your particular denomination- the main point is we are saved by faith- thru the death and resurrection of Christ.


In the Ephesians chapter- Paul actually hits on some pretty deep themes- that the death of Christ removed the ‘wall of separation’ between Jew and Gentile- and we both are made into ‘one new man’.


This shows us the role that the Cross should play in society- it should bring various groups and cultures together- not divide them.


It would take a little too much time for me to go into what the ‘wall of separation’ was in Paul’s day.


But he wasn’t speaking about our sins separating us from God [though this of course is true].


But he was speaking about the role the law [10 commandments] played at the time.


Paul- a zealous teacher of the Jewish law [Pharisee] held the law in high esteem- and often it became a barrier between the Jew and Gentile.


Some of the more fame seeking Pharisees [the ones we see Jesus interacting with in the gospels] used the fact that they were the nation that received the law under Moses- as an ‘I’m better than you’ mentality.


Paul says ‘the law of commandments that was against us- Jesus nailed them to his Cross’ [Colossians].


He also says in his letter to the Galatians ‘if righteousness comes by the law- then Christ died in vain’ strong words indeed!


The point he is making is we- believers- are no longer under the condemnation of the law- no longer under the continual threat of God striking us down at any moment because of our sin.


We have been saved by grace and those who ‘walk in the Spirit’ are no longer under condemnation [Romans 8].


So- Jesus nailed the law to the Cross- and the barrier that separated Jew from gentile- as well as sinful man from a Holy God- has been ‘taken away’ by Christ.


I must note that the apostle Paul himself- who is famous for this teaching- always added the caveat ‘do we now sin because we are not under the law? God forbid!’


He was accused- by the strict sect of the Pharisees [known as Judaizers] of teaching a ‘lawless gospel’.


No- he- as well as most Christian denominations today- teach that the 10 commandments are still very important- and as believers in Christ we will naturally- by our new birth- fulfill the law.


But it is no longer this sword of Damocles hanging over our head.


Okay- for those who haven’t had time to read the chapters yet- try and read them over the weekend- they are short chapters- think about what I said in this post- look for the emphasis on faith- the role that faith plays in our salvation.


I’ll be back in a few days- but I need to go now- need to get another pack of chicken thighs before the store gets crowded.




Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John












The top story of the day- the big- no- huge- breaking news.


What was it?


You aint gonna believe me.


Yes- the Etch a Sketch controversy!


During the day yesterday some campaign aid for Romney said when they get to the general election- they will move to the center and do like the Etch a Sketch- shake the game and clear the slate.


Okay- was this the smartest thing to say? No.


Sure- it played into the charge that Romney is a ‘change agent’ [he changes his position to suit the day].


But top news? Please.


What should be top news?


I have covered a bunch of important overlooked stories these last few weeks- there are so many I could write one a day- but let’s hit a couple for now.


The top government leader in Libya has just said- quote ‘the central govt. is incapable of protecting or governing the nation’s vital institutions since the capture and killing of Gadhaffi’.


Yes- we over through that govt. by force- and we left the country in a mess.


Egypt- this week they just acquitted 9 terrorists who belonged to Al Qaeda and were part of the Islamic Jihad movement.


They had charges against them from trying to overthrow the former regime- Mubarak- who we forced to step down.


Yes- the people we enabled to be in charge- they acquitted our so called number one enemy in the world- Al Qaeda.


So why do these important stories- stories that demand headline news coverage- why do they get put on the back burner- and instead we have room for the Etch a Sketch.


It’s because the media do not want to report stories that would have a negative effect on Obama.


John- do you really believe this?




Hillary Clinton believed it to.


During her run against Obama for the nomination- her insider political people knew that the media were purposefully covering for Obama.


It has been reported- credibly- that her people actually contacted Hannity from Fox news- and told him that they were grateful that Fox was the only network willing to cover Obama.


A book just came out by David Corn- a liberal supporter of Obama- works for Mother Jones.


In the book Corn says how Obama has told his supporters that his poll numbers are down because Fox news accuses him of being a Muslim 24/7.


I watch Fox- as well as all the news channels- I have never heard a hard news report that claimed Obama was a Muslim.


Now- the president himself has indeed made so many statements in the past- calling Islam ‘my Muslim faith’.


He has said that he studied the Koran- he has prayed the Muslim prayer at sunset- and it was- quote ‘a beautiful thing’.


He has made statements like this over and over again- nonstop- over the years.


So- you would have thought that during the campaign some media people would have simply asked ‘why did you say this- a lot’.


Not one question- instead the media began a campaign to get people to think ‘geez- why are they always accusing Obama of being Muslim’.


The news reporters would ask the opposing candidates ‘do you think he’s Muslim’.


They would ask ‘should you make so and so apologize because he thinks Obama is Muslim’.


Yet not one story on his own statements associating himself with Islam.


Many of you probably never heard the few I just quoted in this post.


Okay- am I on this anti Muslim rant- trying to associate Obama with Islam?




But the book just came out- and this is a charge he makes- that the other side are ‘24/7’ calling him a Muslim- that’s just not true- and any other candidate who made the statements he has in the past- they would have not gotten ‘a pass’.


I talked about the atheist Nietzsche in the last post.


One of the famous comments he made was- man- like the Superman- should ‘will to power’ he should live for what he deems best- and strive for the top- even if you have no real reason for your own existence. He said man should ‘build his house on Vesuvius’ [an active volcano].


As the year progresses- as the top stories of the day become a stupid Etch a Sketch comment- or how one side is so right- while the other so wrong- we need to read between the lines.


There are many serious- important stories to cover.


Innocent people being killed- leaders oppressing their people.


Children starving around the world in vast numbers.


These are all very serious issues that we need to know about- pray about- and if we can- do something about.


But no- we want the Etch a Sketch- we want the stories that have no real value- no true meaning.


Yes- we are building our house on Vesuvius- and we don’t even know it.




Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John

















Yesterday I shopped at the local grocery store- and as my habit is- I started at the vegetable/fruit section.


When I grab the little bags to put the stuff in- I usually grab a few extra- and if I don’t use them I’ll take them home and stick them in the cabinet.


So, as I’m checking out- the lady asks me ‘oh- do you want me to throw these out’. I think she knew I was gonna confiscate them for personal use.


So- as a joke- I say ‘no- that’s fine- I sell them to the homeless guys out front’ [The store is a couple of hundred yards from the homeless mission where I hang out- everyone in the area knows about the ‘homeless guys’].


As I tell her the joke- both she and the bagger- they don’t seem to think it’s funny.


They look pretty mad- to be honest.


I tell them ‘no- I’m kidding- I take them home and use them for the onions and stuff’.


Their look didn’t change one bit- they did not want me to get those damn bags!


Right now in Texas we have an ongoing war with the Obama administration. In all my years as a political observer- I have never seen someone as petty as this current president.


I have written about him denying us federal aid when we applied because of wild fires we had a few years back.


Then the recent accusation that Texas is racist because of the voter I.D. laws.


Plus- the E.P.A. rules that are shutting down parts of our power grid- this coming year Texas is going to face some blackout problems because of this.


So- this week the president cut the federal funds for the WHP program.


This program gives care to poor women.


There are over 2400 hundred providers in Texas that will lose the majority of their funding because of this.


Why would the president do this?


Texas- like a few other states- passed a law that prevents tax payer money going to clinics that provide abortions.


The federal money supplies about 90 % of the funding- the federal govt. said if you deny any funding for the Planned Parenthood clinics- then we will cut all the funding to all of the 2400 clinics.


Now- did they have to do this?




How many Planned Parenthood clinics are in this group of over 2400 providers?


If you simply listen to the media- you would think that just about all of them are- or maybe half.


Out of the over 2400 providers- Planned Parenthood makes up 44.


Yeah- 44.


The president cut off funding for 2400 clinics- that do breast screenings and mammograms.


That actually treat cancer and other diseases.


He cut them all off- because Planned Parenthood would not be in the group any more.


Planned Parenthood does not treat for breast cancer- does not offer pre natal care- and does not even have mammogram machines.


Many of the 2400 clinics that the president cut off do all of these services.


So why would you cut off over 90 % of the clinics that actually do these real- needed services?


Because of the political ideology of being pro abortion.


Obama has positioned himself as being on the side of abortion and his supports want that.


So- to appease his base- he cut off 2400 poor women’s clinics in Texas- this was a choice he made- not Perry.


A poll was done the other day- they asked women ‘would you like free birth control- or have to pay for it yourself’?


Now- if you ask just about anybody ‘would you like free dental- or health insurance- or beer’ what do you think the majority of people would say?


So after they did the poll- they said ‘see- most people support the position the president takes on abortion and birth control’.


See how the media shapes the conversation? You can ask a question in a way that gets a certain answer- and Walla- they achieved the goal.


Society has a decision to make- can we as a people live without any ethical requirements.


Should ethics- making a distinction between right and wrong- should this be part of the conversation?


In our Philosophy study- as scattered as it has been- we ended right around the 18-19th centuries.


We were coming up to the Existentialists.


Existentialism is a difficult philosophy to pin down [as most are].


But the easiest short definition I have found is it’s the philosophy of Existence.


That is real life- It’s not just a matter of intellectual data- it’s what we learn and experience as passionate people- people who have real problems and issues- yet they strive for meaning.


The father of Existentialism was the 19th century thinker- Soren Kierkegaard.


Kierkegaard was a Christian- he challenged the dead church of Denmark- the state church- and he called for a more adventurous approach to the faith.


Some notable followers of this philosophy took a different approach- they were the atheistic existentialists.


One of the most famous being Frederick Nietzsche.


Nietzsche taught that men should abandon all hope of a future afterlife- that the whole field of ethics was futile ‘do what you need to do to excel- step on the other people on the way up the ladder- and that’s what life is all about’.


He called this the Superman- man coming into this new age of science and reason- and rejecting the old forms of religion and ethics- which keep man down.


Nietzsche spent the last years of his life in an insane asylum.


His sister sold tickets to the ‘audience’ who wanted to see the madman.


She exercised her ‘superwoman’ and did what would benefit her- financially- without any worry about whether it was right or wrong.


The last couple of years of his life- Nietzsche signed his letters ‘the crucified one’.


In his rejection of God- he lost his mind and took the identity of Jesus Christ- the ethical one.


As we grapple with what’s right and wrong- as states pass laws that say ‘we don’t want our tax payer money supporting abortions’.


Then we are going to have to deal with the backlash- those who at the time have the power [money] to cut the states off who see ethics as a priority.


Yes- the Superman [Feds] can deny that ethics play a role in women’s health- they can say ‘no money for any of your 2400 clinics’ just because you won’t fund 44 Planned Parenthood clinics.


People can get mad- and even take polls that say ‘we want free things’ [don’t we all? My grocery bags!]


At the end of the day- right and wrong do make a difference.


Trying to live a life- a worldview [philosophy] in a passionate way- that’s a good thing- we are all real people who deal with real issues.


But when you leave God/ethics out of the picture- then you are on a crash course- you might wake up one day- having lost your mind- and signing you letters as The Crucified One.




Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John













As we end the week it’s been 22 days since Obama has held possession of the 1 million dollars that Bill Maher gave him.


I’m not sure how much longer he will keep it- all the clips of Maher calling women bad stuff- well they have been going viral on the net.


I even heard Ed Rendell- a big Democrat insider- say that he has Democrat women telling him that Obama needs to give the money back.


Maher just did a sold out show here in Texas [San Antonio] – he talked about giving up the ‘cu-t’ line about Palin [he also speaks of her as a ‘twat’ and makes fun of her Down syndrome child].


He said he gave up the ‘cu-t’ line [left the n out] even though it was the funniest line in his routine- that everyone loved it.


If that’s the funniest line on your show- then you have one dull show.


Sinbad [the Black comedian] is funny- you laugh when he does stand up- and you never hear any stuff like this out of him- if you need to degrade women and Down syndrome children to get laughs- then you have a problem.


The sad thing is- Obama and his guys are still 100% behind Maher- defending him on TV [Axelrod].


I heard Axelrod give a defense of Maher just the other day- while at the same time accusing the Repubs of waging a ‘war on women’.


Too much- that’s funnier than all the Maher skits combined.


Okay- let’s ‘keep em honest’ [as Cooper says].


As the debate heats up- Obama has been denying- vehemently- that he wants higher gas prices.


He told one reporter at a news presser- ‘do you really think that a president- in an election year- wants gas to go up’?


Actually- I don’t.


Then why ask this?


One of the political positions that some have taken over the years [Gore] believe that in order to wean the nation off of fossil fuels- that you have to get the gas prices high enough that it would then make the alternative clean fuels more economically feasible.


At the same time- this view believes that the Govt. should invest in clean fuel companies [thus Solyndra] and help them get off the ground.


Okay- has Obama and his Energy secretary ever espoused views like this?


Yes- many times- in public- on camera- on utube- even in the last couple of years.


Okay- do we have the right to be suspicious?


Obama- and Chu [energy secretary] have both said there goal was to get fuel prices higher- Chu said 8 dollars would be about right [a gallon].


This administration has touted clean fuel companies and has even been caught [emails] telling one company that was about to go under [Solyndra] ‘wait until after the midterm elections before you go bust’.


They have held this anti fossil fuel position for a long time.


Then why is it so unreasonable to simply ask ‘do you still hold to your past position- one you are on record as having- that you want gas prices to go up’.


Yet- the MSNBC crowd- and the other supporters of Obama in the media- they cant believe that anyone would ever believe that Obama and Chu would want gas to go higher.


Chu was confronted this week at a congressional hearing- the congressman asked him if he still held to the words he spoke a few years ago when he said he wanted gas to go up in price.


Chu said- ‘no- I don’t hold to that view anymore’.


Geez- this was your life long mission- something you advocated for- for many years- you’re were on that side- the Gore idea- and now you say ‘I don’t hold the view’.


Who do we believe man?


As MSNBC continues their ‘war on women’ accusation- we now have clips of Sharpton making the rounds [UTUBE] where he calls the Greek Philosophers [the ones I have been teaching on this least year] ‘a bunch of Homo’s’.


How wonderful- Sharpton- a guy- flim flam man- who holds a regular show on msnbc- he degrades Jews- calls Greeks ‘Homo’s’ speaks of Whites in terrible ways- yet he is lauded as some great civil rights guy- and he is a major supporter of Obama.




This week- the justice dept just overturned a Texas voter I.D. law.


Some states have been passing laws that say you need picture I.D. to vote.


Holder [attorney general- who has said that the civil rights laws are only meant to protect Blacks- not Whites- he did say this by the way].


He overturned Texas’ law because he said it was racist- because more minorities don’t have I.D.’s.


A few years ago- there was a video making the rounds- a Democrat woman [I think Ca.?] she was onstage talking to an Hispanic audience- she said ‘go tell your friends and neighbors to vote- even if they don’t have documentation- because they are not allowed to check at the polls’.


So some states have passed laws- trying to make sure that only citizens are voting.


In 2008- Georgia’s first vote after they passed voter I.D. laws- they had MORE Blacks show up to vote.


In 2008- the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter I.D. law- Justice John Paul Stevens- a liberal- wrote the majority decision.


He simply said that states have a real interest- not racist- to make sure only eligible voters are voting.


He said there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that requiring people to have picture I.D.’s to vote is racist.


Yet Holder says that states that are trying to pass voter I.D. laws are trying to ‘undo’ the civil rights gains that men like John Lewis fought for in the 60’s.


This guy is unbelievable.


So we have an administration- whose public defenders- who’s attorney general- whose energy secretary- and all the other people around him- hold to paranoid views on race and energy and all types of things.


They call women the nastiest manes in the book- they speak about Jews and Whites as groups that conspired against Blacks and who need to be ‘eliminated as a social class’ [Bell].


Yet- at the same time they are also running a media campaign that says ‘look at all the Repubs- they are anti woman- they are racist- they call women sluts’.


And then when 2 polls come out [this week- Washington Post and N.Y. Times] they cant believe that Obama’s approval actually fell- even among women.


Yes- after the Super Tuesday results- when Santorum won a large amount of women voters- you had the pundits on MSNBC shocked- even mad ‘I guess these southern women are too stupid- that they would vote for a guy who wants to take away their birth control’.


Now- Southern women- Northern Women- women from all regions and colors- they have daughters and sons who need jobs- who have a very bleak future ahead of them- if the economy does not start really producing jobs.


These women are paying 75 dollars to fill up their cars/vehicles.


These women- they have real concerns about real issues.


And for the media to have really thought that their contrived War on Woman campaign- to have thought that women would go out in huge numbers to vote for their ‘right to have birth control- paid for by everyone else’ for them to have thought this was demeaning- condescending.


Yes- women are concerned about health care issues- and the CBO said this week that Obama care will cost twice as much than what he said [1.7 trillion instead of 900 billion].


And that private employers would drop around 20 million people from their rolls [not 1 million as Obama said].


Yes- these health care issues matter to women- it matters to women that your major supporters degrade women on a regular basis- accuse Jews and Whites of conspiracies.


These things matter too.


But no- the media can’t understand how Obama’s approval actually went down among women- not up.


I guess they don’t realize that Jews and Whites and Hispanics and all other races- well they are women too.


And even though Eric Holder does not believe that these ‘other races’ are covered under the civil rights laws- and that states that simply want citizens to vote- whether they be Mexican or White or Black- they want to make sure only eligible voters vote.


Well Holder says that those states are trying to turn back the civil rights gains made over the past 60 years.


It’s no wonder why the numbers are going down- women see these things- women of all races- and its condescending to have thought that women were going to abandon the other side in huge numbers and support Obama- all because a Georgetown university student- who pays 40 thousand a year tuition- can’t afford 9 dollars a month at wal mart for birth control.


It’s a surprise for me to think that any woman- Black- White- North- South- would have swallowed a line like that.




Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John










1806- THE 2% LIE



I want to talk a little bit about how we perceive things- the way the media and politicians use propaganda to sway the way people think.


This weekend I spoke with my liberal friend from N.J. – by the way- when I use examples from our talks- these are real discussions that I have had with this friend for the last 30 years.


This is not a ‘made up person’.


Okay- one of the first things they said was ‘can you believe these Repub candidates- all they want to talk about is birth control’.


Now- I told my friend that this was a perfect example of how the propaganda machine works.


If you remember back to the first time birth control came up during this election- it was a question by George Stephanopoulos.


He asked Romney if states have the right to ban Birth control.


Everyone on the stage- and in the audience were shocked- surprised. Why in the heck would you ask a question like this- no one on the trail is talking about it [until then] and it simply was not part of the ‘conversation’.


A few days later- Stephen Colbert had Stephanopoulos on his show [Colbert Report] and he asked him ‘why would you ask a question like that’?


He responded ‘I had a bet with Dianne Sawyer that I could get Romney to admit that birth control was a good thing’.


He lied.


What really happened was the Dem strategists had a plan- they knew that it would be difficult for the President to run on the economy [even though now the numbers are looking better- to his credit].


So they had a strategy to turn the conversation into one on birth control and ‘the war on women’.


The president was just about to announce his new rule on birth control- that the Catholic church would no longer be able to not provide it thru their plans- and this whole conversation was orchestrated to get the average person to wake up one day and say ‘geez- look at all these stupid stone age Republicans- all they want to talk about is birth control’.


And Walla- my friend swallowed the bait- hook line and sinker.


Now- do both sides do this?


Sure- I’m just showing you how.


Now- the present problem [in my mind] is that Obama has been unable to distinguish between speaking honestly as a president- and speaking ‘politically’ as a campaigner.


What do I mean?


The last 2 weeks the president has been going around making public speeches and saying ‘when these Repubs say “drill baby drill” they are lying to you about the problem- even if we drill- we use 20% of the world’s oil- and only have 2% of the oil reserves here in the U.S.’.


Now- he has said this more than once- and sometimes he qualifies the statement by saying ‘proven oil reserves’.


But as you hear the words- you- the average Joe [Mary] think ‘geez- if we only posses 2 % of the world’s oil- and we use 20%- then just doing more drilling is not the answer’.


Okay- do we only have 2% of the world’s Oil here in the U.S.?


No- if you opened up ALL the oil rich regions- both offshore and on land- we would have 100% of our oil needs met- for 250 years.


Yes- you heard me- we would have so much oil- that we would not have to import any- nada.


So John- how can Obama say we only have 2%?


Well- put aside the ability to lie for a moment- and realize [like the birth control] that the political insiders for Obama realized that the gas/oil issue does have the potential to derail the presidents bid to get re-elected.


So they devised a strategy to respond to the Repubs argument that gas is going up- and blame Obama.


Now- here’s the tricky part.


When Obama uses language like this- he is using a little known definition of ‘proven oil reserves’ that the OMB uses.


This definition of proven oil reserves actually means- all the oil reserves that we are currently tapping into- and the ones that the govt. /pres has already approved down the road.


In essence- Obama is saying ‘out of all the oil reserves THAT I AM GOING TO APPROVE- we can only get 2%’.


And when the ‘drill baby drill’ folk say ‘let’s drill’ they are talking about all the reserves that we are not drilling from.


So- in essence- Obama simply lied.


Now- did he lie- like under the legal definition of Bill Clinton ‘were you ever alone with Lewinsky’?


Answer ‘No’.


Reason ‘there were other people in the building at the time’.


Okay- he was alone with her in the Oval Office- but in his mind- if there were other people in the building- or lets say in D.C.- or lets say ‘in the world’ well yes- you can technically say that none of us ‘are ever alone’.


But to the average mind- well- you were ‘alone’.


So- when you hear the president- saying over and over again [he has now stopped- I think- he got caught] ‘we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves’ well- he’s using Clinton language.




When you campaign- and do stuff like this- okay- they all do it- it’s not right- or good- but they do it.


When you are actually holding the office- and people hear you say this- you are purposefully deceiving folk- you know they think something other than what you are saying.


I mean who thinks ‘Ah- he’s using the OMB definition for oil reserves- not true human speak’.


Who remembers where we left off on our Philosophy posts?


We were in the 18th century and were discussing Empiricism- the idea that we obtain true knowledge about things thru the things themselves- the empirical evidence.


One of the famous philosophers that falls into this category was a Bishop named Berkeley.


Even though he is called an Empiricist- he kind of had some ideas that were also Idealist- those that saw ideas and the Metaphysical world as the main source of knowledge.


You might not have ever heard of Berkeley- but most of you are familiar with his famous statement ‘If a tree falls in the forest- and no one’s there- does it still make a sound’.


Or the modern version ‘if a man speaks in a room- and no woman is there- is he still wrong’.


Berkeley grappled with the debate of what role does the observer play in the actual existence of things.


Does reality depend upon an observer- if something is not being perceived- does it really exist?


His conclusion was- things do depend upon an observer to exist [I don’t hold to this view by the way] and that God is the ultimate observer- he is observing all things at all times- therefore all things really do exist.


As you can see- Philosophy does get fuzzy at times.


When people use language- ‘2% of the world’s oil reserves’ they expect you to be using language that most humans agree upon.


When you say ‘I did not have sex with that woman- Miss Lewinsky’.


They don’t realize that your definition of sex does not include oral sex- or any other sex- outside of standard missionary position intercourse.


So as we progress over the next few months- yes- both sides are going to be using propaganda- the media- to make their point.


And some things are true- others are not.


Reality/truth is not something that changes- or depends upon an observer- if the tree falls- yeah it makes a noise- whether you are there or not.


When you say ‘2%’ of the world’s oil- yes- it makes a difference that you are using a definition that MOST HUMANS ARE NOT OPERATING BY- and whether an ‘observer’ catches you or not- it’s still wrong.





Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John









So a few days have gone by- and the number one media story- the story that topped the deaths in Syria- the U.N. report that says we and NATO backed a group that committed ‘war crimes’- yes- the top story- that Rush Limbaugh referred to Sandra Fluke as ‘a slut’ and that he finally apologized- yes this was the headline of the week.


What U.N. story John?


Glad you asked.


If you remember during our ‘kinetic action’ in Libya- I wrote a bunch of critical posts about our involvement.


I kept saying that we were using the wording of the U.N. resolution- that said we had the authority to go in and use DEFENSIVE means to protect civilians- well that wording became twisted [by us] to mean we can chase down Gadhaffi and his family [and his friends] and simply kill them.


When some observers began questioning this act- we said we were using ‘defensive’ means to knock out the ‘command and control’ of Gadhaffi- and that’s how we justified it.


Now- this whole thing was a farce- there never was any ‘command and control’ in the buildings we bombed- we simply thought Gadhaffi might have been there.


So we bombed his sons house in a private neighborhood- killed his grandkids- but missed him.


Okay- the U.N. did a yearlong study to see if we did indeed violate human rights by lying like this.


The report came out- and it said we tried to reduce the civilian causalities- but did kill around 60 innocent people under the guise of ‘taking out command and control’.


They found that there was no evidence at all that these buildings we targeted were command and control centers.


War crimes?


Yes- the report also states that the rebel group we backed did commit war crimes- now- the report says Gadhaffi’s side committed ‘crimes against humanity’ [far worse] but that our side did commit war crimes- and till this day the new ‘govt.’ will not investigate the possible crimes committed when they killed innocent people.


So- this story was a small article in the back of the paper- it should have been headline news- not ‘the slut’ comment.


Okay- in the last post I commented on Jeremiah chapter 33.


This was the promise God made to Israel that he would fulfill his promise and they would be restored into a strong nation.


I referenced the earlier story we find in Genesis [chapters 12-15] where God makes this promise to Abraham.


If you read these 2 chapters- plus 17 and 22- you will get the main promise.


God called Abraham to leave his homeland and go on a journey. In this new land God would bless Abraham and he would have tons of kids and grandkids and eventually become a nation [the nation of Israel].


So over a period of time- thru many dangers and trials- he finally has a son- named Isaac- and this son is the promised child thru whom all the others will come from.


In chapter 22 of Genesis- when Abraham was an old man- Gods tests him and says ‘Abraham- go and take Isaac- your only beloved son- and offer him up to me on Mount Moriah’.


Abraham went thru many years of doubt and struggle before he finally received the promised son [read chapters 17-18 of Genesis].


And when Sarah finally had the child- it was a miracle.


So when God says ‘offer this boy up’- to Abraham it was putting at risk the whole purpose of his life- the very reason he left his friends and family and moved to a strange land.


But the bible says he took the child- and when they got near the range of mountains where mount Moriah was- he told the servants ‘you guys wait here- me and the boy will go to worship- and we will BOTH BE BACK’.


This phrase is picked up in Hebrews chapter 11- the writer says Abraham simply believed that God would raise the boy from the dead- that’s how he justified in his mind the order to offer his son- and this same son being the child thru whom the others would come.


So as Abraham approaches the mountain- he takes the wood for the offering- the ‘fire’- and no animal.


He puts the wood on Isaac’s back- to carry up the hill.


Isaac asks his dad ‘dad- we have the wood and all- but where is the animal for the offering’


Abraham simply tells his boy ‘God will provide himself a lamb for the offering’.


As they get to the top of the hill- Abraham ties Isaac with the rope- and puts him on the altar and takes out a knife to slay him.  At that moment- an angel calls out to him and says ‘STOP!’


The whole thing was a test- to see if Abraham would do what God said- even if it seemed contrary to Gods promise and purpose for his life.


It should be noted that the Rabbi’s tell us that Isaac was not a young boy at the time- he was probably an older teen- strong enough to carry the wood up the hill.


This signifies that Isaac could have probably put up a fight- and won!


But he heard all the stories about God’s miracles- his dad recounted all the great signs and things that God did in their lives- and when Abraham got to the point of offering up his son- maybe Isaac simply accepted that God was in control and he would do whatever needed to be done.


Over a thousand years later- Jesus would walk the dusty streets of Jerusalem- he too was a promised son.


He preached and healed and was a true miracle worker.


He often used ‘Father Abraham’ as an example to prove his teachings- one time he said ‘before Abraham was- I AM’.


This incensed the hearers and they took up stones to kill him- the words I AM- are the words that refer to God [during Moses time he told Moses he was the I AM].


So the day comes for Jesus to ‘take the wood’ of the sacrifice- and go up the hill- called Calvary.


History tells us that Calvary is in the same range of mountains that Moriah sits on.


Jesus- the ‘second Isaac’ took the wood of the Cross- just like Isaac- and carried it to the top.


In the story of Abraham- when the angel said STOP- they looked around and found a ram in the brush- they used the ram as a sacrifice.


But this day- the day of Jesus- no ram was to be found- he looked up to his God- and he said ‘why do you forsake ME LIKE THIS’.


Yes- Jesus was the lamb that Abraham prophesied of- he was the ultimate sacrifice.


Sometimes we go thru things that seem contrary to the true purpose- things that we see as course changers.


When Jesus died- all of his followers thought the goal was gone- they thought he was going to lead a present day rebellion against Rome and become the new Messiah ruling out of Jerusalem.


When he died on the Cross- they could not harmonize what they thought was the whole purpose- and this gruesome death.


Yet 3 days after they saw the true purpose- the ultimate reality.


Are you at Mount Moriah?


The place that seems like all is lost.


Trust God- after 3 days everything will look totally different.





Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John
















Caught an interesting show the other night- a Harvard economist [liberal] gave a lecture on economics.


Now- when I say ‘liberal’ I do not use the term in a derogatory way- no- he was the type of economist that would fit into the category of a Paul Krugman.


Krugman writes for the N.Y. Times and often [always?] gives you the Keynesian view.


So anyway this Harvard prof. made some good points.


But he blundered somewhat in his defense of Socialism/communism.


He talked about Karl Marx [the ‘founder’ of the system] and said that what happened in the Silicon Valley boom [the Dot.com businesses] was a type of Marxism.


The internet boom companies had a different view of the business structure- instead of the ‘bosses’ being over the working class stiff- you would have the actual employees run the show.


Yeah- when you watch the documentaries on Facebook [and other Companies like it] you do see an environment where all these young ‘hipsters’ are calling the shots- and they do have a sense of freedom that you don’t see in the standard business model.


But the Harvard Prof. went a step too far when he compared this to Marx.


Marx was raised in Germany- he was a Jew.


His father had to re-locate his business and join the Lutheran church in order to fit in with the people he needed to do business with.
Marx would eventually go to ‘university’ in England- and he developed his ideas in an environment where the industrial revolution took off.


He witnessed the plight of the working class man [proletariat] and how he became a victim of the factory system.


In England you did see many hopeless workers fall prey to a lifestyle that had you going to work at the factory all day- often in a dark and dingy environment.


You would come home to a gloomy existence and often drink yourself to sleep.


Marx saw the working class as victims of the Ownership class [the original 99 versus the 1%].


Marx saw that those who ran the system- and ‘owned the tools’ had the true influence in society- and according to Marx- they used two primary means of controlling the masses.


Law and Religion.


So Marx advocated for a violent overthrow of the system- thru Revolutionary means- in order to free the working class slave from the power of the few.


Now- where the Harvard Prof missed it is he compared Marx’s idea to the Dotcom business model.


Facebook and other internet businesses- they tried to empower the worker by making him part owner.


When Facebook went public this last month [Initial public offering] it was said to have made many millionaires overnight.




Because those who got in at the start [even the kid who painted the Graffiti on the walls of the building] were offered the option of cash or stock.


Those who took the stock became rich when the company went public [it actually will go into effect if a couple of more months].


So- this model empowers the working class person by making him part owner.


Okay- Marx wanted to ‘level the field’ by putting the State in charge.


He felt like if you took the power away from the private owner [capitalism] then you could even out the scales by making the state decide how much pay was fair- and the state would literally own ‘the tools’ of the system.

Most of us know by now that his system failed pretty badly [Soviet Union].


Though he meant well- trying to defend the hopeless worker- yet he created a Monster State- and the state would become the new oppressor of the people- and take away the incentive that the private ownership model gave.


So all in all- the Harvard prof had some truth to what he said- but he went a step too far.


In today’s political climate- we all have a tendency to hear one side- and if we lineup with that side- we very rarely question those who advocate the way we believe.


It’s important to hear both sides- to give credit to the ideas that are good- and then reject the ideas that are bad.


Marx had some very legitimate concerns- the founder of the Salvation Army- William Booth- began his ministry to the same class of people that Marx saw.


Marx rejected religion because he believed the ownership class used it to keep the masses under.


Any truth to this?




Many of the Black slaves were encouraged to attend church and keep singing their Black spiritual songs.




Many of the themes of these great songs did indeed encourage the suffering servant to just hold on until he/she gets to the Promised Land.


As a matter of fact- many of the themes taught that if you rebelled against the slave owner then you would forfeit your reward in the hereafter.


Marx experienced the power of religion- and the role it played in his own family in Germany- his father had to join the Lutheran church- even though he was Jewish- just so he could be in contact with the people of influence in his town.


So yes- it’s good to hear both sides- give credit when you can- and also reject what you must.


Yeah- the Harvard Prof seemed to be a good guy- he knew his stuff- just not well enough.





Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John












Well it’s been a sad couple of days- yes- we lost the beautiful angel Whitney Houston.


I never was really a fan of Whitney- I mean she had a great voice and all- I just never bought any of her music.


As I watched the media cover her death- I began to realize how interesting her journey was- even with all the failures.


She was from Newark N.J. – I never knew that [right around the area I grew up].


She started her singing ‘career’ in a church choir.


As I saw all the clips the past few days- I saw her singing some Christian songs [I didn’t know that either].


And the last clip of her being recorded- a few days before her death- she sang a note from the famous kids bible song ‘Yes Jesus loves me’.


I know many in the media- and ‘church world’ have a tendency to judge people when they die- many seem to know ‘for sure’ who made it to heaven- and who did not.


I have learned a long time ago- I’m not the judge on stuff like that.


I saw Bill O’Reilly do his shtick. He tried to do the ‘real guy’ stuff- you know- like when he had on Bernie Goldberg- a Jewish friend- who was trying to outdo Bill on the ‘I am a friend of the Black man’.


Goldberg brought out a photo of him with a Black rapper- Ice Cube.


As Bernie shows the photo- to say ‘look- I even hug Black men’.


He refers to Cube as ‘Ice T’.


Bill- as a true brother- corrects Bernie and tells him ‘it’s not T but Cube’.


Bernie gets mad- you can see the look on his face ‘how dare you correct me’.


Then someone from off camera must have yelled ‘listen- Bills right- its Cube- not T’.


And Bernie quickly back tracks.


I guess Bernie got the picture from his file ‘pictures of me with Black people’.


So anyway- O’Rielly does the section on Whitney and he kind of goes hard on her.


He talks about her choice to do drugs- and basically says she was looking to die- she made the choice.


I realize what he was saying- but I found it to be the wrong time to say it.


A few years ago I heard a radio preacher talking about the funeral of a gang member that he preached at.


He said the mother and family and all the gang bangers were there- and he ‘told it like it was’.


He went on and said how he preached ‘this kid is in hell right now- screaming his brains out- he has no rest- he’s burning- forever!!’


He said how the mom ran out crying- his family was distraught- I thought he was lucky that he didn’t get gunned down right in the pulpit.


Yes- we need to have grace in these situations.


So- after seeing all the clips of Whitney- I believe she very well might be with God right now- and sure- I know she messed up lots- but I am certainly not in the position to judge the angel.


Okay- Angels?


The other day I was reading Psalms 147.


I read how God counts the stars and gives them names.


It reminded me of the book of Revelation- where there is this vision of Jesus [chapter 1].


John the disciple sees Jesus- he has  hair like wool- these eyes of fire- and feet like brass- burned in a furnace.


As Jesus is standing there- he is surrounded by 7 golden lamp stands- and he has 7 stars in his hand.


The vision is revealed to John- the lamp stands are the churches [of Asia Minor] and the stars are the ‘angels of the 7 churches’.


Now- as a theology buff- I know many bible folk say these angels are Pastors- because the Greek word simply means messenger.


But as I have read this over the years- I have come to believe these are actually angels.


What does the bible say about angels?


In the book of Hebrews we read that they are ‘ministering spirits- sent forth to minister to those who are inheriting salvation’.


We often hear that angels in the bible look like men- they are not things with wings!


Actually- this is another ‘fable’.


While it is true that many appearances of angels in the bible do look like men- and Hebrews also says that we should entertain [show hospitality] to strangers- because some have helped angels and they didn’t even know it.


Yet- there are also angels ‘with wings’.


We call these creatures Cherubim and Seraphim.


In the book of Exodus we read the story of the 10 commandments [chapter 20].


We read the first commandment as not having other gods before God- and not to make graven images of anything.


Over the centuries the church has had some debates over Christian art- is it right or wrong?


After all- much of it is statues and pictures depicting people and creatures and angels and God.


So during the Protestant Reformation [and the rise of Islam] you had occasions where people went out and destroyed the statues and paintings of other groups.


A few things should be noted here.


The commandment- however you take it- does not say ‘go and smash the statues of other religions’ [a few years ago the famous statues of Buddha were destroyed- I think in India- but radical Muslims did this because they felt the statues violated the commandment on angels]


Also- after Moses gets the 10 commandments from God- he puts them inside a box called ‘The Ark of the Covenant’.


This box has a lid on it [called the Mercy Seat] and on the lid you had 2 statues of Angels [Cherubim].


So- the actual box that held the commandment not to make idols- had religious art on it!


So we need to be careful before we start going around smashing statues [by the way- this smashing of the statues was called Iconoclastic].


So- we see that angels are spirits- created by God- and they are here to help us.


In Revelation 1 we read about a war in heaven- Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon and his angels.


We read that Michael prevails and the devil loses.


It says ‘the accuser of the brothers is cast down- the devil- who accused them before God day and night’.


There are only 2 named angels in the bible [3- if you include the Catholic apocrypha].


They are Michael- Gabriel- and Raphael.


Yes- angels are real- they war on our behalf- and they fight in a specific way- they cast down the dragon [satan] who accuses the believers.


This day I am happy in a way for Whitney- she struggled a long time- she was such a beautiful ‘angel’.


I would like to think she is with God right now- getting ready for ‘church’ this Sunday- yes- I know she is not ‘an angel’ in the biblical way.


But let’s stretch some- yes- she will be singing in the angelic choir once again.


Let’s not accuse her this day.





Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John






About ccoutreach87

my sites- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com- ccoutreach87.wordpress.com- facebook.com/john.chiarello.5


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Flickr Photos

%d bloggers like this: