 **If you've not yet read Part 1, you can find it here
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
2 Timothy 3:16 makes clear that the Bible, although written by man, is directly from the mouth of God. We generally call this "inspiration." The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines inspiration as "a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation."
The question at hand is: Is the Bible the only inspired word of God ever to be recorded? Moreover, how do we know if a message is from the mind of man or from the heart of God?
I do not believe that all of God's revelations for man are contained in the Bible. In saying that, however, I DO believe that any message that is inspired by God should be tested for Biblical accuracy and strength. If you've ever heard a prophecy being declared, you will agree that what I'm saying is true. As Pastor Babatunde Bello writes, God still communicates with His people, not just through His Word (the Bible), but also through dreams, visions, fellowship, prophecy, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God is STILL trying to talk to us, STILL trying to open our eyes, STILL trying to show us His way.
I say all this to lead up to a point: The first five books of the Bible, known as the Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, or the Torah, are the books of law that Israel was commanded to follow. Given what 2 Timothy 3:16 states, it can be inferred that this law was directly breathed by God. God directly gave His people the law so that they would not become separated from Him. Now, if God gave Israel the Law, would it be fair to say that He would do the same for His people in the United States?
Founding Father Noah Webster said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from: vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war,
proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Or how about, “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build
the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also
believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political
building no better than the builders of Babel.” This is Benjamin Franklin speaking to the Constitutional Convention.
Maybe this: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the
minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to
be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1781.
I could go on with quotes from John Adams, James Madison, Patrick Henry, etc., but I know you have other things to do. Keep in mind, though, that the quotes above are from those that we are told did not subscribe to religious values. Could our modern "thinkers" be incorrect?
Our Founding Fathers relied on God's Word and His wisdom as they attempted to formulate a document that would ensure the United States would be ruled by Godly principles while keeping any single person or group from gaining enough power to overrule the basic laws of the nation. What flowed forth from their toils was the Constitution for the United States of America. It was written in such a way that the laws of man should never be allowed to usurp the laws of God. How could a document like this be written without help from the Lord?
So we have arrived at the two core beliefs that one must have to keep alive any hope for redemption of our great nation:
1. America has been ordained, chosen by God, to be a beacon of light for His people throughout the world (see What Do You Believe, Pt. 1 "God Bless America")
2. The Constitution is a document inspired by God; its sole purpose is to establish a covenant between God and man that America will rise to God's call of being that beacon of hope for the world.
I will list the evidence of God's Word in the Constitution at a later date (call it Part 2.5); in the meantime, continue to pray about the information you have received here, and continue to pray for our nation's return to God.
to be continued
 "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,"
2 Samuel 7:10 is part of a message from God to David concerning the future of his (and His) people, Israel. Now, anyone who knows even rudimentary history is aware that Israel was eventually destroyed, and it did not become a nation again until the late 1940's. In that time, God's people were removed from their lands, scattered about the earth, and persecuted heavily by many different nations and peoples. It would seem that this message from God has not yet come to fruition; even today, the nation of Israel is under constant threat of attack from many different hostile nations and their allies. So what of this prophecy? Has it just been rescinded by God?
There are quite a few people that believe the fulfillment of this prophecy could be ordained to the United States, almost like a second Israel. Now, while our lineage may be in question, the fact is that to the Christian faith, we are ALL God's people, loved and blessed by Him as much as the original tribes of Israel. So why not us? Why not U.S.? Is there any evidence to support such a claim?
 To start, let us look at the voyage of Christopher Columbus. Historically, Columbus was financed by Ferdinand and Isabella to find gold to rebuild the Temple of David at Jerusalem after the Spanish Inquisition was complete. Columbus wrote in his diary that his exploration hinged on his calling by God to rebuild Jerusalem and the nation of Israel; Columbus died not knowing that he had discovered unknown (to Western culture) lands. Was Columbus right? Was his discovery the cornerstone to the resurgence of Israel in a new holy land?
 There are others who, some time after Columbus, felt the same way, albeit for different reasons. As governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop said, "For we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause
him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world, we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of god and all professors for God's sake..." Clearly he felt that his newfound colony was existent only because of God's hand, and his prophecy for Massachusetts Bay closely resembles that of Isaiah 9 speaking over Israel. Similarly, Roger Williams, founder and governonr of Rhode Island, said, "...since it pleased God to bring that mighty continent of America to light. Others of my countrymen have often, and excellently, and lately, written of the country, and none that I know beyond the goodness and worth of it." It becomes apparent that the founders of Colonial America revered this land, and they honored God as the ordainer and protector of their young colonies.
 Finally, the path through history leads us to the founding of the first truly free republic, the United States. There is much debate on whether or not the country was founded on the principles of the Bible, but I do know what was spoken by our first President, George Washington: "Almighty God, We make our earnest prayer, that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection...Grant our
supplication, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ Our Lord." Maybe Washington was the only one? Our second President, John Adams (who is often used as proof that the United States was never intended to be a nation of God) said, quite clearly, that our country "...was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
From its discovery, throughout its Colonial period, even to the inception of the modern country, the United States has been considered a special land, given over to the rule of God
Almighty. From Christopher Columbus to John Winthrop, The United States has been prophecied to be the new home of God's people. From Roger Williams to George Washington, our leaders have believed that God protects this nation and lifts it above other nations to be a role model. The question now is, What do YOU believe? Are you living in the new Promised Land? Are our leaders still convinced that God has His Almighty hand upon us? Do the people
of this land share the same conviction of those who toiled to build the United States into the
greatest nation on earth? If you believe as I do, you will conclude that this nation has turned away from the God who ordained, lifted, and protected it.
So what's left? Are we to grab our Bibles and await judgment? Well, not exeactly, not yet. I
believe there is a plan for the redemption of the nation.
to be continued...
 intolerant - unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
This definition is verbatim from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It speaks volumes to the current state of political affairs in our country. Our "intolerance" conundrum is best summarized at present moment by the "ban" on Chick-Fil-A by the cities of Boston and Chicago.
Let me place an exerpt of the comments made by Boston mayor Thomas Menino:
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion...
"That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail...
"If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."
The forefront of inclusion? The freedom trail? All while telling a company they are not allowed to do business in the city? Where's the inclusion and freedom in that?
Now let's look at comments made by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel:
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values...
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay
marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
So now you have to believe what Rahm Emanuel believes, since he is the designated spokesperson for the entirety of Chicago, or you can't do business there, either.
Finally, let's look at the second part of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "intolerant":
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
Compare the two definitions and relate them to the Chick-Fil-A debacle. To the mayors of Boston and Chicago, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has begun a campaign of intolerance by openly stating his pro-traditional marriage stance, citing the first definition of intolerance. However, the mayors themselves are battling this perceived intolerance by compromising the second definition of intolerance. Now, if you want to call the kettle black, I understand; we're all human, all hypocrites to some extent. But each of these mayors have basically said that they are too tolerant to tolerate anyone not as tolerant as they. You get all that? Me, either.
And this intolerant tolerance begs the even bigger question: Do our freedoms guarantee us the right to be intolerant? The short answer: yes, and no. We the people are guaranteed the right through freedoms of speech, press, and religion, to be as intolerant as we want to be so long as we do not illegally impose on the rights of others. Just as Dan Cathy has every right to say what he feels and use the profits of his business to further that agenda, every consumer has the right to deny Mr. Cathy those profits through boycotts and (legal) protests.
Governmental entities and establishments, and their respective representatives, however, do not have that right. Can a judge post an "I Hate Muslims" placard on the door to his chambers? Can a mailman refuse to deliver to African Americans? Can a firefighter decide to not rescue an illegal immigrant? So can a city council deny a business license to an entrepreneur who is anti-gay marriage? Our government is designed to be above pettiness, to treat all comers in a (tongue-in-cheek) fair and balanced manner. Yet those who so pride themselves on inclusion and tolerance are the first bullies to kick the different kid out of the sandbox.
You want to know how Chicago and Boston will receive a Chick-fil-A? Open the doors to the restaurant and watch Dan Cathy's bank account grow. I do not believe that Mr. Menino and Mr. Emanuel know their respective cities as well as they think they do, and they need to quit pretending that their self-indulgent moral high ground speaks for those of us who love some fried chicken.
As everyone already knows, there was a terrible tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, early this morning. I have no breaking news to report. I have no colorful insight into this awful thing that has transpired. But I do have something to say:
I am so ashamed of the media outlets that have used this horrific scene to build ammunition against opposing political parties. ABC News could not wait to "break a story" that the Aurora shooter was a member of the Tea Party. Similarly, and no doubt in response, Breitbart.com alleged that the perp was a registered Democrat. Both organizations have since rescinded their false claims, but it deeply saddens me that the families of the victims can't even get over the initial shock of the incident and move into the mourning process without idiot journalism making this into something it isn't; and it absolutely enrages me that the left- and right-wing blogosphere has spent their day defending ABC and Breitbart, respectively.
Beyond that, a call for the repeal of the Second Amendment was made less than two hours after the story broke of the shootings. Then came the economists with their projections on how the massacre will affect the opening of "The Dark Knight Rises" and summer movie revenues in general.
For God's Sake, people DIED...and dozens more were given the cruelest reminder of their own mortality. Can we not all just be respectful toward the hundreds of people that are in pain and suffering due to the actions of this looney? If someone can't safely transition into adulthood without feeling the need to rig his apartment with explosives and begin a calculated slaughter of innocent people, who CARES what his political affiliation is? Can we all agree that the gun-control debate will still be there a week from now? Are we all in one accord that the new Batman installment will still be the biggest hit of the year, if not of all time? Yes? Then, by all means, let's move on to something important, like saying a prayer for those who died and those are are still alive to remember them.
May God give you all peace in this time of suffering, and may the hands of the Almighty comfort you in your pain. You are loved as brothers and sisters, and we will not forget you, nor will God foresake His people.
The chart above shows the amount of income on cigarette taxes from 2002 to 2010. As you can see, tax revenue has almost doubled. Compare that with this:  and you will see that revenues from cigarette taxes are soaring even as the number of smokers in the United States declines. Logical reason? The federal government and the states are imposing more and more taxes on the purchase of tobacco products. Is that wrong? I don't know, it all depends on who you ask. I mean, smoking causes lung cancer, among other deadly diseases; it's harmful to the environment, both in Carbon Monoxide emissions and all those littered cigarette butts; and it's harmful to those around the smoker, even if they choose not to smoke. So why wouldn't you want to force those who engage in the act of smoking to cough up an extra couple of bucks (that was a pun) as a tax? I have no problem with that.
THIS is what I have a problem with:
 Human Papillomavirus, or HPV, is a sexually transmitted virus that is the leading cause of cervical cancer, vulvular cancer, genital warts, and pregnancy complications due to changes in the cervix. It is dangerous, and it is becoming more and more prevalent among teenage and young-adult women. According to a study done at Cannon Air Force Base, at least fifty percent of sexually active women will have contracted some form of HPV by the time they are 24, and 40% of sexually active teens will have the virus by the time they graduate high school. This number is alarming to me; how about you?
So, let's establish criteria for comparison. Is HPV a cause of health problems for women? Absolutely. Is HPV harmful to the environment? Indirectly, it is, considering the best way to prevent it is through the use of a latex condom, which is not biodegradable and ultimately winds up on the ground at the park where you take your kids to play. Is it dangerous to others? Considering the fact that most teens and young women don't realize that they have HPV, it has a tendency to spread like wildfire among sexually active youths. As a matter of fact, the Center for Disease Control reports that more than 50% of all men and women in the United States have a form of HPV.
HPV has just as much negative impact on society, if not more, than smoking. The dichotomy exists in the fact that smoking is seen as a "nasty, disgusting habit" while HPV is just merely a risk to having sex, which is fun, revered as a God-given right of every pubescent male and female to engage in. Instead of taxing those who engage in dangerous behavior, the federal government spends millions of dollars every year PROMOTING it. While Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man have been banned from public advertisements, sex has become one of the leading industries in the country. While youths who smoke are "uncool," the latest trend is finding a girlfriend or boyfriend who is "down with whatever."
Now, of course, you can't tax sex without legalizing prostitution, but there are ways to combat the HPV problem in much the same way as tobacco use has been demonized. Where are the commercials of boys and girls with herpes all over their lips or papules hanging from their gums like stalactites? Where are the mandates forcing Trojan and Durex to spend their money educating teens on the consequences of promiscuity, much like is forced upon the Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds tobacco companies?
The only way to decrease the number of teens and young women with HPV is to decrease the number of teens and young women engaging in casual sex. Problem is, the government and women's rights groups feel that puts unnecessary restriction on a woman's right to have sex when and with whom she pleases, all while putting the burden of birth control funding, abortion funding, and STD treatment squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers. I hear cries about the "War on Women" directed toward conservatives who "want to take away a woman's right to choose." Well, let me say this: I want you to be healthy. I want you to have healthy children, if that is your choice. I want you to live to a ripe old age without worrying about losing internal woman parts due to the cancer that is eating you. But the only way that can happen is for teen girls and young women to abstain from partnering up with every boy that has a cute smile. Anyone who would encourage you to do any differently is your enemy, and they are the perpetrators of the real war on women.
Women, start respecting yourselves. Show a little concern for your health and your future. If you don't want a baby, don't make one. Quit wearing clothes that show every guy around how easy you are. Most of all, wrap yourselves around those who love you and care about you without you having give them "a lil' sum'n" in return. Find your self worth. This is what a friend would say.
 “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” There are times in life when statements are made, things are done, ideas are posed, that make you scratch your head and say, "What the crap just happened?" Like the woman I heard at the grocery store telling her (maybe) six year old daughter, "You hit your brother again I'm gonna slap you silly;" or, back when I was a waiter, this guy brings his family of five in to eat after church, then stiffs me on the tip because "I don't believe you should be working on the Lord's day." Now, those two examples are boldly obvious in the paradoxes they create. Violence as a means to stop violence, and forcing someone to work but refusing to pay them because it's Sunday. However, every single day I see a statement made by a prominent politician, whether it be in the paper, on TV, on the 'Net, that completely contradicts the norm, that is so outlandish I'm stuck wondering what they smoked right before they talked, that defies common sense in general.
Look at Ms Pelosi here, telling the American people that they are not allowed to know what is in the Affordable Health Care Act until it passes. Excuse me? Parents out there: Do you tell your kid "yes" so that you can find out what he/she is going to ask? Workers out there: Do you let your boss tell you that you have to do the job before you can find out how much pay you'll receive? Teachers: Must you give your students a good grade so that they can turn in their assignments? You get the point.
 Now, many times the paradoxes created by the words of our current political heroes are blatant, obvious, and horrifyingly bad. But sometimes, they are not so conspicuous. You may have to look past what you read at the Huffington Post or what you see on FOX News to get to the meat of the matter. So, here's the plan. As I see 'em, I'm going to call 'em. Sometimes, it will be a politician. Sometimes, it will be a war of ideas. And sometimes, it will be an everyday joe that I believe represents a good portion of the population. If contradictory thinking or outright hypocrisy exists, I will sniff it out. If the "truth" is not accurate, then I will expose the lie. Either way, I hope you find it enjoyable, and I look forward to your feedback.
|
RSS Feed