Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Til Death Do Us Part, Or Not

I have been wanting to address this issue for quite some time (actually since Nov. 2007) in response to an article posted at Time.com.

I have no intention here to rehash the entire article (You can read it here) but I think the most disturbing thing about it was the title "An Evangelical Rethink On Divorce?" That's the part that caught my attention; the idea that evangelicals can be flexible on issues about which God has been firm.

The final paragraph makes this stunning statement about American evangelical Christians: "...even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them."

That explains a lot about why Christians seem to have no credbility in the  culture wars. With the contemporary swing away from expository, Christ-centered preaching and teaching to a man-centered theology that insists on "relationships, not rules," or "deeds, not creeds," Christians are not equipped to defend their positions with scripture and so they shape their beliefs with their emotions.  Why should the world take us seriously? 

Last week the heretic, Pat Robertson, reinterpreted "until death do us part" to mean "until sick do us part."

Well, as I was thinking about how I was going to vent on this subject, another blogger, "Spherical AT THE CENTER," beat me to it and, frankly, I couldn't have said it better:

"Isn't Pat just stating what our itching ears want to hear? Isn't he just stating what most of us practice in some form or another? Isn't he just stating our truth. When the going gets tough, the tough find a loophole or a justification for their actions."

"We make vows to our spouses. We tell them we love them. But when that beauty fades or they are no longer of service to us, we cast them aside. Was not the person we loved really ourselves? As long as we get what we want, we love and stay together. Was that the vow we took?"

The Time article (in 2007) summarized the problem with this prophetic speculation about evangelical Christians:

Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power.  (The ever-active Barna folks have found that 57% of "born-again" Christians age 16-29 criticize their own church for being "anti-homosexual").

Sunday, September 25, 2011

180 The Movie - Help People Change Their Minds On Abortion

The ministry of Living Waters has just released the following video that has the potential to drastically change the culture’s view on abortion and to save souls. Please take the time view this important video: 



HT to Defending Contending.

Please feel free to repost this.  As you share this video with people, please suggest they go to www.180movie.com for additional information.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

The Poster Child For All Bullies

This is the picture of an Arrogant, Obnoxious, Uncouth, Deranged, Base, Disgusting, Slimy, Evil, Mean, Creepy, Sleazy, Vile, Stupid, Low-life, Potty-mouthed, Scumbag Bully.


Caution:  The following video clip contains vulgar and offensive gutter language. 





Did I miss any adjectives?


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 23, 2011

Is THE ONE Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

I may not the brightest bulb in the pack but I am a little smarter than a fifth grader.  Unlike someone else who, according to those who claim to know Him best, has an I.Q. of about 160 (mine is only 140), I have to spend a little more time to prepare before I make a public address.  

It is often my privilege to read portions of Scripture in my church.  And whenever I am called on to do that, I always take the time to read it through privately first in order to make sure I know how to pronounce all the words and to be aware of punctuation so that I can communicate the words in an understandable way.  

And, when it comes to reading scripture, I would think the purpose is to engage the attention of the hearers and focus their attention on the very Word of God.  So when the messenger stumbles, the hearer is distracted.  The focus has then been diverted from God to the speaker.

A person who stands before the congregation (or the public) and stumbles over pronunciation is not very smart regardless of His I.Q.  

The mispronounced word was "bow"(at 1:15)

The word has two pronunciations with totally different meanings.  In this case, the proper pronunciation could have easily been known by its meaning.  And the meaning was made clear in its context.  Any fifth grader could have gotten it right by simply reading it first.  The ONE could have avoided a lot of embarrassment had he taken just a couple minutes to do a cursory reading of the Psalm before He stepped up to the podium.



Apparently an I.Q. of 160 doesn't make One smarter than a fifth grader.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

I Am A Six-Pointer

The media don't get it.  They don't understand the TEA party movement. 
 Most people think that the TEA party is a renegade arm of the Republican party.  But it is not a political party at all.  It is an American grassroots movement comprised of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who are all fed up with our out-of-control, and over-reaching government.

But the movement has found common ground with the Republican party mainly because the Republican party has begun to listened to the people.  If they stop listening, the TEA party will leave them and find a party that will pay attention.
 
So what is it that unites all these Americans of various political persuasions?  Doug Giles has identified at least six common principles of the TEA party that are not partisan values; they are American values.
 
Six Objectives of the TEA Party Movement:

1.  We are Taxed Enough Already.  Its our money.  We earned it and we believe we should be able to keep most of it.   

2.  Reduce Government Spending.  The United States doesn't have a shortage of income.  It has an out-of-control spending problem.  We all have to live within our means and balance our budgets.  Government should too. 

3.  Reduce the national debt and the federal budget deficit.  Uncle Sam is acting like a spoiled teenager with his father's credit card.  And when the bill comes, he borrows more money to pay the interest on the loan.

4.  Respect the United States Constitution-ALL of it, not just the parts you like.  We want our government to be controlled by our charter documents-not the way they want to reinterpret them, but the way the original writers intended them.

5.  Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government.  We can manage our own lives, families, and businesses without all your rules and restrictions.  Get off our backs and out of our faces. The government that rules least, rules best.

6.  And finally, we don't like and don't want your government-run health care.  We didn't was it when Hillary tried it and we don't want Obamacare either.    

 Any elected officials who respect these principles and fight for them will be able to keep their jobs.  Those who don't will be fired.

 

Monday, September 19, 2011

Love, Truth and Apostasy

I get sick and tired of overly sensitive, eccentric (that means off-centered), “touchy feely,” mealy mouthed, politically correct Christians who attempt to lay some kind of guilt trip on any of us who would be forthright and straight up with the truth of the Gospel.

Nearly every epistle in the New Testament warns us that there are many false teachers with false doctrines in our churches. Of course we should be sensitive; Jude tells us that for some, we must have compassion. But their error cannot be tolerated. Apostasy is dangerous, it is deceptive and it must be exposed and corrected.   If an apostate will not be corrected, he must be expelled and fellowship must cease.

Furthermore, God’s Word commands that we must fight (contend) earnestly for the Faith. Regardless how unloving it might seem to those who desire love and peace at any cost, real biblical contending against error is not unloving at all.   In fact, telling the truth is fully consistent with love; God is Love and God is Truth. Real love cannot overlook or ignore the truth because the eternal destiny of men’s souls is at stake and the fact that some people have failed to act in a loving way does not abrogate our responsibility to insist on the Truth.


It is true that we are commanded to “speak the truth in love.” But that does not mean "hint at the truth in fluff."  Love is the vehicle in which God expects us to deliver the truth; but we must deliver the truth. God delivered His Truth in the vehicle of Love. That vehicle was the cross. It was His perfect Love that compelled Him to slaughter and crush and inflict His perfect and righteous anger on His only Son there for our sins.   And regardless how some people would think that to be an unkind, insensitive, cruel, and unthinkable act of the “loving god” that they have created in their own imaginations, the truth remains, if they reject God’s Love, they will suffer eternal torment for their sins.




Taxation, Tax Refunds, And Free Market Economics Made Simple

I would like to think that most people would never tolerate our tax system if they really understood it. But we continue to engaged in dangerous liberal ideologies and class warfare over taxes and tax cuts.  Maybe those who pay nothing and/or receive public assistance should not be allowed to vote.

A few years ago Neil Cavuto featured a letter from an unnamed viewer who attempted to put the whole class argument on tax cuts in perspective. I have taken some editorial liberty with the writer’s basic premise and developed it into this parable that could be helpful in teaching some basic fundamentals of economics to young people. Even children can understand this stuff.  Unfortunately, this kind of thinking will NEVER emanate from the failed, liberal public indoctrination system.  Nevertheless I offer this for the edification of my own grandchildren.

Ten students formed a social club to go off campus one day each week for lunch at a local restaurant. (Just because they could, the administration decided to regulate and control the group's activities.) So that they would all know how to plan for the weekly cost of their activity the school administration arranged, with the restaurant manager, a total, fixed price of $100.00 per week for their meals including beverages, tax, and tip.  That was exactly $10.00 per student per week regardless of how much each student ate. That was the "fair" thing to do and besides, it made paying the bill convenient and easy so they all accepted the flat rate.

They all agreed that they would earn their own money to pay their fair share. Some found minimum wage jobs flipping hamburgers or washing cars. Others went to work at higher paying jobs as grocery clerks and restaurant servers. One of the students, a resourceful, entrepreneurial type, worked hard and invested quite a large sum of his own savings, to start his own lawn care business and he actually provided jobs for two of the other students in his club.

The club organized itself and began to meet each week and all the members enjoyed their social gatherings and gladly pitched in for their equal shares. The school administration collected the money and paid the weekly tab.

Now, lots of people would agree that that is the fair way to divide the bill and most people would be satisfied with that arrangement. Right? Well maybe not!

One of the teachers (no doubt a tenured union worker) didn’t “feel good” about their agreed upon arrangement.  She noticed that, while some of the students could easily afford $10.00 for the meal, there were those who were "less fortunate" and didn’t earn quite as much as others.  She thought it "unfair" that they had to work a little longer or a little harder for their fare.  And then there was that one enterprising student who had an unfair advantage; he earned a lot more than all the others.

So, with "good intentions" and their "hearts in the right places," putting their feelings ahead of good sense, the administration stepped in to devise a more equitable system for the students to pay the bill (the same way we pay our taxes):

The four unfortunate, hard-working students who performed work that most Americans won't do, earned the least so they would pay nothing. The fifth student would pay only $1.00, the sixth, $3.00, the seventh, $7.00, the eight, $12.00 and the ninth $18.00. That one lucky kid who got all the unfair breaks in life’s lottery would pay $59.00.

O.K., it wasn’t right and, deep in their hearts they all knew it, but everybody went along with it because, after all, nobody wants to be perceived as being uncompassionate and insensitive to those less fortunate.

So they continued to meet each week and enjoyed their food and fellowship and everything was fine until, one day, the restaurant owner goofed it all up. “Since your students are all such fine young people and we really appreciate their regular business,” he said to the administrator, “I’m going to give you a 20% discount. From now on, lunch for ten students will cost only $80.00.”

Now the administration had the task of dividing the $20.00 savings so that everyone would get his fair share of the cut. They (the pin-headed administration) reasoned decided that the four poor students who only worked at minimum wage jobs should remain unaffected; they would still eat for free. So when they calculated how much of the $20.00 savings the remaining six students would receive, they discovered that it came to $3.33 each. But then they realized that if they subtracted that amount from everybody’s share, the fifth and the sixth students would actually get a refund larger than the amounts they paid for their meals. It was obvious that a fair distribution of the refund was going to be difficult to figure out. Then the Administrator got a brilliant idea suffered brain flatulence.  He decided to simply withhold the refund, continue to charge the members the same rates, and divert the savings into the school’s general fund so they could spend use it on other administrative interests. When the club members heard about it, they protested loudly and demanded their money back.

Some of the club members suggested that it might be fairer to distribute the savings in proportion to what each student paid. The majority agreed that the plan sounded reasonable so the administration worked out a new refund payment schedule.

With the new plan, the fifth student, who was paying $1.00, would now also eat for free. The sixth student would pay $2.00 instead of $3.00. The seventh, who paid $7.00 would now pay $5.00. The eighth pitched in $9.00 rather than $12.00. And the ninth student’s bill was reduced from $18.00 to $12.00. That no good rich kid realized a whopping $7.00 savings. He now paid $52.00 instead of $59.00.

After lunch the kids all got together and began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20.00,” declared the sixth student, “and that rich kid got $7.00.”

“Yeah, that’s right,” said the fifth student (who ate free), “I only saved a dollar! It’s not fair that the person who earns the most money gets the biggest refund.”

“That’s true,” shouted the seventh student. “Why should that greedy guy who owns a very successful business get $7.00 when all I got was $2.00? Those with all the money get all the breaks!”

Then the first four poor students jumped in. “We didn’t get anything at all and we’re the ones who need it the most. This system exploits the poor,” they shouted.

Tempers began to flare and pretty soon the nine students decided that the rich kid was greedy and evil and was not paying his fair share so they surrounded him and beat him up. They took out his wallet, removed $7.00 and divided it among the seven students who earned the least. That’s right! Six of them actually got paid to eat lunch at the expense of others.

The young entrepreneur was so badly beaten that he had to take some time off from his business. His loss of income forced him to lay off his two employees.  The next Friday he didn’t show up for lunch. That was O.K. with the others; they were mad at him anyway and so they sat down to enjoy their meal without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they suddenly discovered that they were $52.00 short.

And that is how the tax system works. The people who pay the most in taxes are the ones who create the jobs and the wealth for everyone else and so it stands to reason that they would get the most benefit from a tax reduction.  If you tax them too much and attack them for being wealthy, they just might stop doing business, eliminate jobs and not show up to pay for your free lunch anymore.  There are plenty of other good restaurants in town and frankly, that rich kid can buy a pretty good lunch for $10.00.

This story puts taxation and the tax refund debate in terms that even young school kids should understand. In our system, some people can afford to pay and they do pay and pay and pay a lot. Others, who can’t afford to pay, don’t pay anything at all.  So when a little tax cut comes along, those who pay the most get the biggest breaks but they still pay the largest share of the bill.

Some people go through their entire lives with the expectation that they should get something for nothing and they are happy to extort more from those who pay the most.  But what really galls me is that there are too many who propose that, when a tax refund comes along, we should divide the savings among those who contribute nothing in the first place and that those who have something should get nothing.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

How Low Can They Go?

Attack Watch is a new site where good people (liberals) can report any smears or negative press from bad people (conservatives).   I joined today and reported myself.  Here is the text of my report: 

 
I am "self reporting."  

My blog is located at www.notallowed2laff.blogspot.com.  It contains lots of sarcastic and caustic anti-Obama criticism (including all 26 letters that I have mailed to Him personally).  

I am a conservative, a Christian, a TEA partier, a constitutionalist, a 2nd amendment supporter, a member of the NRA and an angry right-wing extremist (according to Janet Napolitano) dedicated to ensuring that Obama is a ONE TERM PRESIDENT.

So I wanted to save you all from the trouble of discovering me.  Here I am sap-suckers.  Come and get me!


Sunday, September 11, 2011

I'm Not Into Hugging



I know, I know;  The Scripture instructs us to "greet the brethren with an holy kiss" but I am perfectly content with just a simple "holy howdy."

I found this image at Angry Critter!
Angry Critter is a source for vaguely amusing pictures of animals displaying signs of anger/malcontent and featuring… (wait for it) captions, which will most likely be mean spirited and sarcastic.   If you don't appreciate sarcasm you won't appreciate this site.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

What Should Obama Say In His Speech Next Week?

For some reason, the Obama 2012 campaign has decided that I am a friend and they have asked me to help with His reelection campaign.  They just don't get it.  Regardless of how obnoxious, sarcastic, and downright cutting my remarks are, they continue to treat me like one of their allies.

Anyway, today on Facebook is a post inviting people to suggest what we think He should say in His speech to the joint session of Congress next week.  I happily responded.  I thought Richard Nixon had some pretty good speeches so I "borrowed" a few of his words for "The One." 



"My Fellow Americans,

In the past few days it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing my presidency.  

With the disappearance of that base, I now believe that there is no longer a need for this process to be prolonged.

I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations.

From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first.  America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

To continue to fight through the months ahead would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."

What do you think?