Archive for November 8th, 2006

“What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

Joshua 5:13-14 (New International Version)

Have you ever asked “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
I have to laugh at my children’s VeggieTales video “Josh and the Big Wall”. In this video, Joshua, when seeing the angel of the Lord’s army, falls flat on his face in the sand. When he tries to ask the question “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” it’s impossible to understand him because, well, his face is in the sand!! But this got me thinking.
How many times, when we actually do say “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” do we ask it sincerely and with an open heart? Don’t many of us mumble “into the sand” because we’re either afraid of what the Lord’s message is going to be, or we just don’t feel like hearing the message our Lord has for us?
It is very important to always keep your heart and soul “tuned”, if you will, to the messages God is giving to you. Even if you don’t like what the message says or don’t feel like doing it, obeying the Lord will only bring blessings to you.
I like to mention the song “Trust and Obey”. Really that’s what it all comes down to. Hear the Lord’s messages; trust in Him and then Obey Him. Doing this will make a difference in your walk with Jesus.

Change your sex without surgery

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard.

In a move some see as an end-run toward same-sex marriages, the New York City Board of Health, with the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is considering a policy that would permit people born in the city to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates.

The idea, as described by advocates, is to separate sexual identification from anatomy. There would be no need to have a sex-change operation. All that would be needed would be an affidavit from a doctor or mental health professional making the case for the change.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years. But there would be no medical requirements.

“Surgery versus non-surgery can be arbitrary,” explained Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, to the New York Times. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

The move, which appears likely to take place soon, is the result of a major push by the so-called “transgender” lobby – an outgrowth of the homosexual activist agenda.

Though the discussions about the policy change have been held mostly behind closed doors, some opposition to the move already has been recorded.

“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts, said. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”

David Usher, a senior policy analyst for the True Equality Network and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, sees the policy switch as opening the doors to same-sex marriage without new legislation.

“The New York elite is attempting to make same-sex marriage legal without making it legal,” he says. “This illegal maneuver must be stopped dead in its tracks. If successful, feminists will roll this legal maneuver out everywhere possible to effectively make state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage useless.”

There seems little question that a man, who changes his sex on paper through this method, could marry another man. It is also likely to make it more difficult for adoption agencies to find out the actual sex of a proposed parent. Whether a man who changes his sex in this manner would be eligible to fight in combat or not is a question no one could answer.

The Board of Health is scheduled to vote on the proposal next month, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.

Some advocates of the policy change don’t think it goes far enough.

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said transgender people should not have to rely on affidavits from a health care system that tends to be biased against them.

All eight experts the Board of Health called in to address the birth certificate issue strongly recommended the change be made.

New York is at the forefront of adopting measures aimed at blurring the lines of sexual identification. Last month, for instance, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.

Original Link.

Voters keep choosing to protect traditional marriage

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

Voters in Virginia – and six other states – have “settled” the issue of same-sex unions in their state by approving a constitutional definition that restricts marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

“We knew all along that a majority favored the amendment. It was just a matter of getting people to the polls,” Victoria Cobb, whose Virginia organization called Family Foundation supported the proposal, said after yesterday’s vote.

“Tonight, this issue has been settled,” she said. Voters in Idaho, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Colorado, South Dakota and South Carolina also voted to approve such amendments.

The results from Arizona were incomplete, but showed the measure trailing by a few percentage points. If that becomes an official loss, it would be the only time in 28 attempts that a marriage protection constitutional amendment has not been endorsed by voters.

The vote to ban “gay” marriage in South Carolina came on a nearly 4-1 division, and supporters say such constitutional amendments are not nearly as likely to be overturned by activist and liberal judges as state laws, which already had been used in several states to provide some level of protection for traditional marriage.

In Colorado, voters went one step further, defeating a separate proposal that would have created “equal” benefits for same-sex couples, which promoters claimed would just provide “basic legal” protections.

The protection for traditional marriage, before this election, had been approved by voters in 20 out of the 20 states where it had been proposed.

“The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue,” States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WND as the campaigns for the marriage protections gained speed in recent weeks.

“What they’re running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected,” she said.

During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Missouri and Nevada also voted for the plan. Five other states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.

Wisconsin’s victory was especially gratifying for campaign workers in that state. There state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year’s election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor’s signature.

Original Link.

Pro-life Groups tell Supreme Court Partial-Birth Abortions Should be Banned

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

Well, pretty much all abortions should be banned. This is only the start.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked in arguments today to prevent the American catastrophe of abortion from becoming actual infanticide, through the gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Hearing appeals from two different lower court decisions, the justices in Washington are being told that documentation shows the procedure is never medically necessary, and shouldn’t even be put under the laws governing abortion, because it goes far beyond that.

“There simply is no reason to keep this barbaric practice legal,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which litigates pro-life issues and has submitted briefs on behalf of the life issues in the arguments today.

“This so-called medical procedure amounts to nothing more than infanticide and now the high court is in position to end this gruesome practice once and for all. Congress spent years deliberating this issue and reached substantial factual findings, including the fact there is never a medical need for this procedure. We’re hopeful the Supreme Court will act to prevent the spread of abortion into infanticide,” he said.

Original Link.

‘More About Republicans Losing Than Dems Winning’

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

I totally agree with this. The general public really didn’t vote the Democrats in as much as they used the vote to show their displeasure with the Republicans. Since the American public is notoriously short sighted, and I predict that in two years they’ll be wondering why they did this.

(CNSNews.com) – While Democrats hailed their historic victory and promised to take America in a “New Direction,” one conservative rejected the notion that Democrats had achieved a voter “mandate.”

“I think a fairly good case can be made that the story of Election 2006 is more about poorly-led House Republicans losing than Democrats winning,” said John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union.

Berthoud noted the long-time trend of the majority party losing congressional seats in Congress in the sixth year of a presidency. He also noted Republicans’ considerable “baggage” going into the election — the Foley, Ney and Abramoff scandals, to mention a few.

“Beyond these individual characters, the party often prostituted itself to corporate interests,” Berthoud said, pointing to the Medicare reform bill and the energy and transportation bills.

“In the process of pleasing their corporate friends, the House Republicans lost their soul…and their base. The GOP went so overboard that they allowed the Democratic Party (complete captives of the teacher unions, trial lawyers, labor union bosses, etc.) to take the moral high ground on the issue of “being in the pocket of special interests.” That takes some doing,” he said.

Berthoud rejected the notion that the election had something to do with “liberalism triumphing over the ideals of limited government.” He suggested that if more Republicans had stood up for a “reduction in government” while they had majority control of Congress, fewer of them might have lost the election.

Original Link.

The Blog is One Year Old Today

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

I’d like to thank everyone for the great success you have made of our website and blog.
It’s been quite a year and very exciting as we’ve seen the power of Lord move in us through our internet ministry. If anyone had told me we would have come this far in such a short amount of time, I would have thought them crazy.
From our humble beginnings on BlogSpot to the ownership of our own domain, we have been truly blessed along the way. We have met so many nice people and been allowed to experience the blessing of taking the Lord’s Word to many thousands of people.
To date we have 1,705 posts, 1,147 comments and over 1,000 visitors per day.
I’d like to thank our good friends Ben and Jennifer Rast, at Contender Ministries, whom without their kind advice and support, this ministry would never have happened.
I’d also like to thank my hardworking co-editor, Beth, for all her wonderful support.
Of course, none of this would have been possible without the support of my awesome wife, Missi, who totally supported me as I spent many hours working on this project. Her contributions to it with her Home Comforts pages have been wonderful as well.
I’m excited to also have the insightful contributions of Fern Sidman and Rebbetzen Esther Jungreis, who are always able to bring valuable G-dly content to us.
Thank you again to all our readers, and I ask for your continued prayers as we enter our second year.
God Bless You All,
-Steve