Archive for February 5th, 2009

Why Do We Need Jesus? Part 1

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

We Christians are famous for making the claim that everyone “needs Jesus”. True as that may be, this train of thought comes out very clique when espoused to a person who has been exposed to little, if any, Christian teachings.
Their first reaction, after the look of “who is this strange person”, is most likely “why do I need Jesus?”, or some such similar thought. They do not have the background necessary to understand this.

Coming at a person with the “you need Jesus” mantra is much akin to reading the last chapter of a book and expecting to understand the entire plot. People with a well rounded experience level and a goodly amount of education may be able to understand the basic plot and glean some of the events leading up to the final chapter they read, but in most cases, to put it bluntly, most people will have no idea what is going on with the plot and become completely “lost” and confused with the small portion of the book they were exposed to.
This phenomenon is often overlooked by evangelist. It is most often why “in our face” evangelism doesn’t work most of the time.
Unlike the time period when I was a young person; when church instruction was more the norm, people might have had an inkling as to what “you need Jesus” meant. In today’s world though, the complete converse is the norm. Most people have little, if any church teaching. They truly do not have the information necessary to “connect the dots” and understand why they “need Jesus”.
In these articles, I will attempt to “connect the dots”.

You parents out these can agree with this next statement:
“You have to teach your children how to be Good, but they are born already knowing how to be Bad”.

Why is that?

When God created the world, He placed the first two human beings in it. These first two humans, whom the Bible tells us were named “Adam” and “Eve”, were made in God’s image, or to further explain, were sinless.
One trait that God gave to His created humans was the freedom of choice. He did this because He loves everyone He creates and He wishes for them to love Him back. Instead of “forcing” humans to love Him, which in fact would have been a false love, He gave them the choice to either love Him or reject Him.
In the case of Adam and Eve, they truly did love God. They had not yet been exposed to other “distractions” that could cause them to fall away from God.
Satan changed all of that.

In the beginning, God only had one rule for Adam and Eve; don’t eat the fruit from one certain tree. That’s it, just one rule.
Now remember that God gave humans free choice. He didn’t want mindless robots, He wanted humans to love and obey Him by choice. Any other way would have been false.
God wanted humans to love Him enough that they would obey Him because of that love.
By choice, humans chose to go against the rule given them by God, and they ate fruit from the tree. Humans chose to disobey God.

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines “sin” as:
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

In that one act of disobedience, humans were changed from the sinless creatures they were when they were created to a sinful creature.

“No big deal” you say? It was just a piece of fruit, right?

It was a big deal though. To God there are no “degrees” of sin. All sin is equal; equally bad that is.

From that point on, mankind had a very serious problem; we were all separated from God, who had never sinned, by that one act of sin.

In the next part, I’ll explain what God did in the interim to temporarily “cover up” the sin of mankind.

Obama Attempts to Scare America into Passing His Spend-Aholic “Stimulus” Bill

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

Obama, using his usual tyrannical “you will support me, or else” attitude, is hinting that America will never recover unless we pass his spend-aholic so-called “stimulus” bill. “The One”, His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Barack Obama I, indicated that “critics of his nearly $1 trillion plan to stimulate the collapsing U.S. economy were promoting failed theories and ignoring the depth of the crisis”.

The “Republicans charge the stimulus plan is loaded down with pet Democratic spending and ignores the curative powers of tax cuts”.

A leading group of economist agree with the Republican minority:
“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama fought back against Republicans on Thursday, charging that critics of his nearly $1 trillion plan to stimulate the collapsing U.S. economy were promoting failed theories and ignoring the depth of the crisis.

In an impassioned opinion piece in the Washington Post, Obama demanded that Congress act swiftly to provide the massive infusion of federal spending — pressing his case on an emergency package for which he has struggled to win bipartisan backing.

Despite strong support in the polls and a convincing White House victory, the president has hit unexpectedly heavy political headwinds in his first month in office, one that has seen key nominees withdraw under a cloud of tax troubles and a deepening economic downturn — the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Obama’s nearly unprecedented courting of Republicans in Congress to match his campaign promises of bipartishanship failed to gain one opposition vote in the House of Representatives when it passed an $819 billion version of the measure last week. Senate Republicans and some Democrats are proving equally balky in debate on their version of the plan, which has climbed to above $900 billion but still not come to a vote.

“What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives — action that’s swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis,” a clearly frustrated Obama wrote.

Republicans charge the stimulus plan is loaded down with pet Democratic spending and ignores the curative powers of tax cuts.

Obama hotly disagreed, saying Republicans were promoting a failed theory, “the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.”

Republicans are ignoring “energy independence”?? Need I point out that it was Democrats who have opposed domestic drilling at every turn?

Saddling our children and their children with massive debt is not the way to solve this country’s economic problems. We are all guilty of fiscal irresponsibility by overspending and using massive amounts of credit we didn’t have to begin with. It is time to take our lumps and deal with that irresponsibility. Engaging in more fiscal irresponsibility by incurring more debt is not the way to do that.

Original Link.

United Nations’ Threat: No More Parental Rights

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document
was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

* A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention
gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”

He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

Original Link.

UN Retracts Claim Strike Hit Gaza School

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

(sarcasm on) What?? You mean that terrorist lie and stage events for the sake of the media?? Who would have believed such a thing!!(sarcasm off)

The United Nations has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza city of Jabaliya last month hit a school run by a UN agency.

“The humanitarian coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school,” the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in its latest weekly update on the situation in Gaza.

It stressed that its initial report of the January 6 incident correctly stated that Israeli shells hit outside the school run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA, but that it later referred to “the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabaliya.”

The Israeli military initially said its forces had responded to hostile fire from within the UN school but later reportedly retracted that statement.

The attack sparked widespread outrage in the midst of Israel’s deadly offensive in Gaza.

Original Link.

“Homosexuality and the Laws of Moral Physics” By J. Matt Barber

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like “Big Oil” or “Big Tobacco.” Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.

Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House web site updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., “Big Homo”). By announcing to the world his pro-“gay” agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.

But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled “gay rights” and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called “same-sex marriage,” something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality – period.

I know – pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too “black or white” on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture. And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called “religious right” and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped “fundamentalist” by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.

But despite the best efforts of “gay” activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth – like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope – has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It’s a matter of moral physics.

Of course, “fundamental” simply means “basic” or “important.” Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn’t it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it’s just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book.

If it’s the latter, then today’s liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether. However, if it’s the former – if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired word of God as it purports to be – then wouldn’t it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn’t we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others?

So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality?

Again, it’s fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal. In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior – or at least remains neutral on the subject – are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold medal mental gymnastics.

So, for the sake of national unity, let’s clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who’ve been badmouthing us “fundamentalists” to apologize, ‘kay?

First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, it’s pro-homosexual extremists who wish to radically redefine it. In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV).

Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that – rather conspicuously – He did not say: “At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie’s father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife – and/or husband – and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described “gay” activists to equate behaviorally driven “gayness” to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being “gay” has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.

It’s all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive.

Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Romans 1:26-27 warns, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Christ’s Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-“gays” can attest, God’s word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

To the delight of truth seekers – and to the consternation of “gay” activists everywhere – the mere existence of ex-“gays” brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated “born that way” house of cards crashing down. It further undermines Big Homo’s already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That’s why ex-“gays” are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists.

So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality. If the homosexual lifestyle is just another “sexual orientation,” then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned “sexual orientations” like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral.

This means that “gay affirming” churches, which engage in what I call “a la carte Christianity” (take what you like, leave what you don’t) are really just “sin affirming” churches. And “gay friendly” politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just “immorality friendly” politicians.

It really is that black and white – that fundamental. We’re either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can’t have it both ways.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Original Link.

Hamas Steals U.N. Aid Again, U.N. Finally Notices

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

I don’t know what is different this time, but Hamas has been stealing U.N. and international aid, meant for the people in Gaza, for years now. Suddenly, the U.N. decides to take notice this time.

JERUSALEM – A U.N. spokesman says Hamas police in Gaza have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Spokesman Christopher Gunness says Hamas police raided a U.N. warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening. He says police snatched 3,500 blankets and more than 400 food parcels.

The aid is vital now because Gazans are facing hardship after Israel’s three-week military offensive against Hamas.

Hamas has ruled Gaza since it seized control of the territory in 2007. Gunness said Wednesday this is the first time Hamas has seized U.N. aid. (yeah, right! -ed.)

Israeli officials have charged that the militant group routinely confiscates supplies meant for needy Gazans.

A Hamas government spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Original Link.