Re Abuse: The Five Supremes, the MSM, and the Left’s Rampant Unreality, Absolutism, and Naiveté July 17, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Abuse of Prisoners, Ethics, Human Rights, Leftist idiocy, Military--U.S., Political Correctness, Reality & Evidence, Reason and Survival, Supreme Court--idiocy of, War on Terror, politics.add a comment
Remember on 9/11/01 the time period between the plane crashing into the 2nd tower and all passenger flights in the U.S. having been accounted for– including the identifying of United flight 93’s crash site? It was during that terrifying interim that President Bush gave the Air Force permission to shoot down any unaccounted for aircraft that was approaching Washington, D.C., without responding to warnings. If United flight 93’s passengers had not fought back that day and the flight had reached Washington, and our Air Force had shot it down, would the President be guilty of crimes against humanity for killng the 40 innocent passengers? If not, why not?
Especially in light of the mainstream media and the radical left’s constant denials that moral absolutes exist, it has been astounding for me to watch their absolutist moral judgments of America, the President, and our military related to alleged abuse of and denial of habeas corpus for captured terrorist combatants. It seems that absolutism is verboten except when it comes to the U.S. military and the security of the free world.
This is not only sheer intellectual and moral absurdity, but furthermore is the suicidal ranting of autovorous, self-masticating, Western elites living in a psychological Utopian Oz totally unrelated to the real world. Such a Never-Never Land fantasy (or delusion?) has nothing to do with morality, for morality essentially has to do with ethical dilemmas that face real people in real life struggles in the real world.
What Are The Moral Realities Of The Real World?
First, in the real world, choices must be made between good and evil.
For the sake of the secularists out there, let’s define “good” simply as “doing things that respect and preserve innocent persons’ rights to life, liberty, or property”; and let’s define “evil” simply as “doing things that rob innocent persons’ of those rights.”Second, in the real world, the use of physical force is amoral—the use of force is inherently neither moral nor immoral.
Rather, the morality of force depends on whether it is used to do good or to do evil. To use force to respect or preserve innocent persons’ rights is not only morally permissible, but in circumstances in which force is the only way to preserve innocent persons’ rights, force may be a moral necessity. On the other hand, to use force to do evil, to eviscerate an innocent person’s rights, is evil.Third, in the real world, because of the perversity of evil and evil-doers, reality is that there are times when there is no good option available for good people.
At times, the evil done by evil persons can limit the options available to good persons to only those that cause the loss of the rights to life, liberty, or property of some person(s).One example is that of Nazi officers in WW II who were separating people to be loaded either into cars for concentration camps or cars for the ovens; and they would make a Jewish, Polish, or other unfavored woman choose from among her children one who would live while the others would die. If a woman refused to make the choice, all the children would be killed before her eyes.
So, the mother with indescribable horror of soul, picked her child that she thought had the best chance of surviving the camps as the one who should live. She did so with wretched horror, knowing that the moral choice–when there was no good choice available–was to make the least evil choice available was to allow at least one of her children to have life rather than having all of them killed.
Another example is our soldiers in wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere who are confronted with a child on whom terrorists have strapped a bomb and then have made the child approach the soldiers’ position where the terrorists will explode the bomb, killing the child, the troops, and any innocent civilians near the troops. So, do our soldiers shoot the child before she gets to their position?
A decent soldier (or a non-combatant facing this situation) has no good choice. All he has are horrific alternatives all of which lead to some innocent(s) dying. So, in the real world, as unimaginable and soul-wrenching as it is to all of us who are protected from such choices by our soldiers, the soldier must make a moral decision that the least evil thing be done—either that the innocent child must die or that the child plus a number of other innocents die (by his bullet, but not by his hand—it is the barbarian who created this evil situation specifically to use the decency of our soldiers as a psychological weapon against them.
The problem is most of us in our society cannot fathom this kind of evil, but it is a reality in the real world. There are real people who are so evil that they use the decency of good people as a weapon to defeat them, to defeat us. When they do so, all we as decent people can do is to choose the lesser evil. To refuse to choose is to make a choice.
This is why police exist and have weapons. This is why we have the second ammendment. This is why our Declaration of Independence was written. It is why we we have an armed military, fight wars, and have nuclear weapons. All these things acknowledge the reality that at times we can only choose the least evil alternative from among a number of evil options.
With this reality in mind, let’s return to our original questions about United Flight 93 on 9/11.
Imagine for a moment two alternative scenarios about that day.
Scenario 1
– What if a Special Forces or CIA officer had been on that flight and had been ordered by the President to kill the perpetrators and rescue the passengers? Would the President or the agent be tried for war crimes? If not, why not?Scenario 2
– What if a government agent had learned of the plot ahead of time, captured one of the perpetrators and learned of the plan, but the captive has refused to give the flight numbers? Would it be a war crime for the agent to abuse the captive or for the President to approve the agent doing so?For clarity concerning these questions, let’s use these three definitions of terms:
(1) harassment is engaging in acts (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians) that may cause the victim emotional or physical discomfort, but which cause the victim neither severe pain nor any physical injuries.
(2) Abuse is engaging in activities (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians), which activities result in the victim receiving only temporary pain (the painful activity ends at least as soon as the immediate threat has concluded AND the pain does not endure beyond 15 minutes after the cessation of the activity) and/or only superficial injuries.
(3) torture is to engage in activities that cause prolonged pain or injuries that persist significantly beyond the conclusion of the known imminent threat OR a pattern of repeated abusive activities occurring over an extended period of time unrelated to any known, specific threat.
Based on these definitions, in Scenario 2, would it be a war crime for the agent to engage in harassment or abuse (but not torture) to gain the information required to save the lives of 40 innocent passengers? Whether or not it is a crime, should the agent do so anyway?
Scenario 3
– Suppose it is not just passengers on Flight 93 that are threatened, but a large cruise ship with hundreds of passengers controlled by terrorists and a large dirty bomb or nuclear weapon on board. The agent has learned from the captive terrorist that the ship is going to enter New York City’s harbor and then detonate the bomb. Would it be moral for our agent to harass and abuse (not torture) one or more captives in order to discover what ship will carry the terrorists into the port of our greatest city and annihilate so many innocents that it would make 9/11 seem trivial in comparison? If it is moral for the agent to do so (or even monstrously immoral to refuse to do so), should it be a crime? And if so, why would it not be a crime to shoot down a flight with 40 innocents on board as the lesser evil, but it would be a crime to torture rather than kill the evil perpetrators?Scenario 4
– This is the same as scenario 3, with two exceptions. First, you are the agent involved. Second, your wife, children, entire extended family, and most of your friends live in the New York City area. You know that if you don’t get the necessary information in the next 24 hours, many of them will die immediately—along with 100’s of thousands of others—with several times as many dying slow, excruciatingly painful deaths.What would you do? What is moral for you to do? If you do that, should you be a criminal under federal or international law? Should you be a hero whose action saved millions of lives and yet, for the same decision, be legally charged for horrific crimes against humanity?
If your answers concerning the morality of the decision differ from your answers about what the laws should be related to this decision, then you are in the curious position of saying that those who risk their lives to protect the rest of us and who face the psychological burden of making such horrific choices should have the additional burden placed upon them of having to choose between doing what is right and humane or doing the the thing that keeps them out of criminal trouble. I ask you, “Is it just possibly immoral for us to put those who lay down their lives in order to do good, i.e., to fight to protect the lives, liberty, and property of innocents from evil aggressors, in the position of having to make such an untenable choice?”
I believe such unrealistic condemnation of all harassment and abuse as being war crimes is not merely incredibly naive, but is delusional to the point of psychosis, is despicably evil, and most importantly, is flagrantly dangerous for free peoples when we are at war for our survival against monstrously barbarous totalitarian fascists. Rather than attacking and interrogating our soldiers and security forces, we the people need to begin interrogating our politicians, prosecutors, judges who take these positions and annulling the powers that we the people bestowed upon them for the principle purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
don – 7/17/08
In your marriage, if the joy is gone–if the fire has died–can it be rekindled? July 17, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Bonds, Building, Love, Marriage, Revitalizing, Romance, Saving.1 comment so far
I am amazed at the prevalence of the common wisdom that is virtually universally accepted that once the thrill is gone only to be replaced by boredom, once the sense of burning love is gone to be replaced by a sense of obligation, then the joy in a relationship has died forever and cannot possibly be restored.
And the logical conclusion that follows this belief is that marriage is a trap made based on an unrealistic hope that love will last and grow.One of the major problems with this theory, which has been held by the cynical for eons, is that it casts human beings as helpless victims of fate, happenstance, or cosmic emotional accidents that destine us to just sitting around and hoping against hope that the love of our life, soul-mate, happens along
and that our love somehow lasts long enough for us not to be cast back out again upon our isolated emotional island powerlessly waiting for a more true soul-mate to happen by and rescue us.
No wonder so much cynicism exists.
Of course, what this cynicism legitimizes is the decision to make no lasting commitment to a sole person, but rather to go through a series of hot-then-cold sexual/romantic relationships as one journeys through life. I believe this liberation from commitment in sexual relationships was actually the intent of many in the 60’s and 70’s who fomented the sexual revolution and its claim that monogamy is not a realistic option for most human beings and that alternatives to the traditional family units of man, wife, and children are better suited to reality and to man’s polygamous nature. But that is a story for another time.
Reality is that you do have control over the persistence of romantic love in your marriage, and you as a couple can cause that sense of love to grow rather than to diminish over time.
No, you can’t make yourself or your mate feel “love” again just by wishing it or wanting it; and, no, you can’t directly control it.The key is to understand that, as with all emotions, love is not directly controlled, but is a by-product of other things.
Thus, how you can control, increase, or renew this feeling is by controlling those other things that result in that exciting, romantic, sensual feeling. And what are those things?The feeling of romantic love results from “bonds”.
What are bonds? Bonds are the myriad of things that make it beneficial or pleasurable for two people to be together. They are an extremely diverse myriad of things; e.g., being proud to be seen with the other person because of how he or she acts, to have interests and activities that you enjoy in common, to have common values and shared goals for the future, to be able to communicate and be understood by one another, to have similar senses of humor, to have complementary styles of behavior, to have personality styles that are mutually enjoyable, to feel valued and admired by one another, ad infinitum.If both of you are willing to do a bond evaluation, and then to work at rebuilding frayed and worn bonds, and to build new bonds, your love can be revived and grow.
I have had couples repeatedly come to consult with me as a last ditch effort before getting a divorce. And both the husband and wife would declare that their love had been destroyed, and they saw no possibility of it being recuperated. And in each instance, I would ask them, “Yes, but even if you can’t see it occurring under any circumstance, do you care enough about marriage and the vows you made to try?” because this is the primary issue.
Of course, many at this point were not willing to try. Even though they may have said that they were willing, all they really wanted was to make their mate try, but they were not willing themselves to try.
However, I have repeatedly seen two people, as skeptical as they were, begin to try to do a bond inventory and to work to build up bonds in areas in which their relationship was week, only to discover in a matter of months that they were intensely in love with one another once again.
One couple even began to get angry at me when I tried to point out areas that each one of them still had work to do, declaring their anger at me for “attacking” their mate whom they a few months earlier had been desperate to divorce.This takes work. And it works!
Think of how much work you did to win the love of your mate. You sacrificed time for them, changed schedules for them, complemented and praised them, eagerly listened to them and told them about your hopes, dreams, and plans, spent time hunting for gifts that would please them and taking them places you wanted to share with them, etc. And none of this felt like a sacrifice. You chose to do it, you wanted to do it, even when it was inconvenient or when you were tired.
When is the last time you told your mate how and why you appreciate or value him/her? When is the last time you told your mate how you love them more than any other man/woman. When is the last time you spent an entire evening just talking with your wife about your innermost dreams, your goals, and your future together.
When is the last time that you made it clear to your wife that you love him or her deeply? When is the last time you told your husband how much and why you respect him as the best man and husband in the world and for the skills that he possesses? How often are the two of you sharing an evening or day alone together doing some activity that you mutually enjoy? How often are you laughing together, telling each other jokes, playfully teasing one another? Well, obviously, I could go on and on.
The question is, “Have you continued to do these things that build closeness, togetherness, a sense of being bound together in this struggle called life?”
Most of you will have to say, “No!” No wonder the sense of love is not as strong.Start changing things this week! I promise–this can and will work if you both are willing to honestly try.
Start by doing a bond inventory together and individually. Identify the bonds that have atrophied through disuse, and identify the bonds that have never been grown. And come up with a plan together and individually to rebuild the bonds. Work on those things, and wait. Don’t try to make yourself feel love. Just build bonds and see what happens. Don’t try to make the feelings be there. Just nourish your heart with the nourishment, hydration, and sunlight of bonds, and the flower of love will bloom and grow.
Related Questions For Future entries:
What should a bond inventory include?
Are some kinds of bonds more important than others?
If such things as bonds exist, are there such things as anti-bonds that destroy the feeling of love?
What to do when your mate refuses to help rebuild and invigorate bonds?
What about love-at-first-sight and infatuation? How do you explain these phenomenon at times before any bonds could have been built?
don–7/17/08
Trust in Horses? by Bryan Shelley July 15, 2008
Posted by bshelley in campaign, politics.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Psalm 33:17 A horse is a false hope for victory; Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength. NASB
Well, you might be wondering if I am about to go off on horse racing or para mutual betting or something. Hmm, maybe another day. It is tempting indeed. My wife mentioned this morning in response to all the political news flowing in this year that we need to remember to be praying for the election and our country. We are no doubt in some difficult times right now. The economy is stalling, the housing market is tanking, banks are starting to fold and congress argues over what color to paint the fire hydrants in Washington DC or some other worthy pursuit. We can and should write our representatives and offer up some advice from the real world requesting they redirect their attention to something a bit more helpful than additional taxes. But, for us who are in Christ, our hope and assurance is in God who promises to provide for His children. We are not one under congress or one under the President, but rather, one under God. Mere men will let us down. They pursue their own selfish and political agendas. To place our trust in a candidate is wishful thinking. Not that we don’t need to carefully consider the options for representation in the light of God’s standards and make godly choices at the voting booth, but our trust and faith need be in almighty God. He is our rock in the stormy seas. He is a light in the darkness of a fallen world. Now is a time when others are scrambling crying out, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” that we can put forth a powerful testimony of faith that God will carry the day regardless. We can show that we have an unshakable demeanor that in Him we will emerge victorious, delivered by His great strength. Yes, pray for our country and pray for our leaders, but know that victory is in God’s hands. In God we trust.
CA Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D)Gives“Iran’s Desire For Peace” Credit For The Achievement Of Our Troops Paid For With Their Blood, Sweat, and Tears! June 3, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Leftist idiocy, Political Correctness, Reality & Evidence, campaign, politics.add a comment
If you love America or care about the future security of your family or nation, and you haven’t seen the video of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s 80-minute interview last Thursday, with reporters and members of the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, you have to do so.
Since most people do not have time, or the patience, to sit through an 80-minute interview of Nancy Pelosi (unless you like watching grass grow), Media Research Center has gratefully edited out her statements made at the 62-minute mark of the interview when she credits the recent downturn in violence in Iraq–which actually indicates according to Al Qaeda’s own appraisal that they have lost in Iraq–to the efforts of Iran and their President “I’m mad and all in a wad” to negotiate peace there.
These people who are the leaders of the Despotcratic Party simply are children who are not serious about our security and cannot be trusted with control of the U.S. military—the greatest demonstration of our love not only for our own people, but for the people of the world because the arrival of our troops on any scene IS the arrival of freedom! But the Democrats rather give credit for peace to Totalitarian terrorists than give credit to our troops who purchase freedom with their blood, sweat and tears.
To hear Nancy, the “Wicked Witch of the West’s”, comments without having to hear the entire 80 minute interview, go to MRC’s humorous website, Newsbusters,
click here. If you care about our troop, however, you may want to take a sedative first.And you may want to contact CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT’s, LATimes, and Fox to find out why they have not been willing to play this clip. Why is Media Research Center (MRC.org and their Newsbusters site having to make it available. AMAZING!
HOMOSEXUALITY # 2: Obama Advocates A Dangerous Position June 3, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Political Correctness, campaign, politics.add a comment
Of course, all of the concern with Obama’s misstatements and factual errors (see my previous entry) is of great concern. But even of greater concern are the extremely radical leftist positions of Obama of which he is clear, uncompromising, unrelenting, and unapologetic, but about which the mainstream media does no reporting and asks no questions—positions that would alienate many Americans including many Democrats and many African Americans.
These controversial positions include full term abortions (the murdering a children while they are being born), the dismantling of America’s ability to defend itself from terrorist and totalitarian states who are rapidly growing super power military status to use against us, and his commitment to a radical “gay” agenda including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which will result in gay marriage as the law of the land.
If you believe I am overstating Obama’s positions, go to his web site at
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf (There you can also use the link his site provides to be able to: Speak up. Tell Barack your story at: www.BarackObama.com/issues or by calling 312-496-6614). Obama’s position on homosexual activism is under the heading at his website, Barack Obama supports the LGBT community. LGBT, in case you don’t know, refers to the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Trans-sexual (or trans-gender) community.
The various sub-sections of Obama’s positions on homosexuality that are then discussed are:
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes; Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights (under this heading, the website notes: Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity); Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples; Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell; Fight AIDS Worldwide (including the U.S. giving billions and billions of U.S. dollars to other nations to fight AIDS).Furthermore, just on May 20, Obama on the campaign trail called for the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This came the week after
the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in CA, as well as a similar 2003 decision by the high court of Massachusetts, would have the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.This is because without DOMA, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution, requires every state to recognize “the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” This is why a marriage, divorce, warrant, or indictment (as a few examples) of every other state. However, because of the growing controversy over homosexual marriages and the momentum for a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage to monogamous heterosexual union, congress as a stop gap measure passed the
Defense of Marriage Act which protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, and President Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. But now the CA court’s ruling, which threw out the definition of marriage passed overwhelmingly by the people of CA as a CA proposition, and Obama’s stated desire to completely repeal DOMA, have cast the issue back to the forefront and illustrated the need for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
His stated desire one asks? Yes. Actually, more than one Democrat has sought to divert the issue by questioning that Obama has called for the repeal of DOMA. Cybercast News Service (
www.cnsnews.com) reports:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is from one of the two states where same-sex marriage has been declared a right, told Cybercast News Service that she was not aware of Obama’s call to repeal DOMA. “I have not talked to Sen. Obama about that. I have not heard anything about that,” she said. “I did not vote for DOMA in the first place. I voted against it, and I don’t know anything about this.”
Boxer also asked Cybercast News Service to provide her staff with proof that Obama holds this position. “I would like to see it,” she said. “I would be very interested in seeing it. Please provide me with the documentation.”
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) also told Cybercast News Service he was unaware of Obama’s position on DOMA. “I haven’t heard him say that,” he said.
Only Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would support Obama in such a plan. “Yes, I would,” she said.
Well, since they asked, the evidence is easy to find if anyone looks at all. His web site states:
“Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions”.
The equating of homosexual unions is a horribly destructive plan for the welfare of individuals and for our culture as a whole—even though homosexuals should be accorded the same basic rights endowed by our Creator. Why is it a destructive plan, and why is homosexual marriage not one of the basic rights endowed to all humans precisely because all humans are created equally in the image of God? That is the subject of the next seven entries I will make on the subject of homosexuality:
3-PC Myth 1—Homosexuals Are Happy; Homosexuality Is Healthy
4 PC Myth 2–Homosexuality Is Normal
5 PC Myth 3–Homosexuality Is Genetically Based
6- PC Myth 4–Homosexuality Is Not Treatable
7- PC Myth 5—Jesus Never Spoke About Homosexuality
8- PC Myth 6–The Logical Fallacy Re “Homophobia”
9- PC Myth 7—Gay Activism Is Desirable And Needed In Our Society
Barack Hussein Obama, “A One-Man Gaff Machine” June 3, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Political Correctness, campaign, politics.add a comment
John Fund, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, wrote last Friday:
For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.
As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him “a one-man gaffe machine.”
Fund then illustrates Obama’s tendency toward misstatements, miscues, and mistakes with:
1- His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.
2- On Memorial Day, still in New Mexico, Obama appropriately said that the crowd was gathered to honor America’s “fallen heroes”, then going on to note that many of those fallen heroes were present with them in the audience as he spoke.
3- Earlier in May, he said that the U.S. had 57 states.
4- Barak Hussein Obama in May said in Portland, Ore., that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us,” saying that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets aren’t much cause to worry. Iran in fact has around one fourth the population of the U.S. and is engaged in a expansive military development and is extremely close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama the very next day had to backtrack, noting that for years he had “made it clear that the threat from Iran is grave.”
5- Two weeks ago Obama said in Orlando that he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez and would include in their discussions Chávez’s support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. However, the very next day he insisted in Miami that any country supporting the FARC should suffer “regional isolation.” Fund notes that Obama advisers “were left explaining how this circle could be squared.”
6- Obama said last year in Selma, Ala., that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born.
7-. Last April he denied that the handwriting is his on a questionnaire on which, as a state senate candidate, he stated that he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now argues that–even if it was his handwriting– this doesn’t prove that this was his true position because he may not have read the full questionnaire.
8- Last July in a presidential debate, Obama pledged to meet the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba without any precondition. He said that President Bush’s refusal to do so was “ridiculous” and a “disgrace.”
When Obama was overwhelmed with criticism, he dug in rather than relent, claiming, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy’s 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.
This in spite of the fact that Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev’s bullying. “He beat the hell out of me,” Kennedy confided to advisers. Khrushchev described Kennedy to his Politburo as weak. This perception led to the Berlin Wall being erected just two months later. . . where it stood for 28 years!
Fund then notes:
Reporters may now give Mr. Obama’s many gaffes more notice. But don’t count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.
Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I’ve talked to has come up with a solid example.
That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That’s because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.
You can see Mr. Funds full article at
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html
Of course, all of this concern with Obama’s misstatements and factual errors is of great concern. But even of greater concern are the extremely radical leftist positions of Obama of which he is clear, uncompromising, unrelenting, and unapologetic, but about which the mainstream media does no reporting and asks no questions—positions that would alienate many Americans including many Democrats and many African Americans.These controversial positions include full term abortions (the murdering a children while they are being born), the dismantling of America’s ability to defend itself from terrorist and totalitarian states who are rapidly growing super power military status to use against us, and his commitment to a radical “gay” agenda including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which will result in gay marriage as the law of the land.
If you believe I am overstating Obama’s positions, go to his web site at
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
and take time to read what he states as his positions on all these issues.
HOMOSEXUALITY # 1: What We Owe To Homosexuals June 1, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Christianity, Ethics, Homosexuality, Homosexuality & Genetics, Laws of Nature, Political Correctness, Reality & Evidence, Reason and Survival, campaign, politics.add a comment
On my nightly
Eagle and Child radio show last week, I did three shows about the seven modern PC myths concerning homosexuality, how they are not supported by the evidence, and the fact that Jesus did speak out very clearly against homosexual acts–contradicting the activist homosexual community’s claims that are repeated ad nauseum I believe the things we discussed concerning homosexuality are important enough that I am going to repeat what I said on my show in nine separate blogs entries I will be doing in the coming days.First, it is important to stress that nothing I say in these nine blog entries means that those who engage in homosexual behavior are any worse (morally or psychologically) than any of the rest of us who–as a result of the fall—suffer various propensities to engage in evil behaviors including arrogance, argumentativeness, unkindness, meanness, selfishness, etc. Rather, homosexuals are creatures made in the image of God, and therefore have infinite worth and are to be treated with the same respect, kindness, and love as are all human beings. Furthermore, homosexuals certainly have the same civil rights as do the rest of us under the constitution, and any failure to respect those rights should be condemned and constrained under the law.
It not only is evil to physically abuse a homosexual because of his sexual orientation, but under the higher law of God’s love, it is evil to treat a homosexual unkindly, or even without love and compassion.
But does love preclude examining evidence, engaging in a logical analysis that evidence, discussing the moral and emotional health of a behavior or condition, and publicly weighing and debating the truth of an idea or assertion? In an age of PC, many answer yes. But I believe man is nothing if not a reasoning being. In fact, man’s greatest tools in the struggle to survive are our capacities to use logic and our parallel ability to observe the world and understand how it functions, i.e. to understand reality. We, as individuals and as communities, increase our likelihood of surviving and prospering when we align our behavior with the truths of nature; and we individually and collectively decrease our likelihood of prospering, or even surviving, if we make decisions that oppose the realities, the truths, of our world.
Not only is it NOT an attack on any person or group to engage in a vigorous debate of any truth assertion—about ANY TOPIC, but it is a threat to us as a species to decide that love means there are things we cannot discuss and debate. To set certain ideas as being immune from examination for their truthfulness is a threat because it is the battle in the marketplace of ideas that threshes out the truth, separating it from falsehoods that set us against reality. If we accept without examination ideas that contradict reality, the real universe will always ultimately rise up and smite us!
So, I love homosexuals, and I defend their rights. And I argue that homosexuality is not healthy, that it hurts those who engage in it, that it is not genetically based, that it is treatable (often easily so), and that homosexual activism is doing great harm to tens—if not hundreds—of thousands and to our society as a whole. I argue these things not in contradiction to, nor in spite of, my love for homosexuals, but rather because of my love for them including several dear friends that I have lost because of their having adopted the homosexual life style.
Thus, I will be covering these topics in my next eight blog entries on homosexuality:
2-Obama On Homosexuality
3-PC Myth 1—Homosexuals Are Happy; Homosexuality Is Healthy
4 PC Myth 2–Homosexuality Is Normal
5 PC Myth 3–Homosexuality Is Genetically Based
6- PC Myth 4–Homosexuality Is Not Treatable
7- PC Myth 5—Jesus Never Spoke About Homosexualty
8- PC Myth 6–The Logical Fallacy Re “Homophobia”
9- PC Myth 7—Gay Activism Is Desirable And Needed In Our Society
Stay tuned. And let me hear from you by making an entry or by writing me at
Congressmen Suffer from Munchausen’s Proxy Or Are Pyromaniacs With A Savior Complex May 22, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Congressional Malfeasance, Economic Justice, Free Enterprise, Leftist idiocy, Political Correctness, politics.Tags: Congressional Malfeasance, Economics, Human Rights, Leftist idiocy, Political Correctness
1 comment so far
The only way to understand the U.S. Congress, and especially the liberal and moderate Democrats who control it with the few Republican liberals is that they suffer from some desperate obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) that causes them to create a crisis for American citizens in order to be able to be the heroes who rush in and try to save us from the crisis. Then to save us, they create a worse crisis which will again require them to again save us in an even bigger way.
That is the only way to understand their repeated behavior with the economy, jobs, energy, national defense, NAFTA, forest fires and natural catastrophes, medical care and insurance, ad infinitum is that they have a disorder like Munchausen’s where they create a problem in order to get the attention (and bribes) they desire when they rush in to save the public from the condition they created. Or maybe they have an OCD like pyromaniacs with savior complexes like the volunteer fireman who starts apartment buildings on fire in order to gain the attention they acquire for rushing in the middle of the night to announce the fire and rescue victims.
For instance:
The economy: The economy is booming, so they say that businesses are making too much money, and they increase taxes. This causes the economy to slow down, so we have federal or state budget deficits. So, to save the government, they increase taxes. Which causes business ventures and investment to dramatically slow, so money going to government decreases further and businesses begin to leave to more business-friendly economies, which puts people out of work and decreases tax revenues? So, they again increase taxes.
Jobs: Their economic and tax decisions, as just discussed, decrease domestic production and jobs, so the supply of workers decreases as the jobs available decrease. This results in lower wages. So, the pyromaniacs that started the fire rush to the rescue, installing higher minimum wages. Which causes employers to move more jobs overseas where more laborers are available at lower wages, or businesses replace workers with automated machines that now cost less than the workers. So, Congress threatens to punish corporations for such decisions, which causes the corporations to move more jobs overseas where the businesses are appreciated rather than vilified.
National Defense: Liberals and leftists in congress and the media attack the U.S. as seeming too “unfriendly” and imperialistic when we use our military to defend innocents in the world from totalitarians. So, congress, to prove we are not the evil empire, withdraws our troops from protecting some innocent peoples. Thus, the totalitarians increase those who join their side with the evidence that America will not defend itself or its allies. So, attacks increase against America. So, liberals in congress announce it is because our might has made the world dislike us, and they promise to reduce our might and to talk more with the aggressors. Which weakness encourages more attacks against us, requiring the liberals to save us from our aggressive tendencies and to further disengage in the world and to disarm our military.
NAFTA: The lack of free trade is hurting us and making products cost more. So, we open the doors to 3rd world producers who have to meet none of the fiduciary, safety, environmental, or regulatory standards that our domestic producers must meet. So, they undercut the costs of our domestic producers, putting domestic producers out of business. So, we are flooded with dangerous products are products whose production in 3rd world countries does immense damage to the environment, and we put our workers out of work. So, our companies that have to survive begin to move production overseas, which Congress will save us from by creating penalties on companies that do so, driving more companies and jobs overseas, and forcing us to depend on more and more products than contaminate the environment or that are themselves dangerously contaminated.
Forest Fires and Natural Catastrophes: Congress, because it increases their tax base, allow homes and businesses to build up in areas that place inhabitants at high risk due to hurricanes that will flood these areas and close off avenues of escape (e.g., New Orleans, Texas coast south of Houston, etc.), to mud slides, flooding rivers, earth quakes, etc. So, millions move into these areas. And a catastrophe happens, placing thousands out of homes. So, Congress pays to rebuild those same areas, bringing millions back into the areas at huge cost, only to have those populations grow, and increase the numbers of inhabitants at great risk, only to have to show we care by rebuilding all over again. Or Congress and the EPA restrict home owners from cleaning out brush in fire prone areas, only to have billions in property lost and lives lost, only to rebuild again.
Medical Care and Insurance: Congress lectures companies for not providing care and insurance to high risk individuals at no extra cost, and requires companies to cover people for all kinds of risks for which they may not be at risk–a one covers all policy, rather than allowing individuals to shop for the coverage they need without having to pay for things they don’t need. So, costs go up. So congress lectures companies, and forces them to care for, cover, or sell to people who are at high risk, greatly increasing costs for everyone. Then congress drags the companies in and lectures them about their outrageous costs.
Energy: Congress prevents energy companies from producing energy with oil, coal, gas, and nuclear development and refining. So, the supply decreases, and we become dependent upon nations intent on destroying us who can use our funds to build up their military and supplying of terrorists who war against us. And they impose endless regulation on domestic suppliers that cause their costs to soar, when international suppliers do not suffer those regulations and related costs. So, our costs for energy soar. And congress then brings in our energy suppliers, ridicule and blame them, and increase their costs again by increasing the taxes they have to pay. Which results in domestic companies like Amoco to go out of business, selling out to companies like BP.? And then Congress and liberal candidates for President threaten to punish companies that move overseas.
The only hope we have is that there are new miracle drugs for OCD that frequently do not even require therapy and can cause people to overcome OCD’s they have of which they are not even aware. I suggest that we require all water fountains in Washington, D.C., and the entire beltway areas to use a water source which has these therapeutic drugs for OCD to be injected into the water supply.
The crises from which we might be delivered could potentially save America and move our economy to even higher planes than yet achieved.
Open Season On Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Coyotes, Sharks, and Child Molestors! Since Democrats Believe in Preemptive Wars, Grab Your Ammo! May 22, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Animal Rights, Human Rights, Laws of Nature, Parody, Political Correctness, Preemptive War.add a comment
Lo and behold, the Democrat Party, as well as liberal Republicans, both of whom opposed a preemptive war in Iraq–in lock step with the radical Marxists of Daily Koss, Democrat Underground, MoveOn, and other George Soros funded totalitarians (even though Iraq was not preemptive because Saddam had been attacking our fighter jets for years, and in spite of the fact that preemption is not a new theory, but was actually fostered by JFK during the Cuban missile crisis)–now advocate a preemptive war!As noted by George Will in his column today:
A preventive war worked out so well in Iraq that Washington last week launched another. The new preventive war — the government responding forcefully against a postulated future threat — has been declared on behalf of polar bears, the first species whose supposed jeopardy has been ascribed to global warming.The Interior Department, bound by the Endangered Species Act, has declared polar bears a “threatened” species because they might be endangered “in the foreseeable future,” meaning 45 years. (Note: 45 years ago, the now-long-forgotten global cooling menace of 35 years ago was not yet foreseen.) The bears will be threatened if the current episode of warming, if there really is one, is, unlike all the previous episodes, irreversible, and if it intensifies, and if it continues to melt sea ice vital to the bears, and if the bears, unlike in many previous warming episodes, cannot adapt.
To see George Will’s article, click here)
Well, I suggest that we need a preemptive war to protect humanity from aggression by predatory animals. After all, everyone led by Al Gore is aware of the fact that humanity is a threatened species. I mean, look at AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Why, if you believe in an era of special effects and computer generated images–along with the sky is falling hysteria that manipulates data by pre-selection of the sources and time spans of data used based upon its seeming support of a theory, you know that this wondrous Hollywood production (After all, can there be any reality east of Hollywood?) proved that the survival of life on earth is rapidly ending (how else can we explain the population explosion–a vain and frantic effort to survive the annihilation that has already begun (and according to Ted Dansen’s inerrant prophecies has already concluded)?So, what option do we have but to start a preemptive war against the bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, sharks, child molestors and illegal aliens who increasingly are killing lone hikers, bike riders, and children playing in their back yards or parks they are visiting with their families?
A Word on Barak Hussein Obama’s Name May 21, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Political Correctness, politics.Tags: Political Correctness, politics
2 comments
Some of you are offended that I would even spell out the “name that shall never be spoken”! It is truly amazing that political correctness has gotten to the point that saying a person’s name (not a disparaging nickname) is evidence of dirty politics to say the least, and possibly of overt racism. This is just too stupid to listen to.
If Barak Hussein Obama finds his name insulting or belittling, then he should change his name. It’s not hard to do, and he is a lawyer and Senator. One would think he could figure it out. I worked for Family Protective Services, and I encountered children being saddled with names that were disgusting and humiliating—names for various body parts, personal human activities, products not discussed in public, and references to random objects (like “Blue Bird”. “Sail Boat”, “Barbie Que”, etc.). I considered this to be a form of child abuse that is not recognized by the law. A child should not be persecuted with a name for which his or her parents are responsible.
However, once one is an adult, he can change his name, and then can legitimately insist that using his “given” name is insensitive and intentionally disrespectful. If Obama is embarrassed by his name being used, then he should change it. Until he does so, it is fair for others to assume he has some affection for the name, and certainly it is absurd to say that anyone using the name of a prominent public figure is somehow an intentional insult that reveals anything about the one using the name other than respect for the person who wears the name.
Both Houses of Congress: Dumb and Dumber May 21, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Economic Justice, Energy/Oil Crisis, Free Enterprise, Laws of Nature, campaign, politics.add a comment
Thomas Sowell in his classic work on economics described the naive people who fail to do “Second Stage Thinking”. What this means is that decisions that are intended to change people’s behaviors inevitably cause unintentioned changes in behavior as well as the intended changes. That is because the intended changes bring about a new reality to which people make further adjustments.
For instance, raising taxes on profits may be intended to increase the amount of money received by the government. But a secondary response to higher taxes is that people abandon investment plans in businesses and industry which chances of being profitable were low in the first place. If increased taxes makes the cost greater, and therefore further decreases the chance of making a profit, the would be investors decide not to talk the risk, or to start the new business somewhere else where the taxes will be less. So, employees that would have been hired for the new business are not hired, they are not paid wages, they do not spend their wages, other businesses do not receive the revenue that their spending would have created, and the overall economy grows less than it would have with the new startups. Consequently, less taxes (rather than more) flow into the government coffers.
This lack of second stage thinking is the reason for the cost of oil and the resulting rising cost for gasoline and everything else that is transported with or made from oil products. Radical environmentalists (anti-capitalistic Marxists in green drag) have control of congress, who stops oil exploration, drilling, and refining for 30 years in order to “save the environment”. That is the first stage goal.
But an unintended consequence of this behavior is that the supply is decreased, thus increasing the cost, and also that control of the oil supply is granted to 3rd world nations, many of whom are our enemies, placing our security at risk. And beyond these devastating consequences, the 2nd stage furthermore actually undermines the alleged first stage goal of helping the environment by granting oil production and refining to third world nations whose dictatorial leaders don’t care a wit about the environment and absolutely do not have the protections of the environment built into their collection and refining processes.And who created this debacle as has been predicted for years as being inevitable given our limits on drilling and production for the last 30 years? Congress . . . and the radical leftist environmentalists to whom the Democrats in Congress have sold their souls and the nation.
Tired of paying more at the pump? Want it to stop? Attack the congressmen in the House and Senate who stop oil drilling and production for their naive, myopic, first stage thinking that cannot see past the money the enviro-Marxists are stuffing into their pockets.
Ted Kennedy’s tumor, Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s, and the Loving Left May 21, 2008
Posted by flipsidedon in Political Correctness, campaign, politics.add a comment
Some of you are offended that I would even spell out the “name that shall never be spoken”! It is truly amazing that political correctness has gotten to the point that saying a person’s name (not a disparaging nickname) is evidence of dirty politics to say the least, and possibly of overt racism. This is just too stupid to listen to.
If Barak Hussein Obama finds his name insulting or belittling, then he should change his name. It’s not hard to do, and he is a lawyer and Senator. One would think he could figure it out. I worked for Family Protective Services, and I encountered children being saddled with names that were disgusting and humiliating—names for various body parts, personal human activities, products not discussed in public, and references to random objects (like “Blue Bird”. “Sail Boat”, “Barbie Que”, etc.). I considered this to be a form of child abuse that is not recognized by the law. A child should not be persecuted with a name for which his or her parents are responsible.
However, once one is an adult, he can change his name, and then can legitimately insist that using his “given” name is insensitive and intentionally disrespectful. If Obama is embarrassed by his name being used, then he should change it. Until he does so, it is fair for others to assume he has some affection for the name, and certainly it is absurd to say that anyone using the name of a prominent public figure is somehow an intentional insult that reveals anything about the one using the name other than respect for the person who wears the name.
The Great Racial Divide Ahead- by Bryan Shelley (Guest editorial) May 19, 2008
Posted by bshelley in campaign, politics.2 comments
I am deeply concerned about what lies ahead for us as a nation. There are certainly financial issues requiring immediate and long term attention even as Congress goes on field trips rather than deal with it. Our inability to formulate a national energy policy, even when the absence of one now threatens our national security and sovereignty, is beyond disgrace.
Even more disconcerting than even that is the ominous chasm we seem to be hurtling towards as a nation. My fear is that Senator Obama will get the Democratic nomination and Senator McCain wins the general election. This election was said to never be about race and hopes were that it would not be. However, it has become all about race at a very deep emotional level seemingly.
Because of the deep emotional investment that is being made in Senator Obama’s run for the White House, a defeat for any reason will inevitably be read by all too many as a racist response by the electorate. I do not believe that is true. Oh sure, there are no doubt racists amongst all of us, but my sense is that they are the true minority today. Most folks are desirous of building quality relationships and communities side by side with all like-minded citizens of whatever racial or political ilk.
Simply stated, my deep fear is that a failure of the Obama campaign to win will create in this country a racial divide we have not seen since most of us were small children. Forty or fifty years of sincere efforts to make real changes in how we see each other and work side by side with disregard for ones racial makeup will be reversed in moments.
I could not disagree more with Senator Obama on almost any issue that could be named, but I honor him for who he is and his willingness to stand up for what he believes. That has nothing to do with his race. Frankly, I would rather see him win if the alternative was such a racial division as appears inevitable should he not win. I love my country and the people who comprise it too much to see such damage come to us. How did we come to this place? Who is manipulating such seething and unquenched anger? For a raw love of power at any cost, some would bring us to the brink and indeed see us fall as a people to gain advantage or political coo.
I don’t have the answers. I certainly think that Senator Obama can exercise some modicum of control in this, but it may well be bigger than him already. God help us and send peacemakers among us to guide us through turbulent and trying times. God, please bless America.
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 23, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, also to suffer for His sake, NASB
Wait a minute; I did not see that on the recruiting poster, did you? I don’t think the kind of suffering meant is being late on ones boat payment either. Paul goes on in verse 30 being specific saying they would likely suffer the same consequences for living and witnessing to their faith that had befallen him. Hopefully we will not be faced with jail time for expressing our faith, but that may not be out of the question either. A year or so the Canadian Parliament came very close to voting that the Bible was hate literature. There are even rumblings of that sort of thinking out here on the left coast. The line of thinking is that since the Bible teaches intolerance against such laudable institutions as homosexuality and other immorality, that it should be banned. How dare we in a Post-Modern society accept that any truth is truth for all or that we don’t hold all truths as self-evident, but rather of equal value. Where do we get off saying our God is right and everyone else is wrong just because He says so? You have heard it. Well, there is a God who created all that we see and He loves everyone so much that He allows them to accept His love and love Him back and accept His peace terms or not. If we stand up and live the kind of lives Jesus and the New Testament writers put forth as the very word of God, commands by which His disciples are to live, we will stick out in this world. We will stick out in this world that worships things and self. We will stick out in a world that says “How dare you believe what you believe?” and “How dare you say what I am doing is sin.” Paul did that and they threw him in jail and ultimately killed him. Jesus said that and they killed Him. First century Christians said that and they were killed for it. Do not think that for a minute Satan has folded his hand just yet. Just like any other animal trapped, cornered and facing certain defeat, that is when they are the most dangerous. We do not dare to respond by mentally flipping the channel to something more peaceful like America’s Funniest Home Videos or such. We are in a spiritual battle for the very souls of this nation and the world. We don’t need camouflage; the world already does not see much difference between us and them. That’s why they respond, “Why church?” We must be ready to respond that without changed lives in Christ they are destined to face God’s judgment with naught but their souls as payment. Tell that truth on the court steps, in the schools, in the workplace or wherever you stand and see if what Paul says is not true. Maybe the reason we don’t see persecution of any scale in most of our comfortable Christian lives is because we are not doing that outside the protective four walls of our “sanctuaries”. Pray that God will give us all the boldness to proclaim the Good News of salvation in Christ Jesus and the need to turn from lives leading to destruction in sin. Yes, that could be dangerous, but is also love.
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 10, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Christianity.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. NASB
I love collecting sayings. Most of them are pretty typically Texan (which makes more sense if you know I am Texan born and raised). My Great Aunt Maurine found out I liked these little ditties and she offered up one she had heard in her childhood, “Don’t that beat a goose a gobblin!” That’s harder than one might think to work into a conversation or a sermon. Albeit, I just got it in a devo. Some other favorites are, “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make ‘em biscuits!”, “He’s all hat and no cattle” and “Are we going to chase little bunny rabbits or kill dinner?”. Some are twists on other sayings like, “Time’s fun when you’re having flies.” The one that came to mind as I was reading in Galatians this morning was, “Time wounds all heels.” It is difficult to fully comprehend how it is that evil, deceptive and worldly people seem to profit while God’s people often don’t by the world’s standards. I was reminded, as I had to stop by the grocery store and pick up some coffee for the church kitchen, that having the world’s riches does not automatically bring happiness and most certainly does not produce joy. A quick scan of the magazine rack is a barrage of problems of the rich and famous. Jenn, Brittney, Diana, Paris, Angelina, Brad, Kevin, Luke and you know the list. Would we really be willing to trade what we have in Christ for the messes they are reaping? I’ll pass. We are promised in verse 9 that if we do “not lose heart in doing good, in due time we will reap”. Lets’ commit to go into this day with renewed joy in our hearts for we serve a risen Savior in whom is our just reward for seeds of kindness, love and good news we sow. Is that worth the wait? “Does a sack of flour make a big biscuit?” You bet it does pardner!
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 9, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Matthew 25:13 “Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.” NASB
How many over the years have tried unsuccessfully to predict the unpredictable? I am amused with all the media clamor about this poll or that poll and what they reveal about what is likely to happen, that is given a statistical margin of error of +/- 5%. I frankly don’t remember much of my statistics studies, but I do remember that +/- 5% is grossly unacceptable in terms of accuracy to base any but the grossest of decisions on, if any. Better, none. There also have been many outspoken so-called prophets who repeatedly predict the year, and some the date, for the end. Doesn’t the scripture tell us that if a prophet’s prophesy fails, it is not of God? Yet, those seeking the answers to such things continue to be drawn to them like bugs to a bug light. If you really want to draw a crowd, put an ad in the paper saying you are teaching on “End Times Prophesies”. Even better, promise to predict the end. Does it really matter? Shouldn’t we be living today as if it were the last? Just read Matthew 25. Keep your lamp lit and filled, be found using your talents to the best of your ability, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide hospitality to those in need, visit those in prison, visit the sick and give clothes to those in need. Oh yeah, tell someone about Jesus’ love. That should do it for today. (Note to self: Get busy!)
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 7, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: 1 John 5:14-15 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. NASB
Ever wonder what it means to pray without any doubt that God will answer? Maybe you have been like me at times when I prayed almost apologetically for God. You know, “God I know you are very busy and this is just a small thing in the big picture, but if you have time would you please consider maybe …” Not a very powerful prayer, right? Or how about the always ineffective and seemingly humble, “God, please guide the doctors hands to do their best and maybe You could make the patient better, that is if you want…” We do not have to pray like that. In fact, we are not supposed to pray like that. Today’s passage says so. God promises to hear our prayers. God promises to answer our prayers. God only gives good answers to the prayers of His children. If we can internalize that, that is truly believe it, our prayers can be much more powerful. Not that there is some magic incantation necessary. It boils down to, are we willing to take God at His word? Seriously. We can express with the upmost confidence that God will save us and we will spend an eternity with Him in heaven because we believe His promises. Why is it so difficult for us to believe this one? Are we scared to put God on the spot? Are we apologizing in advance in case He dosen’t have time or does not “answer” our prayer like we think it ought to be answered? Sort of inconsistent when we put it like that, huh? Try praying asking that His will would be done in the situation no matter what. But you might say, “What if that is not what I want to happen?” …Really??? If God has the best possible perspective on any situation and only gives good answers to His children’s prayers…why would we pray for anything but that to come about? Knowing all this, we can not only pray asking in Jesus’ name, but we can also thank God right then as part of the prayer for His answer to our prayer. We don’t have to worry about “if” God will answer or even “when” He will answer. We can pray with the same trust in His faithfulness that we have in our salvation. Thank you Father for answering our prayers.
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 4, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Mark 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” NASB
If you have little kids or have been around little kids, you know that it is difficult to keep a straight face sometimes when they have done something “bad”. I can still remember the response of one of ours to a question as to why they had been doing something they were not supposed to do. With big semi-innocent eyes they simply responded, “I don’t know.” Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for following the traditions of man rather than those of God. He says that because they do that, they worship in vain. Are you worshipping in vain? Have you ever stopped to consider if what you do has a basis and authorization in scripture? Why do you take or not take communion on Sunday? Is Saturday ok? How about once a quarter? How often is “as often”? Why do you sit and listen to a church organist or a church worship team or band perform? Does that represent the kind of worship God desires? What must one do to be saved? Is praying a “sinners prayer” sufficient? Is baptism considered a public profession of a past event or the point of salvation in scripture? If it is work, who does scripture say is doing the work? Do you recite doctrines or creeds or specifically worded prayers every Sunday? By way of an answer, I only point you to the scriptures. What does God’s word say about such questions? Some naively or blindly follow men’s traditions because it is more comfortable than asking hard questions of the scripture and common practices. Jesus seemed to have a problem with that. He took the issue seriously. No doubt, some were just taking the word of someone more “religious” than them on the subject without digging out the truth for themselves. Why do you do what you do? Taken seriously, it is a rather unsettling question. Personally, I want to know to know if I am following God’s desire expressed in His word. The answer “that’s just the way we have always done it” or “I don’t know” does not seem a sufficient one to Jesus. Since we are full grown and capable of searching the scripture for ourselves, He’s not likely having to put much effort into keeping a straight face at our lack of understanding. Let’s search God’s word with the question in mind,”What does God say is pleasing to Him?” It should be the desire of the servant to please the Master. What is the desire of your heart today?
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley April 2, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: Psalm 46:1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. NASB
We were discussing the topic of encouragement in our Tuesday Night Bible Buffet group at our house last night. One of the verses we looked at talked of God providing all these wonderful things to those who sought refuge in Him. (Hebrews 6:17-18) The picture of refuge to me calls to mind a picture of a storm all about us. Clapping thunder, rain, pitching and treacherous seas on a boat in peril. We seek for a protective bay shielded from the onslaught of the stormy seas. Then, God opens His arms and says that He is that refuge, that safe harbor in the midst of the tempest of life. We enter into His care and we immediately know His strength, His love, His comfort and most importantly, His peace. We can certainly avoid the pitfalls and consequences connected with disobedience and foolish choices by choosing His righteousness instead of allowing temptation to rule in our life. However, there will still be storms. There will be financial challenges, illness, and loss of loved ones, or loss of jobs to contend with. That’s part of life. We might see the storm clouds building at work or at home. We do not seek to escape living our lives, but we can know life in God’s protective care. We can know the peace He brings to our lives through the knowledge that He makes good on His promises to be with us through the valleys of life. His steadfastness gives us absolute assurance of a future in His presence even beyond this mortal life if we obey His call to salvation and redemption in Christ. He truly is our refuge and a present help in troubled times. Seek safety in His loving arms. Verse 11 says, “The God of Jacob is our stronghold.” Share this message with a friend that may need to know that peace in their life right now. Thanks Him for the peace He brings to your heart and pray the same for the next person that comes to mind. Smile, He’s got you covered.
Seeking God’s Heart- by Bryan Shelley March 31, 2008
Posted by bshelley in Uncategorized.add a comment
Today’s Verse: 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. NASB
This is such a hard idea for us to internalize. I am sure it was an amazing journey for Paul as well. He was trained by one of the most respected teachers of Pharisees. He no doubt had wealth, political power and all manner of advantages in the world in which he had lived. Then he had an encounter that dramatically changed his life. He learned to trade strength for weakness. He traded political power for the opportunity to speak truth and be stoned and jailed for it. He traded any financial gain for treasure in an eternity promised by a risen Christ whom he had formerly persecuted. What does it take to move us from our comfortable lives full of blessing and plenty? Even the poorest among us rank amongst the richest in the world. How can we truly come to comprehend what Paul is putting forward here? Anyone who has ever suffered a financial “reversal”, loss of a loved one or the bone chill of loneliness might have a better grip on weakness. When we are faced with circumstances beyond our control and a twist to life that has us in a downward tail spin seemingly hopeless…at the end of that, for Paul , was Christ Jesus. It is as if we need to be emptied out and at the end of all hope and rope to realize what He promises is true. Blessed are those who can comprehend that and take it deep into their heart without a “purification” process. For most of us, we don’t truly appreciate these words until we have felt weak, distressed from persecution or calamity. Can we look God fully in the face and say “your grace is sufficient” for me today? Ponder for a moment what it will take to help you to not just voice the words, but to act this out in your life. Can you choose today to fall into His arms and allow Him to control your life? What will it take to empty yourself and let Christ’s power dwell in you, flow through you and make it possible for Him to use you as He will right where you are? Maybe some, like the father who cried out to Jesus for his son’s sake, “I do believe, help my unbelief.”(Mark 9:24) If we are really honest before God, I suspect there are many more of us than we would suspect that need to cry out the same words to Him. For if we truly believed and knew we could not fail wouldn’t we be living this day with a different set of priorities? Let’s boast in our weakness and in His strength. Let’s choose today to serve our Lord in weakness and strength.
