Monday, December 25, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Most Important Lessons I have Learned While at College
Hey Everybody!
Seeing that I am about head off to my last final of the semester, and that I have only one more (!) semester to go, I think it's a good idea to write down the most important life lessons that I have learned at college. These are ten life lessons that I know will help me later on in life
1. God will ALWAYS provide all that you need. For those of you who don't know my testimony, I grew up in a home with Christian parents who demonstrated Christ to me and my siblings. Starting in kindergarten, and continuing through twelfth grade, I attended the private Christian School run by the church that my father pastors. When it came time to choose a college, I prayed to the Lord that I would only be accepted into the college that He wanted me to attend. I applied to two colleges. The University that I attend accepted me, while the other school I applied to wait listed me. I took that as a sign that I was to attend the college, so I did, and after 3 1/2 years here, I am confident I made the right decision.
Now, the college I attend is a public university in the Northeast. I come from an Evangelical Christian home. My family is morally, socially, and politically conservative. My campus is NOT. In fact, it's claim to fame is Spring Weekend, when the vast majority of the students get hammered, and start riots. It's also ranked as one of the most gay-friendly campuses in the country. As I told some people, going to college from my home was like traveling from Jerusalem to a mixture of Babylon, Ancient Rome and Sodom. (You get the picture!)
I was, and still am, an outspoken person when it comes to my faith in Jesus. I would, and still do on occasion, walk around my campus singing old hymns and gospel music at the top of my lungs while on my way to class in the morning. Many of my floormates were incredibly hostile to me and my faith in Jesus. A group of them tried everything they could to destroy me, including lying about me and vandalizing my property, but by the grace of God, I was able to show love to these young men, and God is drawing some of them to Him. There were times when I was sorely tempted to smash some people's faces in, but instead I went to the Lord in prayer, and He gave me the strength and grace that I needed to go through.
2 While God will provide all that You need, He will not always provide all that you want. There are certain things that I have wanted that God has said no to because they were not and are not in His plan for my life. While this lesson has been painful at times, I am happy because learning these lessons now is better than learning them later
3 Listen to your parents- especially if you have parents who are saved- Chances are they will probably be right. I am so grateful that Mom and Dad taught me about the Lord, because I was able to rely on my relationship with Him when times got tough. I am also thankful for the standards that Dad and Mom put up. I have never been to a college party in my 3 1/2 years because my parent's standards have become my own in many situations. Actually the standards are not my parent's or mine, but the Lord's. My Parents taught me well. I just hope that I can be as good a parent to my children (Should the Lord tarry) when I get married and have a family
4 I went to college with the delusion that all Conservative Republicans (correction-most Republicans) were Godly people who loved Jesus and had high moral standards and that most Democrats were evil, tree worshiping hippies who hated God and had no moral standards. College very quickly removed that idea from my head. I have met many a dedicated Christians who happen to be Democrats and have met many Republicans who are mean, nasty vile people who do not show the love of Jesus I guess the life lesson I learned was that Conservative Republican does not equal righteous, and Liberal Democrat does not equal evil necessarily. Yes I have met some Liberals who hate God and his standards, but I've also met some who truly love the Lord and dont agree with the Liberal posittions on issues like abortion and gay marriage
5 The last important lesson I have learned at college is the importance of Christian fellowship. When I was attending the Christian High School I did nt have many friends my age who were following the Lord, but it was ok because I had my parents and the adults at my church there to encourage me to do what is right. When I got to college and I was the only Christain on my floor and one of two Christians that I knew in my dorm, it was lonely until I went to the Campus Crusade meeting and met others who were following God. The brothers and sisters at Crusade were a tremendous blessing to me and they were in many ways my lifeline as the provided much of the on-campus support that I needed in my walk. Just getting to know these folks and knowinng that I was not alone was a huge encouragement to me.
These are the five major life lesson sthat I have learned while I have been at collge. I know that there are other lessons that God will have to teach me. My prayer is that I learn them quickly and that He teaches me me all that I need to know in His time
Seeing that I am about head off to my last final of the semester, and that I have only one more (!) semester to go, I think it's a good idea to write down the most important life lessons that I have learned at college. These are ten life lessons that I know will help me later on in life
1. God will ALWAYS provide all that you need. For those of you who don't know my testimony, I grew up in a home with Christian parents who demonstrated Christ to me and my siblings. Starting in kindergarten, and continuing through twelfth grade, I attended the private Christian School run by the church that my father pastors. When it came time to choose a college, I prayed to the Lord that I would only be accepted into the college that He wanted me to attend. I applied to two colleges. The University that I attend accepted me, while the other school I applied to wait listed me. I took that as a sign that I was to attend the college, so I did, and after 3 1/2 years here, I am confident I made the right decision.
Now, the college I attend is a public university in the Northeast. I come from an Evangelical Christian home. My family is morally, socially, and politically conservative. My campus is NOT. In fact, it's claim to fame is Spring Weekend, when the vast majority of the students get hammered, and start riots. It's also ranked as one of the most gay-friendly campuses in the country. As I told some people, going to college from my home was like traveling from Jerusalem to a mixture of Babylon, Ancient Rome and Sodom. (You get the picture!)
I was, and still am, an outspoken person when it comes to my faith in Jesus. I would, and still do on occasion, walk around my campus singing old hymns and gospel music at the top of my lungs while on my way to class in the morning. Many of my floormates were incredibly hostile to me and my faith in Jesus. A group of them tried everything they could to destroy me, including lying about me and vandalizing my property, but by the grace of God, I was able to show love to these young men, and God is drawing some of them to Him. There were times when I was sorely tempted to smash some people's faces in, but instead I went to the Lord in prayer, and He gave me the strength and grace that I needed to go through.
2 While God will provide all that You need, He will not always provide all that you want. There are certain things that I have wanted that God has said no to because they were not and are not in His plan for my life. While this lesson has been painful at times, I am happy because learning these lessons now is better than learning them later
3 Listen to your parents- especially if you have parents who are saved- Chances are they will probably be right. I am so grateful that Mom and Dad taught me about the Lord, because I was able to rely on my relationship with Him when times got tough. I am also thankful for the standards that Dad and Mom put up. I have never been to a college party in my 3 1/2 years because my parent's standards have become my own in many situations. Actually the standards are not my parent's or mine, but the Lord's. My Parents taught me well. I just hope that I can be as good a parent to my children (Should the Lord tarry) when I get married and have a family
4 I went to college with the delusion that all Conservative Republicans (correction-most Republicans) were Godly people who loved Jesus and had high moral standards and that most Democrats were evil, tree worshiping hippies who hated God and had no moral standards. College very quickly removed that idea from my head. I have met many a dedicated Christians who happen to be Democrats and have met many Republicans who are mean, nasty vile people who do not show the love of Jesus I guess the life lesson I learned was that Conservative Republican does not equal righteous, and Liberal Democrat does not equal evil necessarily. Yes I have met some Liberals who hate God and his standards, but I've also met some who truly love the Lord and dont agree with the Liberal posittions on issues like abortion and gay marriage
5 The last important lesson I have learned at college is the importance of Christian fellowship. When I was attending the Christian High School I did nt have many friends my age who were following the Lord, but it was ok because I had my parents and the adults at my church there to encourage me to do what is right. When I got to college and I was the only Christain on my floor and one of two Christians that I knew in my dorm, it was lonely until I went to the Campus Crusade meeting and met others who were following God. The brothers and sisters at Crusade were a tremendous blessing to me and they were in many ways my lifeline as the provided much of the on-campus support that I needed in my walk. Just getting to know these folks and knowinng that I was not alone was a huge encouragement to me.
These are the five major life lesson sthat I have learned while I have been at collge. I know that there are other lessons that God will have to teach me. My prayer is that I learn them quickly and that He teaches me me all that I need to know in His time
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Final Thoughts on KJV vs NIV
I was talking to a few of my friends here at college on the issues that were discussed in my last post a few days ago and I realized that I was not very clear in what I wanted to say, so here are my modifications. To refresh your (and my) memory, the verses we were discussing:
In the KJV
Matthew 5:31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
In the NIV
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
The difference in these two passages is the translation of the Greek word Porneia. The King James Version translates Porneia as fornication, the NIV translates porneia as marital infidelity.
The Strong's concordance definition of Porneia is as follows:
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
This is the point where I was unclear, so allow me to clarify: I believe that while the word porneia can mean "Marital Infidelity or Unfaithfulness" (adultery), in the context of the Jewish law, and the rest of the what the Word says about divorce and remarriage, porneia in this setting is refering to premarital sexual activity, and it does not in this case refer to adultery.
Allow me to explain why.
A footnote in my friend's NIV Study Bible states that marital infidelity was a lifestyle of immoral sexual behavior after the marriage. The problem with that is the book of Hosea. Hosea, an OT prophet, was told by God to marry a prostitute. After they were married, Mrs Hosea continued her prostitution, and Hosea was not allowed to divorce her. God said that he had to take her back every time. Now I realize that God was using Hosea to make a point about the Isrealites' unfaithfulness to God, but if anyone should have been allowed to divorce someone based on marital infidelity, it should have been Hosea.
Secondly, Jesus says in Mark 10 and in Luke 16 that divorce and remarriage is a sin and there are no caveats in either of these two passages
This is why I have said that the translators of the NIV have mistranslated the word porneia in this Scripture
As to the comment that people can use this Scripture to defend remarriage after a divorce being baloney, I know people who have done exactly that. They have tried to justify remarriage after a divorce by using this exact Scripture-They failed of course, but this was the Scripture they quoted.
Also allow me to be clear on two more things
One. While I lean towards KJV only, (More and More as I have looked into the thing I am discussing) I am not going to sit here and say that the KJV is the only valid English translation, because I know people who are following God and are commited to Jesus who came to Christ while reading the NIV Bible. God can use whatever and whoever he wants to fulfill His purposes
Two. I am not trying to start a war, or to cause any conflict with these posts. I just simply want to have a lively discussion about all of this, because these are issues we all must think about
In the KJV
Matthew 5:31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
In the NIV
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
The difference in these two passages is the translation of the Greek word Porneia. The King James Version translates Porneia as fornication, the NIV translates porneia as marital infidelity.
The Strong's concordance definition of Porneia is as follows:
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
This is the point where I was unclear, so allow me to clarify: I believe that while the word porneia can mean "Marital Infidelity or Unfaithfulness" (adultery), in the context of the Jewish law, and the rest of the what the Word says about divorce and remarriage, porneia in this setting is refering to premarital sexual activity, and it does not in this case refer to adultery.
Allow me to explain why.
A footnote in my friend's NIV Study Bible states that marital infidelity was a lifestyle of immoral sexual behavior after the marriage. The problem with that is the book of Hosea. Hosea, an OT prophet, was told by God to marry a prostitute. After they were married, Mrs Hosea continued her prostitution, and Hosea was not allowed to divorce her. God said that he had to take her back every time. Now I realize that God was using Hosea to make a point about the Isrealites' unfaithfulness to God, but if anyone should have been allowed to divorce someone based on marital infidelity, it should have been Hosea.
Secondly, Jesus says in Mark 10 and in Luke 16 that divorce and remarriage is a sin and there are no caveats in either of these two passages
This is why I have said that the translators of the NIV have mistranslated the word porneia in this Scripture
As to the comment that people can use this Scripture to defend remarriage after a divorce being baloney, I know people who have done exactly that. They have tried to justify remarriage after a divorce by using this exact Scripture-They failed of course, but this was the Scripture they quoted.
Also allow me to be clear on two more things
One. While I lean towards KJV only, (More and More as I have looked into the thing I am discussing) I am not going to sit here and say that the KJV is the only valid English translation, because I know people who are following God and are commited to Jesus who came to Christ while reading the NIV Bible. God can use whatever and whoever he wants to fulfill His purposes
Two. I am not trying to start a war, or to cause any conflict with these posts. I just simply want to have a lively discussion about all of this, because these are issues we all must think about
Sunday, December 03, 2006
KJV and NIV continued
I was not planning to respond to Physics Geek's criticism of my position on the issue of Bible translations However, I have decided to respond now for two reasons. One, I have thought things through a little more. And secondly, I have found more things in the NIV that I have serious issue with.
First though, My response to Geek's criticism.
First of all, I recognize that the King James Version of the Scriptures is a translation. What sets the King James apart from previous English translations is that it went back to the Original Greek and Hebrew texts, while the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Original Greek and Hebrew.
I also have never said that God cannot use the NIV or any other translation, because clearly He can, because He is sovereign.
HOWEVER, I firmly believe that the KJV is stronger on matters of theological doctrinal significance, as I outlined in my previous post on this issue.
Mr Geek did point out one Scripture where the KJV seems to obscure Paul's meaning- Galatians 5:12. However, It would seem to me that the doctrine of the Trinity or the issue which I will discuss momentarily are more theologically, doctrinally significant than whether or not Paul was calling for the castration of those who were preaching that one must be circumcised in order to be saved. Notice that Paul does not say that this was God's wish. Instead he says that it was His wish because he was frustrated that some in the Galatian church were listening to them instead of to the right doctrines that Paul was preaching.
Ok onto more of my beef with the NIV
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has this to say regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage
In the KJV, Jesus says this:
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The NIV says it this way
Matthew 5:31 It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.
5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
The difference? "saving for the cause of fornication", vs "except for marital unfaithfulness"
Now this is extremly significant, and I'm going to get to why in a minute, so bear with me. Before we get into why this is extremely important, lets take a look at the Greek word for "Fornication" and its definition
The definitions are from the Strong's concordance
FORNICATION
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
I looked up G4203
G4203
πορνεύω
porneuō
porn-yoo'-o
From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).
From these two defintions we see that the Greek word pornia and its related words do not simply deal with adultery, but indeed with all forms of immoral sexual acts, including, incest, adultery, homosexuality, and fornication.
Fornication's basic defintion is sex between two people who are not married to each other. While adultery is a form of fornication, not all fornication is adultery.
Now why is all of this significant?
Because the NIV gives people an excuse for divorce and remarriage, which the Bible calls adultery. People can use this Scripture, with the caveat "marital infidelity", to say that God allows divorce and remarriage, which is not true. Jesus says in multiple passages in the Gospels (Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) that remarriage after a divorce while the divorced spouse is still alive is adultery against that spouse.
In Mark 1, and Luke 16, there is no caveat regarding fornication, but in both Mattew 5 and Matthew 19, there is this caveat regarding fornication. Why is this caveat there?
Matthew was the Gospel written for a primarily Jewish audience. This is why the Gospel Matthew begins by tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, and back to Abraham. It is also why Matthew says "This happened to fulfill Scripture" at least 14 times in his Gospel. He is trying to convince the Jews that Jesus is their Messiah.
In Jewish law regarding marriage, the engagment was a very serious thing. One could not break off the engagement, unless there was evidence of fornication (ie, pregancy. This is why Joseph was going to end the engagement with Mary before God spoke to him). The Jewish Law considered the breaking of the engagement to be divorce even though the engaged couple was not yet married. This is why Jesus says to His Jewish audience that premarital fornication, not adultery or "marital infidelity" was a valid reason for divorce.
People have used the this caveat found in Matthew 5 and Mathew 19 to justify sin, and the NIV makes it a whole lot easier with its word choice of "marital infidelity" or "marital unfaithfulness" instead of fornication
The translators of the NIV show a lack of understanding regarding Jewish law and custom that I find disturbing. They should have known the difference between fornication and adultery.
First though, My response to Geek's criticism.
First of all, I recognize that the King James Version of the Scriptures is a translation. What sets the King James apart from previous English translations is that it went back to the Original Greek and Hebrew texts, while the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Original Greek and Hebrew.
I also have never said that God cannot use the NIV or any other translation, because clearly He can, because He is sovereign.
HOWEVER, I firmly believe that the KJV is stronger on matters of theological doctrinal significance, as I outlined in my previous post on this issue.
Mr Geek did point out one Scripture where the KJV seems to obscure Paul's meaning- Galatians 5:12. However, It would seem to me that the doctrine of the Trinity or the issue which I will discuss momentarily are more theologically, doctrinally significant than whether or not Paul was calling for the castration of those who were preaching that one must be circumcised in order to be saved. Notice that Paul does not say that this was God's wish. Instead he says that it was His wish because he was frustrated that some in the Galatian church were listening to them instead of to the right doctrines that Paul was preaching.
Ok onto more of my beef with the NIV
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has this to say regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage
In the KJV, Jesus says this:
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The NIV says it this way
Matthew 5:31 It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.
5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
The difference? "saving for the cause of fornication", vs "except for marital unfaithfulness"
Now this is extremly significant, and I'm going to get to why in a minute, so bear with me. Before we get into why this is extremely important, lets take a look at the Greek word for "Fornication" and its definition
The definitions are from the Strong's concordance
FORNICATION
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
I looked up G4203
G4203
πορνεύω
porneuō
porn-yoo'-o
From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).
From these two defintions we see that the Greek word pornia and its related words do not simply deal with adultery, but indeed with all forms of immoral sexual acts, including, incest, adultery, homosexuality, and fornication.
Fornication's basic defintion is sex between two people who are not married to each other. While adultery is a form of fornication, not all fornication is adultery.
Now why is all of this significant?
Because the NIV gives people an excuse for divorce and remarriage, which the Bible calls adultery. People can use this Scripture, with the caveat "marital infidelity", to say that God allows divorce and remarriage, which is not true. Jesus says in multiple passages in the Gospels (Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) that remarriage after a divorce while the divorced spouse is still alive is adultery against that spouse.
In Mark 1, and Luke 16, there is no caveat regarding fornication, but in both Mattew 5 and Matthew 19, there is this caveat regarding fornication. Why is this caveat there?
Matthew was the Gospel written for a primarily Jewish audience. This is why the Gospel Matthew begins by tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, and back to Abraham. It is also why Matthew says "This happened to fulfill Scripture" at least 14 times in his Gospel. He is trying to convince the Jews that Jesus is their Messiah.
In Jewish law regarding marriage, the engagment was a very serious thing. One could not break off the engagement, unless there was evidence of fornication (ie, pregancy. This is why Joseph was going to end the engagement with Mary before God spoke to him). The Jewish Law considered the breaking of the engagement to be divorce even though the engaged couple was not yet married. This is why Jesus says to His Jewish audience that premarital fornication, not adultery or "marital infidelity" was a valid reason for divorce.
People have used the this caveat found in Matthew 5 and Mathew 19 to justify sin, and the NIV makes it a whole lot easier with its word choice of "marital infidelity" or "marital unfaithfulness" instead of fornication
The translators of the NIV show a lack of understanding regarding Jewish law and custom that I find disturbing. They should have known the difference between fornication and adultery.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Poll Questions 1
This is the first in a series of poll questions on totally random topics. This poll is very unscientific, but I am interested in what you all have say
Here goes
List your ten favorite Christian (Non-Christmas) Hymns, and explain why they are your favorites
My Ten from first to tenth
1. Great is Thy Faithfulness
2. His Eye is on the Sparrow
3. It is Well With my Soul
4. Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
5. Amazing Grace
6. Precious Lord, Take My Hand
7. There is a Fountain Filled With Blood
8. When I Survey the Wondrous Cross
9. Standing on the Promises
10. He Hideth my Soul
These are just a sampling of the hymns I love. I have many more
I love these songs because they preach the Gospel of Jesus Chriust in a way that words alone sometimes can't. During my freshman year I sang "Great is thy Faithfulness" at an open mic event. There are unsaved people who still remember that four years later, and all I did was sing. When we sing these old hymns from our hearts it does something for people. Take a look at the words of these songs, and think about why thay are still so powerful even today.
Here goes
List your ten favorite Christian (Non-Christmas) Hymns, and explain why they are your favorites
My Ten from first to tenth
1. Great is Thy Faithfulness
2. His Eye is on the Sparrow
3. It is Well With my Soul
4. Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
5. Amazing Grace
6. Precious Lord, Take My Hand
7. There is a Fountain Filled With Blood
8. When I Survey the Wondrous Cross
9. Standing on the Promises
10. He Hideth my Soul
These are just a sampling of the hymns I love. I have many more
I love these songs because they preach the Gospel of Jesus Chriust in a way that words alone sometimes can't. During my freshman year I sang "Great is thy Faithfulness" at an open mic event. There are unsaved people who still remember that four years later, and all I did was sing. When we sing these old hymns from our hearts it does something for people. Take a look at the words of these songs, and think about why thay are still so powerful even today.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thanksgiving break
Ah Home. Its good to be back. I've missed sharing a room with my little brothers who stay up half the night throwing socks at each other!
Honestly, It is nice to have a full week off from school. It is nice to have time to relax, work on my final draft of my Thesis, and prepare for my final exams. Its nice to spend quality time with my family. Although I see them every week, I miss just hanging out, which I don't get to do while I'm at school.
This being Thanksgiving, The 10 Thank-yous I don't give often enough
1 Jesus. Thank You for loving me. Thank You for all the ways You have blessed me. Thank You for blessing me with the wonderful family and friends that I have. Thank You for guiding my steps each and every day. Thank You for correcting me when I have needed correction. Thank You for being in control of my life. Thank You for being God.
2 Mom and Dad. Thanks for being examples of Christ for me and the others. Thanks for loving us enough to tell us no when we were wrong. Thanks for the hugs, and for the corrections, and most especially thanks for pointing us to Jesus when we were presented with problems. Thanks for praying for me. I have needed it
3 My Brothers and Sisters. Thanks for being part of the family. I love you all so much
4 My Best Friends. Thanks for everything. Thanks for listening, talking and praying- and thanks for the meals! :-) Thanks for being there to encourage to me to do what is right in every area of my life.
5 The Campus Crusaders at my School. You all have no idea how much of a blessing you all have been to me. I am really gonna miss you all next year
6 The Crusade Staff. Thanks for all that you do to spread the Gospel on our campus
7 The VOF Gospel Choir. Thanks for making this brother part of your family. It means a lot to me. Y'all better keeping singing after I leave
8 The leaders of the VOF. Thanks to the director for all the work that You have put in. Thanks for the hours of preparation and thanks for the prayers. To the head Musician. Thank You. God is gonna bless You for all that You do. Just Trust Him. To the Choir Mama. Thank you for all that time, energy and prayers for the choir. We love you. You are a blessing. To the Student Leaders. You all are amazing. The choir is blessed to have you all as its leaders .
9 Thanks my other friends- Jimmy Z especially for your kind words. I appreciate it
10 Thanks to my friends here. Thanks esp. to the Driver, who gives up his time to transports back and forth to Church every Sunday.
Honestly, It is nice to have a full week off from school. It is nice to have time to relax, work on my final draft of my Thesis, and prepare for my final exams. Its nice to spend quality time with my family. Although I see them every week, I miss just hanging out, which I don't get to do while I'm at school.
This being Thanksgiving, The 10 Thank-yous I don't give often enough
1 Jesus. Thank You for loving me. Thank You for all the ways You have blessed me. Thank You for blessing me with the wonderful family and friends that I have. Thank You for guiding my steps each and every day. Thank You for correcting me when I have needed correction. Thank You for being in control of my life. Thank You for being God.
2 Mom and Dad. Thanks for being examples of Christ for me and the others. Thanks for loving us enough to tell us no when we were wrong. Thanks for the hugs, and for the corrections, and most especially thanks for pointing us to Jesus when we were presented with problems. Thanks for praying for me. I have needed it
3 My Brothers and Sisters. Thanks for being part of the family. I love you all so much
4 My Best Friends. Thanks for everything. Thanks for listening, talking and praying- and thanks for the meals! :-) Thanks for being there to encourage to me to do what is right in every area of my life.
5 The Campus Crusaders at my School. You all have no idea how much of a blessing you all have been to me. I am really gonna miss you all next year
6 The Crusade Staff. Thanks for all that you do to spread the Gospel on our campus
7 The VOF Gospel Choir. Thanks for making this brother part of your family. It means a lot to me. Y'all better keeping singing after I leave
8 The leaders of the VOF. Thanks to the director for all the work that You have put in. Thanks for the hours of preparation and thanks for the prayers. To the head Musician. Thank You. God is gonna bless You for all that You do. Just Trust Him. To the Choir Mama. Thank you for all that time, energy and prayers for the choir. We love you. You are a blessing. To the Student Leaders. You all are amazing. The choir is blessed to have you all as its leaders .
9 Thanks my other friends- Jimmy Z especially for your kind words. I appreciate it
10 Thanks to my friends here. Thanks esp. to the Driver, who gives up his time to transports back and forth to Church every Sunday.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Why we must support Israel
In my foreign policy class today we had a very interesting debate about whether or not the United States should support Israel. The debate was sparked by this article in Tuesday's New York Times. The article centers on Reverend John Hagee, The Senior Pastor at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. In July, during the Israel- Hezbollah war, Hagee went to Washington with the Christians United for Israel demanding that united States support the Jewish nation
I was one of two people in the class that vocally advocated the continuing support of the United States for Israel no matter what. The professor and most of the class said that we should support Israel but that we should act in our best interests which may mean going against Israel in certain instances. They also said that it is frightening and dangerous if our support for Israel is based on religious reasons.
I disagree.
Here are five reasons we must support Israel
1. Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. This is a promise about Abraham's seed Isaac and the nation of Isreal
2 Psalm 122:6-7Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. We are to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, which cannot happen when the terrorists are attacking the Jewish people everyday
3 Israel's significance in Biblical prophecy
4 Our relationship to the Jews as Christians as outlined in Romans 9-11
5 On a secular note, we must support Israel because they are the only true democracy in the whole region of the Middle East and North Africa.
There are more reasons why we must support Israel, but it would take forever to do... The 5 reasons listed are the best rationale that I have on this issue
I was one of two people in the class that vocally advocated the continuing support of the United States for Israel no matter what. The professor and most of the class said that we should support Israel but that we should act in our best interests which may mean going against Israel in certain instances. They also said that it is frightening and dangerous if our support for Israel is based on religious reasons.
I disagree.
Here are five reasons we must support Israel
1. Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. This is a promise about Abraham's seed Isaac and the nation of Isreal
2 Psalm 122:6-7Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. We are to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, which cannot happen when the terrorists are attacking the Jewish people everyday
3 Israel's significance in Biblical prophecy
4 Our relationship to the Jews as Christians as outlined in Romans 9-11
5 On a secular note, we must support Israel because they are the only true democracy in the whole region of the Middle East and North Africa.
There are more reasons why we must support Israel, but it would take forever to do... The 5 reasons listed are the best rationale that I have on this issue
Monday, November 13, 2006
NIV vs KJV
When it comes to Bible translations, the vast majority of Evangelical Christians use basically two versions- The King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version, and the New International Version. There are others also widely used, (the English Standard, the Revised Standard, the Amplified, The New American Standard, etc), but the two standards are the KJV and the NIV. I prefer the KJV over the NIV for several reasons.
First the NIV is a weaker version theologically. What do I mean? Let us examine the texts and I will explain.
We begin with one of my favorite verse in the New Testament, Romans 8:1
KJV:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
NIV:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
What's the difference? "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Why is this significant? Because if we are in Christ Jesus, (i.e. are saved), but we are not walking after the Spirit then we should absolutely feel a healthy amount of conviction while we are serving our enemy the flesh. The NIV relegates the second half of verse one to a footnote, saying that the provision that we must walk after the Spirit is somehow unimportant. If we are walking (living) in the Spirit then there is no condemnation. If we are walking in our flesh then there should be a certain amount of condemnation.
We continue with Romans 12:1
KJV:
1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
NIV:
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship.
The difference?
"this is your spiritual act of worship", vs "which is your reasonable service". "Spiritual act of worship" places the act of presenting your self a living sacrifice to God outside of your daily life. The implication I get from that Scripture in the NIV is that one can only present themselves to God when they are feeling super spiritual. "Reasonable service " takes offering ourselves To God as a living sacrifice out of the ethereal and places it into the daily walk of faith that we are called to.
The most important difference between the NIV and the KJV occurs in 1 John 5:7
In the KJV, verses 7-8 state: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
In the NIV, The verses say: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The difference? In the NIV there is ZERO mention of one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith- that of the Trinity. This the only place in the Scriptures that ascribes deity and equality to all three parts of the Godhead at the same time, and the NIV removes it from the verse and places it in a footnote. The footnote states: "1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"
My question to the translators of the NIV is why was this added in to the Scriptures so late if it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith for 16 centuries? I mean wouldn't someone have placed that reference to the Trinity in much earlier?
The last Scriptural Beef I have with the NIV is found in the book of Romans, Chapter 6
In the KJV, Verses 1-2 read
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The NIV reads as follows
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
The difference? "God Forbid" vs "By no means!" Question- which sounds stronger to you. God, (the Almighty, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords) forbid, or by no means? God forbid sounds a lot stronger to me because God does indeed actually forbid those who claim Christ to stay in known sin.
I prefer the KJV over the NIV not only for those reasons, but also because of the language itself. The King James Bible has some of the most beautiful wording in the English Language. The Wording of the KJV is simple, but it also beautiful. There is a reason that the King James Version has been around for 400 years- it has stood the test of time.
These are some of the reasons that I prefer the King James Version over the New International Version.
First the NIV is a weaker version theologically. What do I mean? Let us examine the texts and I will explain.
We begin with one of my favorite verse in the New Testament, Romans 8:1
KJV:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
NIV:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
What's the difference? "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Why is this significant? Because if we are in Christ Jesus, (i.e. are saved), but we are not walking after the Spirit then we should absolutely feel a healthy amount of conviction while we are serving our enemy the flesh. The NIV relegates the second half of verse one to a footnote, saying that the provision that we must walk after the Spirit is somehow unimportant. If we are walking (living) in the Spirit then there is no condemnation. If we are walking in our flesh then there should be a certain amount of condemnation.
We continue with Romans 12:1
KJV:
1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
NIV:
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship.
The difference?
"this is your spiritual act of worship", vs "which is your reasonable service". "Spiritual act of worship" places the act of presenting your self a living sacrifice to God outside of your daily life. The implication I get from that Scripture in the NIV is that one can only present themselves to God when they are feeling super spiritual. "Reasonable service " takes offering ourselves To God as a living sacrifice out of the ethereal and places it into the daily walk of faith that we are called to.
The most important difference between the NIV and the KJV occurs in 1 John 5:7
In the KJV, verses 7-8 state: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
In the NIV, The verses say: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The difference? In the NIV there is ZERO mention of one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith- that of the Trinity. This the only place in the Scriptures that ascribes deity and equality to all three parts of the Godhead at the same time, and the NIV removes it from the verse and places it in a footnote. The footnote states: "1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"
My question to the translators of the NIV is why was this added in to the Scriptures so late if it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith for 16 centuries? I mean wouldn't someone have placed that reference to the Trinity in much earlier?
The last Scriptural Beef I have with the NIV is found in the book of Romans, Chapter 6
In the KJV, Verses 1-2 read
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The NIV reads as follows
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
The difference? "God Forbid" vs "By no means!" Question- which sounds stronger to you. God, (the Almighty, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords) forbid, or by no means? God forbid sounds a lot stronger to me because God does indeed actually forbid those who claim Christ to stay in known sin.
I prefer the KJV over the NIV not only for those reasons, but also because of the language itself. The King James Bible has some of the most beautiful wording in the English Language. The Wording of the KJV is simple, but it also beautiful. There is a reason that the King James Version has been around for 400 years- it has stood the test of time.
These are some of the reasons that I prefer the King James Version over the New International Version.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election Day
Lieberman has defeated Lamont!!!!!!! With 72% districts in, Lieberman is up 50 to 39%, with Schlesinger, the Republican sacrificial elephant, at 10%. This means that had Schlesinger not been in the race, Lieberman would be winning 60-40, which is a HUGE margin in politics
Lamont officialy conceded around 10:15. This is the one race that I was concerned about. Lieberman is a good man, and I'm happy that the voters in CT had enough sense to send him back to Washington.
In other CT races, Governor Rell just pulverized DeStafano. I voted for Joseph Zdonczyk from Concerned Citizens.
Simons-Courtney too close to call. Simons up by 2000 votes or so with 87% districts in. Update: Courtney now ahead by less than a thousand with 94% of districts reporting. Second Update-11-08-2006 11:28 AM With all districts reporting, Courtney has a 170 vote lead. There will probably be a recount of some kind here in the second Congressional District
Nancy Johnson lost to Chris Murphy, not all that big a surprise as she was holding a recently redisctricted area. In 04 Johnson beat out fellow incumbent Jim Maloney when their districts were combined, so this was not all that surprising in a certain sense. Besides, Johnson is more along the lines of Lincoln Chaffee as a Republican, so I'm not that sorry to see her go.
Larson and DeLauro win easily, Shays ahead but not by much, about 7,000 votes with 64% districts in. Update 11-08-2006 11:31 AM With 93% of districts reporting Shays's lead is 4,465 votes. WTNH and WFSB, two TV stations here, as well as the Courant, the major newspaper, have declared Shays the winner
More Later!
Lamont officialy conceded around 10:15. This is the one race that I was concerned about. Lieberman is a good man, and I'm happy that the voters in CT had enough sense to send him back to Washington.
In other CT races, Governor Rell just pulverized DeStafano. I voted for Joseph Zdonczyk from Concerned Citizens.
Simons-Courtney too close to call. Simons up by 2000 votes or so with 87% districts in. Update: Courtney now ahead by less than a thousand with 94% of districts reporting. Second Update-11-08-2006 11:28 AM With all districts reporting, Courtney has a 170 vote lead. There will probably be a recount of some kind here in the second Congressional District
Nancy Johnson lost to Chris Murphy, not all that big a surprise as she was holding a recently redisctricted area. In 04 Johnson beat out fellow incumbent Jim Maloney when their districts were combined, so this was not all that surprising in a certain sense. Besides, Johnson is more along the lines of Lincoln Chaffee as a Republican, so I'm not that sorry to see her go.
Larson and DeLauro win easily, Shays ahead but not by much, about 7,000 votes with 64% districts in. Update 11-08-2006 11:31 AM With 93% of districts reporting Shays's lead is 4,465 votes. WTNH and WFSB, two TV stations here, as well as the Courant, the major newspaper, have declared Shays the winner
More Later!
Monday, November 06, 2006
More on Conservaitve Racism
I was reminded of something I wrote last year for my old blog on this issue, and I figured I wolud share it again
There is a sin problem in Evangelical Christianity that very few people want to deal with. (Warning: I am going to offend some people with what God wants me to say, but please just listen and take it to heart). The sin problem is racism, specifically white prejudice against our brothers and sisters in the black churches. The sin of racism is one that many people do not want to deal with, but it something that we as white Christians need to repent for.
The kind of racism that I am talking about is not overt. This kind of racism is not obvious. What I am talking about are little things. I am going to give examples of what I mean through what I and a few of my black brothers and sisters have experienced. When I joined the Gospel choir at my university, my brothers and sisters in the choir accepted me right away- and they really showed me a lot of love. Our Choir has sung at churches all over Connecticut this year- New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, and East Hartford, Bloomfield. We’ve also sung at churches in Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as in Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, Boston Massachusetts, and Raleigh North Carolina. All of the churches we have sung at are predominately black congregations, and I have soloed at several of these places. When the services are over many of the churches have food prepared for the choir and the congregation, and every time people from the congregation have come up to me after the service and have told me how glad they were that I had come and how much they were blessed by my singing. I’ve also been to a few funerals for the parents of some of my black friends, and every time I’ve walked in, the people have made me feel welcome. I’m going to repeat that statement- EVERY TIME I have attended a service at a predominately black church, the people there have gone out of their way to make me feel welcome.
I’m going to contrast my experiences as a white person with that of two black friends of mine from the Gospel Choir. Both of them at different times went to the weekly meeting of one of the White Evangelical Christian organizations on campus, and both told me and others the same thing- they were not made to feel welcome. One of them is a dear brother who I know loves Jesus- and he can get along with anybody, and if he didn’t feel welcome, I know that something is seriously wrong. The other is a sister in Christ, who told me that she felt that she wasn’t welcome at all. (Update: That has since changed on my campus-God has done a lot in the past two years to break down the wall of predjudice in the Christian Community between white students and black students. While we are far from perfect, God is doing an amazing work here- All glory to His Name!) If this is happening in the White Evangelical Christian organizations, I guarantee it’s also happening in the White Evangelical Churches. There is a reason why some of my black sisters have told me that they think all White Evangelical Conservative Christians are racists. We as white folks need to repent for the prejudice that so many of us have towards our brother and sisters in the black community. I believe it was Dr Martin Luther King who said that 11 am on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in American life. He spoke those words 40 years ago, yet it is still so true today. When God sends true revival to this nation, He is going to destroy the prejudice that has been hindering His people
Pray with me right now
Father God, We come before You this day, and we repent. We repent of our pride, our racism, our prejudice. We repent for the lack of love that we have shown our brothers and sisters in the black community. We humbly ask that You would forgive and that You would wash all our sins away by the precious blood that Your Son, Jesus Christ shed on the cross. Take our pride, and replace it with humility. Take our racist attitudes and our prejudice and replace them with Your Love. We need Your mercy to flow down from Your throne this day. Send Your revival to this nation, because we need it so much. Help the young men to men of God, and the young women to be women of excellence, and help us all to serve You more every day,
We Pray all in the mighty matchless name of Jesus Christ, out Lord and Savior
Amen
There is a sin problem in Evangelical Christianity that very few people want to deal with. (Warning: I am going to offend some people with what God wants me to say, but please just listen and take it to heart). The sin problem is racism, specifically white prejudice against our brothers and sisters in the black churches. The sin of racism is one that many people do not want to deal with, but it something that we as white Christians need to repent for.
The kind of racism that I am talking about is not overt. This kind of racism is not obvious. What I am talking about are little things. I am going to give examples of what I mean through what I and a few of my black brothers and sisters have experienced. When I joined the Gospel choir at my university, my brothers and sisters in the choir accepted me right away- and they really showed me a lot of love. Our Choir has sung at churches all over Connecticut this year- New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, and East Hartford, Bloomfield. We’ve also sung at churches in Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as in Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, Boston Massachusetts, and Raleigh North Carolina. All of the churches we have sung at are predominately black congregations, and I have soloed at several of these places. When the services are over many of the churches have food prepared for the choir and the congregation, and every time people from the congregation have come up to me after the service and have told me how glad they were that I had come and how much they were blessed by my singing. I’ve also been to a few funerals for the parents of some of my black friends, and every time I’ve walked in, the people have made me feel welcome. I’m going to repeat that statement- EVERY TIME I have attended a service at a predominately black church, the people there have gone out of their way to make me feel welcome.
I’m going to contrast my experiences as a white person with that of two black friends of mine from the Gospel Choir. Both of them at different times went to the weekly meeting of one of the White Evangelical Christian organizations on campus, and both told me and others the same thing- they were not made to feel welcome. One of them is a dear brother who I know loves Jesus- and he can get along with anybody, and if he didn’t feel welcome, I know that something is seriously wrong. The other is a sister in Christ, who told me that she felt that she wasn’t welcome at all. (Update: That has since changed on my campus-God has done a lot in the past two years to break down the wall of predjudice in the Christian Community between white students and black students. While we are far from perfect, God is doing an amazing work here- All glory to His Name!) If this is happening in the White Evangelical Christian organizations, I guarantee it’s also happening in the White Evangelical Churches. There is a reason why some of my black sisters have told me that they think all White Evangelical Conservative Christians are racists. We as white folks need to repent for the prejudice that so many of us have towards our brother and sisters in the black community. I believe it was Dr Martin Luther King who said that 11 am on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in American life. He spoke those words 40 years ago, yet it is still so true today. When God sends true revival to this nation, He is going to destroy the prejudice that has been hindering His people
Pray with me right now
Father God, We come before You this day, and we repent. We repent of our pride, our racism, our prejudice. We repent for the lack of love that we have shown our brothers and sisters in the black community. We humbly ask that You would forgive and that You would wash all our sins away by the precious blood that Your Son, Jesus Christ shed on the cross. Take our pride, and replace it with humility. Take our racist attitudes and our prejudice and replace them with Your Love. We need Your mercy to flow down from Your throne this day. Send Your revival to this nation, because we need it so much. Help the young men to men of God, and the young women to be women of excellence, and help us all to serve You more every day,
We Pray all in the mighty matchless name of Jesus Christ, out Lord and Savior
Amen
Elections, Haggard, and My weekend
Hey everybody!
As you know Election Day is tommorow. Dont forget to vote!
I'm voting Lieberman and Simmons, no idea for Governor. I dont like Rell, and I dont know enough about DeSteffano...
Now onto the Ted Haggard situation. I was asked by a friend who is not an Evangelical Christian what I thought last Friday. I said at the time that Mr. Haggard has to be guilty of something, because no one resigns that quickly if they are innocent. As it turns out, Mr Haggard himself admitted to being guilty of some of what he has been accused of. This whole tragic incident should cause us as Christians to do several things. First and most importantly, we must pray- for Mr Haggard and for His family, for the National Association of Evangelicals, for Mr Haggard's Church. Secondly we need to pray for other high profile ministers because Satan loves nothing more than destroying those who preach the Gospel Of Jesus Christ. Third we must pray for ourselves and the other believers around us that we live above reproach, and that God's enemies have no reason to revile Him because of our actions.
More on the reactions of other ministers to the Haggard scandal here
My weekednd was good. I travelled down South to sing with the Gospel Choir at My University at a convention for African American Cultural Centers.
The keynote speaker on Saturday evening was a man from Columbia University. He spoke for about 45 mins -75 mins on the issues of affirmative action and minority disenfranchisement. He also spoke on what he sees as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters in this country with the criminal justice system.. As he put it, 45% of the people in jail today are African American, Hispanic or Native American. If you are convicted of a felony in this country, you are often denied the right to vote while you are in prison, and once you get out of prison. With a disproportionate amount of minorites in the prison system, the minorities are being slowly disenfranchised.
On Affirmative Action, he said that it is a good thing and that the Conservatives are taking it away from minorities.
I understand where the speaker was coming from. This is a man whose ancestors were exslaves. He himself has been through the Civil Rights movement and he has experienced racism first hand. However. I did have some problems with what he said. When he spoke on affirmative action, I got the impression that he believes that all white conservatives are racists. He spoke of white liberals as "our friends" and although he never said it, the implication I got was that all white conservatives are racists. It is possible that I misjudged him, because I am certainly not perfect. However, I do want to say that I am in fact white and am in fact a conservative. If you asked anyone who knows me, they will all say that I am not, nor ever have been a racist. I undersatnd that there are racist conservatives, but there are also white liberal racists, and there are racists in the black community as well because human nature is human nature, and hatred exists in every culture group.
Now the best way to combat the impression that all white conservatives are racists is to Love people. Those of us who do fit that category of white conservatives need to go out and show Christ's love to our brothers and sisters in the African American community. They need to know that we love them and that we care about them because that is what Christ taught us to do. The devil has lied to our black brothers and sisters saying that we are racists and bigots. Well, we are not what the devil has said about us, and we need to combat the lie by showing love to our brothers and sisters in the African American community
As you know Election Day is tommorow. Dont forget to vote!
I'm voting Lieberman and Simmons, no idea for Governor. I dont like Rell, and I dont know enough about DeSteffano...
Now onto the Ted Haggard situation. I was asked by a friend who is not an Evangelical Christian what I thought last Friday. I said at the time that Mr. Haggard has to be guilty of something, because no one resigns that quickly if they are innocent. As it turns out, Mr Haggard himself admitted to being guilty of some of what he has been accused of. This whole tragic incident should cause us as Christians to do several things. First and most importantly, we must pray- for Mr Haggard and for His family, for the National Association of Evangelicals, for Mr Haggard's Church. Secondly we need to pray for other high profile ministers because Satan loves nothing more than destroying those who preach the Gospel Of Jesus Christ. Third we must pray for ourselves and the other believers around us that we live above reproach, and that God's enemies have no reason to revile Him because of our actions.
More on the reactions of other ministers to the Haggard scandal here
My weekednd was good. I travelled down South to sing with the Gospel Choir at My University at a convention for African American Cultural Centers.
The keynote speaker on Saturday evening was a man from Columbia University. He spoke for about 45 mins -75 mins on the issues of affirmative action and minority disenfranchisement. He also spoke on what he sees as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters in this country with the criminal justice system.. As he put it, 45% of the people in jail today are African American, Hispanic or Native American. If you are convicted of a felony in this country, you are often denied the right to vote while you are in prison, and once you get out of prison. With a disproportionate amount of minorites in the prison system, the minorities are being slowly disenfranchised.
On Affirmative Action, he said that it is a good thing and that the Conservatives are taking it away from minorities.
I understand where the speaker was coming from. This is a man whose ancestors were exslaves. He himself has been through the Civil Rights movement and he has experienced racism first hand. However. I did have some problems with what he said. When he spoke on affirmative action, I got the impression that he believes that all white conservatives are racists. He spoke of white liberals as "our friends" and although he never said it, the implication I got was that all white conservatives are racists. It is possible that I misjudged him, because I am certainly not perfect. However, I do want to say that I am in fact white and am in fact a conservative. If you asked anyone who knows me, they will all say that I am not, nor ever have been a racist. I undersatnd that there are racist conservatives, but there are also white liberal racists, and there are racists in the black community as well because human nature is human nature, and hatred exists in every culture group.
Now the best way to combat the impression that all white conservatives are racists is to Love people. Those of us who do fit that category of white conservatives need to go out and show Christ's love to our brothers and sisters in the African American community. They need to know that we love them and that we care about them because that is what Christ taught us to do. The devil has lied to our black brothers and sisters saying that we are racists and bigots. Well, we are not what the devil has said about us, and we need to combat the lie by showing love to our brothers and sisters in the African American community
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Random stuff
I have completed my Senior Thesis!
Praise the LORD!!!!!!
Day 13 of the zero junk food plan... it gets a little easier every day.
For those of you who have not voted yet, make sure that you vote next tuesday!
John Kerry is not a bright man...If he was making a joke about our President, it really wasnt funny
Watch Bill O'Reilly on Letterman's show. this is classic TV.
Peace and Love!
Praise the LORD!!!!!!
Day 13 of the zero junk food plan... it gets a little easier every day.
For those of you who have not voted yet, make sure that you vote next tuesday!
John Kerry is not a bright man...If he was making a joke about our President, it really wasnt funny
Watch Bill O'Reilly on Letterman's show. this is classic TV.
Peace and Love!
Saturday, October 28, 2006
I'm just procrastinating
Day nine of the No Junk food for me plan.... No chips, no fast food, no candy, no soda. It's a little tough.
Senoir Thesis are no fun especially when your major source is written in Middle English and there is no translation....
oh well...
Senoir Thesis are no fun especially when your major source is written in Middle English and there is no translation....
oh well...
Saturday, October 21, 2006
God's bricks
You know God is trying to get your attention when four or five brothers and sisters in Christ, independent of each other, all tell you the same thing within the space of 72 hours!
Thanks family! love y'all lots!
Thanks family! love y'all lots!
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Why we must vote
This post is in response to members of the Christian brotherhood who are contemplating not voting this year because of all the problems with the Conservative Republicans, such as the Mark Foley scandal.
I have two points to make before explaining why we must vote
I have two points to make before explaining why we must vote
- Conservative Republican does not equal righteous. Just because a particular political stance is a Biblical does not mean that the person who articulates that stance is a Christian. I mean, the most conservative Republican in the Senate, Orin Hatch of Utah, is a dedicated member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which does not believe in the Trinity (How one can call himself a Christian and deny the basic principles of the faith is beyond me, but that is for another post) Two examples of popular Conservatives who are not Christians are Newt Gingrich, a solid Conservative who I would never vote for in any election, because of what he did to his wife (Divorcing her while she was on her sick bed), and Phil Giordano, The former mayor of Waterbury who ran against Joe Lieberman in the last Senatorial election in CT as a family values conservative, who was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for violating the civil rights of two little girls who he sexually abused
- The people that we elect are human- that means they are going to mistakes. This is not to say that we should not hold them to high standards, because we should. But we need to rid ourselves of the assumption that the Conservatives in office are going to be perfect, and that every political decision they make is going to be the right one
That being said, here is why we must vote.
While not every Conservative is a Christian, the Conservative platform on social morality is closer to Biblical standards. While the Conservatives are not perfect, Who would you rather have as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, or Dennis Hastert? Nancy Pelosi is committed to promoting an agenda which directly contradicts what the Bible has to say on the issues of abortion, and gay marriage. If we don't vote, those who oppose God's ways will have an immense amount of political power, and we will lose our voice in government
Secondly, if we do not vote, we lose the right to complain about how things are going. If we don't vote why should we be allowed to complain? If we don't vote and the God -haters take over Congress, the result will be exactly what we deserve
Most importantly, it is our duty before God to vote!
Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. In the Gospel of Luke Chapter 19, Jesus tells us the parable of the talents, in which the Lord tells his servants to "Occupy till I [the Lord] come" I looked up the word occupy in the dictionary and here is what it had to say:
1 : to engage the attention or energies
of2 a : to take up (a place or extent in space)b : to take or fill
(an extent in time)3 a : to take
or hold possession or control ofb : to
fill or perform the functions of (an office or position)4 : to reside in as an owner or tenant -
oc·cu·pi·er /-"pI(-&)r/
noun
The Strong's Concordance has a slightly different defintion but it is also applicable
G4231
πραγματεύομαι
pragmateuomai
prag-mat-yoo'-om-ahee
From G4229;
to busy oneself with, that is, to trade: - occupy.
If we are to occupy till Christ comes, that means two things. First, and most importantly, we are to work to bring souls into the Kingdom, but secondly we are to get in the way of the devil's plans for our nation. If we idly sit by and let those who hate God and His ways seize control of the government, then we will get exactly what we deserve. If you think it is bad now, just wait and see what happens if we do not go and exercise our rights as American Christians.
Some things that easily could happen if we do not vote:
- America will stop supporting Israel
- Abortion on demand will be promoted
- Gay marriage will be forced to be legalized in all 50 states
- Christians who stand up against gay marriage will be prosecuted for "hate crimes"
- Christians will be marginalized even more
The last thing Satan wants to see is the Christians go into the voting booth in an attitude of prayer. He wants to keep us from "occupying till Christ comes back" Don't allow Satan to get away with this!
Vote on November 7th!
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
TULIP part 2
Ok in my last post I said that would discuss my feelings on the P tenet of Reformed (Calvinist) Theology
To refresh:
P-Perseverance of the Saints-"Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect."- This is the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always saved" or "The Eternal Security of Believers"
OK here are my thoughts on this issue. I do have some problems with the doctrine of "once-saved, always saved" and here is why. Let me be clear to start; I do not believe that one can "lose" his salvation, but I do believe that someone can, after trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, reject Him so completely that they are no longer saved. Scriptural evidence for that includes Matthew 24:11-13
"Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Other Scriptures that seem to indicate this (that one can walk away from the faith) include the Parable of the Sower:
Mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
Mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
I looked up the definition of the word offended in the Strong's concordance and here is what it has to say:
"σκανδαλίζω
skandalizō
skan-dal-id'-zo
To "scandalize"; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend."
Another reason I do not believe in the doctrine of once saved always saved is because of personal experience. I know people who truly loved God at one time who at this moment are not saved because they chose to reject God in favor of something else. For those who say those people I am referring to were never saved, that contradicts Scripture because it denies the power of God to save them in the first place.
An additional problem that I have with the concept of once saved always saved, is that there are some who will use this doctrine to do whatever they want because if one's salvation is secure it doesn't matter what they do. This is contradicted by Romans 6:1
My father's pastor said one time "I believe in the Eternal Security of Eternal Believers (ie, those who endure to the end). Now that, I agree with!
I know many dear brothers and sisters who do not agree with what I have just said and they will use John 17:12, and Romans 8 as a defense of the Doctrine of once saved always saved, and I can understand where they are coming from. This is an issue where I have agreed to disagree.
As I told one such brother who I love in the Lord, If people are truly trusting in Jesus and following hard after Him, the issue of Eternal Security become completely moot, because they have made their calling and election sure
Anyway these are my thoughts on this issue. God Bless and have a great day!
To refresh:
P-Perseverance of the Saints-"Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect."- This is the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always saved" or "The Eternal Security of Believers"
OK here are my thoughts on this issue. I do have some problems with the doctrine of "once-saved, always saved" and here is why. Let me be clear to start; I do not believe that one can "lose" his salvation, but I do believe that someone can, after trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, reject Him so completely that they are no longer saved. Scriptural evidence for that includes Matthew 24:11-13
"Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Other Scriptures that seem to indicate this (that one can walk away from the faith) include the Parable of the Sower:
Mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
Mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
I looked up the definition of the word offended in the Strong's concordance and here is what it has to say:
"σκανδαλίζω
skandalizō
skan-dal-id'-zo
To "scandalize"; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend."
Another reason I do not believe in the doctrine of once saved always saved is because of personal experience. I know people who truly loved God at one time who at this moment are not saved because they chose to reject God in favor of something else. For those who say those people I am referring to were never saved, that contradicts Scripture because it denies the power of God to save them in the first place.
An additional problem that I have with the concept of once saved always saved, is that there are some who will use this doctrine to do whatever they want because if one's salvation is secure it doesn't matter what they do. This is contradicted by Romans 6:1
My father's pastor said one time "I believe in the Eternal Security of Eternal Believers (ie, those who endure to the end). Now that, I agree with!
I know many dear brothers and sisters who do not agree with what I have just said and they will use John 17:12, and Romans 8 as a defense of the Doctrine of once saved always saved, and I can understand where they are coming from. This is an issue where I have agreed to disagree.
As I told one such brother who I love in the Lord, If people are truly trusting in Jesus and following hard after Him, the issue of Eternal Security become completely moot, because they have made their calling and election sure
Anyway these are my thoughts on this issue. God Bless and have a great day!
Monday, October 02, 2006
TULIP is Not Biblical
This is a post that will probably create quite a stir, but I am going ahead with it anyway. In a recent posting discussion on Physicsgeek's and Peter Bedow's Blogs regarding the recent Veggie Tales- NBC controversy, PhysicsGeek made the following comment
"My last question: Why should VeggieTales exist at all? Why don't we just make a half-hour CG cartoon with a talking tomato telling us the Four Spiritual Laws or explaining TULIP?" Well, I for one would not want my kids to learn TULIP because it is unBiblical. For those wondering what I am referring to, TULIP is an acronym which describes the basic tenets of Reformed (Calvinist) Theology TULIP stands for the following
T-Total Depravity of Man- Mankind is, apart from God, unable to love God.This tenet is Biblical. (Explanations will follow, using Scriptures to make my arguments)
U-Unconditional Election-"Election means "choice." God's choice from eternity of whom he will bring to himself, is not based on foreseen virtue, merit or faith in the persons he chooses but rather is unconditionally grounded in his own sovereign decision. This does not mean that final salvation itself is unconditional; rather, it means that, in the Calvinist view, the condition upon which salvation hinges (faith) is given to those whom God has unconditionally chosen to receive it."-(From Wikipedia.com) Reformed .org has this to say: "Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.This tenet, and the next one, are not Biblical
L-Limited Atonement -Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died! (From Reformed.org) This tenet is not Biblical
I-irresistible Grace-The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)! (From Reformed.org) This tenet is Biblical!
P-Perseverance of the Saints-"Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect."- This is the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always saved" or "The Eternal Security of Believers"
Here is my explanation on Biblical/UnBiblical
T- Biblical; Romans 3:10 As it is written [Psalms 14,53], There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
U- Not Biblical! "God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21)" There are some because of the choices they have made to reject God, God has made "vessels unto dishounour" (see Romans 1:24). A loving and righteous God would NEVER send anyone to hell for something that was not his fault. If U is true, how does one explain Paul, who wrote Romans, telling Timothy in 1Timothy 2:1-4 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. If God wants all men to be saved (ie experience eternal life with Him in heaven), why would He elect (choose) some to be eternally damned to hell? Other Scriptures that contradict this tenet include Ezekiel 33:11" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? " Again, if God has no pleausure in the death of the wicked, but wants the wicked to turn to Him, why would He choose some to be eternally separated from Him? The point is that there are those who have chosen to reject Christ, but that God, who is love, could not have chosen anybody to be eternally cursed, with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, whose betrayal and destruction were prophesied by David in the Psalms. (I say possible because Judas was not forced to betray Jesus- The Bible foretold of his decision, but God did not force him to do this. Again reference Romans 1:24)
L- Not only is this UnBiblical, This tenet is absurd. Those who believe this tenet point to Matthew 26:28, which says that Christ's blood was shed for "many". The problem, is that then they ignore verses such as I John 2:1-2: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The "Whole World" is pretty inclusive. Other Scriptures that those who beleive this tenet are then forced to either ignore or rationalize away include I Timothy 2:1-4 (referenced above), John 1:7, John 12: 33, Titus 2:11, and John 3:16.I have called this tenet absurd because it does not make any sense. If God is love (I John 4:7) and this God , who is Love, chose to die for some men, why would He not die for all of mankind? It is ridiculous to think that a loving God would ever die for some and not all. No, Jesus Died for all of us. Another problem with this doctrine is that creates pride in Christians with the false notion that we are somehow more special that everyone else because God chose to save us and not the person next to us. It also turns non-Christans off to the message of grace and forgiveness that is found by trusting in Jesus because How can we really be sure that anyone of us is truly part of the "elect"? This doctrine also can lead to the problem of Christians who use their "Liberty as an occasion to the flesh" I mean if one's salvation is secure and they are part of the elect than it really doesnt matter what they do
I- Biblical! God's grace saves us (Ephesians 2:8-9) and The Father draws us to Christ by his Spirit working in our Hearts (John 6:44, Romans 2:4)
P- I will discuss this next post, because there is much I Want to say about the isssue of whether one can lose their salvation or not!
I suspect That this post may spark a very interesting debate on all of this. I Just ask that all comments be civil and loving in the Spirit of Christain Brotherhood
Monday, September 25, 2006
On Iran, Venezuela, and the Gnostic Gospels
Hey everyone!
Unless you have been living in hole this past week, you probably know that Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran were in New York to speak at the UN and and various other places. You probably also heard the things that they said regarding President Bush. During His UN speach, Chavez called President Bush as 'the Devil" and remarked that there was still the smell of sulfur at the podium where the president had stood the day before. Later, at a church in Harlem, he repeated his attack adding that Bush is an alcoholic cowboy who became President because his father was President.Ahmadinejad prayed for the destruction of the world through the coming of the twelfth immam which he claims will be within the next two years. He also said in an interview with Brian Roberts of MSNBC that He does not beleive that the Holocaust ever happenend, that the "Zionists" made it up so that they could invade Palestine
My thoughts... Chavez is a buffoonish clown, who is simply repeating what many on the far left in this country have been saying for years "Bush is Hitler, Bush is Satan, Bush is the AntiChrist, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a liar, Bush is drunk, blah blah blah" He does not concern me nearly as much as Ahmadinejad does. Ahmadinejad is a well spoken anti-Semite who does not come across like a raving madman. Also Iran has something that Venezuela does not have--nuclear capabilities. he could very easily threaten Isreal with Nuclear weapons, and that frightens me.
Now for something completely different
One of my assigned texts in my Christian History class this semester was The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Ms Pagels is a woman who basically says that the Cannonical Scriptures of the New Testament today are anti women and that the Gnostic Texts should carry as much credence as the New Testament, and that each of the essential doctrines of the New Testament were accepted for political resaons (Think Dan Brown, only Female) I The first doctrine that Pagels discusses in The Gnostic Gospel was the bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ from the grave. The Gnostic taught that these accounts of the disciples seeing Jesus were actually "visions received in dreams or in ecstatic trances" (Pagel,The Gnostic Gospels, p 15) The Gnostics rejected the claim that Jesus rose from the grave as "a faith of fools" (Pagel p 11).Lets take a look at what the Bible says about Christ's ressurection. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-17, The Apsotle Paul States
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no
resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen,
then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found
false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ:whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if
the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not
raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Who will you believe? Elaine Pagels, or the Almighty God? I Beleive God. I Believe His unerring Word. I Believe that Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, The Son of God and God Himself, died on a Roman cross for My sins and that He defeated Sin and Death and Hell by Rising again on the third day. He is just as risen today as he was when walked out of the tomb!
Low in the Grave He Lay
Jesus, my Jesus
DEATH COULD NOT KEEP HIS PREY
JESUS MY LORD!!!!
UP FROM THE GRAVE HE AROSE!
WITH A MIGHTY TRIUMPH O'ER HIS FOES
HE AROSE A VICTOR O'ER THE DARK DOMAIN
AND HE LIVES FOREVER WITH HIS SAINTS TO REIGN
HE AROSE! HE AROSE! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
CHRIST AROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE IS RISEN !!!!!
God Bless and have a great day!
Unless you have been living in hole this past week, you probably know that Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran were in New York to speak at the UN and and various other places. You probably also heard the things that they said regarding President Bush. During His UN speach, Chavez called President Bush as 'the Devil" and remarked that there was still the smell of sulfur at the podium where the president had stood the day before. Later, at a church in Harlem, he repeated his attack adding that Bush is an alcoholic cowboy who became President because his father was President.Ahmadinejad prayed for the destruction of the world through the coming of the twelfth immam which he claims will be within the next two years. He also said in an interview with Brian Roberts of MSNBC that He does not beleive that the Holocaust ever happenend, that the "Zionists" made it up so that they could invade Palestine
My thoughts... Chavez is a buffoonish clown, who is simply repeating what many on the far left in this country have been saying for years "Bush is Hitler, Bush is Satan, Bush is the AntiChrist, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a liar, Bush is drunk, blah blah blah" He does not concern me nearly as much as Ahmadinejad does. Ahmadinejad is a well spoken anti-Semite who does not come across like a raving madman. Also Iran has something that Venezuela does not have--nuclear capabilities. he could very easily threaten Isreal with Nuclear weapons, and that frightens me.
Now for something completely different
One of my assigned texts in my Christian History class this semester was The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Ms Pagels is a woman who basically says that the Cannonical Scriptures of the New Testament today are anti women and that the Gnostic Texts should carry as much credence as the New Testament, and that each of the essential doctrines of the New Testament were accepted for political resaons (Think Dan Brown, only Female) I The first doctrine that Pagels discusses in The Gnostic Gospel was the bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ from the grave. The Gnostic taught that these accounts of the disciples seeing Jesus were actually "visions received in dreams or in ecstatic trances" (Pagel,The Gnostic Gospels, p 15) The Gnostics rejected the claim that Jesus rose from the grave as "a faith of fools" (Pagel p 11).Lets take a look at what the Bible says about Christ's ressurection. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-17, The Apsotle Paul States
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no
resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen,
then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found
false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ:whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if
the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not
raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Who will you believe? Elaine Pagels, or the Almighty God? I Beleive God. I Believe His unerring Word. I Believe that Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, The Son of God and God Himself, died on a Roman cross for My sins and that He defeated Sin and Death and Hell by Rising again on the third day. He is just as risen today as he was when walked out of the tomb!
Low in the Grave He Lay
Jesus, my Jesus
DEATH COULD NOT KEEP HIS PREY
JESUS MY LORD!!!!
UP FROM THE GRAVE HE AROSE!
WITH A MIGHTY TRIUMPH O'ER HIS FOES
HE AROSE A VICTOR O'ER THE DARK DOMAIN
AND HE LIVES FOREVER WITH HIS SAINTS TO REIGN
HE AROSE! HE AROSE! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
CHRIST AROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE IS RISEN !!!!!
God Bless and have a great day!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Im Back
Hello again Everybody!
Yes I am back at the University (One more year!) Classes will be very interesting this semester, as I am taking three courses that contain the possibility of making my blood boil. Two are on the history of Christianity and the other is on US Foreign policy... I will keep y'all posted. I am looking forward to the Gospel Choir and to the various fellowships that I will be attending this year. I am expecting God to do some great things this year.
If you haven't read Proverbs in a while go back and re-read it. It's Deep!
I am at a point right now where all I want to do all day is talk about Jesus- He is so wonderful, gracious, kind, powerful, majestic, sweet, holy, righteous, I could go on forever! I love Him so much! He has saved me from my sins and is transforming into who He has called me to be. I dont deserve his goodness but He loved me enough to die for my sins. He Loves you too and you can have eternal life. All you have to do is trust in Jesus!
Yes I am back at the University (One more year!) Classes will be very interesting this semester, as I am taking three courses that contain the possibility of making my blood boil. Two are on the history of Christianity and the other is on US Foreign policy... I will keep y'all posted. I am looking forward to the Gospel Choir and to the various fellowships that I will be attending this year. I am expecting God to do some great things this year.
If you haven't read Proverbs in a while go back and re-read it. It's Deep!
I am at a point right now where all I want to do all day is talk about Jesus- He is so wonderful, gracious, kind, powerful, majestic, sweet, holy, righteous, I could go on forever! I love Him so much! He has saved me from my sins and is transforming into who He has called me to be. I dont deserve his goodness but He loved me enough to die for my sins. He Loves you too and you can have eternal life. All you have to do is trust in Jesus!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Old School Music
In a recent post by Physics Geek, he talked about the decline of Sandi Patty. Today I listened to "I Choose Joy" by Larnelle Harris for the first time in about six years. Larnelle is another artist from that era of Contemporary Christian music. If you have heard any of his stuff, you should go out and look for it. His tenor range is amazing, and the music is very good. His best album is "Larnelle Live", which he did with the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir.
On a completely unrelated topic I predict that the Sox will win 4 out of 5 this weekend against the Yanks, Big Papi hitting at least one walk-off off of Rivera
Go Beantown!
On a completely unrelated topic I predict that the Sox will win 4 out of 5 this weekend against the Yanks, Big Papi hitting at least one walk-off off of Rivera
Go Beantown!
Thursday, August 10, 2006
I Figured it out!
Ok Now that I hjave figured out how to addlonks to my blog (thanks to Dr M at http://physicsgeekJesusfreak.blogspot.com) I can add my favorite blogs and websites. Sweet deal!
Watch Bill O'Reilly talking points on Senator Liebermans' defeat from yesterday (not up now but should be on later) I agree with everything he had to say except that the state of Connectiut did not send a clear cut message against the war. Lamont won by 4 points and it was only the Democrats who were voting. I think Lieberman has a real shot to win as an independent as more will vote in the general election. Lieberman probably will get my vote, as I know nothing about Alan Schlesinger and I will not vote for Lamont ever.
Well that is it for now, God Bless and enjoy your day!
Watch Bill O'Reilly talking points on Senator Liebermans' defeat from yesterday (not up now but should be on later) I agree with everything he had to say except that the state of Connectiut did not send a clear cut message against the war. Lamont won by 4 points and it was only the Democrats who were voting. I think Lieberman has a real shot to win as an independent as more will vote in the general election. Lieberman probably will get my vote, as I know nothing about Alan Schlesinger and I will not vote for Lamont ever.
Well that is it for now, God Bless and enjoy your day!
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
More on the Senate Race
Lieberman's loss is deeply troubling, especially from a Christian perspective. Lieberman lost this primary because he refused to attack President Bush on the war in Iraq. His refusal to play politics with the war just might cost him his job, and that is a real shame.
Joe Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who has always defended Israel's right to exist. The issue of Israel was the main issue of this primary. Lieberman's support of the Iraq conflict is based on the fact that he saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to Israel's security. Mr Lamont and his far left buddies see the Jewish state of Israel as an illegal, immoral thing. They want the Israelis to abandon the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and give the land back to its "rightful owners" the Palestinians. I found all of this out a few years ago when I watched a anti war rally in Washington DC on C-Span one Saturday Morning in Mid October (there was nothing else on). EVERY SINGLE speaker with exception one railed against two things "The illegal occupation of Iraq" and Israel's "Illegal occupation of Palestinian territory" In their warped minds, Hamas, the PLO, and Hezbollah are the good guys and Israel is the bad guy.
As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says in Genesis 12:3- God will bless those who bless Abraham's seed (the Jewish people). It is our responsibility to pray for the nation Israel and ask God to defend the Apple of his eye
Joe Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who has always defended Israel's right to exist. The issue of Israel was the main issue of this primary. Lieberman's support of the Iraq conflict is based on the fact that he saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to Israel's security. Mr Lamont and his far left buddies see the Jewish state of Israel as an illegal, immoral thing. They want the Israelis to abandon the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and give the land back to its "rightful owners" the Palestinians. I found all of this out a few years ago when I watched a anti war rally in Washington DC on C-Span one Saturday Morning in Mid October (there was nothing else on). EVERY SINGLE speaker with exception one railed against two things "The illegal occupation of Iraq" and Israel's "Illegal occupation of Palestinian territory" In their warped minds, Hamas, the PLO, and Hezbollah are the good guys and Israel is the bad guy.
As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says in Genesis 12:3- God will bless those who bless Abraham's seed (the Jewish people). It is our responsibility to pray for the nation Israel and ask God to defend the Apple of his eye
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
My First Post
Hello!
This is my first post.
I, The Compassionate Conservative, will tell you a little about myself. I am a Jesus Loving, Bible believing, Fundamentalist, politically conservative Christian who also happens to be a nice guy. I am in my early twenties and I attend a public university in the Northeast.
When I refer to myself as a Fundamentalist Christian allow me to explain. I believe Fundamentally in the Love of God. I Fundamentally believe that Jesus Christ came to this earth to save sinners, of whom I am chief. I Fundamentally believe that the Bible calls me to show love NO MATTER WHAT to my fellow man.
Politically I tend to be conservative on the hot button social issues, based on what I read in the Bible. I am pro-life (Exodus 20:13, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 2, Genesis 1-2) and I am against gay marriage (Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1, I Corinthians 6). However I do not hate homosexuals, and I do not hate women, because God calls me to show love to all (I John 4:7)
On other social issues I am less conservative. On the issue of governmental welfare, I am convinced it is a necessary evil. I believe that the government has taken over the responsibility of providing food for the poor because the Christian Church was negligent in their responsibility. God calls us to remember the poor (Galatians 2:10, James 1:27) and we have not done our duty. Think about it. Look at all the millions who go to these huge mega churches around the country and then see all the millions who are destitute in the same cities where these mega churches are. Because we as Christians failed in our responsibility by and large, the government was forced to step in. We need to do what we can to help those in this country who are less fortunate than we are- In short we need to put into practice what God has called us to do.
Ok enough about me. I wanted to talk about Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman's primary race against Ned Lamont. As a Christian I value honesty as a noble character trait and it is something that I want to see in my elected officials. Mr Lamont's campaign against Lieberman has been was of the most dishonest campaigns I have ever seen. Lamont has attacked Lieberman, calling him "George Bush's Lap Dog" and implying that Lieberman is a clone of the President in several TV and radio spots. The facts, however, do not support such an accusation. Senator Lieberman is a three term Senator who has voted with the Democratic party 90% of the time. He voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito, against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and against every pro life measure ever taken up in the Senate. Lieberman is a solidly liberal politician who has served the state of Connecticut for more than two decades in public office.
Lamont is challenging Lieberman mainly because Lieberman is one of the few prominent Democrats who has maintained his support of our military actions in Iraq. He also agrees with Bush on 4 other issues. The fact that the far left is willing to throw a loyal Democrat under the bus because he sides with conservatives on 5 issues is an absolute shame. What is this country's political system coming too when you are not allowed to agree with the opposing party on 5 issues?
I disagree with Lieberman on almost every issue (except Israel), but I think that he is a good guy who is getting absolutely shafted for all the wrong reasons.
This is my first post.
I, The Compassionate Conservative, will tell you a little about myself. I am a Jesus Loving, Bible believing, Fundamentalist, politically conservative Christian who also happens to be a nice guy. I am in my early twenties and I attend a public university in the Northeast.
When I refer to myself as a Fundamentalist Christian allow me to explain. I believe Fundamentally in the Love of God. I Fundamentally believe that Jesus Christ came to this earth to save sinners, of whom I am chief. I Fundamentally believe that the Bible calls me to show love NO MATTER WHAT to my fellow man.
Politically I tend to be conservative on the hot button social issues, based on what I read in the Bible. I am pro-life (Exodus 20:13, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 2, Genesis 1-2) and I am against gay marriage (Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1, I Corinthians 6). However I do not hate homosexuals, and I do not hate women, because God calls me to show love to all (I John 4:7)
On other social issues I am less conservative. On the issue of governmental welfare, I am convinced it is a necessary evil. I believe that the government has taken over the responsibility of providing food for the poor because the Christian Church was negligent in their responsibility. God calls us to remember the poor (Galatians 2:10, James 1:27) and we have not done our duty. Think about it. Look at all the millions who go to these huge mega churches around the country and then see all the millions who are destitute in the same cities where these mega churches are. Because we as Christians failed in our responsibility by and large, the government was forced to step in. We need to do what we can to help those in this country who are less fortunate than we are- In short we need to put into practice what God has called us to do.
Ok enough about me. I wanted to talk about Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman's primary race against Ned Lamont. As a Christian I value honesty as a noble character trait and it is something that I want to see in my elected officials. Mr Lamont's campaign against Lieberman has been was of the most dishonest campaigns I have ever seen. Lamont has attacked Lieberman, calling him "George Bush's Lap Dog" and implying that Lieberman is a clone of the President in several TV and radio spots. The facts, however, do not support such an accusation. Senator Lieberman is a three term Senator who has voted with the Democratic party 90% of the time. He voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito, against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and against every pro life measure ever taken up in the Senate. Lieberman is a solidly liberal politician who has served the state of Connecticut for more than two decades in public office.
Lamont is challenging Lieberman mainly because Lieberman is one of the few prominent Democrats who has maintained his support of our military actions in Iraq. He also agrees with Bush on 4 other issues. The fact that the far left is willing to throw a loyal Democrat under the bus because he sides with conservatives on 5 issues is an absolute shame. What is this country's political system coming too when you are not allowed to agree with the opposing party on 5 issues?
I disagree with Lieberman on almost every issue (except Israel), but I think that he is a good guy who is getting absolutely shafted for all the wrong reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)