Christianity, Thanksgiving, and the Very First Presidential Proclamation

I’d like to share with you the history of our nation’s very first Presidential Proclamation given by George Washington and a short biography of Elias Boudinot, the eminent jurist and statesmen, one of America’s long forgotten “godly” founding fathers and his role in the Thanksgiving celebration we practice today…

Elias Boudinot was born on May 2, 1740 the son of French Huguenots (or Calvinists). His great-grandfather Elias a silversmith had fled to the colonies after the revocation of the edict of Nantes (the edict of protestant toleration) to escape the heinous and bitter persecutions of King Louis XIV (14^th)

The young Elias grew up in Philadelphia where he was a neighbor of Benjamin Franklin.

Boudinot’s family later moved to New Jersey where Elias received a classical education, studying religion – and law with Richard Stockton (his mentor and signer of the Declaration of Independence),

In Princeton New Jersey he became a prominent lawyer where his practice flourished.

In 1775 he was elected to his first public office; the New Jersey provincial assembly.

In the early stages of the Revolutionary war Boudinot was active in promoting enlistment – on several occasions he loaned his own money to Field Commanders for the purchase of desperately needed supplies.

During the war he was made a colonel by Congress after George Washington asked for him to be made commissary general – An office which was charged with providing sustenance for prisoners of war and caring for sick and enemy wounded soldiers.

On November 4, 1782 Elias Boudinot was elected our fourth president under the Articles of Confederation. As President, Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783 (which starts by binding the signers: “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”) where the British Crown acknowledged the thirteen colonies to be free, independent and sovereign States, a treaty which officially ended of the war, and brought peace with great Britain.

When the United States government as we know it today was formed in 1789, Boudinot served New Jersey in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms. Not pursuing a fourth, in 1795 President Washington appointed him the Director of the United States Mint, a position he held until his retirement in 1805. Like so many other Huguenots, he put the metallurgic skills he learned from his father and grandfather’s silver smithing to use.

During his term at th US Mint he was known to be scrupulous in his accounting.

Boudinot was the first lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A devout Presbyterian, Boudinot supported missions and missionary work to Indians. 1816 he founded the American Bible Society where he served as its President.

Boudinot served as a member of the board of trustees for Princeton College (or what was later known as Princeton University) from 1772-1821.

And when Thomas Paine wrote his atheistic book “The Age of Reason” Boudinot wrote a book in response titled “The Age of Revelation”.

Boudinot was honored after a young Cherokee Indian convert nicknamed “Buck Deer” asked for and was given permission to use his name as a compliment to the man responsible for his conversion and education (Boudinot was his sponsor and benefactor), “Buck Deer” was afterward known as Elias Boudinot the man whom he aspired to emulate in his missionary work, who later labored with other missionaries in translating the Bible into the Cherokee tongue.

As for thanksgiving…

On September 25, 1789, two notable things happened; First the very First Federal Congress of the United States sent the Bill of Rights to the state legislatures for ratification.

(Keep in mind this is the same Bill of Rights which contains the 1^st amendment which we are told by today’s historical revisionists separates “church and state” or what they really mean “church and God”)

Second, That very same day representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey introduced, into the United States House of Representatives this resolution that says:

“That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

the Senate concurred and pass the resolution three days later.

October 3, 1789 President George Washington proclaimed the following:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

This resolution (a Christian Thanksgiving Proclamation) became our nation’s very first presidential proclamation…

Is “Social Justice” Justice?

Those who peddle “Social Justice” never will admit that what they really peddle and encourage is societal envy and covetousness. These peddlers convince themselves that those who “have” must have gotten what they “have” unfairly; some injustice after all is implied. So “social justice” in their minds is simply to make what has been ill-gotten – right or what they would deem “justice”.

Unless someone has what they have illegally or unjustly why should the Government be empowered to take from one and give to another; is that really justice?  No, – “Social Justice” is simply envy cloaked in the suit of Marxist redistributive ideology and is not about justice at all. Faithful Christians should reject such an ideology because it encourages the breaking the 10th commandment: You shall not covet. A second reason faithful Christians should reject this ideology is because social covetousness encourages those who have been influenced by it to use the arm of the Government (via their vote) to take from one and give to another (in the name of justice)  which is theft and a breaking of the 8th commandment: You shall not steal.

Therefore Social Justice policies however good intentioned they might be are not really about “justice” at all; they are all smoke and mirrors and actually are about envy and covetousness.

Envy and covetousness though must have the appearance of ethics and justice so that those who peddle it can feel good about what they peddle whether they realize it or not.

_____________

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4

A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones. Proverbs 14:30

Good Friday Homily by Peter J. Leithart

I have so much enjoyed this I wanted to share it:

__________

Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus and the cross. Was that enough? To answer that question, we need to answer another: What is the cross?

The cross is the work of the Father, who gave His Son in love for the world; the cross is the work of the Son, who did not cling to equality with God but gave Himself to shameful death; the cross is the work of the Spirit, through whom the Son offers Himself to the Father and who is poured out by the glorified Son. The cross displays the height and the depth and the breadth of eternal Triune love.

The cross is the light of the world; on the cross Jesus is the firmament, mediating between heaven and earth; the cross is the first of the fruit-bearing trees, and on the cross Jesus shines as the bright morning star; on the cross Jesus is sweet incense arising to heaven, and He dies on the cross as True Man to bring the Sabbath rest of God.

Adam fell at a tree, and by a tree he was saved. At a tree Eve was seduced, and through a tree the bride was restored to her husband. At a tree, Satan defeated Adam; on a tree Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. At a tree man died, but by Jesus’ death we live. At a tree God cursed, and through a tree that curse gave way to blessing. God exiled Adam from the tree of life; on a tree the Last Adam endured exile so that we might inherit the earth.

The cross is the tree of knowledge, the tree of judgment, the site of the judgment of this world. The cross is the tree of life, whose cuttings planted along the river of the new Jerusalem produce monthly fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations.

The cross is the tree in the middle of history. It reverses what occurred in the beginning at the tree of Eden, and because of the cross, we are confident the tree of life will flourish through unending ages after the end of the age.

The cross is the wooden ark of Noah, the refuge for all the creatures of the earth, the guarantee of a new covenant of peace and the restoration of Adam. The cross is the ark that carries Jesus, the greater Noah, with all His house, through the deluge and baptism of death to the safety of a new creation.

The cross is the olive tree of Israel on which the true Israel died for the sake of Israel. For generations, Israel worshiped idols under every green tree. Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into an idol to worship. Now in the last days, idolatrous Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into a cross. The cross is the climax of the history of Israel, as the leaders of Israel gather to jeer, as their fathers had done, at their long-suffering King.

The cross is the imperial tree, where Jesus is executed as a rebel against empire. It is the tree of Babylon and of Rome and of all principalities and powers that will have no king but Caesar. It is the tree of power that has spawned countless crosses for executing innumerable martyrs. But the cross is also the imperial tree of the Fifth Monarchy, the kingdom of God, which grows to become the chief of all the trees of the forest, a haven for birds of the air and beasts of the field.

The cross is the staff of Moses, which divides the sea and leads Israel dry through it. The cross is the wood thrown into the waters of Marah to turn the bitter waters sweet. The cross is the pole on which Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, as Jesus is lifted up to draw all men to Himself.

The cross is the tree of cursing, for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. On the tree of cursing hung the chief baker of Egypt; but now bread of life. On the tree of cursing hung the king of Ai and the five kings of the South; but now the king of glory, David’s greater Son. On the tree of cursing hung Haman the enemy who sought to destroy Israel; but now the savior of Israel, One greater than Mordecai. Jesus bears the curse and burden of the covenant to bear the curse away.

The cross is the wooden ark of the new covenant, the throne of the exalted savior, the sealed treasure chest now opened wide to display the gifts of God – Jesus the manna from heaven, Jesus the Eternal Word, Jesus the budding staff. The cross is the ark in exile among Philistines, riding in triumph even in the land of enemies.

Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The Jews had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and Israel must have her temple, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple. Yet, the cross becomes the new temple, and at Calvary the temple is destroyed to be rebuilt in three days. The cross is the temple of the prophet Ezekiel, from which living water flows out to renew the wilderness and to turn the salt sea fresh.

The cross is the wood on the altar of the world on which is laid the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. The cross is the wood on which Jesus burns in His love for His Father and for His people, the fuel of His ascent in smoke as a sweet-smelling savor. The cross is the wood on the back of Isaac, climbing Moriah with his father Abraham, who believes that the Lord will provide. The cross is the cedar wood burned with scarlet string and hyssop for the water of purification that cleanses from the defilement of death.

The cross is planted on a mountain, and Golgotha is the new Eden, the new Ararat, the new Moriah; it is greater than Sinai, where Yahweh displays His glory and speaks His final word, a better word than the word of Moses; it is greater than Zion, the mountain of the Great King; it is the climactic mount of transfiguration where the Father glorifies His Son. Calvary is the new Carmel, where the fire of God falls from heaven to consume a living twelve-stone altar to deliver twelve tribes, and turn them into living stones. Planted at the top of the world, the cross is a ladder to heaven, angels ascending and descending on the Son of man.

The cross tears Jesus and the veil so that through His separation He might break down the dividing wall that separated Yahweh from his people and Jew from Gentile. The cross stretches embrace the world, reaching to the four corners, the four winds of heaven, the points of the compass, from the sea to the River and from Hamath to the brook of Egypt. It is the cross of reality, the symbol of man, stretching out, as man does, between heaven and earth, distended between past and future, between inside and outside.

The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to which all previous history led and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform – the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Reformation and the Calvinist roots of “Social Contract Theory” and the Founding of America

The Protestant Reformation and its tremendous influence on the political order of today barely gets mentioned by most contemporary (secular) and anti-christian historians.  The very related ideas like; limited Government, the Rule of Law, and the Social Contract Theory all have their origins and developed from the Reformation and more specifically from Calvinism. Instead, contemporary historians (often purposely) omit the influence of the Reformation and point to men like  Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( The Social Contract, 1762) as the architects of the modern political order whom they consider much more friendly to their bias worldview.

-

A  friend on facebook posted that he was reading John Locke ‘s Two Treatises of Government. I mentioned Locke  inherited the ideas of “social contract theory” from men like Samuel Rutherford (Lex, Rex, 1644) (whose book Lex Rex by the way means the “Law is King” as opposed to Rex Lex the “King is the Law”).

-

What many fail to realize is Locke’s “social contract theory” theory was really nothing new at the time. Social contract theory as well as the closely related resistance theology are direct ideological decedents of the Reformation and specifically of Calvinism.  What many say Locke did in order to make it more palatable to an ever increasing enlightenment skepticism was to remove the biblical aspects of it (unlike Rutherford). Jean Jacques Rousseau did the same.

-

What is often overlooked is that men like Rutherford, Hobbes, Locke, and later Rousseau picked up their ideas on the  “social contract theory” from early Calvinists thinkers like, George Buchanan (A Dialogue Concerning the Rights of the Crown in Scotland, 1579) , John Ponet (A short treatise of political power, 1556), Christopher Goodman (How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects, 1558) and Theodore Beza (The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, 1572) Many of these were  contemporaries of the great Scottish Calvinist reformer  John Knox who wrote his own book titled The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1556 which argued for “limits” on the authority of the then queen Mary (Mary Queen of Scots).

Arguments for “limits” on the authority, and the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of tyrannical men) developed into a biblically based type of “resistance theology” which was even seen in translations of the Bible at the time. For example  King James I of England who was a ardent believer in the “divine right of kings” had the Authorized King James Version, 1611 commissioned because the very popular Geneva Bible, 1560 (created with the involvement of Knox and Calvin) had marginal notes that were considered subversive  to his authority. For example in Exodus 1:19 where the Hebrew midwives disobey the Pharaoh by refusing to kill male Hebrew children states; “Their disobedience in this was lawful, but their deception is evil“  in Exodus 1:22 when Pharaoh gives the decree, the notes say “When tyrants cannot prevail by deceit, they burst into open rage”.

Very popular books at the time like the French Calvinist (Huguenot) tract (Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, 1579) (translated A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants) and Politica 1603 by the Dutch Calvinist Johannes Althusius espoused this same biblical resistance theology. Ultimately, ideologically you can trace this theology back to the influence of John Calvin‘ the theological giant of the Reformation, in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion 1536 where you have the ideological seeds for it, see  Institutes see Book 4: Chapter 20: Section 31 & 32.

Calvinist thinkers developed social contract theory arguing that the ultimate locus of authority (and all law) was derived from God, who then grants and delegates His authority to the people, who in turn delegate authority to the King to execute true justice in the land as defined by God for the people (the King is an executor) .  If the King turned this around believed and behaved as if the final authority resided in him, turned on the people and God, became a tyrant, the people had the right “under God” to resist his tyrannical authority when he decreed laws that were contrary to God and His revealed will found in in the scripture. This “resistance theology” was derived directly from the scriptures especially from Romans 13 and the Old Testament which gave legitimacy to the people to oppose tyrannical authority and abuses that were so common in that era.

The very related ideas of Social contract theory, resistance theology, the rule of law, and limited government, all come to a full head in 17th century England when King Charles I lost his head in the Cromwellian era after the English civil war . Also, in the American revolutionary era resistance theology was alive and well, you can see it in the clergy’s sermons of the day found here – Also as a side; according to US President John Adams, John Ponet’s work (mentioned above) “A short treatise of political power” contained “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke“

You see resistance theology in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the American Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…                                                                                                                                   But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

Thomas Jefferson then goes into a long laundry list of abuses of King George…

Here is the first US seal that Jefferson proposed (notice the caption “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”).

Anyway, for a better explanation on the Reformation’s role in the development of the social contract theory see this article:

http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_238.php

As a side note Calvinistic resistance theology is spreading like wildfire in China today, here is a link to an article which says:

So when the Chinese house churches first emerged from the rubble of the Cultural Revolution in the 80s and 90s “They began to search what theology will support and inform [them]. They read Luther and said, ‘not him’. So they read Calvin, and they said ‘him, because he has a theology of resistance.’ Luther can’t teach them or inform them how to deal with a government that is opposition.”

Lar

Gay Fascists? I say YES they are…

You Say:

“This is a court ruling issue, not a “gay agenda” thing”.

Jake, what kind of an argument is that? Who is taking who to the court?  The whole so-called “human rights” struggle for “equality” as the GLBT community likes to call it and the conservative and Christian resistance is being waged in the courts of LAW!

You speak as though this is some kind of isolated or rare “court ruling” and there’s actually no such thing as a “gay agenda”.   Earth to Mars; it’s gays who are bringing these things to the courts in the first place and it’s not isolated or rare, it’s happening all over the Western world; here are a few more examples (I could provide many, many more if you would like)

Individuals, churches, private businesses and organizations, and religious charitable organizations are being forced against their conscience, they are being dragged into the courts, paying sometimes hefty fines, having their tax exempt status revoked and their religious liberties are being violated:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8413196.stm
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090721/christian-doctor-loses-position-over-gay-adoption-view/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169379/Christian-charity-worker-suspended-saying-did-believe-sex-marriage.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041408.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17353
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121107.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/intro.html
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=22904
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index2.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sT6MAJ6KDw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjfEc_7K9FE&feature=related

you say:

I can’t believe we have people believing this conservative garbage: “That’s if the liberal and gay totalitarians don’t kill us and take our children first…”

Gay totalitarians might not want to literally take our children (yet)  but they certainly want to indoctrinate and inculcate them with their worldview:

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

or take away parental rights over their children:

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34657

Sometimes a threat to take away children is literal:

http://conservapedia.com/Hamilton_Square_Baptist_Church_riot

They might not want to “kill” us literally (yet,  but maybe they’ll send us to “re-education centers” or camps instead) but they are moving to take away our rights:

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34665

sometimes the threat to kill us is literal:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Chuck_McIlhenny

Whether you want to admit it or not there is a gay agenda:

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm

Which will inevitably end up in the persecution of conservatives and especially of non-compromising traditional and Orthodox Christians.

As I said in my last post, homosexuals are trying to cram their morality down the throats of Conservatives, Christians and their children whether you want to be honest or not. So lets not pretend anymore that GLBT community or even you are totally “tolerant” – no one is.

As for the activist GLBT community, the Christian right has every justification to fear for its civil and religious liberties. You say you want to better understand us, well there you go.

Lar

The Constitution and Homosexuality

You can see this full discussion here

_________

Thank you for your respectful response.

Okay you have written a lot here that needs to be addressed, you have raised worldview issues in the area of theology, philosophy, ethics and history. Over the next couple days, I will deal with each and every one of your points one by one, listing point by point each issue. I ask you to respond in like manner to each point, so if I raise POINT 1 I asked you to respond to point 1, to point 2 etc, etc, – this way we can deal with each issue one by one.

You say:

I agree that all laws are ethical in nature, but I disagree that all ethics and morality come from religion. Example: nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that it is a sin to have sexual relations with a child. The only prerequisite is that you’re supposed to married first. Yet in our society, any level headed person would tell you that is a very bad thing to do. But by The Bible’s example you might say it is ethical:

okay 3 points:

POINT 1:

So we are agreed that all laws are ethical in nature…

You realize what this means; that there is no such thing as ethical or moral neutrality on any issue. Again, if all laws are ethical there is no NEUTRALITY, neutrality is impossible because somebody’s ethics or morality gets encoded into law. Keep this in mind because I‘m going to continue to hammer it – no ethical or moral neutrality when it comes to law. (prove me wrong)

Differences in presupposed ethical value systems will manifest different law systems. For instance the basic assumptions or presuppositions of a Christian majority will manifest in certain kinds of laws (which is why there were sodomy laws in this country until very recently), if there is a Muslim majority, or a Buddhist majority, or secular humanist majority ,or even a homosexual majority, each one respectively both in individuals and majorities will manifest differing ideas on what laws should be. A good contemporary example would be how homosexuals are pushing for the enactment of certain hate crime legislation that would punish the speech of certain individuals, for example see here.

This is important, I want to keep you consistent throughout this discussion, I will continue to come back to it time and again to keep you consistent in your thinking; there is no such thing as NEUTRALITY when it comes to law.

Now given this fact, and you might not realize it, you want to shove your morality (or ethics) down the throat of others, myself included (which is what your discussion on my blog is all about). You want to call us as you put it, the “Party of Tyrannical Christians (PTC)” – I would turn it around and call the “homosexual activist crowd” the party of fascist homosexuals (PFH) who want to en-codify their morality into law, and to dictate Christians on issues of conscience. As an honest Christian I will admit that’s what I’m trying to do, I do it sincerely because I believe that is what is best for a good and just society… your problem is that your just blind to the fact that you and your (PFH) are doing the EXACT SAME THING whether you want to admit it or not!

POINT 2

If ethics and morality don’t come from religion or pseudo-religion as I have defined it, like in secular humanism, then what pray tell does it come from?

Do ethics and morality come from the “majority’s view”?

What if the 51% majority say it’s moral and ethical to eliminate inferior non-Aryan races like they did in Nazi Germany would that make it ethically right just because the majority says so?

So again where can ethics and morality come from? I have an answer, Thomas Jefferson had an answer when he wrote those famous first 2 paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence, do you? Please explain.

POINT 3

As for sexual relations with a child. Now I’m not sure if you’re using old tired arguments that the homosexual crowd likes to make or if you are actually that juvenile in your thinking (I say that respectfully as I can). Let’s do a little logic;

God says:

-no male to male sex
-no female to female sex
-no human to animal sex
-no sex outside of marriage

Do you think that those Biblical laws didn’t apply to children as well as adults?

Keep in mind when God gave His laws to His people the Jews, those laws (unless the distinction was made by God himself in His law) applied to both children and adults. Both Jewish written and oral tradition testify of this simple truth.

Now lets do a little bit of deductive reasoning, I will help you:

-no (adult) male to (child) male sex
-no (adult) female to (child) female sex
-no human (child) to animal sex
-no (adult to child) sex outside of marriage

(Young people could marry with the consent of their parents which would be very rare and probably didn’t exist for children under the age of 12 – Marriage would be the only legitimate sex, period)

Now that logic was easy wasn’t it?

Maybe I’m assuming but I would be careful not to repeat other people’s arguments just because they sound like good arguments (I’ve heard this silly child-sex argument before) think through the arguments logically yourself first so you‘re not self deceived.

So I guess that Christians, Jews, and the Bible are pretty “levelheaded” (your words) after all because the Bible teaches that child sex is not only un-ethical, it is a heinous sin (sanctioning the death penalty) against a holy and righteous God.

By the way, what do you think influenced the West (where did it get its moral presuppositions) that adult-child sex (and fornication, adultery, and homosexuality for that matter) are wrong? I can give you a hint if you’d like…

You realize in some cultures (non-christian) in the ancient world, in certain tribal communities, and in contemporary sub-cultures, practices like pederasty (adult-child sex) and polyamory were and are morally normal and are protected (and thus encouraged) by law.

more to come…

Lessons From History: Are We The New Rome?

Money and Capitalism

CORPORATE GREED

People today like to think of themselves as generally compassionate, we seem to desire a more compassionate and equitable society. There is general concern today that a small group of individuals and corporations are trying to aggregate all the available resources and money to themselves (which can be a concern in areas where particular resources are limited). Our concern is, that if some people have too much money, there wont be enough for others, which inevitably leads to monetary inequities creating widespread need. These feelings are then justified as we see corporations and individuals making sometimes seemingly obscene profits.

The basic assumption that contributes to this concern today is that money is tied to resources (similar to commodities) and therefore it is limited (after all gold and silver were used monetarily since the beginning of time – and these commodities are limited). The problem (with this general assumption) is, money is not exactly like other commodities, it is similar in many ways, (and is subject to the laws of supply and demand, which we will get into at another time) but also it is very different. Commodities are generally something we consume or use, where money on the other hand is something we use as a means of trade or exchange and gets its value from our human ingenuity and labor.

To grapple with the nature of money, we need to drill down a little deeper into the underling assumption we have about money, asking what exactly is it and how does it work in society?

MONEY AND TRADE

To understand money we need to go back to the very basics of trade.

Basically people start the trade process by producing something or performing a service that can be traded to get what we want or need. We trade those products or services created by our labor for someone else’s products created by their labor. Generally the harder a person works, the more and more products or services he creates that can be traded to get more of what he wants or needs.

Because “pure” trade or barter would be difficult as we try to find the right person to trade with (to get exactly what we wanted for exactly what they wanted), we use a little “voucher” called money.  Now imagine what would happen if you  found a guy who had what you needed, but he didn’t want what you had to trade (or felt what you had wasn’t of equal value because his product took much more labor than yours) you then might have to find a third party who might be willing to make a three way trade. Money, as labor (in compact tradable voucher form) solves this very basic “trade” problem.

Money simply helps make bartering or trade (in the truest sense of the word) for goods and services we produce a lot easier. Trade transactions between individuals would be a lot more difficult if we didn’t have these little “vouchers” called money which we use today to trade what we produce.

To sum it up, money is essentially labor in “compact” tradable form. Throughout history all sorts of things have been used as money, the ancients used precious stones as well as gold and silver, in early colonial America; tobacco, in prisons; cigarettes, in black markets in the old Soviet Union; vodka. Money simply gets its trade value from our human labor. So we see that money is not limited like most commodities; it is actually created and gets its trade value by individual and collective “human action“ (BTW that’s the name of Von Mises’s magnum opus http://mises.org/). Today national collective “human action” is measured in terms of money and called GNP or Gross National “Product“, which reflects the gross national output of our human labor.

THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The law of supply and demand is pretty well understood today, basically when there is an abundance of goods (supply) and there are very few buyers, the prices will fall because sellers of those goods will have to bid down their prices to compete for those few buyers causing prices to retreat and go down.

When there is a lack of goods and there are many buyers, demand is created to get those goods (supply). In this environment sellers  will hold out for the best price as the many buyers “bid up “and compete for the shortage of goods so that costs rise.

To sum it up in an example it basically works like this:

There are 100 apples and only 20 buyers = prices will fall
There are 100 apples and 200 buyers = prices will rise

CAPITALISM AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR

Moving on to the principle of “the division of labor“, Adam Smith described it best (my partial abridgment) :

To take an example, therefore, of an item of slight worth or importance to manufacture; one in which the division of labor is easily understood, the trade of the needle pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labor has made this a particular trade), nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (the machinery also being an invention of the same division of labor), could hardly, perhaps, with his utmost ability, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. The way which this business is now done as a peculiar trade, is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater parts are also peculiar trades.

One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head (to make the head requires two or three distinct operations), to zinc coat the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper (for distribution). The important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, to which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, yet acquainted with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day.

In a pound there are upwards of four thousand pins of a middle size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them nearly of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all worked separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated in this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations 1776

So we see capitalism isn’t like the oil, to use the example of a lava lamp, where a very few rich elite capitalists are on one side trying to tip the lamp so that the oil will collect to their side (so that all the resources are aggregated to them). No, instead think of capitalism as investment of start up resources working along side the principal the division of labor (which is the engine of prosperity),  combining to produce an ever increasing abundance of lower cost (in terms of man hours) goods and services, thus increasing the value and buying power of our money (by the law of supply and demand) so we can purchase more and more things we want and need.

Think of the area of agriculture; the old fashion way in which agriculture was done, it took a lot of lot of sweat and hard work to get food out of the ground. Food being more scarce (because it was very labor intensive) kept costs high in terms of labor time. The labor intensity of working this way did not leave you a lot of time to be productive or create anything else thus creating shortages in other area’s. Contrasting to modernity, by using investment to purchase technology and using creativity (by the division of labor principle), we can create an abundance of food in a lot less time in terms of man hours. This “created abundance” drives the price down (by the law of supply and demand) making it available to all (including the poor) at much lower prices. Because food created this way costs less in terms of man hours we are freed up spend more time being productive in other areas creating abundance in those other area’s as well. Using my illustration of the lava lamp, we’re adding more and more and more oil to the lamp creating abundance through our creativity an ingenuity, this is the beauty of capitalism it creates abundance.

Another examples of this is in the cell phone industry. I am old enough to remember when cell phones first came out and how bulky and expensive they were both to purchase and to operate, but over the course of the last let’s say 15 years the prices have come way down. The same is true with the Japanese auto industry through the 70s and early 80s, they continually found ways to increase productivity and produce better and better cars holding costs down and undercutting their American counterparts who because of managerial ineptness, lack of vision, and the comfortableness of their laborers via union contracts, are in the struggle to change and get better in order to survive to keep up.

CORPORATIONS, CAPITALISM, THE DIVISION OF LABOR, AND EXCESSIVE REGULATIONS

Now when it comes to those rascally corporations (or individual owners we used to call “robber barons”), they do this division of labor thing very, very well. They continually find creative and innovative ways to produce goods and services at cheaper and cheaper rates so they can undercut their competition thus creating abundance in the process. The whole time technology is going to continually to be driven by creative people who have ideas. Corporations are going to compete for those people as well (or human resources) with incentives like high-paying jobs and good benefit packages. Not only are corporations going to compete for them, but for the people who have the technological skills or task specific skills related to their industry, thus raising the standard of living for those people as well. A secondary result is that corporations produce thousands of jobs, both by hiring needed people, and by thousands of secondary jobs spawned through smaller businesses and corporations needed by them to produce their product or services. Corporations when they make more and more money, have to continually reinvest it in order to keep up with their competition. They need to buy the current technology (or company) to keep up. That technology is often tied to smaller innovative companies or individuals who are at the cutting edge of their particular field. Corporations pay millions (sometimes billions) of dollars to either buy up or buy the smaller companies product or service that creates good paying jobs in both cases as well.

Also keep in mind, even when the upper management of a company and high paid executives gets paid hordes of money, they eventual spend it back into the economy (whether they do it or their posterity does later) creating even more secondary jobs like luxury goods and services (the money eventually does have a “trickle down” effect spawning other good paying jobs and industries). Keep in mind also, typically those who have hordes of money don’t like to keep it idle, they find “investments” that works the money right back into the system. These “investors” generally look for places to make their money “work” by investing in bright ideas and technology which continues the abundance creating process along. These  same investors also invest internationally for the same purpose, triggering the start of prosperity in those countries.  (This even happens when they send their money offshore for sheltering to tax havens: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/in-praise-of-tax-havens/ ). This same cycle is exactly what happened early on in America. We borrowed money in the form of investment, to purchased the current technology of the time (which was created by the division of labor as well) from the Europeans and started the process here. Everywhere capitalism goes it creates this effect, think of the Asian markets today like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and China. Capitalism working via the free market, is in other words the goose that lays the golden egg!

Excessive government regulations often hinder the abundance creating process much more than they help. They often hinder by creating hurdles and limits to the abundance generating potential of the free market. Licensing laws, labor regulations, minimum wage legislation, unemployment taxes, social security taxes, union standards, federal health and safety regulations, racial quotas, anti-discrimination legislation, environmental regulations, and a well-nigh endless host of others laws, fees, prohibitions, limitations, regulations, and specifications gum up the works and choke the goose by giving it all sorts of hurdles to overcome just to lay her golden eggs.

To summarize, capitalism when it is most free, works to employ man’s creative and competitive human nature to create prosperity and increase the standard of living for everyone.  If you best want to increase the standard of living for everyone than the freer the market is, the better the mechanism (or goose) is to produce an ever lower cost abundance of goods and services available to all .

GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED THEFT

Now here’s the real kicker; I contend that much of our financial problems come from greedy politicians who seek to maintain their stranglehold on power.  With all this productivity and the increase of better goods and services at lower and lower costs (thus increasing the buying power of your money) you might start to think, hmmm if I put my money away, let’s say over the forty years of a technological explosion (where the price of goods and services continue to go down and down and down) my money should increase in value over that time (giving me more buying power). I’d say Yes! Yes! your thinking correctly. And under free circumstances you would normally be right!

So the question naturally arises, why does it seem that things are getting worse or that prices remain stagnant? (As long as I remember, standard television prices have generally seemed to remained flat over the course of 50 years:  http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm ). The reason that we generally haven’t seen our money have more buying power* (so that our dollar is buying more and more lower cost goods and services that come into the economy as a result of capitalism an the division of labor), is because THE GOVERNMENT has been basically printing money (by borrowing on the future) spending more and more. Many times politicians buy power and money to themselves (with this money), through cronyism, kickbacks, special favors and the purchasing of votes via welfare, agricultural subsidies, union favoritism, funding of special interest groups, corporate special interest groups, and pork barreling just to name a few.

By slow manipulation the US Government has been injecting this money into the economy, stealing the increase by controlled inflation! (there are other factors to it like the manipulation of interest rates and the whole fractional reserve lending system protected by the Federal Reserve as well)  Think of the Weimar Republic (WR) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Economic_problems ) and the inflationary problems it created by first borrowing and then printing and spending more and more money. If you had a lot of money in the bank then, lets say 50,000 German marks, it eventually became worthless because it was no longer  just tied to “human labor” as we have mentioned above, but to government interventionism and the toying with the money supply. This policy wiped out the poor and middle class in a short amount of time. The  WR ultimately became a legal counter fitter devaluing the value of the currency (money). We really should be able to place our money in the bank and over the course of  many years its buying power should increase, especially during an explosion of technology. Think of how that principal alone would encourage a savings culture instead of debt culture which is one of our root problems today (debt is a form of slavery).

Keynesian/interventionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) government controlled inflation (controlled by Federal Reserve system)  (for more on the FR see the link below) has tried to work to flatten out the effects of government created hyper inflation. The out-of-control government spending since at least the 1960s (and to a lesser degree back to the turn of the 20th century) has been a means to neutralize capitalism’s multiplying cost saving effect and make it virtually invisible to the common working man. It’s an insidious means of stealing the people’s wealth which they created through their hard work and ingenuity. This policy will eventually reach a critical mass and wipe out the poor and middle class over the course of time here as well.

To summarize, Government controlled inflation over the last few generations has actually worked to neutralize capitalism’s multiplying cost saving effect, thus stealing the peoples increase (more buying power with our dollars).

CAPITALISM AND COMPASSION

Ultimately I believe the kind of capitalism I have sought to explain here, when it works most free from government monetary manipulation, excessive regulations, and socialism’s insatiable appetite for confiscatory taxes (collected taxes which often rewards political loyalty, idleness, and laziness, taking from the producer to give to the non-producer)  is the most compassionate system. Especially when it comes to people who can’t take care of themselves and the people who are truly poor. In a truly free market there is so much abundance (in this kind of free capitalistic society) that is very easy for people to give to individuals and nations in need (it‘s easier to give out of abundance than need). Besides compassion is always better left to those in society who truly care, the family, the extended family, the church, local charities, and capitalistic philanthropists who can discern true need from laziness and the abuses inevitably created by a socialistic system of giveaways thereby lessening collective productivity which creates need and lack that “trickles down” inevitably to the poor. (Free market compassion always works best when there is sound money and taxes are very low, this allows those who care  most to take care of those who are truly needy)

You might ask should we give to those in need anyway, even when we lack? Of course we should, but taking into consideration the propensity of man to be self-serving and self-interested (this is his nature) it makes it a lot easier for him to part with his abundance rather than his lack (especially in times of desperation). America when she practiced this kind of capitalism best (however imperfectly) has proved this kind of compassion,  often by being the leader in feeding the third world.

Lar

*except in some area’s like communication – think of how much a phone call was in those old black-and-white movies.

For more on the Federal Reserve, its history,  how it works, and how it cooperates with government to create inflation, see this excellent 42min video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450

Gay Fascism

Chris Ortiz at Chalcedon had this video from Canada posted.

This is ultimately where “Hate Crime” laws lead, the silencing of Christians and Preachers even in their pulpits:

Muslim Europe? (Less Than A Generation Away)

Who will have control Europe’s nuclear weapons?

Tapping Your Cell Phone

George Washington’s Faith and Religious Beliefs

Athanasius on the Incarnation

The Logos, Athanasius teaches, is the image of the living, only true God. Man is the image of the Logos. In communion with him consist the original holiness and blessedness of paradise. Man fell by his own will, and thus came to need redemption. Evil is not a substance of itself, not matter, as the Greeks suppose, nor does it come from the Creator of all things. It is an abuse of freedom on the part of man, and consists in selfishness or self-love, and in the dominion of the sensuous principle over the reason. Sin, as apostasy from God, begets idolatry. Once alienated from God and plunged into finiteness and sensuousness, men deified the powers of nature, or mortal men, or even carnal lusts, as in Aphrodite. The inevitable consequence of sin is death and corruption. The Logos, however, did not forsake men. He gave them the law and the prophets to prepare them for salvation. At last he himself became man, neutralized in human nature the power of sin and death, restored the divine image, uniting us with God and imparting to us his imperishable life. The possibility and legitimacy of the incarnation lie in the original relation of the Logos to the world, which was created and is upheld by him. The incarnation, however, does not suspend the universal reign of the Logos. While he was in man, he was at the same time everywhere active and reposing in the bosom of the Father. The necessity of the incarnation to salvation follows from the fact, that the corruption had entered into human nature itself, and thus must be overcome within that nature. An external redemption, as by preaching God, could profit nothing. “For this reason the Saviour assumed humanity, that man, united with life, might not remain mortal and in death, but imbibing immortality might by the resurrection be immortal. The outward preaching of redemption would have to be continually repeated, and yet death would abide in man.”. The object of the incarnation is, negatively, the annihilation of sin and death; positively, the communication of righteousness and life and the deification of man. The miracles of Christ are the proof of his original dominion over nature, and lead men from nature-worship to the worship of God. The death of Jesus was necessary to the blotting out of sin and to the demonstration of his life-power in the resurrection, whereby also the death of believers is now no longer punishment, but a transition to resurrection and glory.—This speculative analysis of the incarnation Athanasius supports by referring to the continuous moral effects of Christianity, which is doing great things every day, calling man from idolatry, magic, and sorceries to the worship of the true God, obliterating sinful and irrational lusts, taming the wild manners of barbarians, inciting to a holy walk, turning the natural fear of death into rejoicing, and lifting the eye of man from earth to heaven, from mortality to resurrection and eternal glory. The benefits of the incarnation are incalculable, like the waves of the sea pursuing one another in constant succession.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-590

“Saving” Christianity… from Christianity itself?

Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, and R.C. Sproul on post modernism and the Emergent Church.

Along with the issues that Ravi, Al, and R.C. make,  at the very heart of the Church’s embrace of post-modernism is the fact that Christians in this generation do not want to carry “their cross”.  The Gospel (which first calls men to repentance) and biblical Christianity is simply too offensive – it brings the promised persecution and tribulation (Matt 13:23) today in the form of ridicule, scorn, and mockery.

With the introduction of post-modernism into Christian theology, a convenient way to eliminate the offensiveness of the gospel message and biblical Christianity has been found.  If you eliminate “truth” itself or make it unknowable (as Emergent folks do) than the need to stand for anything conveniently disappears. The offensiveness of biblical Christianity can be taken away and thus save Christianity and make it less offensive to today’s culture. The Emergent Church and I dare say an ever increasing element within evangelicalism today, is hell bound on “saving” Christianity – from Christianity itself.

The world is becoming increasingly hostile to traditional biblical Christianity, to those who claim they know truth, and those who use offensive biblical words like, sin, repent, wrath, wickedness, abomination and hell. The Emergent Church and this ever increasing element within evangelicalism that I speak of, is seeking to move away and to distance itself from traditional Christianity and from those who hold to it, because they are embarrassed.  They are more and more embarrassed by traditional Christians who continue to call men to repent and believe the gospel. They are embarrassed by a biblical Christianity which divides the the world between the righteous and the wicked (Matt 10:34). They are embarrassed of those who who would speak authoritatively about objective truth in a world given to radical post-modern skepticism.

I recently heard one of these evangelical leaders say that they are trying to “restore the reputation of Christ” in the community. Maybe I’m wrong, but when he said it, I couldn’t help but think he was trying to “restore the reputation of Christ” among unbelievers by telling them Christianity is not what people like me (a traditional christian) say it is. He’s embarrassed of Christians like me who make (in his opinion) Christianity offensive. If I am right, than he and others like him too are trying to save Christianity – from Christianity itself.

As comfortable north American Christians we need to be reminded that Christ himself calls us to partake in his suffering. We, just as Christians of old are called to carry “our cross” – we too are called to suffer “for righteousness sake” (Matt 5:10-11). Suffering usually comes when we preach and stand for the “truth” of God and of His Christ in this wicked and perverse generation.

Let us let us not shrink from our cross but embrace it, let us remember the words of Christ: “he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt 10:38). Does the one who bore the cross on our behalf deserve any less from us?

____________

“Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

Founding Father Elias Boudinot on the Demise of a People

“Good government generally begins in the family,
and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow.”

Elias Boudinot (1740 – 1821)

-

Elias Boudinot is one of many of America’s forgotten “founding fathers”. He served as President of the Continental Congress (1782 -1783), the Director of the United States Mint (1795 – 1805), was the first lawyer admitted to the Supreme Court bar, was a trustee of Princeton University, founded the American Bible Society (which is still with us), and supported missions and missionary work.

Boudinot of New Jersey of Huguenot descent,was a devout Presbyterian, who wrote the tract “The Age of Revelation” in response to Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason”.

His tract “The Age of Revelation” can be found here

___________

As we look at the American landscape today we can see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Boudino’s words have proved true.

Yet, his words also tell us that if the demise of a people originates in “the government of the family” and it’s “moral character”, then certainly the converse is true as well. We must remember that the key to rebuilding the “moral character” of a people, begins in the same place, in the home and with “the government of the family”.

The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics

Martin Luther wrote:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Today the battle that rages and is being waged today, is at the very heart of the institution which is foundational to all the other institutions, to the church, the state, and the social order .

The battle in this generation is over the family itself.

I believe this very issue is the mother of all battles for the Church today. Godly Christians in this generation must understand exactly how that battle is being waged, in order to defeat it. The Christian Church today MUST must understand how we are being attacked and than lead the way in rebuilding a godly Christian family culture in each and every local Church. She must teach and disciple one family at a time.

This article by Stephen Baskerville at the Howard Center is long, but it is a must read.  Baskerville has zeroed-in on the real nature, size, and scope of the battle that this generation faces. And it is inevitable that if we lose this battle, we will inevitably loose every other battle we are fighting, and western civilization itself will be lost forever.

______________

“All politics is on one level sexual politics.” — George Gilder, 1986

Four decades into the boldest social experiment ever undertaken in the Western democracies, the full impact of what was once quaintly known as “women’s liberation” is at last becoming clear.  The political class of both the Left and Right have colluded to limit the debate to a series of innocuous controversies: job discrimination, equal pay, affirmative action.  Only abortion has any depth, and that debate has been mired in stalemate.

Meanwhile, beneath the political radar screen, the real consequences are finally emerging: a massive restructuring of the social order, demographic trends that threaten the very survival of Western civilization, and perhaps least noticed, an exponential growth in the size and power of the state — the state at its most bureaucratic and tyrannical.

Feminism has now positioned itself as the vanguard of the Left, shifting the political discourse from the economic and racial to the social and increasingly the sexual.  What was once a socialistic assault on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage, and masculinity.  This marks a truly new kind of politics, the most personal and thus potentially the most total politics ever devised: the politics of private life and sexual relations.  Read on

The Anti-Family Anti-Parent Ajenda of the UN (The United Nations)

These two articles point out how hostile the UN is to the traditional family:

United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights…

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MEXICO CITY, February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.

Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”

“In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis,” he said. “In crisis?  More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights.”  Read on

_
United Nations’ threat: No more parental rights Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object…

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.” Read on

WSJ: A Dutch court imports Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe

The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.  Read on

But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:36 NKJV

Messianic Leaders…

Hitler holds a fascination for us because his dictatorship enjoyed such wide support of the people.  Perhaps never in history was a dictator so well liked.  He had the rare gift of motivating a nation to want to follow him.  Communist leaders such as Lenin or Mao Tse-tung arose to power through revolutions that cost millions of lives; consequently they were hated by the masses.  Hitler attracted not only the support of the middle class but also of the university students and professors.  For example, psychologist Carl Jung grew intoxicated with “the mighty phenomenon of national Socialism at which the whole world gazes in astonishment.”

Hitler arose in Germany at a time when the nation was a democracy.  He obtained his power legitimately, if unfairly.  The nation was waiting for him, eager to accept a demagogue who appeared to have the talent needed to lead her out of the abyss.  The people yearned for a leader who would do for them what democracy could not.

Erwin W. Lutzer in Hitler’s Cross

Atheist: I truly believe Africa needs God

This is an amazing article by an atheist (it’s amazing because it comes from an atheist) who admits that Christian evangelism  and conversion, and the Christian worldview it brings to an entire culture is exactly what Africa needs…

You’ll find the article here

This atheist only admits what I have said in the past:

Christianity raised so much of this world out of her ethical debauchery and paganism.  First hand missionary account’s through-out history tell us the same thing. Un-regenerate humanity prizes its Pyramids and Temples – Aztec, Mayan, and Egyptian just to name a few, yet so many of them are monuments to human debauchery, human slavery, and or human sacrifice.

It has been Jesus Christ who has taught men how to live!

Christianity has a long and wonderful history of charity, mercy, compassion, taking care and feeding the poor and destitute, taking in orphans, visiting prisoners and teaching cannibals, not to eat their neighbor!

Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace the only hope for this poor fallen world

And of the increase of His government and His kingdom there shall be no end!

______________________

And for all you smart mouth atheists who will undoubtedly make rude and foolish comments, next time you feel like being an evangelist for your atheism instead of picking on simple minded Christians, why don’t you  start your missionary adventure face-to-face with a tribe of cannibals like so many Christians missionaries have in the past…           Also by the way, next time you get sick, try going to St. Atheist Memorial Hospital…