|
Some Of The Points Are Actual Links To Messages That Expound Further.
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if You:
Think the Cambrian Explosion is a Minor Point Hardly Worth Mentioning. 
Don't Think it Odd That the Meteor Only Killed Dinosaurs and Birds With Teeth.
Think the 'Origin of Species' by Darwin actually explains the Origin of Species.
Believe 'To Each His Own', Except When You Spot A Conservative.
You Think That if We Just Let Terrorists Rule The World They Would Stop Being Terrorists.
BJ Maxwell 08/29/2006
Copyright ©
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if You:
Actually Believe the Monkey Stories They Have Been Feeding You All These Years.
By Monkey Stories I mean Evolution. What is astounding to me is that so many
evolutionists want to claim that Christians believe the Bible, as if that is a difficult task, but then they believe
these monkey stories as if that doesn't require an amazing amount of faith.
Just Really spend some time thinking about the Evolution Fairy Tale that wants us to
believe that we actually evolved over millions of years from single cell organisms, rodents and monkeys.
I watched a show last night called 'Last Days on Earth', and about halfway through
I fell asleep on the floor, only to wake a little while later to hear their last theories about what is going to be the
end of us.
They first wanted us to believe that Dinosaurs were killed by a asteroid and then
they showed rodents as if that is what we humans evolved from millions of years later.
Now come on!! Give me a break. 
I might be able to believe that Lawyers evolved from Rats but what about the rest of
us?
What kind of person would declare the bible fiction but then try to promote such silliness.
Its getting to where you cannot watch a travel show, animal show or a show from the
discovery channel without hearing about the earth being millions of years old.
If you really believe this fairy tale go to:
Type 'Age of the Earth' into their search box and watch all these old earth theories
fall by the wayside.
Nevermind, I'll do it for you:
The show I watched last night ended with Global Warming and Al Gore.
Then I understood the whole point of the show.
Begin the show with evolution fairy tales and pretty much state that we don't
stand a snowballs chance in hell of surviving the asteroid in 2036, then end with Global Warming and Al Gore and others telling
us what we can do to prevent it.
Of course this appeared to be a promotion of Al Gore for President.
What the purpose of stopping Global Warming when we are going to be obliterated by
an Asteroid in 2036?
If that isn't enough to qualify it for an award for best comedy, I dunno what is.
Truth is, the experts don't really know half of what they are telling us
because they cannot even tell you what is going to happen next year.
Remember Y2K?
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts
of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God
into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
(Romans 1; KJV)
Bj Maxwell 08/31/2006
=========================================================
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if you:
Think the Oscars Are Politically Neutral.
And the Oscar goes to: Michael Caine of Cider House Rules!!!!
Applause...
"The messages in this movie are clear: abortion
fornication , drug use, lying, incest, and murder are condoned; rules are made to be broken. There are no
absolutes So what are the cider house rules? Homer eventually leaves
the orphanage of his childhood and begins to work at an orchard. He breaks some social stereotypes by living with several
migrant workers in a bunkhouse, governed by a code of conduct known as the cider house rules. The rules are obviously useless
to everyone (most are even illiterate), though those in the bunkhouse are expected to abide by them. Subtle and not so subtle
messages like this are found throughout the movie."
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/theciderhouserules.html
If you have ever watched the Oscars, the host will portray Conservatives as dumb people
without a sense of humor and unable to produce anything artistic.
The reason they can do this is because Hollywood is Liberal and anyone that opposes their agenda is ostracized.
This is why you mostly see artistic movies from Liberals.
But conservatives are learning other avenues to express their views.
It seems that nowadays Liberals can present any conspiracy against Christianity or Conservatism they want
and they get honorable mention if not an Oscar for it.
Examples:
Syriana, Fahrenheit 9/11...
Spike Lee has even introduced
============================================================================================
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if you:
Believe the Millionaire Osama must Have Just Had a Rough Childhood.
It is pathetic when liberals disrespect President Bush more than they do Osama Ben Hiding.
While they critique Bush's plan on combatting Terrorism where it originated, they still don't offer a plan
on how to do a better job.
They think and may be right that people won't ask what the liberal plan is.
The problem is that they don't have a plan.
Instead they try to pacify Osama and the Terrorists by making claims that we just shouldn't make them angry
and they would just leave us alone.
Problem is that they don't understand that Islams goal is to make everyone a Muslim and Jihad is the only
way individual Muslims can ensure their entry into Muslim heaven.
When the liberals are only willing to protect their own backyard then when the enemy gets to their own backyard
they don't have the power to resist him because now he is too big.
They would rather bite the hand that protects them and hope that the Terrorists leave them alone for it.
This of course is based on the theory that we are all essentially good (not sinful).
I would think that a reading of history would disprove that.
Better to resist someone who saves lives (Bush and the unborn) than one that takes lives (Osama and non Muslims)
It seems to be the strategy of many Liberals to be the opposite of whatever Conservatives are for.
Well, how many times have we heard the liberal counselor claim that rough upbringings are the reason that
many people today do what they do.
When courts can blame a twinkie for causing a man to do what he does then certainly they can blame the parents.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Diminished_capacity
If we applied the theory of 'rough upbringing' across the board all the prisons would be empty and we would
have an anarchy.
This is what happens when self is at the center, rather than God.
When ones world is self centered all their logic is geared toward keeping self at the center.
Logic is only as good as your first assumption.
'We are not accountable, we just haven't been given a fair shake.'
Hitler just had a mean mother.
This may not be how far all liberals take it but the consistent liberal does.
Because if he believes this theory at all then why should he stop?
Bj Maxwell 09/05/2006
========================================================================================
================================================================
Please be patient with this page while it is being constructed.
You Are A Hopeless Liberal if You:
Get Your Best Ideas From David Letterman and Jay Leno.
It is definitely entertaining to hear people daily spouting off their theories of
Liberalism and jokes against Conservatives, but at the same time not being any more informative or substantive than David
Letterman or Jay Leno.
It seems that the only criteria on whether something is true or not for a Liberal
is if it makes them laugh and fits their preconceived assumptions.
Certainly, bashing Christians and Conservatives that oppose Liberalism and its results....Evolution...abortion
etc. can be a profitable business, at least for now.
Still, I can post things about Evolution (and have) that are funny and true at the
same time.
The test of a true humorist is if he can make people laugh while at the same time
speak the whole truth.
There are plenty of people that passively sit at their Televisions, getting the latest
liberal jokes to form their worldview.
The problem is that once you challenge them to tell you what standard they use to determine true
and false, intelligent and dumb they cannot give you an answer.
Most, not all would be embarassed to tell you that they got it from David Letterman.
Their arguments hold no water and while they are sitting in their comfortable armchairs
in a nation that at one time didn't even belong to them, they are critiquing those that are protecting them by invading
terrorist nations.
This is the epitome of hypocrisy and what astounds me is how they don't even bat
an eye while proclaiming such silliness.
If one cannot see the humor in those that claim a design without a designer, a one
celled common ancestor, or rat as Dad not Adam, that an asteroid Killed all Dinosaurs and birds with teeth
while leaving numerous other animals unscathed, that the unborn don't have a right to life, while they do and all the while condemning
those that try to rescue them from this silliness, then I would say they are truly a liberal.
A conservative comedian doesn't have to do anything but bring up what Liberals believe
and he should get a laugh from an objective audience.
Guess who is going to have the last laugh?
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the
head, saying, 8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted
in him. ...(Ps 22-Speaking of Christ)
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1
Corinthians 2)
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness
to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1)
25 Woe unto you
that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. 26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
(Luke 6)
"He that sitteth in the heavens shall
laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them
in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king
upon my holy hill of Zion." (Ps. 2)
Cannot say, I didn't warn you.
Bj Maxwell 09/06/2006
=========================================================================================
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if you:
Keep a Straight Face When One of Those Television Shows Says the Earth is
Millions of Years Old. 
Whether one is listening to Irwin or Corwin talking about animals or Globe Trekker
(the travel show) telling us how old the earth is, it seems they take their evolutionary theories for granted,
not providing any evidence for their outlandish statements.
They stand straight faced and expect us to be straight faced when they declare that
it took millions of years for evolution to produce what we have today.
Now I enjoy travel and animal shows, but why is it even necessary to lie about the
age of the earth when showing me a snake.
Maybe because a lie repeated enough times starts affecting the liars, even when a snake
is the creature being used to promote the lie.
It seems that the bible does speak of the evolution of the snake, but we would
really have to call it a demotion of the snake.
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
'Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will
eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Genesis 3)
This was also predicting the future conflict between Christ and the devil.
Notice that part of the curse of the snake involved him going to his belly.
This suggests the possibility that it at one time walked on legs.
"This new snake fossil (allegedly 90 million years old) was found in Argentina,
and it will be more formally introduced soon in the increasingly evolution-focused British journal Nature.4 The Nature article attempts to show that this is the first snake fossil that possessed
small legs (toward the rear of the skeleton), as well as a bony structure called a sacrum, which supported the pelvis. The
evolutionary story is that because this snake had such bones, it is therefore a transitional form between lizards and (legless)
snakes. In other words, as snakes evolved away from lizards, their legs eventually disappeared."
Speaking of evidence of a lizard to snake transformation:
"The loss of features like legs is a type of degeneration, which is the opposite
of molecules-to-man evolution (which requires new genetic information for advancement)—see Beetle bloopers for background."
So the Genesis account of the snake going to his belly 'on land' is not an evolution
but quite the opposite.
Now Satan may want you to think it was a promotion.
I personally would prefer legs to slithering on my belly.
What got the snake to this point?
A lie did.
It may even qualify as a half truth but it still landed him in the dirt.
"You will not surely
die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,
and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3)
Evolution is a lie of liberals that don't want to take the account of the Bible literally.
Now the lie of evolution produces a deevolution or a demotion of those that propagate
such lies, as did the Serpent.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature
more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And
likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
(Romans 1; KJV)
Here the bible suggests that those who 'change the truth of God into a lie', 'worship
and serve the creature more than the Creator' (God in man's image) if unrepentant and live long enough, end up 'leaving
the natural use of the woman, burn in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
in themselves that recompence of their error (AIDS) which was meet.
This is obviously a deevolution a demotion from God himself.
"God gave them up unto vile affections " (Romans 1)
In other words these wayward men and women rather than evolving (which is a lie), devolve,
similar to the snake, when going from legs to their belly.
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves
up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. ...Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what
things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them." (Jude)
So when one believes and promotes the theory that we evolved and all that entails,
they actually deevolve into that which is unseemly and even start the decline toward 'unreasoning animals.'
There are many folks, even those that call themselves Christians that don't believe
that God means what He says in Genesis.
Now that refusal to take the bible literally may be through misinterpreting scripture
or just not believing it (making one an unbeliever) but the results are the same. ...Liberalism.
One must not really believe the bible or in an omnipotent God to be suckered into a
theory that takes more faith than the Christian faith.
"professing themselves to be wise, became fools.' (Romans 1)
A God that needs millions of years to get what we got certainly cannot handle anything
else.
Bj Maxwell 09/08/2006
===================================================================
You Are a Hopeless Liberal if you:
Think the Colbert Report and the Daily News with Jon Stewart is Wholesome Family
Entertainment.
I've watched the Daily News and the Colbert Report a few times on the comedy channel
and what I saw was pretty funny.
Jon Stewart has the ability to make fun of both sides politically, though I'm sure
the right gets more fun poked at it because they tend to be closer to the truth but unconsciously easier to
make fun of.
But these shows cannot keep it clean, so I had to go elsewhere for my entertainment.
I can see the desperation of Liberals to have a show that pokes fun at politicians,
especially the Right, but hopefully their desperation doesn't make them think that this is good wholesome family entertainment.
These shows, especially the Colbert Report can get quite nasty.
I enjoyed 'Politically Incorrect' for a while, but then they confused the ability to
be funny or immoral with substance.
It seemed that the one who won the argument was the one who cracked the best joke.
I enjoy listening to Ann Coulter and even bought her book, 'Godless' though she can
get nasty at times, as well.
I just started reading her book but I hear that she devotes a third of her book refuting
Evolution, which I'm looking forward to.
My wife and I have taken two of our vacations to Branson Missouri.
Though mostly Country Entertainment some theatres there are not country.
Example: Tabuchi who plays a mean fiddle.
Yakov Smirnoff is there too, and his theme is 'Vat a Country', and I haven't seen him
yet.
The shows are only about 25 dollars and there are many shows along Country Music Boulevard.
This place works for the whole family but if you are a liberal you probably won't be
satisfied with shows that keep it clean and believe in absolutes.
Bj Maxwell 09/11/2006
Think the Bible Allows For Evolution Theory. 
The evasive technique of Liberals goes similar to this: One can be a Christian and
believe evolution, if they don't take Genesis literally.
This is like saying One can be a believer, if they don't believe the scripture.
If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense, to replace it, lest you end up
with nonsense.
This means that if the scripture says God created the world in six days, and that makes
sense, then don't replace that plain sense meaning with your own estimation of 'six million years.'
By make sense, I don't mean if you want to believe it.
It makes sense that an omnipotent God can create the world in six literal days.
It doesn't make sense that an omnipotent God needs millions of years to do it.
"31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And
there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
Does it make sense that God saw all that He made, say it was very good and then need
millions of years of a process to perfect his work?
Evolution is not compatible with scripture, it is meant to replace scripture.
Evolutionists cry that the Christian is ignorant to believe in an omnipotent God but
that their evolutionary theory, takes millions of years to produce what we have today.
Evolutionary theory claims that we have a design without a designer.
This is as nonsensical as claiming that a Natural History Museum was formed by an explosion
of Dinosaur parts.
Or how about this: An evolutionist was formed by an explosion or spontaneous combination
of elements from the universe.
The question still remains: Where those elements came from.
You either have to believe in an infinite past that always goes backward in time in
order to have a cause for every effect or an infinite God who created it all.
And if an evolutionist is formed this way then can we really trust what they say
or is it just a sporadic spontaneous blurting out of opinions.
When that song, 'Dust in the Wind' came out that said 'all we are is dust in the wind.'
The obvious response to this should be, 'Well, if all you are is dust in the wind,
then so is your opinion, which is no better than the rest of the blowing dirt out there. 
Bj Maxwell 09/12/2006
=======================================================
======================================================
Think it is All Right For Other Animals to Kill And Eat But Not the Human Animal.
I heard someone claim without embarrasment that an animal deserves protection from us while the
unborn don't.
Now, the sheer absurdity of this statement ought to be evident to anyone who still
has the ability to think, because though many 'knew God,' or knew of God 'they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1)
Let me get this straight, animals should be protected from us (who are a part of the
animal kingdom, according to evolution theory), but not from other species because that is 'survival of the fittest'/'natural
selection' which must go on for evolutionists to present their theories.
Now if humans are merely the result of millions of years of evolution from
a common one celled ancestor, then we ought to be allowed to kill animals and each other as the animals are allowed
to kill each other, to evolve into the next higher animal, whatever that is.
But our local law forbids us from killing each other, except in self defense
or if you want to kill a helpless unborn baby.
So we are allowed to act out 'survival of the fittest' only if it is a helpless unborn
baby.
If an animal is worthy of protection from us then why wouldn't an unborn child be worthy
of protection from us.
Many liberals actually point to the development of an embryo as evidence of evolution.
"Most people have heard of the idea that the human embryo, during its early development
in the womb, goes through various evolutionary stages, such as having gill slits like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc.
Abortion clinics have used the idea to soothe the consciences of clients, saying, ‘We’re only taking a fish from
your body.’
Haeckel's fraudulent drawings (top row) and photographs of the actual embryos (bottom row). From Richardson et al.15
Used with permission. | |
This concept was pretentiously called the ‘biogenetic law,’ which
the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel popularized in the late 1860s. It is also known as ‘embryonic recapitulation’ or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ meaning that during an organism’s
early development it retraces its evolutionary history. So, a human embryo supposedly passes through a fish stage, an
amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/AnswersBook/arguments7.asp?vPrint=1
End of Quote.
This theory has been disproven in the same article.
If an unborn child is not human yet then what is he or she?
Is he or she is a fish or a zebra before biologically evolving into a human?
If a fish or a zebra then why wouldn't the developing embryo deserve the protection from
us that we provide animals?
We don't have to prove the personhood of an animal in order to give animals protection
from us.
If the developing embryo is human from beginning to end, but not a person yet, then
at what point beyond the biological development of the embryo, can the liberal point to that would
suggest that personhood occurs at a time other than conception, thus rendering the unborn baby finally worthy of protection already
provided for animals?
The Liberal cannot, but must randomly and by an act of blind faith declare the developing
embryo human at some biological stage other than conception and personhood at a moment, other than conception, that
is convenient, so as to not inconvenience their self absorbed lifestyle. .
This Liberal World View takes more faith than just believing the Bible, which has stood
the test of time.
I read something like the following in a book, though I cannot remember the name of the
book.
Here it is:
If a pregnant mother has a child prematurely at eight months and then kills the
baby after birth, is that murder?
Most will say Yes!!!!
If a pregnant mother aborts her baby before it is born at eight and
a half months, is that murder?
Many will say no!!!
The next obvious question would then be, what magical thing happens to the baby born
at eight months to make it worthy of protection that hasn't already happened to the unborn baby of eight
and a half months?
End of Paraphrase.
The Liberal may answer the 'air' that the baby breathes in, which is exactly where this
Liberal gets their theories from.
It takes an act of blind faith to declare one baby a person worthy of protection
while justifying the murder of the other.
The fact of the matter is that the developing embryo should warrant protection, even
if a Liberal thinks it is something other than human, because even they believe animals need protection.
Still, no evidence exists for the developing embryo being anything other than human.
The human life and personhood is most logically at conception and worthy of even more protection than we provide to animals.
Bj Maxwell 09/13/2006
Copyright ©
===============================================
=============================================
"Stupid Idiot" is Your Best Argument Against Conservatives.
If I had a dollar for every time liberals used this argument (which is
not an argument at all) against Conservatives and/or Christians I would be a millionaire.
Another one is questioning conservatives or Christians speaking abilities or 'reading
comprehension.'
This really is what happens when someone doesn't agree with the Liberals 'live
and let live' moral relativity.
In other words, 'to each his own' unless you are a Conservative or Christian that warns
against the dangers of a live and let live attitude.
Surely, you are free to drink Liquid Drano if you want, but it is good to warn you of
the effects.
Sure, President Bush can be made fun of quite easily.
Notice the similarities:
But luckily we are not so superficial as to let these similarities influence our vote.
However, his credentials are better than the Bush Bashers in Hollywood.
"President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA
from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil
and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994,
with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive
four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic
vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties,
240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate
to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false
story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and
see the truth.)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990766/posts
This article goes on to give the credentials of the rest of Bush's administration then
it compares that to the credentials of those in Hollywood that are bashing the Bush Administration.
"Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away
from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is
controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money
per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?
The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own
lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc.
How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation!
What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their
views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom! "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990766/posts
It is a laughable comparison because there is no real comparison.
Tell me how smart is it to get ones views from David Letterman and the Fictitious movies
one watches?
Tell me how smart was it when President Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica?
Had he just admitted it and repented he would have been better off.
How smart was it when President Clinton didn't adequately respond to the Terrorists when
they bombed embassies and the USS Cole?
"On August 7, 1998 (the same year the fatwa was released), Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people, the U.S. response was weak: on August 20, 1998, President
Bill Clinton launched two cruise missles against suspected terrorists sites in Sudan. Al-Quaeda laughed at the Clinton Administration
for using multimillion-dolar missles to blow up ten-dollar tents. Later, on October 12, 2000, Al-Qaeda tried to sink one of
America's largest Navy ships, the USS Cole, as it sat in the harbor at Aden, Yemen. The bomb killed seventeen sailors, injured
many others, and sent America's great ship home with a huge hole in the middle. This time the administration did not retaliate.
It acted as if nothing happened. Now Al Qaeda perceived a message of weakness from the United States, and bin Laden got the
green light to do bigger and worse-attacking on U.S. soil for the first time since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers.
On September 11, 2001, his plan was put into action as four planes were hijacked. This act resulted in the collapse of the
Twin Towers of the World Trade Centers in New York City..." (Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist, Gabriel PhD, former
Muslim and teacher of Islamic History, pg. 50)
Bush's strategy in Iraq, in my opinion was brilliant.
"Fighting the terrorists where terrorism lives and thrives, is better than inviting them
over to our house for dinner first."
https://cuf5.tripod.com/id114.html
Accept it or not we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and they are the ones that bombed
the World Trade Center.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that President Bush has made some serious mistakes in his
war against Terrorism.
Leaving Iraq's and Americas borders unguarded is not smart at all, but many Liberals
think they should be unguarded as well.
But doing that is Bush's approach not the overall conservative approach.
Political Conservatives are not necessarily Christian, but the basic tenets of Political
Conservatism is much closer to the Christian view than the 'Democratic' and Liberal View.
As far as Christian Conservatism (which essentially is literally believing
scripture) our duty is clear.
To share Christ with everyone is commanded and to not do so is tantamount to letting
a sleeping family sleep while their house in fire, because you don't want to unlovingly wake them up and disturb their sleep.
We know some will go to heaven, many will go to hell. This is what the bible says:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil." (John 3)
There is a right and there is a wrong.
Calling us stupid only reveals the desperation of those making such comments.
How many people laugh at a ridicule of someone doesn't determine its truth.
Bj Maxwell 09/14/2006
===========================================================================================
Actually Believe that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution.
Constitution: Bill of Rights
"the GOVERNMENT Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,"
More revealing is what this amendment doesn't say.
It doesn't say, 'separation of church and state'.
This doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be a separation of church and state
in religious particulars.
It also doesn't say separation of Christians from state affairs.
It doesn't say that church cannot influence Government in a general way i.e., morality.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a moral principle that most can
agree on because in the end it serves our own interests to first respect the wishes of others, unless those wishes infringe
on the interests of others.
This principle doesn't endorse all religions or a particular religion because it is
the law of reciprocity.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," First Amendment
This doesn't say that church/individuals cannot vote according to their spiritual persuasions.
It says that Government should not favor or prohibit a particular brand of religion
(particulars)
The settlers escaped a religious tyranny in England where a particular brand of religion
was being forced on folks.
Letters Thomas Jefferson wrote to various groups or individuals expressed his desire
for the Government to stay out of the business of favoring particular expressions of religion.
Still, if the government shows generosity (respecting) to all religions, then hasn't
it in effect helped establish a New Age religion that looks like an anarchy where anything and everything goes.
Jesus made exclusive not inclusive claims regarding the way to heaven and accepting
equal billing with Buddha and Mohammad is not an option. (Act 4:12; John 14:6)
The Christian Right is not only depending on Government to give them a right to worship
the way they see fit, but also Witches, Satanists and Hindus.
So those of other religions ought to be in fact thanking the ACLJ and the Christian
Right for what they are accomplishing.
Still, there is a difference between 'free speech' when the government stays out of
religious affairs, and government endorsed New Ageism.
The former should be preferred in the particulars.
"Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our
rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence"
of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere
with those expressions."
Free Speech in America should be promoted everywhere, including Muslim Nations.
Radical Muslims want the freedom to force their views on others.
We want to have the freedom to speak, so that is the freedom we extend to others.
Yet, humanists and Satanists will use this freedom to insult and berate Christianity.
It is Christ, that first presented this value in a positive light.
Do Unto Others As....
You set the pace by a positive action.
Not
If you don't want this to happen to you then don't do it to others.
This tells you not to do this if you don't want it done to you.
See the difference.
Liberals and Atheists ought to try that kind of free speech in a Muslim Country.
Rosie O'Donnel wouldn't be able to berate Muslims in a Muslim country the way she berates
Christians here.
In Iran or Saudi Arabia, where Sharia is in effect, she would have been killed.
She only demonstrates her ignorance of both Christianity and Islam.
If one commits violence as an alleged Christian, they are doing it without the support
of God or the New Testament.
One that commits violence as a Muslim, is only taking their Religion seriously.
This in and of itself tells any thinking person what the differences between Fundamental
Christianity and Fundamental Islam are.
"The idea of plundering the conquered comes directly from Muhammads example of conquering
the neighboring tribes around him, taking the belongings, and selling the women and children as slaves. (You may read my book
'Jesus and Muhammad for a good overview of Muhammad's use of plundering to support the Muslim Empire.) That is why Al-Jihad
attacked and robbed Christians in Egypt, and it is the same reason Al-Quaeda called Muslims to attack and rob Americans."
(Journey into the mind of an ISLAMIC TERRORIST, pg 49, Gabriel PhD-Former Muslim)
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event,
reached Ibn 'Abbas who said,
"If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade
it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of
Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
This doesn't mean that the Satanist or Atheist will not suffer spiritual consequenses
in the afterlife for improper and anti Christ speech.
The Atheist wants a life without God here and now, and that is what he or she is going
to get in the afterlife as well, i.e., an eternity without God.
So the Atheist or humanist cannot say he is not getting exactly what he asked for.
But the U.S. extends him or her that right here and now because that freedom is what
we want for ourselves.
Some Christians trying to get the ten commandments on the steps of Government institutions
will only result in getting other religious artifacts, contrary to the ten commandments on the steps as well.
So the separation of State from church (not church from state in moral issues) is more
profitable for all.
'Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You'
It was Jesus that expressed this principle in a positive way, though various forms
of this principles have been expressed in the past.
Do unto others...
Would I want someone to intervene if I was being mugged?
Yes, I would, so therefore I should extend that same courtesy to someone that is being
mugged.
Would I want someone to intervene if an evil dictator was killing my countrymen?
Sure, I would, so therefore if I had the power, I would intervene where people are
being oppressed in this way.
Would I want the right to choose who rules me politically?
Then that is what we should do for others that do not have Democracy.
Radical Muslims or Dictators do not want that, they want Sharia or a dictatorship,
which is contrary to Democracy.
Would I want to be forced to support with my tax money what I don't believe in, then
I shouldn't force someone to support what I believe in, though I know it to be right.
This also means that Homosexuals shouldn't expect me to support their lifestyle in
any way shape or form.
If they want to pursue this kind of lifestyle then let them do it with their own money
and at their own peril.
This also means that those that want to kill their babies will do that at their
and their childs own peril, but should NOT expect any support from me, and my beliefs and God also demand that I say (not
do) something about it.
This also means that I shouldn't be expected to put my child in a school that teaches
things that are contrary to what I know to be true.
Example: Evolution, humanism and Eugenics.
Would I want someone waking me up, if my house was on fire and I was asleep?
Of course, then I should do the same for them, whether their slumber is physical or
spiritual.
Its good to have Christian Presidents, Congressmen and Senators, because that is the
traditional and historic reality of our national beginnings and Christianity is the truth but what happens when we see something
other than Christians in these positions.
Whether the Government allows individuals to practice their religion or not is not
the Governments choice to make.
Whether the Government gives the go ahead to Christians or not should not stop Christians
from doing what they need to do.
"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you
have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on
a tree. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince
and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." (Acts
5)
Do I want the right to speak for my God, then I should allow others to speak for their
false Gods.
But I don't need anyone's permission to do so.
Too often Christians fight tooth and nail to get the legal right to do this or that
when we do not work for that right, that God given duty is already ours to exercise.
It is better that the Government stay out of church issues through respecting or prohibiting.
Still, the church has the right to influence government officials, (at least in how
they as individuals participate in governmental affairs) and individuals have the duty to say what their tax dollars are supporting.
Also a President, Senator or Congressman cannot separate his politics from his own
religious beliefs and though he can legislate morally he should not legislate particular spiritual values, unless he wants
every religious Tom, Dick and Harry to want to do the same.
Even those that claim to have no religious affiliation have themselves as the center
of universe and that bias will influence their decisions.
Example: Ted Kennedy.
Does funding organizations that support abortion with my tax money respect the establishment
of religion over mine?
Sure it does, the religion of humanism, evolution and eugenics, survival of the fittest
takes faith to believe and is opposed to Grace.
Humanism: A worldview that creates a world with 'humans' as the center of the
universe is a religion.
Concocting a world view that replaces God with one that requires millions of years
to get what we got today, is a religion. A religion that requires faith to believe.
Bj Maxwell 09/21/2006
Copyright ©
==============================================
Actually Believe That The Bible Says: "And God Saw All That He Had Made and
said, 'It Needs Millions of Years of Work." (Genesis 1:31)
It's astounding to see how many people, even alleged Christians that supplement
the Bible with their own fabrications.
Commentary is all right but putting this on an equal level or higher level
than the Bible is so revealing of the individual's view of scripture.
They either have fallen for the argument that God forgot to say things that
others needed to add thousands of years later or they think we need their help in understanding even the plain things He has
stated.
Truth of the matter is that if one believes God spoke in scripture, He doesn't
need one of his creatures help in communicating what He said.
All one has to do is look at the biblical details given in the building of
the Ark, the Tabernacle and the whole Bible and realize that details are God forte and prove that he expects to be taken literally.
When God sees all that He makes and says, "It is Good", I don't see how we
can reasonably add, 'Needs Millions of Years of Evolution'. (Genesis 1:31)
God doesn't need our help to straighten out or excuse what He said or
did.
Jesus doesn't need the Catholic Mary's help to add what allegedly wasn't stated
while He was here.
God the Son doesn't need Mohammad's help in adding and subverting what He said
about himself and his sacrifice for us.
Mohammad was right about one thing. Christians need to get serious about their
faith.
Jesus is either Lord God, Liar or Lunatic.
If you are one of those skeptics that think he either didn't exist or was just
deluded I would counsel you to look at the facts.
If he was deluded or didn't even exist, I would say that millions somehow think
otherwise.
Even other religions have used Christianity as a springboard to try to legitimize
their religion.
Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Hare Krishna's, Muslims, Modern day religious groups,
all first present Christianity as their foundation, then launch into their cultic spin on it.
Even Hare Krishna's and Muslims will offer Christ rather than their founder
as the ultimate example of true Holiness and Humility.
When visiting a Hare Krishna Temple and during a lecture, I asked the teacher
how he could justify Krishna seducing women and then stealing their clothes.
He smiled adoringly and stated that Krishna was the Supreme Enjoyer and he
could do whatever he wanted.
This teacher spent much of his lecture pointing to Christ as the example of
how we should behave.
But why point to and believe Christ's example and how he behaved, if you are
going to then think he was deluded or lying about who he was and how one was to be saved?
A humble liar doesn't cut it.
If one believes as Mohammad did that Christ was a prophet but not God he would
then have to use the eeny meeny miny mo method of picking and choosing what he was going to believe from the Bible.
The Muslims also deny that Christ (God the Son) actually sacrificed Himself
on the cross because to believe this would make their religion completely meaningless and would bring in Grace.
If Christ was also humble as attested by the Bible then we have to
explain how we believe that but not believe Him when he tells us who He is.
The best chapter regarding Christ's humility also explains his deity.
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ
Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but
made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in
appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore
God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2)
This last part is referring to a OT scripture that is speaking of God himself.
So Christ is God.
Check out: Isaiah 45:23
Did you notice that it said, 'being in very nature God'?
Did you notice that his humility and deity are both brought up.
Did you notice that who He is and what He did on the cross are connected?
This is repeatedly emphasized in scripture. (Hebrews 1; Romans 1; Acts 20:28;
John 20:27-31; Colossians 1)
One cannot be a Christian but not believe everything that Christ
said.
A finite sacrifice on a cross is not enough for man's sins. (Acts 20:28)
24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do
not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8)
And if He was sent by God the Father, don't you think that God had the power,
desire and authority to make sure we got the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
We would also have to explain things like the mathematical design in the Hebrew
of the OT and the Greek of the New Testament that points to a design more advanced than anything we could even create today
with the advent of the computer.
We would have to explain the eyewitness testimony of those that lived
with Him.
'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal
life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the
Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our
joy complete.' (1 John 1:1)
We would have to explain the fault down the middle of the Mount of Olives that
was detected by a seismic company but that Zechariah and Messiah Jesus thousands of years ago predicted would split when He
touched down. (Acts 1:11; Zechariah 14)
We would have to explain all the news about Israel and how Israel (only a dot
on the map) has withstood all the oppression that has been leveled against it.
We would also have to explain how we could be living on a planet that testifies
to a omniscient designer.
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness
and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may
be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine
nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
I know what the answer is but rather than seeing then believing I have believed
and now I see. (John 20:27-31)
I know to just believe the plain words of the Bible.
This confounds those that claim to be wise, and all their wisdom cannot stand
up to the plain words of scripture and common sense. (1 Corinthians 2)
Come from Monkeys, you got to be kidding?
You call that Intellectual?
God's simple truth makes more sense than a design that needs millions of years
to get the design right, a design that designs itself before it exists, An impotent God that needs the help of Charles Darwin
to perfect his creation.
Bj Maxwell
09/28/2006
Copyright ©
=========================================================
Think Fox News is the Only News Channel Worth Making Fun of.
I will be the first to admit that Fox News can stand some improvement.
Most News Channels can.
Fox News needs more variety.
How many times do we need to hear about Anna Nicole Smith?
How many times do we need to hear about Drugs for Limp Noodle Syndrome?
But the criticisms of Fox News from the Left often go similar to this:
'The people at Fox News don't challenge the Bush Administration enough.'
What they really mean is, 'You didn't ask President Bush for the millionth time,
'Why Are You So Dumb?'
Or
'what happened to the WMD's.'
Bush has already answered that last question and doesn't need to answer the first one,
but let me suggest that he is being humble and wise in his answer.
Fact is, this wasn't the only reason for going into Iraq.
Fighting Al Quaeda over there is better than over here and yes, Al Quaeda is over there.
Next, had we bypassed the impotent United Nations and gone in sooner, there is no telling
what we may have found.
It's the so called smart people that think we should go through the United Nations.
Just imagine if you used this same approach with a neighbor that had a Meth Lab.
You say to him, I believe you have a Meth Lab that could destroy a whole city block,
and if you don't dismantle it, I'm going to call Greenpeace to get them to demand that you get rid of it, and after
they unsuccessfully take months to finish that process then I'm going to go in myself and destroy it.
Now do you really think that his Meth Lab will still be there in plain sight for you
to take after all that time and telegraphing?
No, its just at his friends house until all is finished.
I mention Greenpeace because they would be just as effective at getting the Meth Lab
destroyed as the UN would be at getting Saddam to surrender his weapons.
And if these organizations are the best you can do then you are in trouble and need
to find a better way.
I tried watching Scarborough Country on a channel other than Fox and they were pointing
out the difference between Christians and Muslims in the fact that Muslims don't let people portray Mohammed in any fashion
while not only do Christians let Jesus be portrayed but portrayed in some really shameful ways.
Liberals are for freedom of speech and religion, including their freedom to slander
our God.
For them there are no absolutes except that there absolutely are no absolutes.
Scarborough Country started showing clips from Southpark concerning their slanderous
portrayals of Jesus and it was so pathetic that I couldn't watch it anymore.
For those that don't know, Southpark is a Cartoon for adults with characters that any
preschooler could draw.
Juvenile characters with Juvenile methods.
The Language and topics are horrific but as Scarborough rightly pointed out, Christians
let Unbelievers slander and malign their God, while Muslims will kill you for it.
The Juvenile language and approach in Southpark also demonstrate their inability to
get a laugh except at the expense of others.
It seems that the U.S. and Christian based freedom of speech leads Liberals to
disrespect Christians but the threat of violence leads Liberals to respect Muslims.
Though some of them (Liberals) ignorantly claim there is no difference between
the two groups.
If there wasn't any difference, unbelievers wouldn't be uttering their shallow donkey
dung today.
Fox News is preferable to News Channels that believe there are no absolutes except
that Christians or Conservatives are absolutely worthy of all kinds of slander.
Don't get me wrong, Conservatives need Jesus as Liberals do because whether separated
from God by inches or miles, they are still separated until they receive Christ and his sacrifice for them. (1 Cor. 15)
But there are Christians among Conservatives and I believe this point allows Fox News
to present Christian topics objectively rather than slanderously.
Also most critics of the Iraq war on other channels don't even understand the basic
problem with Islam.
Like a Parrot imitates what it has repeatedly heard from its babeling owner they
make claims that we went over there for oil.
Oh, really, all one would need is to walk or drive past a Gas Station to know how void
of any real study of the issue that claim is.
Or how about this one: 'We should let them take care of there own issues.'
To let a dictator do his own thing is not only self absorbed to hysterical proportions
it would have meant that this United States would have belonged to Germany.
In todays age letting a dictator rule only leads to trouble for all.
I think part of the problem is that many Americans are so self absorbed that they think
that what happens over there if left alone will not come to haunt us.
Just ask the sailors of Pearl Harbor whether that was a good strategy.
We also weren't attacking Muslims when we were bombed at the World Trade Center.
Liberals are also ignorant of what Sharia is.
Sharia is nothing but Islamic rule and the radicals want it, not because the United
States gets involved in the affairs of others but because radical Muslims want to get completely involved in the affairs of
everyone else.
What about this one: 'There is no difference between Collateral damage that happens
when we go after the enemy and Radical Muslims killing innocent people.
What is so astounding is that there are folks out there that really need the difference
explained to them.
These people never met a gross generalization that they didn't like.
But the Liberal will go ahead and listen to David Letterman and the other News Channels
that feed him and her a daily diet of misinformation that if we just leave them alone then they will leave us alone.
The basic problem is between moderates and radical Muslims and helping them sort out
these problems through Democratic initiatives is still the best approach.
You need some help in making fun of channels other than Fox, just listen to how many
unsubstantiated theories they utter in one day and their blind followers swallow, hook line and sinker.
Bj Maxwell
10/06/2006
Copyright ©
==============================================
Say There Is No Evidence For God But Cannot Say What Kind of Evidence Would Convince
You of His existence.
For those that don't see the logic of a designer behind a design and require
further evidence of God's existence, God says that if you don't see a designer behind the design then probably nothing else
will convince you of His existence.
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1)
For one to look at his or her watch and think that a watchmaker didn't build
it but that it spontaneously came into existence is a good comparison to one that believes this universe, which is by far
more complex than a watch, came into existence without a Designer and Creator.
This kind of person basically falls under the classification of Fool.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt,
their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. 2 The Lord
looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good,
not even one.
4 Will evildoers never
learn-- those who devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on the Lord?" (Psalm 14)
The Psalms say it again:
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their
ways are vile; there is no one who does good. 2 God looks down
from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who
does good, not even one. 4 Will the evildoers never learn-- those who
devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on God?" (Psalm 53)
These people 'profess themselves to be wise' but really are fools. (Romans 1:22)
But just to go the extra mile with these spiritually challenged skeptics,
if you were to ask them what would convince them of God's existence they often don't have an answer.
How can one deny God's existence if one cannot say what would convince them of
God's existence?
If they do ask for specific evidence they think that God is a magician meant
to present them a quick magic show.
'I want to see the sea turn to blood, right now.'
It is not enough that the Nile turned to blood and the Sea will turn to blood
in the future.
They want blood right now.
But even if they saw blood they would probably blame it on Global Warming or
that the Republicans are in the majority.
Moses had a little contest with the Magicians of Pharaohs court.
"So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded.
Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by
their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his
staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Exodus 7)
But this didn't convince Pharaoh to immediately let God's people go.
Plagues followed and finally the firstborn of the Egyptians died.
Also God showed the Hebrews many miracles i.e., Parting of the Red Sea, Manna
from Heaven etc but you still find the Hebrews grumbling and doubting Gods presence.
So there is still Historical evidence that God revealing Himself doesn't convince.
The natural mind seeks a natural explanation for supernatural events and if he
or she cannot find it then he just anticipates one down the road.
For instance, God set the rainbow in the sky as a covenant between Him and us
that he would not flood the whole earth with water again. The Next time will be with Fire. (2 Peter 3)
Now we know that a rainbow comes through light shining through tiny droplets
of rain.
Does this do away with the Supernatural?
God Forbid, God uses the natural to accomplish his purposes. He is not contrary
to the natural, he is above it.
One can explain the atom, but still cannot explain 'Nuclear Binding Force' or
'Black Matter' that holds it together.
I have the explanation.
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things
hold together." (Colossians 1)
I laugh when I hear the discovery channel speculating whether Aliens built the
temples of Egypt because it would have taken something superhuman to accomplish.
Fact is, it did take something superhuman, Supernatural to be exact.
The Children of Israel, who eventually humiliated the Egyptians, with the help
of God built the temples.
Read Exodus.
The lengths the natural mind will go to in avoiding the historic explanation.
Even if one rose from the dead, the natural mind would explain it away, similar
to what the Muslims do with, 'Well, He must have not really been dead in the first place' or 'This is not the same person
that died.'
Jesus went the extra mile to show evidence that He died and He rose from the
dead and this was not only evidence of God but that He was God.
"34 Instead, one
of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." (John 19)
AND
"This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not
come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God,
which he has given about his Son." (1 John 5)
"Davis relates thate there was 'an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding
the heart. We, therefore, have rather conclusive post mortem evidence that [Christ] died not the usual crucifixion death by
suffocation, but of failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.
Dr. Stuart Bergsma, a physician and surgeon, writes about the 'blood and water,'
saying: 'A small amount of pericardial fluid, up to 20 or 30 cc's, normally is present in good health. It is possible that
with a wound piercing the pericardium and heart, enough pericardial fluid might escape to be described as water.' Dr. Bergsma
further relates that postmordem findings in several cases of ruptured hearts show the pericardial cavity was occupied by approximately
500 cc's of fluid and freshly clotted blood.' Two other medical authorities state that, in instances of a ruptured heart,
'death is usually so sudden that in many cases the person is seen merely to fall over dead or is found dead. The great majority
of cases were complete ruptures of the wall of the heart, producing large hemopericardia." (Resurrection Factor, pg. 49, McDowell)
This is Evidence of Death
"While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them
and said to them, "Peace be with you." 37 They were startled
and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38
He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones,
as you see I have." 40 When he had said
this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while
they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything
must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 45 Then he opened their minds
so they could understand the Scriptures." (Luke 24)
This shows that the same Jesus that died, rose from the dead and 'that he opened
their minds, so they could understand the scriptures.
"27 Then he
said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Then
Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his
disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life
in his name." (John 20)
But if past evidence didn't convince folks then a resurrection that was predicted
way back in the Jewish Old Testament wont.
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's
side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where
he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the
tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire....27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come
to this place of torment.' 29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead
goes to them, they will repent.' 31 "He said
to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (Luke 16)
"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher,
we want to see a miraculous sign from you." 39 He answered, "A
wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet
Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they
repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12)
"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews
and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the
foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1)
There also is more than visible and empirical evidence in this world, though
even that will come.
What happened with me is that the very real Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin
and my need for a Saviour, then several months after I trusted Christ as my Saviour, was filled with the Holy Spirit and experienced
what the apostles did in Acts Four.
Then after salvation I saw the evidence clearly.
For some it is see then maybe believe for me it was believe through the prodding
of the Holy Spirit and then the evidence followed.
"29 Then Jesus
told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are
not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20)
I have been on both sides, I have seen and experienced what unbelief looks like
and then I believed and have seen that unbelief is the side that doesn't see clearly.
I am astounded at how spiritually inept and even intellectually challenged unbelievers
can be.
I see folks like O'Reilly, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings really present subjects
intellectually but when they venture into spiritual subjects they look like infants that are just learning how to walk.
Why is that?
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any
man's judgment: 16 "For who has known the mind
of the Lord that he may instruct him?" 16 But we have the mind of Christ."
(1 Corinthians 2)
I look at evolutionary theory and cannot believe that anyone could fall for such
a ridiculous notion.
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds
and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful
desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." (Romans 1)
As the Holy Spirit convinces you of your need of the Saviour trust Jesus and
then He will show you more evidence than you can handle.
BJ Maxwell
10/11/2006
Copyright ©
=================================================
Cannot Understand why Your Liberal Views Aren't Working On Your Family
You are a Liberal, politically speaking but when you apply liberal values to your family it isn't successful,
unless of course you pull a Clinton and define words like 'success' differently as many Liberals do.
It depends on what your definition of 'Is', is. Clinton
I've never heard of Liberal Family Values. But if I did it would probably parallel the Addams Family Values
where good is bad and bad good.
'They're creepy and they're kooky, mysterious and spooky altogether ooky, The Addams Family.'
The Liberal says: What's wrong with being married three times as long as we are still friends.
But these same liberals..i.e., Actors, Producers, citizens want to counsel the President (whose only been
married once) on how to interact with others, because he doesn't sit down for tea with the likes of Kim Jong Ill (Mentally
Ill) and Saddam Hussein (So D.. Insane).
Go Figure!
"The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug
abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend
to know what is best for an entire nation!
What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because
they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!"
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990766/posts>
Lucy Liberal says:
Its all right for my daughter to abort her unborn baby just as long as she has time to come along with me
to protest the killing of whales.
But the suggestion that abstinence would have prevented the situation in the first place, is unforgiveable.
If my son likes men (trying to fit a square peg in a round hole), that is all right, because they may be able
to get their own interior design show. We don't have enough of those.
Biological and Physical Incompatibility is all right though any other incompatibility should be a sign of
danger to come.
If a Dictator wants to terrorize and bomb his own people, unless he is Hitler or his war toys get too big,
then that is his business.
Its not enough that he wants big bombs, he has to obtain and use them first.
Preemptive strikes are not allowed. We need to wait until someone Nukes us to oblivion before we do something
about it.
Dictators still have hope, just as long as they don't become Conservative.
This all would be funny if it wasn't so true.
People stop laughing when jokes hit too close to home.
OR
Don't Think It Hypocritical To Be Liberal In Your World View but Conservative In The Upbringing Of Your Family.
Abortion is the right of the woman.
Unless, the woman is my wife or daughter and then I should have a say so.
People ought to have the right to marry the same sex (biologically and physically incompatible) if they want
to.
But when they are around my family, let it be 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'
Unless, my personal taxes go to funding research for AID's when deep down I know that 'Adam and Eve not Steve'
is the ounce of prevention.
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans
1)
Unless, it is my son or daughter, then I don't want to see them die a horrible death by AIDS.
'a pound of cure is more politically correct than an ounce of prevention'
Let Bullys and Dictators rule, until they want to harass my own family then may the God I don't believe in
help him.
https://cuf5.tripod.com/id153.html
BJ Maxwell
10/21/2006
Copyright ©
========================================================
|
_jpg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://my.opera.com/bcdc/blog/%3Fstartidx%3D90&h=241&w=291&sz=20&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=SUZUe-r0MbbFfM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Osama%2522%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
