Conceived by the East German administration of Walter Ulbricht and approved by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, it was built during the post-World War II period of divided Germany, in an effort to stop the drain of labour and economic output associated with the daily migration of huge numbers of professionals and skilled workers from East to West Berlin, and the attendant defections, which hurt the Communist bloc economically and politically.

The Wall was successful at decreasing emigration (escapes - "Republikflucht" in German) from 2.5 million between 1949 and 1962 to 5,000 between 1962 and 1989.[2] However, it was a propaganda disaster for East Germany and the Communist bloc. It became a key symbol of what Western powers regarded as Communist tyranny, particularly after the high-profile shootings of would-be defectors.

Political liberalization in the late 1980s, associated with the decline of the Soviet Union, led East Germany to relax border restrictions, culminating in mass demonstrations and the fall of the East German government.

On November 9, 1989, the government announced that crossing of the border would be permitted. Masses of East Germans approached and then crossed the wall, and were joined by crowds of West Germans in a celebratory atmosphere. Over the next few weeks parts of the wall were chipped away by a euphoric public and by souvenir hunters; it was later removed using industrial equipment.

How can we daily chip away at and break down walls in a post 9/11 era?

1. Refuse to be gripped and governed by fear.
Fear is self-centered revolving around self-preservation. Fear has torment and is paralyzing. Fear is interest paid in advance on something you most likely will never own. It has been said ninety percent of our fears never occur. Therefore the only thing to fear is fear itself. Be bold, courageous, and fearless!

2. Believe the best about people, until they prove otherwise.
People should be innocent until proven guilty. Seek to prove people worthy, rather than looking for guilt. There is good in all of us that needs to be affirmed and recognized. Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. Before you entertain and listen to the bad about a person, ask to hear about the good.

3. Love and accept people unconditionally.
The Creator and universe loves and accepts us unconditionally as human beings. Do likewise. Create a culture of love and acceptance. As you do a community to which others want to belong will be created. Give people hope to belong, believe, and become.

4. Be hopeful and expect the best from people.
When you show a positive expectation toward people, you cause them to want to live up to your expectations. It is the force of faith in operation pulling people higher. Speak to and address people's potential. Enlarge their vision and horizon paving the way for them to step into it.

5. Don't be paralyzed by presumption and erroneous predispositions.
Beware of propaganda. Don't believe everything the media and people tell you. Most often they are misinformed or only partially telling the entire story. Do your homework before wholly embracing something as gospel truth.

6. Investigate and seek the truth.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.  Not everything you hear is worth listening to. Truth must be tested and examined over time. Lies last but for a moment. The truth however is timeless and always does endure. Hold to the truth and don't sell out to compromise.

7. Celebrate and honor all peoples.
As you live and let live, you shall liberate people. Celebrating and honoring people is the first way we bond with them. Before we can together build, we must first bond. Let the bonds of brotherhood grow, increase, and be strengthened.

8. Forgive and live.
We all make mistakes. Give people another chance. We as individuals and nations learn over time. For some it takes more time than for others to catch on. As we forgive, we free ourselves from carrying hostility and hate within our hearts. When we forgive we live and allow others to do the same.

9. Be patient, peaceful, and progressive.
Change doesn't happen overnight. It is progressive and ongoing. Strive to be patient with people and nations as we all evolve. People make changes in an atmosphere of love. Russia's Gorbachev brought down the wall because of President Reagan's charm and heartfelt appeal. Reagan never threatened Gorbachev with war if he didn't obey.

Love is patient and kind. Patience and a peaceful disposition often precedes progress. Nobody likes to be pushed. Patience tenderly and purposefully pulls people by their heart strings forward progressively.

10. Let dialogue and diplomacy replace hostility.
National dictators often just want to be recognized on the global scene and acknowledged. By welcoming everyone to the table to talk, we can diffuse much hostility and build bridges internationally. Nobody every died during a discussion. Dialogue and diplomacy enables us to go deeper to the real root issue motivating a person.

Let us all continue to break down walls between us so we can be a global community interconnected with heartfelt understanding and compassion.

Paul F Davis - author of United States of Arrogance

Paul Davis is a worldwide minister, peacemaker, change master, mediator, and life purpose coach (relational & professional).

Paul is the author of several books including Breakthrough for a Broken Heart; Adultery: 101 Reasons Not to Cheat; Are You Ready for True Love; Stop Lusting & Start Living; Waves of God; Supernatural Fire; Poems that Propel the Planet; and God vs. Religion.

Paul's compassion for people & passion to travel has taken him to over 50 countries of the world where he has had a tremendous impact. Paul has served in many war-torn, impoverished and tsunami stricken regions of the earth. His Dream-Maker Inc. is building dreams, breaking limitations & reconciling nations.

Paul's Breakthrough Seminars inspire, revive, awaken, impregnate with purpose, impart the fire of desire, catapult people into a new level of self-awareness, facilitate destiny discovery and dream fulfillment.

Contact Paul to minister, speak at your event, or for consulting:

RevivingNations@yahoo.com
407-284-1705

www.PaulFDavis.com

1- Kommunikation

For nogle år siden sagde en klog person: Hvis Google ikke kan finde dig, eksisterer du ikke. Det har de fleste lagt på rygraden allerede. Men nu kommer næste skridt, nemlig at udvikle evnen til at kommunikere. I en stærkt forsimplet og omskrevet Søren Kierkegaard indsigt, kan man sige at det er mit ansvar at jeg bliver forstået -ansvaret ligger ikke hos dem der, jeg gerne vil have skal forstå mig.

Alene af den årsag vender kommunikationen sig om. Det handler ikke så meget om hvorfor jeg er fed som jobansøger, men snarere at forklare hvorfor jeg er fed for firmaet, der skal ansætte mig. Ikke så meget om hvilke produkter jeg har på hylderne -men hvilke behov de kan svare hos køberne.

Men kommunikation er ikke for børn, og slet ikke i en post-informationssamfunds tid, hvor alle sidder og bøvser af overinformation i hjørnet og bare helst vil have ro til at slumre lidt mens de fordøjer. Derfor skal vi lære at kommunikere så vi kan findes når behovet er der og svare så præcist på behovet som muligt. Dem der kan det vil blive hørt langt mere end de der råber alt de ved og vil i en vedvarende strøm.

2- Tolerance

Graden af tolerance fortæller meget om hvor meget overskud et menneske har. En virksomhed, eller et samfund. Her kan vi ganske glimrende med udgangspunkt i det danske, se at på trods af materiel velstand og en høj grad af tryghed kan man sagtens føle sig fattig på begge felter. Men som effekt af den kraftige individualisering, som vi har set de sidste 200 år er der ingen tvivl. Hvis der skal være plads til alle vores voksende egoer, må de selvsamme egoer adoptere en evne til at tolerere Andre egoer i langt højere grad end før. Netop fordi tolereance er svært vil det også blive hyldet hos dem evner det.

Globaliseringen har indtil nu budt på en lav udgave af tolerance. Vi tolererer at vores varer bliver produceret i Kina, men det er vores varer de producerer. Vi er ikke synderligt interesserede i at bruge dem som anden en lønslaver. Der skal ikke ske kultur- eller anden udveksling. Derfor har vi ikke en relation, der er bygget på andet end rå udveksling. De er som arbejdstagere lige så udskiftelige som vi er som arbejdsgivere. Loyaliteten holder kun hen til banken.

Næste fase må handle om at møde hinanden på en dybere platform.

De mennesker der bedst tolererer andre (og andre holdninger, ny viden og alternative anskuelser) vil blive beriget med indsigt og netværk -hvorimod mennesker med lav tolerance vil fortsætte med at orientere sig i kendt materiale og dermed langsomt men sikkert, gå til grunde på deres felt og i deres liv.

De virksomheder der evner at favne deres medarbejderes forskelligheder (herunder mødetider, hjemmearbejde og belønnelseskrav -men måske vigtigere evner, faglighed og personlighed) og måske ligefrem belønne dem, vil tiltrække de bedste medarbejdere, nemlig dem der er dygtige nok til at stille krav.

Og de samfund der bedst tolererer andre forskellighed og andre samfund vil langt bedre end de som ser fjender, kunne samarbejde og udveksle -og derigennem vokse.

3- Kompleksitet

Og så måske den vigtigste: at kunne leve i stor kompleksitet. Det er ok at miste fodfæstet en gang i mellem (der sneg Kierkegaard sig ind igen) men det er ikke ok at miste sig selv. Derfor bliver vi nødt til at lære at leve i en tid af stor kompleksitet. Der er ikke mange valg og fravalg, der ikke foregår umådeligt godt informeret. Vi kender alle til en ekstrem mængde facetter af det perfekte anbefalelsesliv. Men vi er ikke grundkodet til at tænke linært. Langt de fleste mennesker lever og tænker i associerende spring, fremfor ligeudrettede forløb.

Så for at kunne administrere al det vi ved skal vi nærmest glemme det. Hjernen skal nok hente det frem hvis den får brug for den specifikke viden. Når vi så har aflært os den maskinelt, rutineindlærte viden kan vi få kontakt med den stærkeste styrke vi har. Nemlig vores mavefornemmelse. Eller med andre ord, os selv.

Der får vi de bedste råd. Ikke kun de klogeste men også de mest specifikt individualiserede råd. Dem der kun er til netop os og ingen anden. Sagt nede på jorden: det kan godt være at du ved du skal holde op med at ryge og tabe 5 kilo, men måske er der andre prioriteter der er vigtigere og indtil de er ordnet skal du ikke have dårlig samvittighed over rygning og kilo, for det vil svække din mentale evne til at løse de mere påtrængende problemer.

Så dermed næste års skema klar til print.

While homosexuals are on the ground celebrating arm in arm, their detractors are on the rooftops UP in arms, screaming, "We're not gonna take it.. and either is Jesus!!" Yes, as expected, bigots posing as models of piety are leveraging this occasion to channel the messiah and predict his imminent return (oh, and of course hell-fire judgment for all the sin-drunk sickos whom have perverted canonical law).

To make matters even more exciting, our Neo-Republican governor has responded to conservative outrage over the ruling with a "you-got-knocked-the-f$#@-OUT!" attitude which I am almost certain will lead to calls for his resignation--which will of course fall on deaf ears.

Got popcorn? This is the stuff that blockbusters are made of!

All that said, this Sacramentan is appalled by some of the hate-fueled comments readers have been posting to sacbee.com's forums. And not because they are in opposition to the ruling. I am appalled by the extraordinary ignorance on display. Have a look at some of these comments. Some are borderline psychotic:

Wesleyamsel said: "Now with gay marriage we will know who they are, what they are and where they live." Is he planning on killing them all? Track this guy's IP and stake his home out.

Hcampbell64 said: "I am not happy with this decision. The bible says "A MAN shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh". Duh. Is that all you've got? The Bible also says "thou shalt not have other Gods before me." Are you going to lynch everyone who practices a religion other than Christianity, TOO? Unbelievable hypocrisy.

Thank God there are sensible people like JoeBarnett who wrote, "I was brought up to believe that marriage was a church sacrament, and I don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing church sacraments. If adults want to get married in a civil ceremony or by a church that allows it, how does that threaten my marriage of 28 years? People forming commitments seems like a good thing. So I say, Congratulations and Best Wishes to all the new couples about to be wed. "

Must be the name. JOE, this Joe shares your sentiments to the letter.

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Christians, the meaning of "CHRISTIAN" is LITTLE CHRIST. If you are a LITTLE CHRIST, you are doing your best to walk as Jesus walked, and talk as Jesus talked. Jesus hung out with the lepers, and tax collectors. He loved EVERYONE. Do you?

In the end, anyone who thinks voters will over-rule this ruling in November are in for a rude awakening. Many of the old goats who supported hate legislation 8 years ago are now dead. A new generation of humanitarian-minded young people have come of age, and in massive numbers they too are saying, "We're not gonna take it anymore."

Patrick Lagacé nous parle sur son blogue de bribes d'informations en lien avec la publication prochaine du Rapport des Sages Boulor-Taychard...

Ils veulent :

– Que les Québécois francophones parlent davantage anglais
– Que les organismes interculturels soient mieux financés
– Que les Québécois francophones soient davantage ouverts sur le monde

À froid, en sirotant mon café, j'ai joué du bongo sur mon clavier :

Bof, au premier coup d'oeil, ça m'a tout l'air d'une belle formule magique...

Dans beaucoup de discussions que j'ai depuis quelque temps, il ressort qu'il est temps pour les francophones de privilégier le plus possible l'emploi du français dans la sphère publique pour inciter les anglophones et les nouveaux arrivants à le pratiquer, parce que c'est la seule bonne manière de ne pas perdre notre caractère distinct devant l'anglicisation mondiale. Alors, si la priorité est l'apprentissage de l'anglais, cela déterminera encore plus fort le réflexe des francophones de passer à l'anglais aussitôt qu'il est en présence d'un quelconque accent.

Au dernier Yulblog, nous avons rencontré un anglophone né à Montréal qui était bien content de pouvoir pratiquer son français avec nous. Son accent était pitoyable, mais il a quand même fini par nous faire comprendre qu'il n'arrivait jamais, sauf en de rares occasions, à discuter français avec des francophones...

Il est clair pour moi qu'il y a un mélange de concept. Les questions de la linguistique, de la xénophobie, de la tolérance, semblent se mêler assez fallacieusement ici. Si protéger au jour le jour mon héritage francophone fait de moi un intolérant, je décroche. J'espère que cela sera plus clair...

(Photo : malidinapoli)

There are different kinds of truth, and sometimes I think we get them mixed. Some things are relative, like how far it is to Edgemont. Other things are not up for debate in any society, such as the solution to a mathematics problem. For me, the best flavor of ice cream in the world might be Moose Tracks, but you might disagree with me. In a case like this, neither of us is right or wrong.

Then there are elements of truth mixed with fiction. For example, many Christians would agree that C.S. Lewis' children's series, The Chronicles of Narnia teaches a great deal of truth, though none of us believe that an actual country of Narnia exists geographically in space and time in some other world accessible only through magic. Our problem isn't that there are many kinds of truth. Our problem is that we've gotten them mixed up so that many of us no longer understand which type of truth applies to this or that situation.
 
Let's start with favorite flavors. If my husband and I disagree as to the best restaurant in town, can either of us be wrong, excluding danger of food poisoning? Even if he likes a dive with great ribs and horrible music, and I prefer a cute, cozy place with the best bagels in town? The answer, of course, is no. We have different tastes. There's nothing morally superior about bagels and cute, nor anything evil about sugary ribs and tinny music. So in this case, we can both tell different truths and we can both be right--for ourselves. This sort of truth can apply to any preference . . . cars, cities, climates, music, social environment, style of worship, method of bible study, breed of dog . . . . God has given us an infinite variety of favorite things to choose from. Pleasures enjoyed within His guidelines are all and always good.

But let's talk about Edgemont. How far away is it? I'd have to look at a map, but it's most likely closer for me than it is for you. Some things are different--really different--for me than they are for you. I love teaching children. Teaching children is a good thing for me to do, but it might not be good for you. Maybe God has gifted you to provide accounting services to people like me who hate, hate, hate doing numbers. I've actually met people who love to do bookkeeping. This mystifies me, but I do not call these people liars. They think it's mystifying that I enjoy teaching children. Maybe God has called you to be a mechanic. Maybe you're supposed to care for your family at home. That's where you love to be. That's where you're happiest. Maybe God wants you in full time ministry. Or not. God has given each of us a path to follow, and we will do different things as we walk that path. Our paths may be parallel, but they will never be identical. What is right for you may be wrong for me. In this case, truth is relative. It depends on the person, the stage in her life, her giftings and situation . . . lots of things. So truth is relative, but not all truth.

Next we have truth in story form. I remember meeting young parents, when I was also raising my small children, who believed that fiction was sinful because it was a lie. Even though I was young and impressionable, I understood that this was silly. Fiction is capable of lying, telling the truth, and of being neutral.

Some fiction writers want only to tell an engaging story and in the process, hopefully, to make money and maybe to help people understand the world around them, to create a work of literary art, to expound on a favorite hobby, educate children, etc. Their fiction can depict lifestyles we don't want to expose ourselves to, let alone our children. It can tell charming stories about rabbit families trying to outsmart a vegetable gardener. Neither of these scenarios is necessarily truth or lie. The gritty street-smart story might tell fables of the con-artist with the heart of gold, and the anthropomorphic rabbit family might depict a human family with sensitive accuracy.

Fiction is often engaged in for sociopolitical purposes. Fiction that promotes an agenda I disagree with turns me off. I think it is a lie. This isn't a relativistic lie. This is the sort of lie that goes like this . . . If I'm right, the author is wrong, and, if the author is right, I am wrong. This is the sort of lie (or truth) where you can't both be right. Now in some cases, I'm willing to admit that I might be the one who's wrong. I often have been. The thing I'm not willing to go along with is the possibility that we're both right.

This is not a favorite flavor. If it were, I wouldn't care. Does any reader mind reading an otherwise excellent story about someone who thinks coffee is ambrosia, though the reader may prefer tea? Certainly not. But let's say the reader believes adultery to be a sin, and the story shows adultery in a favorable light while mocking chastity. This reader would consider the story to be a lie. So, is it a lie, merely because the reader sees it that way? No. It is only a lie if the reader is right in his beliefs about adultery. However, if the reader is right in his beliefs, the writer of fiction has presented a falacy. If he believes it to be the truth, he hasn't personally lied, but he has certainly presented a lie to his readers though he knows it not.

Most works of fiction will contain some truth and some lies and a lot of neutral material. We can't expect to agree with the author on every point. Works of fiction do, however, often have a definite slant in one or another direction. Fiction is a gray area. Did the writer slant too far in one direction for me to approve the overall message of his story? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is a judgement call and not an absolute. The absolutes come in small doses. Since we're talking about adultery, I'll stick with this subject. Given that it is absolutely wrong to break faith with your spouse and willingly engage in sexual relations with another person, no matter what, that part of the story, if it presents otherwise, is a lie. If a story contains too much of this sort of thing, I tip it into the kitchen trash. I can't enjoy it and I can't, in good conscience, sell it or give it away because it's telling lies. I want nothing to do with it and am only sorry I contributed one more sale to its roster.

This is why I can't swallow things like the DaVinci Code promoting itself as a "harmless work of fiction". It is not a harmless work of fiction. It is a lie. It contains numerous black and white factual deceptions and untruths about history. The sort of things we admit as evidence in a court of law. The kind of lies that can be legally proved. Of course, the mere fact that a truth cannot be legally proved does not make it any less an absolute, but let's talk about the easy stuff first.

Math is the gold standard when it comes to explaining absolute truth. If 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, the world falls apart. That's not hyperbole. It really does. Math is not an opinion. It's true for me and it's true for you. It's true if you live in New Jersey and it's true if you live in Papua New Guinea, or even if you're hanging out on the space station. It's true if you're a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Baha'i, or a worshipper of Italian opera singers. It's even true if you don't believe in math. It doesn't matter what you believe. Some people would call that narrow, but there's really nothing anyone can do about it. If it's true, it's true whether we approve or not. In this case, truth is absolute.

My argument is that we put a lot of things into the relativistic or the preferential truth category when they belong in the absolute category. Does reality change for you if you believe there is no God? No. You're either right or you're wrong. The existence of God is not a matter of preference, and it's not something you can affect by your belief or lack thereof. God either exists or He doesn't. There are plenty of reasons to believe in the existence of God, and this argument isn't aimed at persuading atheists to leave their foolishness, so I'll assume, for the purposes of this article, that you do believe in the existence of some sort of deity. What is or are he, she, or they like? Who's right? Is anyone right? Does it matter what we believe in, so long as we're on a spiritual path? A journey of some sort? Are there many roads?

In the western world, we are blessed with many roads--too many to count. We need a lot of roads because we want to go to a lot of different places. The road to Miami won't do if you want to go to Tampa, and it won't do if you want to go to Denver, either. Some places have only one road in and out. If you want to go to Alaska, the Alaska Highway is your only real choice. Different roads go to different places. That's why we have so many roads. Otherwise we could save a lot of money and have only one road which would take us wherever we want to go. Some roads don't go anywhere at all. I remember hiking in the Appalachian mountains and coming to a beautiful, new, paved four-lane highway. We walked on it for a while. No one was using it but us, because it didn't go anywhere. It stopped short right in the middle of the wilderness. Apparently, funding had run out. Some roads don't take you anyplace except out into the middle of nowhere.

So, if you want to go to the afterlife, are there many roads that will take you there? Well, yes and no. If it's Nirvana you're looking for, you want Buddhism or maybe Hinduism or some other eastern religion. But does Nirvana exist? Maybe the road goes nowhere. Are you looking for a paradise with gardens that have rivers running below them, and which Allah may let you into if your good deeds tip the scale against your sins and if he's in a good mood? That would be Islam.

Men have made up all sorts of stories about life after death. It would take a long time to look at all of them. But making up a story doesn't make it true. If Nirvana exists, Nirvana is all that exists. It is the complete unity with all things and so must encompass all things, including all places. If the paradise of Islam exists, then no other paradise can, for Islam teaches that all Infidels are consigned to hellfire. That pretty much rules out alternative paradises. If the Heaven of YHWH exists, then the paradise of Islam is no longer in play. Only one can be correct. The afterlife is not a smorgasbord. It is a family meal. You have to eat what is on your plate or nothing. God will not changed it out for you because you were expecting Valhalla.

Pretending that all religions are true is silly. They cannot all be true, for they are mutually exclusive. If any one of them is true, it is the only one which can be true. Most religions proclaim their exclusivity. Those that try to include other faiths invariably make the mistake of including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which spoils the whole game. These three are exclusive religions. By their own teachings, each declares itself to be the only true story. Because they make these claims, they cannot logically be included in a fruit punch type religion such as Baha'i. They are either lying, and thus not worthy of inclusion, or they are telling the truth (well, one of them is) and thus negate the other religions in the punch bowl.

How do we tell which if the many beliefs of men is the true religion? We've taken the first step in realizing that there can be only one. Which one should you invest your future in? That is the most important question you'll ever ask in this life. Make sure you get the answer right. And as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (And meanwhile, I'll talk more about this truth business in a future post.)

Grace and Peace to you,

Cindy

The bishops and delegates who voted to maintain the biblical position on homosexuality must be commended. Their actions evidence their faithful service to the interests of God and Christ more than special interest political agendas.

Nevertheless, the Lord Jesus must still be saddened by the display of so many who serve the spirit of modern politics rather than Him. Forty-five percent of conference delegates voted against maintaining the Church’s stance on homosexuality. Over 50% decided to compromise when they passed the resolution against discrimination of homosexual behavior. That part of the resolution against violence is more than necessary. So is a strong position against discrimination based on immutable characteristics like gender and race, but can the Church be politically correct and still serve Christ? If the Church opposes discrimination against sexual orientation and related practices, how can it justify calling sinners to repentance who adhere to sexually immoral views and practices? Can the Church work with sinners who practice immorality towards reconciliation with God if the Church cannot judge what is sinful and what is righteous? Can the Church expect to help sexually oriented sinners to achieve restoration when it can no longer know to what the immoral must be restored?

The same applies to society. Society cannot maintain state mandated public morality if it cannot discriminate against immoral and unacceptable behaviors by law. Restoration of people bound by sin and its bondage is not remotely possible unless their immoral and harmful behaviors can be discriminated against. If restoration is not society’s goal, why then does society sanction restorative health therapies and correctional institutions? Isn’t the goal of mental and medical health practices and medicine supposed to restore people to some normative criteria of health?

The covenantal law of God recorded in recorded is the Church’s normative criteria. Like the church universal, the United Methodist Church is accountable to its Lord by a legally binding blood covenant. The collective body represents Jesus as an ambassador to the world. Members of the church represent Jesus Christ not American or global politics. They are by moral and spiritual law servants of the Kingdom of God over which the Lord Jesus presides. As servant bound by oath to a written and legal covenant, the Church is obligation to serve the Lord’s interests.

Without doubt, Methodist bishops and other leaders are under considerable pressure to cave into gay power politics. Gays and their internal advocates are persistent and fierce in their efforts to force acceptance of their idolatrous views and behaviors under the guise of liberal religious ideology. This was demonstrated by their media attracting protests on April 30 at the Conference as well as at previous conferences.

Earlier in the week, young gays proclaimed they would eventually prevail. One of their leaders said, “Anti-gay policies of The United Methodist Church are wrong and sinful in the sight of God" and in the act of witnessing "we reject the lie that homosexuality is a sin and that by standing, we affirm that sexuality is a good gift of God.”

What should be of great concern to all Christians is the fact that this female seminarian aspires to leadership within the Church. She represents the possible future of the Church—the kind of church Jesus rebuked in Revelation chapters two and three. Common to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira was sexual immorality. At those churches, many at those churches were following the teaching and practice of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, who may have been one of their leaders. Jesus said he hates their immoral deeds. He hates the teaching that legitimates their sexual immorality. He hates tolerance of it. He hates the practice of it, which is the reason He called on all of them to repentance. In chapter 2 and verse 16, Jesus threatens to come and war against them with the sword of his mouth. Jesus also expects the same from His followers. When it came the leader Jezebel, Jesus was not very loving. He promises death to her sex partners, death to her children, and a slow diseased end for her who caused many His servants to sin as well. Why was Jesus so harsh? She did not want to repent. Because He is the same yesterday, today and forever, Jesus has not changed his position.

I doubt if Jesus was very concerned about whether his words were offensive to the rebels and their religious and moral bigotry then or now. After all, Jesus is Lord over a theocratic kingdom not a democratic institution. He is not opposed to democratic principles of governance as demonstrated in the Pentateuch, but he does not hold elections for the top spot either. The Lord may be a benevolent ruler, but he is also the source of nature, law, and justice. As Peter pointed out, “If judgment begins with the household of God, what will be the outcome for those who disobey the gospel? (1 Pet. 4:17 paraphrase)

The gay political gospel shines forth the same old strategy of Satan used against Adam and Eve in the garden and against Jesus in the wilderness. To Eve, Satan said “you will not die” like God said. Gays claim homosexuality is not a sin like the Bible claims. At his baptism, God told Jesus that he was His son. Satan denies that he is in order to challenge Jesus to abdicate his mission. Satan uses words given to prophets by God again to tempt Jesus to thwart his own mission. Jesus’ response each time was to counter with the written word of God. In Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, Deuteronomy 23, Romans 1, First Corinthians 6, and chapter 1 of First Timothy, and elsewhere, homosexuality is defined as a moral crime or sin. As delineated by Prof. Victor Shepherd before the High Court of New Zealand, the sermons and writings of John Wesley views sodomy and immorality the same way. Enlightened reason also acknowledges homosexuality as unnatural, harmful, and evil. Therefore, the proper response of the Church is to maintain a firm adherence to the word of God and to heed the teaching of John, who wrote:

“Make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; the Son appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin…. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him, there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows him.” (1 Jo. 3:7-9, 4-6 NASB)

If gays cannot be regarded as brothers and citizens of God’s kingdom, refusing to include them as members and allowing them to hold leadership positions within in the Church is not an act of hate. It is a demonstration that the approval of God is more important than the approval of secular culture.

Another old strategy inspiring gay liberal politics is the use God’s word to negate God’s will. Satan by means of gay political theology uses God’s word commanding Christians to love one another, forbidding [petty] judgments, and to love all as a means of turning the Church away from the Lordship of Jesus. The liberal gospel redefines God’s love politically. Because Jesus has paid for all of our sins, the law supposedly has been abolished. If the law has been abolished, the law against sexual immorality no longer exists either. It follows then that gospel love requires tolerance not judgment. The liberal gospel of love is based on egalitarian conceptions. Such a conception of sin and law is the equivalent of antinominianism. Prof. Shepherd explains that throughout Wesley’s works is found opposition to antinominianism. For example, when commenting on Romans 2:16, Wesley wrote that the Gospel is law. Prof. Shepherd explains:

“His lattermost remark, "The gospel also is a law", is crucial. The gospel is the good news of salvation, and as such exercises no less a claim upon people than the explicit claims of the law. Since the gospel aims at saving humankind from every kind of uncleanness, the gospel has the same force here as the promulgation of the law. Accordingly, all references to "gospel" or "Jesus Christ" in the Wesley corpus carry with them the implicit claim that all beneficiaries of the gospel (i.e., all who make a profession of Christian faith) repudiate all expressions of "uncleanness".”

“Wesley is aware that the ten commandments explicitly forbid adultery. He insists too that the ten commands are but the "heads" of the law of God; i.e., the commandment forbidding adultery comprehends all of the Old Testament precepts pertaining to sexual behaviour, including those that forbid homosexual[ity]…. Wesley’s understanding of “the ten commandments as but the "heads" of the law of God precludes any suggestion that adultery is forbidden but homosexual intimacy is not.” Wesley’s doctrine of holiness teaches not the end of the law but its fulfillment.”

Gay political theology rejects God’s law, which is the basis of gospel. As Jesus said, he came to fulfill the law of God not reject it. Those proclaiming the liberal gospel are nothing less than spiritual pimps of Satan. If the Church falls to this dark light of deception, the Church will become idolaters and worshippers of Satan. As Jesus taught, “No one can serve two masters.” (Mt. 6:24)

The liberal gospel of tolerance is not an about justice it is a cause of much injustice and moral tragedy. Liberal tolerance is a means of defying moral justice in order to create license for immoral behaviors or moral crimes. Tolerance does not end oppression and bondage; it maintains and perpetuates it. In the therapeutic welfare state, temptations in the form of feelings define one’s identity and are becoming equivalent to behavior. Because of this, unnatural sexual feelings toward the same sex determine reality and being. The old view of the human will is being replaced by determinates of feeling and thus eliminating any hope of change—at least, according to liberal gay propaganda. Missing is the fact that many gays were sexually abused as children or their compulsive sexual feelings are beyond their control, which used to be called bondage. True justice does not compromise on inherent moral laws to make the immoral feel better. True justice maintains the high bar of morality while also demanding and working to free and restore humans from their bondages and addiction.

The deception of gay liberal politics and its theology is that Jesus is tolerant of their sin. He is not. He died because God’s justice demands the death of all sinners. Only a blameless life sacrificed could possibly atone for humanity’s sins. America’s system of justice, however flawed, demonstrates criminals must be punished no matter how many good deeds they have done before or after their crime whether it be murder, or burglary, or rape, assault, robbery, or any other crime. This is also the persistent reality of humanity’s need for salvation. Unlike human justice, divine justice tempered by God’s mercy allows the punishment to be satisfied by a willing but sinless substitute—Jesus of Nazareth is our substitute.

The droning of gays is that their Christian opponents must love not oppose. God certainly is love. The law requires that we love God with all of our being and our neighbors as our selves, which is the very reason the Church is not permitted to pander to gay power politics. Restoration and holiness is not achieved through compromise. God clearly opposes homosexuality. Jesus clearly opposes it too. While administering Jesus’ work in the Roman Empire, where homosexuality was not unusual, the apostles spoke against homosexuality and every other sexual sin. Sexual sin is a moral crime against the law and nature of God. The Revelation of Jesus given to him by God for his bondservants reiterates the divine opposition to the gay liberal agenda.

More pointedly, John’s First Epistle clearly states anyone who practices sin—sexual and any other—is not of God but of the devil. That statement reflects what Jesus said to those who opposed God’s work. He said, “You are of your father the devil; he is the father of liars and a murderer from the beginning.” Gay liberal politics is based lies about God, God’s law, sin, and judgment. The Lord Jesus is not a good religiously secular egalitarian like the gays want. The Methodist Church has no right to be any different than Lord Jesus and God the Father. As Jesus said, a servant is not above his (or her) master nor are disciples. Therefore, the Church must relay the call of God to sinners practicing immorality to repent, accept the covenant with God through Jesus, and submit to His Lordship for healing, restoration, and eternal life.

The tragedy today is that 45% of Methodists do not represent the Lord or God’s kingdom. They represent liberal religious politics. I know very well how easy it is to succumb to the continuous influences of a media saturated culture and organized politics. I know how easily it is to succumb to besetting sins. That is why I pray they will repent of their sin before having to face the Lord in eternity.

Sources:

Linda Green, Demonstrators call church's ‘anti-gay’ policies sinful , May 1, 2008, General Conference 2008, United Methodist New Service (May 9, 2008).

Kathy L. Gilbert, Rally urges inclusion regardless of sexual identity, April 26, 2008, General Conference 2008, United Methodist New Service (May 9, 2008).

Prof. Victor Shepherd, Testimony in Akau’ola v Methodist Church of New Zealand (2002) posted on July 2, 2006, www.victorshepherd.com (May 9, 2008).

Lest any Christians get their panties in a bunch about the recent news coming out of California involving gay marriage, I really hope they weren't laughing last night when Dwight swept Angela off into an office and got hot and sweaty the very night she got engaged to Andy.

Or every time Michael says, "That's what she said."

Or laughed when Kevin said, "I am totally gonna bang Holly."

Or look the other way that Jim and Pam are living together.

I mean that just wouldn't be very consistent, would it?

Eric Bryant had a great post yesterday called Why Homophobia Is So Gay.

1. California Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage.

First: it's not "Gay Marriage." I am in a gay marriage. My wife makes me very happy to be her husband.

Second: the main issue for 2008 is illegal immigration. If Dwayne and Frank pretend their married then the main issue for 2008 is illegal immigration! If St. Louis is nuked or Los Angeles crumbles or gas is $10 a gallon or if the wrong David wins on American Idol then the main issue for 2008 is illegal immigration! I am so freakin' sick of these political games we play. This Siamese twin we call the two party system spends billions of dollars to elect someone who will, in the end, do exactly what the other guy was going do. If Obama or McCain is elected will the judges they appoint be any different?

Third: I am so upset by this ruling that I am boycotting homosexual sex. I will not have sex with another man. Actually, I am continuing an earlier protest I began on Sept. 27, 1997, when I stated publicly that I only wanted to have sex with one person and she is a woman. Also, since discovering the concept of reproduction, when I was about 12 and we got Cinemax, I have not once been interested in any alternatives to the female form much in the same way I've never wanted to eat a live gopher. No matter how popular some things might be, to me they are still just plain weird and stupid.

2. New Bin Laden Message: Ugh! What can he possibly say that's any different? "America, sorry about the whole terrorism thing. Please kill me. I am in Alabad, Afghanistan, Gustav Square, Apartment 6g." If he releases a tape with that message then, boy howdy, I'm interested.

3. Starbuck's New Logo: Board meeting. "Hmm, let's see. Folks are no buying $8 Lattes. We're unable to move those Save the Whales T-shirts. Our stock has been devalued by 50% in the past year. Show of hands. How many want to lower the price of our product, improve the quality and focus on making the customer happy?" Count: 0. "Ok, how many want to spend $10 million to design a new logo?" Count: 12. "Good. Democracy still works."

4. Disasters: I feel sorry for the earthquake and flood victims and I am willing to help, as always, because I feel it to be a Christian virtue. That being said, let me state that the reason why thousands died in Myanmar and China is because they lack freedom. All of the rice and money will not negate the obvious lesson that the best way to avoid national disaster is by promoting individual, personal responsibility. CC: New Orleans. Both Myanmar and China live in the year 2008, as does America. The difference is in our neck of the woods we think it prudent to build houses out of brick or steel or other material that most likely won't collapse when the ground shakes or the levy breaks. Also, folks make a lot of money when you build something the right way. When you build a house out of mud and you live next to a river that's known for flooding then I have to ask, "What's wrong with you?"

Of course the polite and most politically correct answer is so tragedies are unavoidable because of bad government, tradition, cultural differences etc.. Well, 232 years ago, men in Philadelphia told the bad government to go jump in the lake. They then told the tradition keepers to find a way to help instead of hinder their fellow men. And best of all, they demanded that people leave their old cultures back in Europe and develop a new mode of thinking. The men who worked at Ellis Island in the 1890s did not care about the customs of Prussia. They did not recognize the importance of being a duke in the Astro-Hungarian Empire. They said, "You're in America. Act American and succeed. Don't like it? Your boat's still at the dock. Ba-bye!" Because of their stalwart belief in humanity unchained, their faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their intolerance of weak minded leadership, today, you can worship whomever you want, you can eat a Big Mac and you get a Sponge Bob Square Pants tattoo if that makes you happy. I wouldn't want it any other way. Why anyone would reject freedom, capitalism and, it's most lucrative dividend peace is beyond my comprehension. Why anyone would want to take this blessed experiment and turn it into a third world, socialist, plutocracy is equally beyond my comprehension.

America was a better place when we looked like Mayberry instead of the cantina from Star Wars.

5. Hollywood wants to go green: Marvelous! Try making movies that people actually want to watch. Next, lower the ticket price to something reasonable and quit charging $4.50 for a Pepsi. Ask yourself how John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart and Jimmy Stewart could become millionaires and earn the respect of their fellow citizens? Here's a hint: they kept their clothes on and they used words that did not embarrass their grandmothers. I'm all for green. Cash is green and it’s a more effective incentive to ensure a clean environment than make believe science or white-guilt. When people make money they don't want to live in a nasty nation. See point number four.

6. Israel is sixty-years-old. She doesn't look a day over fifty-nine. You know why? Plastic surgery and fresh bagels with a little crème cheese and maybe a hint of cinnamon. Seriously, if Arabs spent their time studying why Israel succeeds while their nations fail they might find a way to be happy. Here's a good question to ask: If Herschel wants to be a dentist and Mohammed wants to blow up a disco which option would best serve your nation? The failed Arab states have made hatred an industry. They blame Jews for everything under the sun. Why? It's called distraction; which leads us back to the California Supreme Court's ruling on homosexual marriage.

Stay awake friends and we'll be fine. They haven't outsmarted us. Peace, Jason Goldtrap.

By the way, feel free to post any disagreements but keep in mind, any comments containing foul language will be discarded.

". . . that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling" according to Yahoo.com news reports.

The Corporate View: It doesn't get much stuffier than this

The Gay View: It doesn't get much funnier than this

I’ve written to you before about the struggle I’ve been having with explaining the special ban on same-sex marriages to my kids, and especially how the Opponents of Equality come to California to throw money, time and mindshare at preventing certain people they have never met, who cause absolutely no harm, from making the fundamental decision of who they marry.

What does one say? “There are some people who hate your daddies so much that they come from across the country to keep them from getting married?” Or perhaps “There are some people who don’t want to share. Remember what we learned about sharing?” Clearly, neither truth would be responsible parenting.

After a 158 year tradition of liberty and tolerance ensconced in the California Constitution, it sure would be a shame to lose that all in a heated moment of intolerance.

Dan Hawes, an organizer with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, explains "There is a real sense of hope and possibility here because of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. The fact that [hard-won freedom] could be taken away in five months is really painful for people who want to marry."

Please, for my kids and all Californians, give us some moral guidance. Explain to the people that the only right thing to do is to uphold our Constitution that says that nobody should be picked out and treated differently because of what they think or what they believe. That is a tradition of neighborly love, not neighborly hate. That is something I can explain to my kids.

Yours,

Work has never been one of my favourite pastimes, actually has it ever really been anybody's? Full standing ovation to you if it has. I've had some shit jobs, some even shittier jobs & then there's the jobs that were so bad that I have permanently erased the fact that they ever existed.

The actual work that I do now, well it's semi-interesting, semi-boring, semi-monotonous & semi-irritating. All those semi's pretty much add up to, well, a total lack of interest in a single thing that happens in the 8 or so hours that i'm holed up there.

But you see it's not really the work that's making me profess grand statements of hatred, in comparison the work is moderately tolerable, this hatred that I speak of has spawned from the close proximity of possibly THE singular most nauseatingly irritating person ever.

Polly Perfect and her perfect life & her perfect way of butting into my conversations & her perfect voice & her perfect way of pissing me off & her perfect way of putting me down & her perfect way of acting like she knows everything & her perfect way of telling everyone that she knows everything & her perfect way of making me feel as if I pale in comparison to her & her perfect way of acting like everything she does is soooo much better than what I do.

But you see the problem is, she isn't perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination, yet she seems to be the only one who can't see that.

And if she ever reads any of this, the possibility being improbable, well i'm sorry, no actually i'm not even sorry, i'm glad that finally you might be able to see behind my fake smile & phoney of course I like you facade. Which most likely will not happen because she will be too enamoured with the fact that I wrote a post ALL ABOUT HER.

After the removal of Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado, Boulder, I couldn't help but notice an article in the Denver Post today about how the university is trying to pursue "intellectual diversity." Most interesting, however, is not the political malay, but the evidence about where "tolerance theory" leads.

For a college that champions diversity, it's interesting that the actual makeup of the student body and faculty is remarkably uniform in composition. Read the article for yourself. Ask yourself this question: why is it that those who promote diversity apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ actually get farthest from it? It seems those who pursue tolerance as an end in itself never reach it. 

The ultimate "diversity" is only possible through the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is described in the Book of Revelation—a kingdom in which one truth is embraced by a redeemed people and everyone bows the knee in praise and song forever to Jesus Christ: 

Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth (Rev. 5:9-10). 

A world that deceives itself as to the truth of reality is likely to experience the fist of nature firsthand and that fist never brings forth offerings of friendship or reconciliation but only a terrible force of a type that can not be opposed, an implacable power that returns all invalid life to the dirt.

a little girl with a large hairy birthmark across most of her face.

In that moment, as a parent, you have several choices. You opt to....

.. grab your now crying child and run as far from this ghastly sight as possible!

or

.. take your child by the hand, embrace him, and say, "honey, there's nothing to fear. She's just a little girl."

You may be surprised by your own answer to this situation.

I have encountered this type of scenario in various places with both results and everything in between.

Sadly, the more common action by the parent is to take the child and beat it, never once asking the adult who is with the little girl who has an obvious physical difference what happened to her face. Many of the parents never once attempted to tell the child that compassion is an important lesson to learn from an early age, using the present situation as a teaching tool.

When did parents become so uncaring when raising our children, our future young men and women, our future leaders and teachers? Why have they stopped teaching our children the importance of tolerance and compassion?

Just a Thought...

If we, the parents of young children, fail to teach that finger-pointing, whispering, name-calling , and mocking are unacceptable behaviors, aren't we raising a new generation of intolerant adults lacking compassion who will in turn raise yet another generation of the same?

This must stop! As the adults, we must, consider the feelings of others and teach our babies to do the same!

Just as young parents instruct children to stay away from a hot stove, or to tie their shoes, to dress themselves, to eat with a spoon, to say "please" and "thank-you", we must also teach them the basic principles of humanity.

... compassion
... loyalty
... respect
... tolerance
... gratitude
... unconditional love
... kindness
... family values
... honesty

Another Thought...

If you are a parent who may have been in a situation described in the beginning of this article, how did you handle it with your child?

Please share, I truly would like to know.

Author's Note:
On June 18, 1999, Candace Chantel Battiste was born with a large, black, hairy birthmark that covered more than one third of her face. Giant Congenital Nevus

Life for this child was, to be quite blunt, anything but kind.

Cruel is the word that most adequately describes the behavior by many, many small children. Candace is the reason for my purpose-driven life. She is the bravest little girl that I have ever had the honor of knowing.

Candace is my 8 year old granddaughter who has changed my life in incredible, blessed ways.

Name- Calling

Whenever Candace encountered other children they would run from her, cry, call her "ugly", and worse names. I often wonder why children know the word "ugly" and when to use this word. Parents must know how our children copy everything that we say and do.

When a group of 3-5 year olds taunted Candace, yelling at her to "leave them alone" and while calling her "ugly! ugly!", my heart wanted to break into a million pieces. I wanted to find the parents of these children and ask them why their young children uttered such a terrible word at another little human being!

Please, teach our future that whenever we encounter children with physical differences to accept them without fear.

It is okay to say hello, to smile, to befriend them. Your child could have been born with a similar affliction.

© 2007 Miriam L. Jacobs, Author
Embracing Candace: Anthology One

All rights reserved.
No republication of this material, in any form or medium, is permitted
without express permission of the author.

One love
http://www.Mimi.mentorsclub.com
http://www.bryantmcgill.com/forum/index.php/topic,4268.10.html#lastPost
Introduction
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=40710
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=66359

Have a blessed day filled with abundant gratitude!!

“... there are those moments of unutterable fulfillment which cannot be completely explained by those symbols called words. Their meanings can only be articulated by the inaudible language of the heart.." MLK

Today, our critics label us as intolerant because we [Christians] hold to the absolute truths of the Bible. Our critics have changed the real meaning of tolerance. Webster's New World Dictionary Of English[3rd ed.] defines tolerate as  " to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices, and so forth] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked".  Scripture also expresses this thought in 1 Cor. 13:7 where it states that "Love endures all things."

But today, a new definition of tolerance is being forced upon people. Thomas A. Helmbock, executive vice-president of Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity, states, " The definition of new... tolerance  is that every individual's beliefs, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal.... Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative"[Helmbock,IT,2].

Today some are telling us that truth is inclusive. The fact is however, that all truth is by nature exclusive. If a thing is true, then its opposite is false or not true. Josh McDowell, in his excellent book,"Evidence For Christianity" likens it this way-- It is true that Washington D.C. is the capital city of the United States Of America. It is also true that no other city in the USA can make that claim and be truthful because Washington D.C. is the capital city. Just because one city only is the United States capital does not mean that the people who affirm this truth are intolerant. A person may say that Detroit is the US capital city; does that mean then that his claim is equal to the person who affirms that Washington D.C. is the US capital city?  Of course not. It is plain to see in our country today that the people who don't want to live by the moral truth of the Word of God, seek to change that truth and force the rest of us to accept it.

Christianity is a faith relationship with Christ but that doesn't mean it is a blind faith. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence stacks up that the claims of Christianity are, in fact, true. It is the person who refuses to believe in the face of strong evidence who is really intolerant. Because many don't want to be held accountable by God for their actions, they try to create a god more to their own liking. Man wants to define his own standards instead of yielding to the standards set by God Almighty.

Do not be deceived by these false definers in these last days.

In the end, on judgement day, God; the real God of the Bible, and His Truth will prevail.

Today, our critics label us as intolerant because we [Christians] hold to the absolute truths of the Bible. Our critics have changed the real meaning of tolerance. Webster's New World Dictionary Of English[3rd ed.] defines tolerate as  " to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices, and so forth] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked".  Scripture also expresses this thought in 1 Cor. 13:7 where it states that "Love endures all things."

But today, a new definition of tolerance is being forced upon people. Thomas A. Helmbock, executive vice-president of Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity, states, " The definition of new... tolerance  is that every individual's beliefs, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal.... Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative"[Helmbock,IT,2].

Today some are telling us that truth is inclusive. The fact is however, that all truth is by nature exclusive. If a thing is true, then its opposite is false or not true. Josh McDowell, in his excellent book,"Evidence For Christianity" likens it this way-- It is true that Washington D.C. is the capital city of the United States Of America. It is also true that no other city in the USA can make that claim and be truthful because Washington D.C. is the capital city. Just because one city only is the United States capital does not mean that the people who affirm this truth are intolerant. A person may say that Detroit is the US capital city; does that mean then that his claim is equal to the person who affirms that Washington D.C. is the US capital city?  Of course not. It is plain to see in our country today that the people who don't want to live by the moral truth of the Word of God, seek to change that truth and force the rest of us to accept it.

Christianity is a faith relationship with Christ but that doesn't mean it is a blind faith. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence stacks up that the claims of Christianity are, in fact, true. It is the person who refuses to believe in the face of strong evidence who is really intolerant. Because many don't want to be held accountable by God for their actions, they try to create a god more to their own liking. Man wants to define his own standards instead of yielding to the standards set by God Almighty.

Do not be deceived by these false definers in these last days.

In the end, on judgement day, God; the real God of the Bible, and His Truth will prevail.

haven't seen the naked cowboy, but have seen this. he preaches on sundays, how appropriate. i wonder what our narrow-minded bishops might say - especially that despicable one who uttered the most bigoted statement about the cebu hospital incident.

Over the following months, Dr. Gregorius learned many things, including how to deliver babies while saying “push!” in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian and several languages he had never heard of. He learned that Chinese people brought babies into the pediatric E.R. between 11 p.m. and midnight, apparently after restaurants closed, that Pakistani babies showed up between 3 and 5 a.m., when cabdrivers changed shifts, and Hasidic babies seemed to arrive at 10 p.m., for reasons no one could explain. He knew it seemed like stereotyping, but that’s when a sudden rush of sick babies would arrive each night.

I sat on the patio/porch and looked out at the flock of birds sitting in the tree where there must have been close on 30 brightly coloured blobs with wings. They were chirping away in happiness when a light gust of wind came through giving them a fright, all took to flight in search of refuge but 3, they remained hanging on to the branch not resisting its movement. After a few moments the gust of wind died a way and I watched as they readjusted their positions, fluffed out there feathers realigning them with their beaks, the other birds returned and all were chirping once more. Not a moment later a gust came through again scaring the flock away once more, who remained but the three brave little mites. Once more they hung on for their lives, when the gust died away once more they went through the whole process of grooming once more.

These three birds held strong through the winds almost as if they understood how it works and why it happened, they were fearless in facing it and seemed to know how to work it unlike the others that fled en mass for cover.

What is the wisdom in those three birds? Are they the ones that were unwise to stay planted on that branch or were they the wise ones that had taken the time to understand how nature worked and why things happen the way they do, which is right?

Perception and interpretation are strange creatures so I will give you mine and you are welcome to share yours.

My interpretation is that of fear, why we fear. I feel that those birds that fled were fearful of something they did not understand, they did not want to learn the signs of a dangerous wind or a harmless one. In life we often see something that is dangerous because we don't understand it, we run from it without pausing for thought or learning about firstly the reasons of/for our fear or how that one thing that scares us works.

In life we jump to conclusions which wastes time and energy, those birds that fled could have stayed with the other three enabling them to have more time in the open air before the rains came. Instead of cowering from those things we fear we should rather embrace them, try to understand them and how they work. By doing that we give ourselves time to be free and to live not cowering in the dark corner where we miss out on so much that life has to offer us.

The wisdom of the birds - don't hide from things that you don't understand, embrace them and learn from them, adapt to change and live your life fully, moment by moment.

]]> http://simplyfab.wordpress.com/?p=41 Sat, 10 May 2008 01:51:08 +0000 Fab http://simplyfab.wordpress.com/?p=41 I'm no David Letterman, but these are my Top 10 Reasons Liberalism Is Bad for America. In the coming days, I will also write articles as separate posts to accompany each of the 10 to explain my positions.

1. Liberalism lacks respect and in many cases opposes the most basic of human rights: life. This one is by far the biggest reason liberalism is bad for America. The rest are in no particular order.

2. Liberalism seeks to weaken our national sovereignty.

3. Liberals originated the movement toward political correctness.

4. Liberals are for a weak military, or at least their actions say that they are.

5. To call themselves "people of tolerance", liberals are some of the most intolerant people on earth.

6. Along the same lines as the tolerance issue, liberals are tolerant of all religions except for Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

7. Liberals started the current environmental/animal rights/go-green efforts which are not as much about sensible protective measures for the earth and its creatures, but about punishing humans for imposing themselves on the earth and its creatures.

8. Liberals like high taxes. They think they can spend your money more wisely than you can, especially if you're "wealthy".

9. Liberals are largely anti-capitalism. They tax and regulate businesses so much that many are discouraged from trying to go into business for themselves.

10. Liberals meddle in the private affairs of individuals, businesses, states and localities, and others via big-government.

Stay tuned for the articles over the next couple weeks.

 

Applying this to Christianity, if the account of Jesus Christ is not based on real events or facts, the person who believes it is a fool no matter how it makes him feel or how much meaning he claims to get from it. His beliefs are based on imaginary thoughts and feelings. C. S. Lewis was right when he wrote, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”  

Some religious claims are objectively true; some are simply false. To distinguish the true from the false, one must ask, “Do these claims correspond with reality and facts independent of anyone's opinions about them?” Religious claims are mostly claims about reality. Such claims must be investigated to learn if they are objectively true or false. For example: God either exists or He doesn't. God, as Christianity teaches, has revealed Himself at a certain time in history or He hasn't. If I conclude that another person’s religious affirmations are false, it does not mean I cannot respect their right to hold them. Tolerance only becomes a virtue where there is strong disagreement and respect for those with whom you disagree.

Af Batulo Abdirahman

Måske vil jeg kunne bygge broer imellem muslimer og Vesten, og vil håbe, at de kommer til at forstå hinanden, hvilket jo vil medfølge, at de respekterer hinanden og i sidst ende acceptere hinandens forskellighed.

For hvis de ikke kommer til at forstå hinanden, så tænk på al de kræfter, talenter og succeshistorier, der går tabt. Kræfter hvilket folk som jeg og mange andre muslimer i vesten eller vesterlændinge i muslimske lande udstråler. Hvis vi får chancen, så kan det godt være, at vi rejser en hel ny civilisation. En enorm civilisation som den i Andalusien og bedre, hvor man side om side på trods af forskellige trosretninger rejste minde ” at man godt kan være enig, og opbygger et fantastisk samfund.”

Som en muslim i Vesten ønsker jeg virkeligt, at muslimer og Vesten kan leve i fred med hinanden, side om side. Men hvordan det ønske kan komme i opfyldelse, og hvordan jeg som et individ kan være med til at realisere det, er et stort spørgsmål?!

Hvis jeg skulle udgive mine følelser igennem billeder, så vil jeg tegne to have. De to have blander sig ikke med hinanden, fordi de har to ensrettede poler. Polerne frastøder hinanden. Jeg står midt i mellem de to have, der rører sig ved hinanden, men alligevel ikke blander sig med hinanden. Man prøver, og prøver at føre dem sammen, men kan det lade sig gøre? Kan man måske ændre naturloven?

He was captain of a field artillery battery in France during World War I, a county judge, a U.S. Senator, and Vice-President under Franklin Roosevelt.

He ended World War II by dropping the atomic bomb.

His name was Harry S Truman.

To the Federal Council of Churches, March 6, 1946, President Truman said:

"We have just come though a decade in which the forces of evil in various parts of the world have been lined up in a bitter fight to banish from the face of the earth both of these ideals - religion and democracy...

"The right of every human being...to worship God in his own way, the right to fix his own relationship to his fellow men and to his Creator - these again have been saved for mankind."

Truman continued:

"Let us determine to carry on in a spirit of tolerance, and understanding for all men and for all nations - in the spirit of God and religious unity."

President Truman told the Attorney General's Conference, February 15, 1950:

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings...of Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days."

Stiff Right Jab, contributing editor, William J. Federer, is author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion.” A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet.

As advances in psychology continue, we frequently learn that the things we find unforgivable in others may not be the end result of free will as much as they are a product of the warped chemistry within our own minds.  When we take a moment to recognize that we cannot truly know what lies inside a person's head, we give ourselves the opportunity to stop judging for a moment and forgive the faults, large and small, that we may find personally unforgivable.  Depression, obsession, defiance, and deceit all could be the result of bad brain chemistry, and while we should not forget what people do to us lest we be burned a second time, we should at least try to forgive their transgressions, whether they ask for forgiveness or not.  Unconditional love IS unconditional, after all.