After settling down early this year, the European debt crisis appears to be rearing its ugly head again and its effects are spreading to this side of "the pond", as it were.
A few recent events:
*A Greek candidate caused stock markets' fear when he suggested repudiating prior austerity agreements,
*French voters, weary of austerity, threw out Pres. Sarkozy,
*Greek savers are running on banks,
*Moody's downgraded over a dozen Spanish banks today,
*And today the U.S. stock market has dropped for the 11th day out of the last 12,
These signs are just a few showing the crisis in Greece is getting worse and the "contagion" is spreading in severity throughout Europe and affecting the US stock market as well.
The U.S. stock market has given back much of the gains achieved in the first quarter of 2012 in May. Today, gold and silver, traditional safe havens, spiked higher after having a recent lull. The market dropped over 150 points today with the Dow Jones average just over 12440 after being over 13000 earlier this year.
Recently, I asked the Lord to lead me (Proverbs 3:5-6) to a good photo to view on my digital photo frame and I was led to one showing the streets of New York City after the Crash of 1929. I hope I am mistaken but again the signs are ominous:
*Bank runs in Greece,
*Spanish banks downgraded,
*A sputtering U.S. recovery. U.S. corporations have had strong earnings recently but headwinds are growing.
*A so-called "fiscal cliff" looms in the USA due to the expiring Bush tax cuts and coming federal government spending cuts which will have an adverse impact on economic growth, in the eyes of many. Anti-business government policies and uncertainty about ObamaCare add to the risks ahead.
Even if this is just a temporary "pull back" in the market, it is important to keep in mind broader issues. On a spiritual level, it is important to remember history. The USA was founded on biblical principles. The Puritans sought religious freedom in the New World as Christians honoring a Judeo-Christian.
Yet today, we see our President sticking "his elbow in God's eye" by expressing his approval for homosexual marriage, the height of honoring what God calls an "abomination". The hostility I see toward "religion" (aka, true Bible-based Christianity) in this nation is sometimes shocking. Many cry, "God Bless America" but our President and many other Americans curse Israel and true Christians with treachery, irrational hostility, trampled religious freedom, etc.
Under the backdrop of "in your face"scriptures like Hosea 9:7, Genesis 12:3, Psalm 9:17, the book of Habakkuk, and Proverbs 1:20-33, it is hard to see how America will not escape God's judgment as Israel did in biblical times and as Europe is now.
The Bible tells us:
"The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
but the simple go on and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3 ESV
I am confident this verse is applicable to these times.
Also, Proverbs 11:28 notes, "Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf."
In a time of judgment, God will mock the wicked per Proverbs 1:26, "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you like a storm." But to those who heed God's word of warning and rebuke, Proverbs 1:33 notes, "...but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster."
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Malice..it's not just for the heathen anymore!
Malice. The word is rarely used, it seems these days. However, in 21st Century America, malice is nonetheless common. It is defined as, "a desire to harm others or to see others suffer." The Bible offers powerful insight into malice, one of the manifestations of the fundamentally flawed and evil nature of mankind.
Malice is quite common even in today's America's church. Name the church or denomination and it can be present. It is a spirit marked by traits noted in II Timothy 3:1-5. Among the traits noted are:
*False accusation. Accusations based in a standard of morality not based in the Bible so the "rebukes" are counterfeit. It magnifies negatives...valid criticism of immoral behavior becomes "hate". Good faith decisions made based on the best available information become a lie, if the information turns out to be wrong. It is often based in a completely biased perspective. An example is much of the reporting in the mainstream news media today that treats liberal and non-Judeo Christian religions positively or negative events with "kid gloves" with slanting the exact opposite direction for Judeo-Christian and politically conservative perspectives. Proverbs 11:1 notes, "The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight." On a more personal or individual level, sneering accusations or comments made about even the most innocuous of things like leaving a dish in the sink or perhaps about the neighbor's lawn getting a "wee bit" long also manifest a spirit of malice.
Often, a malicious self-righteousness can be concealed. Proverbs 26:23 declares, "Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart." Proverbs 26:24-26 adds, "A malicious man disguises himself with his lips...His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly."
*Despisers of those that are good. This seems confusing! Why would anyone despise those that are good? The answer is in the wickedness of the human heart, according to Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Personally, I have had my integrity questioned while taking a stand against homosexuality, even being lectured, condemned, or ridiculed by people claiming to be "born again" Christians. While working for a traditional marriage amendment, I received unexpected resistance from Christians, perhaps manifesting the true condition of their heart. The refrain sometimes heard was, "We don't want to close the door on talking to people about Jesus" or "We just need to love on people, not judge." This sounds quite spiritual, on first hearing, but if someone is truly repentant then the truth should be welcome, not offensive. Also, while seeking petitions for an amendment defending traditional marriage, one man asked me, "Is that what Jesus would do?" Apparently, he thought a little guilt would work; he may have felt I would be easily manipulated by appealing to the "nice Christian" stereotype. However, in Matthew 5:13 Jesus said believers are "...the salt of the earth..." We should take a stand and be bold for righteousness (Proverbs 28:1 and Matthew 5:10) and realize that love rejoices in the truth (I Corinthians 13:6) and not in what is "positive."
*Having a form of godliness but denying its power. In other words, a religious spirit. This is the same self-righteousness found among the Pharisees in Jesus' day. They made doctrine of the traditions of men while ignoring the commands of God (Mark 7:8). The same thing can happen in Christian denominations today, making the denomination, church or ministry's vision more important than the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ. And, making up "new" human commands that stray from the Word of God; a list of "dos" and "don'ts" that elaborate on one aspect of the truth but ignore another. Today, many churches, organizations or even governments are attempting to develop a false righteousness based on church attendance, "getting along" with others, social justice, preventing "climate change," multi-culturalism, or universal health care to name a few "virtues".
These traits and others also noted in II Timothy 3:1-5 are the breeding ground for a malicious attitude.
Malice manifests specifically in a few different forms:
*It can be what the psychologists call "passive-aggressive" behavior, or intentionally stonewalling or procrastinating to get even for past misdeeds.
*Christians can maintain, "I don't have a malicious bone in my body" but sin is present in all of us. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." according to Romans 3:23.
*Malice often rises to the surface when one person's misfortune knocks at the door of a "friend" or family member who is at ease (Job 12:5). In such a situation, when relations were more "equal" there may have been something said or done that was mildly offensive (perhaps an unpopular political belief or religious doctrine was raised or even a favorite football team was knocked). Nothing was said but over time such a conversation may have festered. Now, the "offender" of the past has become the one in need. My experience tells me that malice can manifest in the form of weak excuses such as "we don't know each other that well" or "...can you try the church before you ask me for help", etc.
*Such rationalizations are often invented to avoid having to help. Also, in such times a "morally superior" person may feel the need to "teach a lesson", as it were.
Sometimes, such a person may feel the need to "pay back" on behalf of another. The "offender" may have made what was deemed to be an "unloving" comment, actually the sort of blunt truth that Jesus used when he called the Pharisees, "whitewashed tombs." Nonetheless, it may be deemed appropriate for the "offender" to be "punished" with a withheld favor or request because of an offended sibling, cousin, friend, child or spouse, etc.
*Or perhaps a job or character reference is sought. In reply such a malicious person may feign that he does not know the person "all that well". Perhaps the language would be something like, "...After reading the character reference questionnaire, I felt that they needed someone's responses that reflect a deeper understanding and knowledge of the "John Doe" that I do not know..." In actuality, all that might be required is a short conversation to gain that "knowledge". More than likely, the organization asking for the reference may not be asking for such in-depth knowledge at all. Such a person is using another "trumped-up" rationalization to avoid action.
A few other examples of malice manifested in daily life:
*At a person's "high point" in life like at a marriage, graduation, the purchase of a new car, or on a vacation the envy of another can reflect a malicious spirit. Comments like "wasn't that expensive", "do you think you should take the time off...", "...where were you" can all reflect a snotty, malicious tone or heart.
*At other times, dirty looks or glares can be given at similar good fortune. The good fortune of a righteous man or his righteous behavior can be despised as noted in II Timothy 3:1-5, "despisers of those that are good."
*Finally, malice can be manifested by assigning something wrong or immoral to what is righteous. A person who offers to pray for another may be viewed as a flake; an act of kindness is viewed with nasty suspicion, even if a clear record of prior kind deeds have been shown; or an offer to help may be given with sly intent. Actually, there may be a desire to confront, castigate, or browbeat the one seeking help and a "meeting" would truly be used for this purpose, and not to help.
These are all the hallmarks of a malicious spirit that again is similar to the spirit found among the religious leaders of Jesus' day who repaid Jesus by turning him over to the secular, Roman authorities of the time. Matthew 26:3 notes, "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him."
Malice is quite common even in today's America's church. Name the church or denomination and it can be present. It is a spirit marked by traits noted in II Timothy 3:1-5. Among the traits noted are:
*False accusation. Accusations based in a standard of morality not based in the Bible so the "rebukes" are counterfeit. It magnifies negatives...valid criticism of immoral behavior becomes "hate". Good faith decisions made based on the best available information become a lie, if the information turns out to be wrong. It is often based in a completely biased perspective. An example is much of the reporting in the mainstream news media today that treats liberal and non-Judeo Christian religions positively or negative events with "kid gloves" with slanting the exact opposite direction for Judeo-Christian and politically conservative perspectives. Proverbs 11:1 notes, "The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight." On a more personal or individual level, sneering accusations or comments made about even the most innocuous of things like leaving a dish in the sink or perhaps about the neighbor's lawn getting a "wee bit" long also manifest a spirit of malice.
Often, a malicious self-righteousness can be concealed. Proverbs 26:23 declares, "Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart." Proverbs 26:24-26 adds, "A malicious man disguises himself with his lips...His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly."
*Despisers of those that are good. This seems confusing! Why would anyone despise those that are good? The answer is in the wickedness of the human heart, according to Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Personally, I have had my integrity questioned while taking a stand against homosexuality, even being lectured, condemned, or ridiculed by people claiming to be "born again" Christians. While working for a traditional marriage amendment, I received unexpected resistance from Christians, perhaps manifesting the true condition of their heart. The refrain sometimes heard was, "We don't want to close the door on talking to people about Jesus" or "We just need to love on people, not judge." This sounds quite spiritual, on first hearing, but if someone is truly repentant then the truth should be welcome, not offensive. Also, while seeking petitions for an amendment defending traditional marriage, one man asked me, "Is that what Jesus would do?" Apparently, he thought a little guilt would work; he may have felt I would be easily manipulated by appealing to the "nice Christian" stereotype. However, in Matthew 5:13 Jesus said believers are "...the salt of the earth..." We should take a stand and be bold for righteousness (Proverbs 28:1 and Matthew 5:10) and realize that love rejoices in the truth (I Corinthians 13:6) and not in what is "positive."
*Having a form of godliness but denying its power. In other words, a religious spirit. This is the same self-righteousness found among the Pharisees in Jesus' day. They made doctrine of the traditions of men while ignoring the commands of God (Mark 7:8). The same thing can happen in Christian denominations today, making the denomination, church or ministry's vision more important than the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ. And, making up "new" human commands that stray from the Word of God; a list of "dos" and "don'ts" that elaborate on one aspect of the truth but ignore another. Today, many churches, organizations or even governments are attempting to develop a false righteousness based on church attendance, "getting along" with others, social justice, preventing "climate change," multi-culturalism, or universal health care to name a few "virtues".
These traits and others also noted in II Timothy 3:1-5 are the breeding ground for a malicious attitude.
Malice manifests specifically in a few different forms:
*It can be what the psychologists call "passive-aggressive" behavior, or intentionally stonewalling or procrastinating to get even for past misdeeds.
*Christians can maintain, "I don't have a malicious bone in my body" but sin is present in all of us. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." according to Romans 3:23.
*Malice often rises to the surface when one person's misfortune knocks at the door of a "friend" or family member who is at ease (Job 12:5). In such a situation, when relations were more "equal" there may have been something said or done that was mildly offensive (perhaps an unpopular political belief or religious doctrine was raised or even a favorite football team was knocked). Nothing was said but over time such a conversation may have festered. Now, the "offender" of the past has become the one in need. My experience tells me that malice can manifest in the form of weak excuses such as "we don't know each other that well" or "...can you try the church before you ask me for help", etc.
*Such rationalizations are often invented to avoid having to help. Also, in such times a "morally superior" person may feel the need to "teach a lesson", as it were.
Sometimes, such a person may feel the need to "pay back" on behalf of another. The "offender" may have made what was deemed to be an "unloving" comment, actually the sort of blunt truth that Jesus used when he called the Pharisees, "whitewashed tombs." Nonetheless, it may be deemed appropriate for the "offender" to be "punished" with a withheld favor or request because of an offended sibling, cousin, friend, child or spouse, etc.
*Or perhaps a job or character reference is sought. In reply such a malicious person may feign that he does not know the person "all that well". Perhaps the language would be something like, "...After reading the character reference questionnaire, I felt that they needed someone's responses that reflect a deeper understanding and knowledge of the "John Doe" that I do not know..." In actuality, all that might be required is a short conversation to gain that "knowledge". More than likely, the organization asking for the reference may not be asking for such in-depth knowledge at all. Such a person is using another "trumped-up" rationalization to avoid action.
A few other examples of malice manifested in daily life:
*At a person's "high point" in life like at a marriage, graduation, the purchase of a new car, or on a vacation the envy of another can reflect a malicious spirit. Comments like "wasn't that expensive", "do you think you should take the time off...", "...where were you" can all reflect a snotty, malicious tone or heart.
*At other times, dirty looks or glares can be given at similar good fortune. The good fortune of a righteous man or his righteous behavior can be despised as noted in II Timothy 3:1-5, "despisers of those that are good."
*Finally, malice can be manifested by assigning something wrong or immoral to what is righteous. A person who offers to pray for another may be viewed as a flake; an act of kindness is viewed with nasty suspicion, even if a clear record of prior kind deeds have been shown; or an offer to help may be given with sly intent. Actually, there may be a desire to confront, castigate, or browbeat the one seeking help and a "meeting" would truly be used for this purpose, and not to help.
These are all the hallmarks of a malicious spirit that again is similar to the spirit found among the religious leaders of Jesus' day who repaid Jesus by turning him over to the secular, Roman authorities of the time. Matthew 26:3 notes, "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him."
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A time of progress or a time of a curse?
Days before Christmas, offering a slap in the face to true Christians who believe the truth of the Bible, Obama declared this was a "time of progress" due to the sad fact that Congress had overturned the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military. The strongest opposing argument I heard against lifting the ban was given by former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum when he said it would basically marginalize "people of faith" more. I agree. Sadly, most of the opposition on the Republican side has been to ask for more time for the military to study the matter.
Now given the fact that Christian military chaplains have had difficulty being allowed to "serve openly" in the military by being forbidden from praying in Jesus' name, one would think that should lead people who claim to know their God to become troubled, you'd think, or perhaps indignant, or be moved to action per Daniel 11:32. On the contrary, it seems a number of Republicans and Christians have embraced or ignored lifting the ban. They want to be magnanimous or gracious or they just wanted to be appeasers I guess. Even conservatives seem to think that "gays in the military" is a minor issue. They are sadly mistaken. The issue goes to the heart of the nation's founding as a place for freedom of worship. The federal government has flunked the test in God's eyes.
Sadly, this misguided magnanimous, "loving" approach is shared my many Christians as they fall over themselves talking about God's love. Blah, blah, blah, blah. What nonsense! Many American Christians think God is loving and gracious and He will just go on blessing America because, well you know "God is just that way", they think. Their sloppy "God is love" theology forgets that I Corinthians 13:6 NIV notes that "...love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." I can almost see the "love" I would get from many Christians if I quoted such a verse, such as the Methodists or United Church of Christ folks.
Surprisingly, many Christians who know better would often likewise turn surly or lecture a bold Christian for getting upset about an issue like "gays" in the military. However, the same "loving", self controlled Christian would get upset if someone didn't spay/neuter their cat, or if they didn't get an iPad for Christmas, or about another "pressing" issue like allowing wolves to be reintroduced into Yellowstone Park because it might affect their elk hunting results. Still others might get offended if someone doesn't continue attending their "clique" church or small group after a few visits because of the superficial faith or lack of true love. But to be offended that morality is being turned on its head in the USA, what's the big deal? "Manage your anger" or "calm down" they hypocritically advise. God loves gays too right? The attitude seems to be, "Don't bother me with that". Actually this reflects an Americanized dumbed-down theology based in soft virtues like love and mercy and compassion and devoid of the fear of the Lord, the basis of wisdom per Proverbs 1:7. Only, those virtues only seem to apply selectively, if at all. For example, if one is an eagerly compliant member of the "churchy" clique too often found in American churches. The Bible says in Psalm 106:29 that Israel "...provoked the Lord to anger by their wicked deeds." A word search on wicked and angry shows that God does get angry at wickedness. His mercy is not to be presumed upon, as a given, glossing over sin. It is received after sincere repentance for sin.
The USA is begging God for His judgment on this once great nation. Obama is leading, no "progressing", in his words, this nation right over a cliff. Perhaps, Republicans voting for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" wanted to get invited to Obama's next state dinner? Judgment isn't a nice topic for many Americans and American "Christians" to consider, especially if they're the ones being judged. However, Proverbs 18:5 notes that "It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice." The U.S. military is now doing both. If Americans would take off their rose-colored politically correct glasses and studied for parallels in the Bible such as Sodom and Gomorrah the future doesn't look bright.
Has American forgotten God? A lot more people are saying "Merry Christmas" this year but it seems this "faith" is superficial because if it were sincere then there would be sincere national outrage at the favoritism shown to the wicked after lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which was hardly an onerous burden on homosexuals anyway. Psalm 9:17 notes, "The wicked return to the grave;all the nations that forget God."
Now given the fact that Christian military chaplains have had difficulty being allowed to "serve openly" in the military by being forbidden from praying in Jesus' name, one would think that should lead people who claim to know their God to become troubled, you'd think, or perhaps indignant, or be moved to action per Daniel 11:32. On the contrary, it seems a number of Republicans and Christians have embraced or ignored lifting the ban. They want to be magnanimous or gracious or they just wanted to be appeasers I guess. Even conservatives seem to think that "gays in the military" is a minor issue. They are sadly mistaken. The issue goes to the heart of the nation's founding as a place for freedom of worship. The federal government has flunked the test in God's eyes.
Sadly, this misguided magnanimous, "loving" approach is shared my many Christians as they fall over themselves talking about God's love. Blah, blah, blah, blah. What nonsense! Many American Christians think God is loving and gracious and He will just go on blessing America because, well you know "God is just that way", they think. Their sloppy "God is love" theology forgets that I Corinthians 13:6 NIV notes that "...love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." I can almost see the "love" I would get from many Christians if I quoted such a verse, such as the Methodists or United Church of Christ folks.
Surprisingly, many Christians who know better would often likewise turn surly or lecture a bold Christian for getting upset about an issue like "gays" in the military. However, the same "loving", self controlled Christian would get upset if someone didn't spay/neuter their cat, or if they didn't get an iPad for Christmas, or about another "pressing" issue like allowing wolves to be reintroduced into Yellowstone Park because it might affect their elk hunting results. Still others might get offended if someone doesn't continue attending their "clique" church or small group after a few visits because of the superficial faith or lack of true love. But to be offended that morality is being turned on its head in the USA, what's the big deal? "Manage your anger" or "calm down" they hypocritically advise. God loves gays too right? The attitude seems to be, "Don't bother me with that". Actually this reflects an Americanized dumbed-down theology based in soft virtues like love and mercy and compassion and devoid of the fear of the Lord, the basis of wisdom per Proverbs 1:7. Only, those virtues only seem to apply selectively, if at all. For example, if one is an eagerly compliant member of the "churchy" clique too often found in American churches. The Bible says in Psalm 106:29 that Israel "...provoked the Lord to anger by their wicked deeds." A word search on wicked and angry shows that God does get angry at wickedness. His mercy is not to be presumed upon, as a given, glossing over sin. It is received after sincere repentance for sin.
The USA is begging God for His judgment on this once great nation. Obama is leading, no "progressing", in his words, this nation right over a cliff. Perhaps, Republicans voting for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" wanted to get invited to Obama's next state dinner? Judgment isn't a nice topic for many Americans and American "Christians" to consider, especially if they're the ones being judged. However, Proverbs 18:5 notes that "It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice." The U.S. military is now doing both. If Americans would take off their rose-colored politically correct glasses and studied for parallels in the Bible such as Sodom and Gomorrah the future doesn't look bright.
Has American forgotten God? A lot more people are saying "Merry Christmas" this year but it seems this "faith" is superficial because if it were sincere then there would be sincere national outrage at the favoritism shown to the wicked after lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which was hardly an onerous burden on homosexuals anyway. Psalm 9:17 notes, "The wicked return to the grave;all the nations that forget God."
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Is Islam Subject to Examination?
The following post is about the religion (or some may say the ideology) of Islam.
The growth of Islam is a trend that will likely affect many now and into the future. Furthermore, there is a peculiar trend in the West.
It seems Islam is often given a "pass" when there are glaring problems (vicious intolerance and bigotry, deceit, anti-Semitism, terrorism, and violence to name a few)with the so-called religion of peace. So, I guess this posting is also about "equal time." The news media, politicians, and religious leaders aren't telling the whole story. Some may call this posting bigoted, "Islamophobic," hateful, etc. etc. I would call it integrity and telling the truth. That seems to be a bit out of fashion these days. If the same folks wish to call their own critiques of Christianity and Christian leaders bigoted or "Christophobic" or "truthophobic" then I might be willing to listen to their glaring "double standard."
Christianity is often given a "rectal exam" on all fronts on rather petty, "out of context," Old Testament issues that aren't practiced by any modern denomination of Christians or Jews, for that matter, such as slavery or stoning of sinners. However, to my knowledge those two practices can be found in the Islamic world. Also, I don't recall seeing coverage recently of a Christian leader like Pat Robertson, the Pope, or any pastor sponsoring a terrorist attack on innocent women and children. Also, it seems Muslims are allowed to practice their religion quite freely in the USA, Canada, or Europe. However, again, we seem to have a little intolerance issue over in the Islamic world toward Christians and Jews.
So this posting endeavors to pose some tough questions for Islam. Perhaps, Muslims and misguided secularists and Christians might consider those before looking foolish in their critique of the absolute truth of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Some of the following questions have been answered extensively and others less so. This posting has been adapted from a letter to the editor I wrote back in 2003.
In the highly charged days since 9/11/01 a curious development is occurring. While our nation's Christian heritage is being eroded by secular humanism, false religions, apostate Christianity, and gross immorality, Islam is treated with "kid gloves." While Muslims clearly have the right to practice their religion(it should be noted Christians often don't in Islamic nations), I would like to ask some difficult questions about Islam and the prevailing misguided ecumenical approach to religion:
Why, in these times of increased terrorism in which the perpetrators are largely Muslim, is there not a greater scrutiny of the beliefs of this allegedly great religion? If it is the truth then it should withstand objective examination.
Are Islam and Christianity basically alike? This belief may feed "feel-good" secular values but that claim is nonsense. The Bible and the Koran are fundamentally different even though there may be superficial similarities. Islam radically and falsely claims Jesus was not even crucified, let alone risen from the dead and it further claims that Allah (not the true God) has not begotten a Son. Islam makes the false and blasphemous claim that Allah is the God of all human beings. Islam also "rejects the idea of trinity or such a unity of God which implies more than one God in one." According to my research, Allah is the moon god. In a televised teaching, Dr. Pat Robertson, noted that it seems that Allah resembles the false god, Baal that the Philistines worshipped in Old Testament times. I concur with Robertson. So there you go, even Islamic adherents recognize the inherent difference in the religions. They can't both be right! It's appalling that most Americans who claim to be Christian cave in the face of the false claims of Islam. I am confident that the god of this world, Satan, is ultimately behind this phenomenon.
Isn't Islam diametrically opposed to Christianity or antichrist? Despite the deceit by some Muslims and secular liberals about Christians, Jews, and Muslims being "people of the book" they are fundamentally at odds. As noted previously, Islam brazenly denies the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. I John 2:22-23 NIV declares, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Sone has the Father also." I am confident that the final antichrist will hail from an Islamic nation. According to my understanding of the book of Daniel, it seems he will come from Syria or a nation in that vicinity.
Is Islam truly inclusive, tolerant, and a religion of peace? The objective evidence responds with a resounding "No". Some American teens might say "whad ever". In Islamic countries it is a crime in many cases, for a Muslim to convert to another religion. Christians and Jews are treated like 2nd class citizens in these places. In the nation of Saudi Arabia, Christians and Jews are not even allowed in the supposedly holy city of Mecca. Also, in my personal experience, I was arrogantly rebuffed when I inquired about offering biblically-based consulting services in Saudi Arabia.
Is Islam being taught in some schools and universities while the mere mention of
Jesus makes many people uncomfortable? I would submit that the fundamental reason is that some liberals and secularists in the USA, as well as in other western nations, are truly "brothers of antichrist" under the skin with misguided Muslims. Is it possible that Osama bin Laden represents the true Islam? That seems obvious. But what about so-called moderate Muslims. In my own personal experience with a Muslim of Kurdish origin (a man many would describe as a moderate Muslim), I found a similar intolerance to truth. I invited this man to a Easter Sunday service years ago. This gentle, low-key man became visibly irritated. He said that Jesus did not even die on a cross. That reflects the true belief of Islam. I would say he is a "lukewarm" Muslim like many "lukewarm" Christians because he barely knew the Koran (couldn't point to one favorite verse). He further boasted that back in his native Kurdish Iraq his people often celebrated with Christians. However, you only had to scratch the surface to reveal his true colors. He became angry when I suggested that Allah was the moon god. I pointed out the fact that many Islamic nations had a moon on their flags. He couldn't respond except to get angry at me and accuse me of harassment.
Why can't an Islamic nation sustain democracy and liberty? I may stand corrected here. Turkey was doing it but it seems to be the exception, and definitely not the rule. Recently, even Turkey as adopted a fundamentalist Islamic approach. I have a theory about Turkey. My belief is that Islamic countries are under the tyranny of Islam, and ultimately Satan. I feel for these poor people. The Bible notes in II Corinthians 3:17 NIV, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." There is not freedom in Islamic countries because they restrict the true religion, Christianity.
Was Mohammed a pedophile and a bit of a terrorist himself? Did he deal deceitfully with his own tribe? According to my research, this is the case. I would encourage those who have the courage to accept the truth to research that one themselves.
If Islam is such a peaceful religion why hasn't there been an Islamic outcry against the suicide bombings against Israel and America? The short answer seems to be fear. Muslims, who know better, are afraid to speak out. Christians and Jews are infidels, at least when they aren't trying to deceive gullible American liberals with the "people of the book" nonsense. As the world is heading toward the final return of Jesus Christ, many will be hardened in their unbelief. The man of sin or the antichrist will precede Jesus' return, arriving as a counterfeit Messiah. Many Muslims may consider him their Messiah, or Mahdi. Again, this shows that Islam and Christianity are diametrically opposed. II Thessalonians 2:912 NIV notes, "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." Therefore, the antichrist will be God's judgment on an unbelieving world. Many in the western world who have rejected the freedom and truth of Jesus will be punished through the Antichrist.
The growth of Islam is a trend that will likely affect many now and into the future. Furthermore, there is a peculiar trend in the West.
It seems Islam is often given a "pass" when there are glaring problems (vicious intolerance and bigotry, deceit, anti-Semitism, terrorism, and violence to name a few)with the so-called religion of peace. So, I guess this posting is also about "equal time." The news media, politicians, and religious leaders aren't telling the whole story. Some may call this posting bigoted, "Islamophobic," hateful, etc. etc. I would call it integrity and telling the truth. That seems to be a bit out of fashion these days. If the same folks wish to call their own critiques of Christianity and Christian leaders bigoted or "Christophobic" or "truthophobic" then I might be willing to listen to their glaring "double standard."
Christianity is often given a "rectal exam" on all fronts on rather petty, "out of context," Old Testament issues that aren't practiced by any modern denomination of Christians or Jews, for that matter, such as slavery or stoning of sinners. However, to my knowledge those two practices can be found in the Islamic world. Also, I don't recall seeing coverage recently of a Christian leader like Pat Robertson, the Pope, or any pastor sponsoring a terrorist attack on innocent women and children. Also, it seems Muslims are allowed to practice their religion quite freely in the USA, Canada, or Europe. However, again, we seem to have a little intolerance issue over in the Islamic world toward Christians and Jews.
So this posting endeavors to pose some tough questions for Islam. Perhaps, Muslims and misguided secularists and Christians might consider those before looking foolish in their critique of the absolute truth of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Some of the following questions have been answered extensively and others less so. This posting has been adapted from a letter to the editor I wrote back in 2003.
In the highly charged days since 9/11/01 a curious development is occurring. While our nation's Christian heritage is being eroded by secular humanism, false religions, apostate Christianity, and gross immorality, Islam is treated with "kid gloves." While Muslims clearly have the right to practice their religion(it should be noted Christians often don't in Islamic nations), I would like to ask some difficult questions about Islam and the prevailing misguided ecumenical approach to religion:
Why, in these times of increased terrorism in which the perpetrators are largely Muslim, is there not a greater scrutiny of the beliefs of this allegedly great religion? If it is the truth then it should withstand objective examination.
Are Islam and Christianity basically alike? This belief may feed "feel-good" secular values but that claim is nonsense. The Bible and the Koran are fundamentally different even though there may be superficial similarities. Islam radically and falsely claims Jesus was not even crucified, let alone risen from the dead and it further claims that Allah (not the true God) has not begotten a Son. Islam makes the false and blasphemous claim that Allah is the God of all human beings. Islam also "rejects the idea of trinity or such a unity of God which implies more than one God in one." According to my research, Allah is the moon god. In a televised teaching, Dr. Pat Robertson, noted that it seems that Allah resembles the false god, Baal that the Philistines worshipped in Old Testament times. I concur with Robertson. So there you go, even Islamic adherents recognize the inherent difference in the religions. They can't both be right! It's appalling that most Americans who claim to be Christian cave in the face of the false claims of Islam. I am confident that the god of this world, Satan, is ultimately behind this phenomenon.
Isn't Islam diametrically opposed to Christianity or antichrist? Despite the deceit by some Muslims and secular liberals about Christians, Jews, and Muslims being "people of the book" they are fundamentally at odds. As noted previously, Islam brazenly denies the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. I John 2:22-23 NIV declares, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Sone has the Father also." I am confident that the final antichrist will hail from an Islamic nation. According to my understanding of the book of Daniel, it seems he will come from Syria or a nation in that vicinity.
Is Islam truly inclusive, tolerant, and a religion of peace? The objective evidence responds with a resounding "No". Some American teens might say "whad ever". In Islamic countries it is a crime in many cases, for a Muslim to convert to another religion. Christians and Jews are treated like 2nd class citizens in these places. In the nation of Saudi Arabia, Christians and Jews are not even allowed in the supposedly holy city of Mecca. Also, in my personal experience, I was arrogantly rebuffed when I inquired about offering biblically-based consulting services in Saudi Arabia.
Is Islam being taught in some schools and universities while the mere mention of
Jesus makes many people uncomfortable? I would submit that the fundamental reason is that some liberals and secularists in the USA, as well as in other western nations, are truly "brothers of antichrist" under the skin with misguided Muslims. Is it possible that Osama bin Laden represents the true Islam? That seems obvious. But what about so-called moderate Muslims. In my own personal experience with a Muslim of Kurdish origin (a man many would describe as a moderate Muslim), I found a similar intolerance to truth. I invited this man to a Easter Sunday service years ago. This gentle, low-key man became visibly irritated. He said that Jesus did not even die on a cross. That reflects the true belief of Islam. I would say he is a "lukewarm" Muslim like many "lukewarm" Christians because he barely knew the Koran (couldn't point to one favorite verse). He further boasted that back in his native Kurdish Iraq his people often celebrated with Christians. However, you only had to scratch the surface to reveal his true colors. He became angry when I suggested that Allah was the moon god. I pointed out the fact that many Islamic nations had a moon on their flags. He couldn't respond except to get angry at me and accuse me of harassment.
Why can't an Islamic nation sustain democracy and liberty? I may stand corrected here. Turkey was doing it but it seems to be the exception, and definitely not the rule. Recently, even Turkey as adopted a fundamentalist Islamic approach. I have a theory about Turkey. My belief is that Islamic countries are under the tyranny of Islam, and ultimately Satan. I feel for these poor people. The Bible notes in II Corinthians 3:17 NIV, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." There is not freedom in Islamic countries because they restrict the true religion, Christianity.
Was Mohammed a pedophile and a bit of a terrorist himself? Did he deal deceitfully with his own tribe? According to my research, this is the case. I would encourage those who have the courage to accept the truth to research that one themselves.
If Islam is such a peaceful religion why hasn't there been an Islamic outcry against the suicide bombings against Israel and America? The short answer seems to be fear. Muslims, who know better, are afraid to speak out. Christians and Jews are infidels, at least when they aren't trying to deceive gullible American liberals with the "people of the book" nonsense. As the world is heading toward the final return of Jesus Christ, many will be hardened in their unbelief. The man of sin or the antichrist will precede Jesus' return, arriving as a counterfeit Messiah. Many Muslims may consider him their Messiah, or Mahdi. Again, this shows that Islam and Christianity are diametrically opposed. II Thessalonians 2:912 NIV notes, "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." Therefore, the antichrist will be God's judgment on an unbelieving world. Many in the western world who have rejected the freedom and truth of Jesus will be punished through the Antichrist.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The fear of man will prove to be a snare....
...but whoever trusts in the Lord is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25.
Recently, there has been a stir about Terry Jones, pastor of Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn Qurans (see photo below for an example of a burned Quran).
Reportedly, the White House and General Petraeus in Afghanistan warned the pastor against doing so or it would cause retaliation against our troops. Petraeus felt the need to call out an American pastor exercising his right of freedom of religion all because of a protest of a whopping 500 in downtown Kabul (per the 9/7/2010 issue of abcnews.go.com). Was it the protest or fear of what might happen or is Petraeus a coward or a pagan himself? This pastor was a modern-day Gideon. Sadly, due to the blind state of the American church and government he was not recognized.
Islam is an evil religion;it resembles the Baal worship practiced by the Philistines. Allah is the moon god, not the true God. Mohammad was no prophet, except a false one. The Muslims have no problem burning our flag or the true Word of God, the Bible. They treat Christians and Jews like dirt. Yet Americans, don't seem to mind that;seems to prove that the American "faith" is pretty superficial, does it not. But burn the Koran! That gets Americans upset. Perhaps, most Americans are pagan cousins of Muslims, despite their self-righteous church attendance.
Yet, the generals in the so-called "home of the brave" have to try to silence an obscure pastor here in America in order to appease the pagan, Islamic radicals. It is nauseating. Sadly, this pastor caved today, a few days before the Koran burning. Even sadder, barely a voice rose to his defense. Rush Limbaugh, not even a preacher, seemed strongest saying he had the right to burn Korans. Saddest of all, Pastor Terry Jones is now going to meet with the Imam in New York City, building the victory monument (claims to be a Community Center) near Ground Zero.
Perhaps, the Lord is testing America. Our motto is, "In God We Trust." It appears that is nonsense. Perhaps the Lord was in this matter as a final test for this nation. The appeasement of Islamic radicals by the world's only remaining superpower is pitiful. Our guns are bigger than theirs. Yet, me must appease them in order to fulfill some misguided Obama mission or reach out to their belligerant nature. Didn't anyone learn a lesson from Neville Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler?
According to Proverbs 29:25, "the fear of man will prove to be a snare..." Sadly,
I fear the Lord will bring major judgment to this nation because we wouldn't stand against Islamic hate and He will laugh at our destruction. Proverbs 1:22-33 NIV is a relevant passage. Specifically, Proverbs 1:25-26NIV notes, "...since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you like a storm."
As a reminder, the Lord will curse those who curse me (Genesis 12:3) and see Psalm 105:15 for a warning against those who would touch the Lord's truly anointed. Keep that in mind and keep your hostility to yourself or the Lord will punish you. Bye now.
Recently, there has been a stir about Terry Jones, pastor of Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn Qurans (see photo below for an example of a burned Quran).
Reportedly, the White House and General Petraeus in Afghanistan warned the pastor against doing so or it would cause retaliation against our troops. Petraeus felt the need to call out an American pastor exercising his right of freedom of religion all because of a protest of a whopping 500 in downtown Kabul (per the 9/7/2010 issue of abcnews.go.com). Was it the protest or fear of what might happen or is Petraeus a coward or a pagan himself? This pastor was a modern-day Gideon. Sadly, due to the blind state of the American church and government he was not recognized.
Islam is an evil religion;it resembles the Baal worship practiced by the Philistines. Allah is the moon god, not the true God. Mohammad was no prophet, except a false one. The Muslims have no problem burning our flag or the true Word of God, the Bible. They treat Christians and Jews like dirt. Yet Americans, don't seem to mind that;seems to prove that the American "faith" is pretty superficial, does it not. But burn the Koran! That gets Americans upset. Perhaps, most Americans are pagan cousins of Muslims, despite their self-righteous church attendance.
Yet, the generals in the so-called "home of the brave" have to try to silence an obscure pastor here in America in order to appease the pagan, Islamic radicals. It is nauseating. Sadly, this pastor caved today, a few days before the Koran burning. Even sadder, barely a voice rose to his defense. Rush Limbaugh, not even a preacher, seemed strongest saying he had the right to burn Korans. Saddest of all, Pastor Terry Jones is now going to meet with the Imam in New York City, building the victory monument (claims to be a Community Center) near Ground Zero.
Perhaps, the Lord is testing America. Our motto is, "In God We Trust." It appears that is nonsense. Perhaps the Lord was in this matter as a final test for this nation. The appeasement of Islamic radicals by the world's only remaining superpower is pitiful. Our guns are bigger than theirs. Yet, me must appease them in order to fulfill some misguided Obama mission or reach out to their belligerant nature. Didn't anyone learn a lesson from Neville Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler?
According to Proverbs 29:25, "the fear of man will prove to be a snare..." Sadly,
I fear the Lord will bring major judgment to this nation because we wouldn't stand against Islamic hate and He will laugh at our destruction. Proverbs 1:22-33 NIV is a relevant passage. Specifically, Proverbs 1:25-26NIV notes, "...since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you like a storm."
As a reminder, the Lord will curse those who curse me (Genesis 12:3) and see Psalm 105:15 for a warning against those who would touch the Lord's truly anointed. Keep that in mind and keep your hostility to yourself or the Lord will punish you. Bye now.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Announcing an Antichrist information web site
Daniel D. O'Hara is writing a book entitled, "The Dawning Age of Deceit" as an ongoing project. He is currently writing and researching the Antichrist chapter. As that chapter progresses the content, done in a question and answer format will be uploaded to www.antichristinfo.blogspot.com.
Your tax deductible donations to Lion's Den Society are encouraged so Daniel can continue his work on this timely project. You can mail contributions to:
Lion's Den Society
P.O. Box 1064
Laurel, MT 59044
Your tax deductible donations to Lion's Den Society are encouraged so Daniel can continue his work on this timely project. You can mail contributions to:
Lion's Den Society
P.O. Box 1064
Laurel, MT 59044
Monday, January 18, 2010
Obama to guarantee strategic territory to Palestineans, including East Jerusalem within 2 years
From Prophecy News Watch's 1/15/2010 e-newsletter which in turn sourced
www.wnd.com for the content of this article:
President Obama is planning to issue a letter in the next few weeks guaranteeing U.S. support for a plan to give much of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem to Palestinians within two years, WND has learned.
The presidential letter is slated to stress U.S. commitments to Israeli security as well.
It would state the final borders of a Palestinian country will be determined by direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but that the U.S. supports a Palestinian state in the general 1967 borders – meaning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem.
According to a source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, the Israeli leader is pushing against a formal letter from Obama, recommending the U.S. president issue an official oral declaration instead.
The contents of the letter are being discussed by Israelis with both Egypt and the U.S. and separately by the Palestinian Authority with Egypt and the U.S. Egypt is a key broker in the matter.
WND has learned that on Monday Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad was in Egypt on a secret visit to discuss Israeli-Palestinian talks as well as the content of Obama's future declaration.
Arad's visit until now has not been reported by the news media.
But earlier this week, WND reported that Middle East security and diplomatic officials said Israel and the Palestinian Authority are negotiating indirectly via the U.S., Jordan and Egypt to outline a future Palestinian state that would encompass Jerusalem.
Popular perception has it that talks between Israel and the PA are stalled over a Palestinian demand that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extend a 10-month West Bank settlement freeze to include Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.
On Wednesday, Netanyahu's office released a statement declaring the prime minister would "never" cede control of united Jerusalem nor retreat to the 1967 borders, referring to an evacuation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. The statement came after Egypt's foreign minister said in Cairo last week Netanyahu was ready to discuss making "Arab Jerusalem" the capital of a Palestinian state.
According to Middle East security and diplomatic officials, however, Netanyahu's statement may be misleading unless he meant he would not retreat to the exact 1967 lines. Those officials, from Egypt, Jordan, the PA and Israel, told WND in separate interviews over the course of the last few weeks that Israel is in advanced stages of outlining a future Palestinian state that would encompass most of the West Bank. Also, Jerusalem is being discussed between Israel and members of the Obama administration, the officials said.
To point out the advanced levels of the current talks, a PA official told WND that a visit next week by President Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, will center around security arrangements for a future Palestinian state in the West Bank.
The arrangements may include a contingent of Jordanian troops in the strategic territory as well as private Palestinian firms and international soldiers participating in patrolling the Palestinian side of a future border, the official said.
Regarding international forces, one Jordanian security source said there are "very serious talks about bringing international forces to the borders between the West Bank and Israel, especially the Jordan Valley, where the Israelis would have security guarantees from an international force working in collaboration with the Palestinians."
Officially, White House spokesman Mike Hammer said that in his consultations, Jones "will discuss the full range of regional challenges and opportunities at this critical time in the Middle East."
According to the Middle East security officials, Netanyahu agreed in principal to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders – the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. However, Israel would retain what are known as major settlement blocks, including Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim.
The officials said the formula, established under Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, would call for a 100 percent territorial exchange, meaning that any West Bank Jewish communities retained by Israel would be compensated to the PA using other land, such as territory in the Israeli Negev alongside the Gaza Strip.
Status of Jerusalem up for talks
With regard to Jerusalem, talks between the U.S. and Israel are in their infancy.
The officials from the Obama administration most publicly identified with brokering Israeli-Palestinian talks include Jones and Obama's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, George Mitchell. However, WND has learned Dennis Ross, an Obama foreign policy adviser who served as Mideast envoy to the Clinton administration, is actively engaged in brokering a deal regarding Jerusalem.
Israeli diplomatic sources said Ross wants to use the formula established under the Clinton administration that would see Jewish sections of Jerusalem becoming Israeli while areas largely inhabited by Arabs would become Palestinian. About 100,000 Arabs live illegally on Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.
The fact that the talks are ongoing through mediators leaves Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas open to declaring that there are no direct negotiations.
Israeli leaders in the recent past claimed talks were not occurring or did not include certain territories only later to admit the territory in question had been ceded in secret negotiations.
After months of denials the status of Jerusalem was on the table during negotiations, Olmert's office finally confirmed in August 2008 that Jerusalem had been included in talks. Also, weeks before he departed office, Olmert gave an interview to Israel's leading daily, Yediot Aharonot, admitting that during negotiations he offered Abbas 94 percent of the West Bank and peripheral areas of eastern Jerusalem. Olmert's office repeatedly had denied such talks.
Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ran for office in 2000 on the very election platform that he would not withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Sharon was running against Amram Mitzneh, a leader of Israel's leftist Labor party who had pledged to evacuate Gaza. In 2004, Sharon did an about face and announced his Gaza disengagement policy. One year later, Sharon pulled all Jewish communities out of the Gaza Strip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary from Daniel O'Hara of the Lion's Den Society on this news:
Mr. Obama is endangering the USA and his own Presidency's future by cursing Israel in this treacherous manner according to Genesis 12:3. True believers should pray against Obama's policies (Psalm 35) and for Israel and Jerusalem's protection and peace (Psalm 122:6-7). Sadly, Israel's own leaders are giving into American, Arab and global pressure. Pray for mercy on Prime Minister Netanyahu and make Israel the head and not the tail in this regard.
www.wnd.com for the content of this article:
President Obama is planning to issue a letter in the next few weeks guaranteeing U.S. support for a plan to give much of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem to Palestinians within two years, WND has learned.
The presidential letter is slated to stress U.S. commitments to Israeli security as well.
It would state the final borders of a Palestinian country will be determined by direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but that the U.S. supports a Palestinian state in the general 1967 borders – meaning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem.
According to a source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, the Israeli leader is pushing against a formal letter from Obama, recommending the U.S. president issue an official oral declaration instead.
The contents of the letter are being discussed by Israelis with both Egypt and the U.S. and separately by the Palestinian Authority with Egypt and the U.S. Egypt is a key broker in the matter.
WND has learned that on Monday Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad was in Egypt on a secret visit to discuss Israeli-Palestinian talks as well as the content of Obama's future declaration.
Arad's visit until now has not been reported by the news media.
But earlier this week, WND reported that Middle East security and diplomatic officials said Israel and the Palestinian Authority are negotiating indirectly via the U.S., Jordan and Egypt to outline a future Palestinian state that would encompass Jerusalem.
Popular perception has it that talks between Israel and the PA are stalled over a Palestinian demand that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extend a 10-month West Bank settlement freeze to include Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.
On Wednesday, Netanyahu's office released a statement declaring the prime minister would "never" cede control of united Jerusalem nor retreat to the 1967 borders, referring to an evacuation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. The statement came after Egypt's foreign minister said in Cairo last week Netanyahu was ready to discuss making "Arab Jerusalem" the capital of a Palestinian state.
According to Middle East security and diplomatic officials, however, Netanyahu's statement may be misleading unless he meant he would not retreat to the exact 1967 lines. Those officials, from Egypt, Jordan, the PA and Israel, told WND in separate interviews over the course of the last few weeks that Israel is in advanced stages of outlining a future Palestinian state that would encompass most of the West Bank. Also, Jerusalem is being discussed between Israel and members of the Obama administration, the officials said.
To point out the advanced levels of the current talks, a PA official told WND that a visit next week by President Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, will center around security arrangements for a future Palestinian state in the West Bank.
The arrangements may include a contingent of Jordanian troops in the strategic territory as well as private Palestinian firms and international soldiers participating in patrolling the Palestinian side of a future border, the official said.
Regarding international forces, one Jordanian security source said there are "very serious talks about bringing international forces to the borders between the West Bank and Israel, especially the Jordan Valley, where the Israelis would have security guarantees from an international force working in collaboration with the Palestinians."
Officially, White House spokesman Mike Hammer said that in his consultations, Jones "will discuss the full range of regional challenges and opportunities at this critical time in the Middle East."
According to the Middle East security officials, Netanyahu agreed in principal to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders – the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. However, Israel would retain what are known as major settlement blocks, including Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim.
The officials said the formula, established under Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, would call for a 100 percent territorial exchange, meaning that any West Bank Jewish communities retained by Israel would be compensated to the PA using other land, such as territory in the Israeli Negev alongside the Gaza Strip.
Status of Jerusalem up for talks
With regard to Jerusalem, talks between the U.S. and Israel are in their infancy.
The officials from the Obama administration most publicly identified with brokering Israeli-Palestinian talks include Jones and Obama's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, George Mitchell. However, WND has learned Dennis Ross, an Obama foreign policy adviser who served as Mideast envoy to the Clinton administration, is actively engaged in brokering a deal regarding Jerusalem.
Israeli diplomatic sources said Ross wants to use the formula established under the Clinton administration that would see Jewish sections of Jerusalem becoming Israeli while areas largely inhabited by Arabs would become Palestinian. About 100,000 Arabs live illegally on Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.
The fact that the talks are ongoing through mediators leaves Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas open to declaring that there are no direct negotiations.
Israeli leaders in the recent past claimed talks were not occurring or did not include certain territories only later to admit the territory in question had been ceded in secret negotiations.
After months of denials the status of Jerusalem was on the table during negotiations, Olmert's office finally confirmed in August 2008 that Jerusalem had been included in talks. Also, weeks before he departed office, Olmert gave an interview to Israel's leading daily, Yediot Aharonot, admitting that during negotiations he offered Abbas 94 percent of the West Bank and peripheral areas of eastern Jerusalem. Olmert's office repeatedly had denied such talks.
Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ran for office in 2000 on the very election platform that he would not withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Sharon was running against Amram Mitzneh, a leader of Israel's leftist Labor party who had pledged to evacuate Gaza. In 2004, Sharon did an about face and announced his Gaza disengagement policy. One year later, Sharon pulled all Jewish communities out of the Gaza Strip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary from Daniel O'Hara of the Lion's Den Society on this news:
Mr. Obama is endangering the USA and his own Presidency's future by cursing Israel in this treacherous manner according to Genesis 12:3. True believers should pray against Obama's policies (Psalm 35) and for Israel and Jerusalem's protection and peace (Psalm 122:6-7). Sadly, Israel's own leaders are giving into American, Arab and global pressure. Pray for mercy on Prime Minister Netanyahu and make Israel the head and not the tail in this regard.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Lessons from Climategate: When Science Becomes Religion
*Source: www.prophecynewswatch.com 12/10/09 e-newsletter. Please note that Prophecy News Watch sourced this article from http://news.yahoo.com. Used under the Fair Use Rules of the U.S. Copyright Law.
What can we learn from Climategate -- i.e., the scandal in which hacked e-mails revealed apparent attempts by official climate scientists to manufacture a consensus on global warming by fudging with the data and punishing dissidents?
Here's one big idea: Power corrupts.
The power to credential truth is a heady power indeed, especially. In our society, increasingly, that power lies in science alone. And so science is increasingly misused to attempt to create the kind of working public morality that every society needs.
In the process, modern liberalism risks turning science into a kind of religion, where disagreement is heresy. You can see the process at work in the hacked Climategate e-mails.
Clive Crook writes in The Atlantic Monthly blog: "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."
John Tierney, the science columnist at The New York Times, nailed it: "Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians."
This is no random accident. Every society needs public moral truths to live by. A cognitive elite that loses faith in God or rational moral truth will increasingly attempt to ground public morality in science.
On what other grounds can we justify shutting down debates and taking action that requires sacrifice of a society's members -- and punishing defections from that sacrifice?
What, for example, could possibly justify a massive global governance machine that can tell people from the U.S. to Transylvania what kind of lightbulbs we may buy or what kind of cars to drive? Why should we create a machinery that puts politicians in charge of dispensing subsidies and exemptions that permit favored industries and businessmen to stay in business, that creates a new class of carbon billionaires? What is the rational basis for a public morality than tells Pennsylvanians that using coal is a crime, but applauds China for holding down its carbon-creating population by aborting baby girls?
For liberalism, the answer has become "science." The intellectual contempt liberals routinely express for conservatives as stupid or anti-scientific is at bottom merely a reflection of liberalism's increasingly desperate attempt to misuse science to transform itself into a new public morality -- that is, a morality legitimately entitled to discipline defectors and heretics.
Scientific knowledge is still held to be "true" in a way that other forms of knowledge are not. The world is not flat. The Earth does move. Blacks are not inferior to whites. Children do not need a mom and a dad. There is no possible argument against gay marriage. If we do not establish a system of global governance to contain production and reproduction within "sustainable" bounds, the world will come to an end. Therefore, liberals get to use government power to achieve their ends over those of others. (Hint: Which of these conclusions is not like the others?)
Yet science is a particularly fragile flower of civilization, dependent on processes that may not survive the attempt to transform it into the one true basis for public morality. History has shown us that scientists are no more exempt from the corruption of power than any other human being. Under the right political conditions scientists claimed the right to experiment on black men and to torture Jews. On a much smaller level, we've seen what happens to the reliability of academic testing when schools' income depends in part on how well students score.
It was always intellectually absurd to claim that the scientific standing of global warming was anything like that of Galileo -- a climate change model that did not predict global temperatures we have experienced over the last few years can hardly be counted on accurately to predict the weather 50 years from now.
But the problem of the corruption of science into religion remains true even if the global warmongers are right. Scientific theories are inherently falsifiable. That is what makes them scientific -- and not religious or moral propositions.
Science cannot become the basis for public morality without corrupting itself in the process.
Liberalism will have to find within itself some other capacity for moral truth, for connecting reason and virtue, or retreat ultimately from any claim in the public square larger than: because I want to, because we say so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can we learn from Climategate -- i.e., the scandal in which hacked e-mails revealed apparent attempts by official climate scientists to manufacture a consensus on global warming by fudging with the data and punishing dissidents?
Here's one big idea: Power corrupts.
The power to credential truth is a heady power indeed, especially. In our society, increasingly, that power lies in science alone. And so science is increasingly misused to attempt to create the kind of working public morality that every society needs.
In the process, modern liberalism risks turning science into a kind of religion, where disagreement is heresy. You can see the process at work in the hacked Climategate e-mails.
Clive Crook writes in The Atlantic Monthly blog: "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."
John Tierney, the science columnist at The New York Times, nailed it: "Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians."
This is no random accident. Every society needs public moral truths to live by. A cognitive elite that loses faith in God or rational moral truth will increasingly attempt to ground public morality in science.
On what other grounds can we justify shutting down debates and taking action that requires sacrifice of a society's members -- and punishing defections from that sacrifice?
What, for example, could possibly justify a massive global governance machine that can tell people from the U.S. to Transylvania what kind of lightbulbs we may buy or what kind of cars to drive? Why should we create a machinery that puts politicians in charge of dispensing subsidies and exemptions that permit favored industries and businessmen to stay in business, that creates a new class of carbon billionaires? What is the rational basis for a public morality than tells Pennsylvanians that using coal is a crime, but applauds China for holding down its carbon-creating population by aborting baby girls?
For liberalism, the answer has become "science." The intellectual contempt liberals routinely express for conservatives as stupid or anti-scientific is at bottom merely a reflection of liberalism's increasingly desperate attempt to misuse science to transform itself into a new public morality -- that is, a morality legitimately entitled to discipline defectors and heretics.
Scientific knowledge is still held to be "true" in a way that other forms of knowledge are not. The world is not flat. The Earth does move. Blacks are not inferior to whites. Children do not need a mom and a dad. There is no possible argument against gay marriage. If we do not establish a system of global governance to contain production and reproduction within "sustainable" bounds, the world will come to an end. Therefore, liberals get to use government power to achieve their ends over those of others. (Hint: Which of these conclusions is not like the others?)
Yet science is a particularly fragile flower of civilization, dependent on processes that may not survive the attempt to transform it into the one true basis for public morality. History has shown us that scientists are no more exempt from the corruption of power than any other human being. Under the right political conditions scientists claimed the right to experiment on black men and to torture Jews. On a much smaller level, we've seen what happens to the reliability of academic testing when schools' income depends in part on how well students score.
It was always intellectually absurd to claim that the scientific standing of global warming was anything like that of Galileo -- a climate change model that did not predict global temperatures we have experienced over the last few years can hardly be counted on accurately to predict the weather 50 years from now.
But the problem of the corruption of science into religion remains true even if the global warmongers are right. Scientific theories are inherently falsifiable. That is what makes them scientific -- and not religious or moral propositions.
Science cannot become the basis for public morality without corrupting itself in the process.
Liberalism will have to find within itself some other capacity for moral truth, for connecting reason and virtue, or retreat ultimately from any claim in the public square larger than: because I want to, because we say so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, December 7, 2009
Is the Islamic Messiah the Antichrist?
An interesting article on this topic entitled, "Iran Mahdi and Antichrist" addresses this topic. Go to the Babylon Forsaken Ministries web site at www.babylonforsaken.com/mahdi.html.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Spiritual Difficulties, Part I
This lesson will address a few of the apparent contradictions and seemingly difficult areas of the Bible. While these passages may appear conflicting, it is important to note that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant. Hebrews 4:12 declares the Bible to be "...living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword..."
The following are three diverse examples of apparently difficult biblical teachings:
I) LONG HAIR IN MEN:
I Corinthians 11:14 NIV declares, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." This implies even a worldly sense that long hair in men just isn't "too cool of a look".
On the other hand, II Samuel 14:25a NIV notes of Absalom (David's son), "In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom."
The next verse noted that Absalom cut his hair when it "became too heavy for him." The clear implication is that Absalom had long hair and yet he was praised for his handsome appearance.
Some may say that Absalom was a rebel so he isn't a good example but I would maintain that he received such praise from men before his rebellion against his father, King David. Also, even if a guy is rebellious against his father that doesn't take away from his appearance. Another thought offered by Pastor James Jones of Lighthouse Church (Laurel, MT) is that Absalom's hair did "dishonor" him because his mane got caught in in the thick branches of an oak tree (II Samuel 18:9).
I would maintain that in youth long hair in men can be seen as handsome but as men age it typically becomes a dishonor to them (doesn't look cool anymore), i.e. no contradiction exists. I'd maintain that if a man maintains a diligent attention to his appearance and hair then the effect of I Corinthians 11:14 can be minimized.
II) CONCERNING THE POOR -
Deuteronomy 15:4 addresses the place of the poor in society, saying, "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today."
On the other hand, in Mark 14:7, Jesus responds to the self-righteousness rebuke of those criticizing a woman's extravagant use of very expensive perfume. Some said the perfume could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. This is a nauseating example of religious pomposity. Jesus replied, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want (perhaps implying that they didn't help the poor at all or only when the visible praise of others could be garnered), but you will not always have me."
The point of raising these two verses is to note the apparent conflict between the two; one verse saying "there should be no poor among you" and the other saying "the poor you will always have with you."
So what gives? Perhaps, Deuteronomy 15:4 points out the ideal condition of society. U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson tried to have a "Great Society" program in the 1960s based in government assistance; God's ideal is to have his people's hearts open to helping each other out. Jesus pointed out the unfortunate reality that due to the hardness of people's hearts and because of sin, that the poor "...you will always have with you..." This condition is much like Jesus' teaching on divorce in which he says divorce was granted (Matthew 19:8) "...because your hearts were hard."
Again, no conflict remains but different intentions are meant in each passage.
III) SHOULD PEOPLE ALWAYS LIKE YOU?
The Bible promises favor with God and man according to verses like:
*Proverbs 3:3-4 which declares, "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart, then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man."
*Psalm 5:12 notes, "For surely, O Lord, you bless the righteous; your surround them with your favor as with a shield."
However, at the same time the Bible promises that his children would be hated by the world and persecuted:
*Jesus Christ himself was hated, despised and put to death. John 15:20 NIV notes, "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also."
*As the 15th chapter of John proceeds, Jesus noted that even after the great miracles He performed, many would hate Him. Indeed, the religious leaders of the day hated Jesus Christ. John 15:25 NIV notes, "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: "They hated me without reason." Having encountered similar hate from religious leaders and ordinary people of various stripes--Freemasons, Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Foursquare Gospelites, Assembly of God-ers, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, etc. and etc.- I can identify with Jesus' statement.
But how can both be true? How can a Christian receive persecution and favor from men, perhaps even from the same person at different times.
One answer is timing. At different times a person may be motivated by different things. The faithfulness and kindness of a Christian will result in favor from bosses, co-workers, etc. in typical situations because such character traits are valued in human endeavors. However, when society's values get perverted (like it appears they are now) then the evil in human hearts becomes more manifest; favor in more rational times can yield to persecution from people led by Satan.
Just as treatment can change for the worse, it can also change for the better. Proverbs 16:7 NIV notes, "When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord He makes even His enemies live at peace with him."
It is my hope that this brief discussion will instill in those wisely interested in the things of God that the Word of God is a double-edged sword. II Timothy 2:15 NIV sums it up, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." It is important to study the Bible to be able to apply it correctly.
The following are three diverse examples of apparently difficult biblical teachings:
I) LONG HAIR IN MEN:
I Corinthians 11:14 NIV declares, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." This implies even a worldly sense that long hair in men just isn't "too cool of a look".
On the other hand, II Samuel 14:25a NIV notes of Absalom (David's son), "In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom."
The next verse noted that Absalom cut his hair when it "became too heavy for him." The clear implication is that Absalom had long hair and yet he was praised for his handsome appearance.
Some may say that Absalom was a rebel so he isn't a good example but I would maintain that he received such praise from men before his rebellion against his father, King David. Also, even if a guy is rebellious against his father that doesn't take away from his appearance. Another thought offered by Pastor James Jones of Lighthouse Church (Laurel, MT) is that Absalom's hair did "dishonor" him because his mane got caught in in the thick branches of an oak tree (II Samuel 18:9).
I would maintain that in youth long hair in men can be seen as handsome but as men age it typically becomes a dishonor to them (doesn't look cool anymore), i.e. no contradiction exists. I'd maintain that if a man maintains a diligent attention to his appearance and hair then the effect of I Corinthians 11:14 can be minimized.
II) CONCERNING THE POOR -
Deuteronomy 15:4 addresses the place of the poor in society, saying, "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today."
On the other hand, in Mark 14:7, Jesus responds to the self-righteousness rebuke of those criticizing a woman's extravagant use of very expensive perfume. Some said the perfume could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. This is a nauseating example of religious pomposity. Jesus replied, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want (perhaps implying that they didn't help the poor at all or only when the visible praise of others could be garnered), but you will not always have me."
The point of raising these two verses is to note the apparent conflict between the two; one verse saying "there should be no poor among you" and the other saying "the poor you will always have with you."
So what gives? Perhaps, Deuteronomy 15:4 points out the ideal condition of society. U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson tried to have a "Great Society" program in the 1960s based in government assistance; God's ideal is to have his people's hearts open to helping each other out. Jesus pointed out the unfortunate reality that due to the hardness of people's hearts and because of sin, that the poor "...you will always have with you..." This condition is much like Jesus' teaching on divorce in which he says divorce was granted (Matthew 19:8) "...because your hearts were hard."
Again, no conflict remains but different intentions are meant in each passage.
III) SHOULD PEOPLE ALWAYS LIKE YOU?
The Bible promises favor with God and man according to verses like:
*Proverbs 3:3-4 which declares, "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart, then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man."
*Psalm 5:12 notes, "For surely, O Lord, you bless the righteous; your surround them with your favor as with a shield."
However, at the same time the Bible promises that his children would be hated by the world and persecuted:
*Jesus Christ himself was hated, despised and put to death. John 15:20 NIV notes, "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also."
*As the 15th chapter of John proceeds, Jesus noted that even after the great miracles He performed, many would hate Him. Indeed, the religious leaders of the day hated Jesus Christ. John 15:25 NIV notes, "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: "They hated me without reason." Having encountered similar hate from religious leaders and ordinary people of various stripes--Freemasons, Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Foursquare Gospelites, Assembly of God-ers, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, etc. and etc.- I can identify with Jesus' statement.
But how can both be true? How can a Christian receive persecution and favor from men, perhaps even from the same person at different times.
One answer is timing. At different times a person may be motivated by different things. The faithfulness and kindness of a Christian will result in favor from bosses, co-workers, etc. in typical situations because such character traits are valued in human endeavors. However, when society's values get perverted (like it appears they are now) then the evil in human hearts becomes more manifest; favor in more rational times can yield to persecution from people led by Satan.
Just as treatment can change for the worse, it can also change for the better. Proverbs 16:7 NIV notes, "When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord He makes even His enemies live at peace with him."
It is my hope that this brief discussion will instill in those wisely interested in the things of God that the Word of God is a double-edged sword. II Timothy 2:15 NIV sums it up, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." It is important to study the Bible to be able to apply it correctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)