POST-EVERYTHINGS

POST EVERYTHINGS 


How do we, as a denomination, do renewal and outreach in the emerging post-everything United States culture? “Post-everything” people are those who are now in their teens and twenties – and they are our future.
These persons are increasingly post-secular. They are much more open to the supernatural, to spirituality, and to religion but not necessarily to Christianity. They are also post-ideological. On the one hand, they are perhaps too concerned about issues of social justice to be labeled “conservative.” On the other hand, they are also post-liberal.


 Not only is the old Liberalism too self-righteous for contemporary tastes, it is also cracking up due to 9/11, the demise of socialism, and war. The emerging culture is also post-modern. Our society increasingly is opposed to purely rationalistic explanations for experience, and does not accept the hard-nosed, scientific secularism of the past.
In general the PCA knows how to thrive in the shrinking enclaves of traditional people, but does not know how to thrive in this increasing post-everything culture.


Michael Wolfe, in New York Magazine said we are
fundamentally two nations. “There is the quicker-growing, economically vibrant, morally relativist, urban-oriented, culturally adventurous, sexually polymorphist and ethnically diverse nation. Then there is also the smaller-town, suburban, nuclear-family, religiously oriented, traditional values, white-centric other America with its diminished political and economic force.”


America still has enough places dominated by this latter “nation” that the Reformed Christian Church can continue to grow among already-conservative and people. However, our usual methods of ministry do not work effectively in the parts of the country and the sectors of society that have the greatest power in our culture. Our ineffectiveness as a denomination in working with post-everything America is a failure across party lines. Whether we identify ourselves as “Evangelically Reformed,” “Confessionally Reformed” or “Old-school” we face similar failures. All our parties tend to limit their evangelism and discipleship to people who are basically traditional in their mindset.


For instance, our typical evangelistic presentations are effective with persons who assume they should be good. Then the gospel-presenter tries to show them than they are not good enough – they fall short of God’s perfect standards – and therefore they need Jesus to forgive sin and help them do the right thing. This presentation was quite appropriate for almost everyone in my parents’ generation. My parents, who are evangelical Christians, and my in-laws, who are not at all, had basically the same social and moral values. If you asked them the questions such as, “What do you think about pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, or pornography?” both sets of parents would have answered the same. They were part of a world in which Christianity was the folk-religion even if it was not the heart-religion of most people. They believed that the purpose of life was to be a good person. This world no longer exists everywhere.


On the other hand, if you say to those in my kids’ generation, “You know you have to be good,” they will say, “Who’s to say what good is?” So what are we to do with these post-everything persons who are increasingly dominating our society? The traditional gospel presentations will not make much sense to many of them.
I think that a) if we have the humility to admit that we are not doing the job, but b) at the same time (in a non-triumphalistic way) advance the answers Reformed theology especially provides, then there is great hope for our church.


We must first give high priority to finding ways to minister in three areas: universities, big cities and ethnically diverse situations. University towns are incubators where we can learn how to address the ideas of the rising culture. The new world usually emerges in the big cities and if we learn to face it and engage it there, we will be able to do the same in the rest of the country. In short, we must go to the ‘leading edges’ of our society and learn how to preach, model, and sing the gospel in ways that both challenge and attract (rather than merely confusing) people.


People may respond, “Well I’m not in a university town or a big city. I’m in a suburban or rural community, so such persons are not my concern.” The fact is there are already many kinds of post everythings in your town. Because of technology, mobility, and myriad other influences, post-everything people are everywhere. We may not see them in our churches because we minister in ways that exclude post-everythings – they are either offended or confused immediately after walking in the door.
Further, we are not presently forced to think about the post-everythings because there are so many traditional people that our churches can still grow and, thus, we feel that we are doing a fine job. Still, we must go to the university towns, big cities, and the ethnically diverse places because there we will learn to understand and reach America’s future. The next thing we must do is use the Reformed resources that God has especially granted this church to minister to the emerging culture in the following ways:



First, remember that post-everything people like narrative and story. They tend not to like the older kind of preaching that simply enunciated doctrinal principles. Neither are they excited about the newer user-friendly sermons of seeker-churches on “How to Handle Fear,” “How to Balance Your Life,” etc. So, do we throw overboard everything we have done? Absolutely not. We turn to Geerhardus Vos who says that every single part of the Bible is really about Jesus. If you know how to do Christ-centered preaching, then you turn every single sermon into a kind of story. The plot of the human dilemma thickens, and the hero that comes to the rescue is Jesus. Christ-centered preaching converts doctrinal lectures or little how-to talks into true sermons. Post-everythings who are interested in narrative are reached by such preaching that is deeply Reformed.


Second, remember that post-everythings are experientially oriented. They do not just want intellectual propositions. For them life’s meaning is grounded in what they experience. Of course, as Reformed Christians we are very word-centered, and we know that eternal truth is not based on our subjective experience of it. But Reformed preachers have a tremendous resource for an experience-oriented generation in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards taught that a sermon should not only make truth clear, but also should make truth real. In Edwards we find ways to preach that are Reformed, committed to objective truth and, at the same time, deeply experiential.


Third, remember that post-everythings are very much against moralism and self-righteousness. But Reformed preachers have Martin Luther to help with this concern. Traditional gospel presentations assume that the people want to be “good.” But our kids’ generation wants to be “free.” Luther said, “Look, you want to be free? Good. It’s good to be free. But you’re not. You are living for something and, whatever that something is, it enslaves you.” If a person lives for reputation, then he is a slave to what people think. If a person lives for achievement, then he will be a workaholic. As did Luther, we should tell such people, “You want to be free? Fine. But you’re not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation.” When post-everythings rejected Christianity they thought moralism and Christianity were the same thing. But we can show post-everythings that the two are not the same, and that freedom really is in Jesus.


Fourth, take note of post-everythings’ concern for social justice. They innately sense that the church is not credible without care for mercy and justice. We can address these concerns with the wisdom of Hermann Ridderbos and other Reformed theologians who stress the coming of and the presence of the Kingdom. The Reformed understanding of salvation is not simply that God is rescuing individual souls out of the material world, but rather he is also redeeming all of creation. God is going to bring complete healing and shalom to the material world eventually. This makes Christianity (as C.S. Lewis says) “a fighting religion” against poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. We must bring this Kingdom message of Reformed theology to post-everythings.


Fifth, recognize that post-everythings love art because they love the material world. Abraham Kuyper’s understanding of Reformed theology enables us to say to post-everythings, “Christianity is not just a way for you as an individual to get peace, love and groovy vibes in Heaven. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. You can be a Christian artist, dancer, manager, or minister and these are all ways of living out the gospel.” When post-everythings hear that, they get extremely excited. They have never considered that Christianity embraces the whole of life.


Finally, remember that post-everythings are not strongly swayed by evidences and proofs. If you start to present evidence for the deity of Christ or the proofs of God, post-everything eyes will glaze over. But the
presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til can work with post-everythings. I think Reformed theology provides us with tools for our culture that Josh McDowell’s kind of evidential apologetics does not.
I see people who are desperately trying to reach the post-everythings who in their desperation are trying to throw out essential elements such as the substitutionary atonement, forensic justification, imputed righteousness, the Sovereignty of God, or the inerrancy of Scripture. Many of them are probably over-adapting to the post-everything situation. But while they do not have our theological resources, often we do not have their level of engagement with the people of the emerging society. To correct this, let us confess that we really have failure across all our parties to reach the coming society, and let us resolve to use the premier resources of Reformed theology.

If we can make these changes, then we may really start to see renewal and outreach, and we might actually be a resource for the broader body of Christ in this culture.

Tim Keller

Chick Fil A: Record sales!!

Chick fil a CEO Don Cathy came out recently and spoke openly about his view and support of Traditional Marriage. That is between one man and one woman. Mike Huckabee former presidential runner has voiced his support of the fast-food giant in light of some back-lash from some anti-Christian groups and other homosexual and lesbian supporters. Huckabee said quote "It's not about fried chicken; it's about free speech." 

One thing is sure: You can't buy media coverage like this! And my guess is, seeing all of the lines today at the Fast food giant around the country today, we will be seeing record sales and profits! The Chick fil A near my house took thirty minutes to drive threw the drive-threw. Whatever your view you take on the issue of same sex marriage people in this country will fight tooth and nail over free speech even if un-popular. Censorship will not be tolerated in this country! Some might label Chick Fil A as bigots and narrow minded and so on....But Chick Fil A franchises are most likely going to go from tens of thousands of dollars on a busy day today, to possibly millions of dollars over night. If you support free speech in this country go get yourself a chicken sandwich and enjoy supporting the first amendment. But if you don't like free speech, you don't have to eat there or live in the United States.       

The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels.

It is a dark, cold April night in the icy waters of the North Atlantic. The world’s largest luxury liner is on a voyage between the New York and England. Because it is thought to be ‘unsinkable’ (due to its watertight compartments) it is travailing at a speed in excess of 22 knots and is only carrying lifeboats for less than half its capacity of 3000 (as few as regulations would allow). It is a behemoth vessel, nearly as long as three football fields, end to end, weighing in at over 45,000 tons. Suddenly, terror sets in as the three giant props push it into an iceberg on the starboard side about 400 miles from Newfoundland. This fatal blow causes the ship to sink, killing the majority of the passengers and crew.
April 14th (Saturday) & 15th (Sunday) of 2012, mark the 100th anniversary of the awful collision (11:40 pm) of the Titanic in the North Atlantic and her subsequent sinking (2:20 am). Of the 2229 aboard, only 713 survived.¹

However, I probably tricked you slightly with the title of this article and the above picture of the HMS Titanic. In the above details I’m actually referring the Titan from a fiction novel written over a decade before the Titanic’s voyage, by Morgan Andrew Robertson, published in 1898. The similarities are uncanny, leading some to question whether Robertson was prescient. In fact, the design of the Titanic wasn’t even discussed until mid-1907.² This fiction book was called “Futility” or “The Wreck of the Titan” and followed the story of a person aboard a British luxury liner. Even the choice of names is eerily close.


But, one might also take another approach. What if I were skeptical about the story of the HMS Titanic? What if I told you that these stories were so similar that it is obvious that the story of the Titanic was copied (and therefore fabricated), based on the story of the Titan? In light of having direct, eye-witness testimony until recently, and some incredible submarine technology which has sent back video and photos of the wreckage on the ocean floor, you would call me crazy. But, what if we jump forward a couple thousand years in time, or push the events back in time a couple thousand years? In other words, we put some historical distance between the events and our investigation. Let’s say we only find some fragments of paper from one of Robertson’s books which can be dated to around 1898 from which we reconstruct the story of the Titan.

We have some other fragments of paper, maybe newspaper clippings, which date from 1912 from which we reconstruct some witness testimony of what happened at the Titanic scene? The situation seems a bit different now; this concept of copying takes on a bit more power.
This use of parallels to question historic events is the type of reasoning Christian apologists sometimes face concerning the life of Jesus. You might have come across people making the claim that other gods of the Mystery Cults, such as Horus or Mithras, were born of a virgin, on December 25th, died and were resurrected. Does this argument sound familiar?


The story of the Titan and Titanic isn’t really a good analogy, especially given the small historical time separation, however it does drive home an important point. Just because we have something earlier that appears to be a parallel DOES NOT indicate the latter was copied from the former! It doesn’t shed much light on an account being true or false either. Take another look at the Titanic story. Would anyone seriously claim it was just a legend or a copy-cat reenactment? Yet, it is seriously claimed by some, that the Biblical account of Jesus is just that.

In comparison to the Mystery Cult parallels brought against Christianity, the story of the Titan is a much closer parallel. Even so, taking a look at the flaws in my attempt at making the parallel above should help us think about the types of flaws we will find in the comparison of Jesus to the Mystery Cults.
First, the similarities are cherry-picked while the differences are ignored.

• For the Titanic, over 700 are rescued, while only 13 are rescued for the Titan.
• The Titan is 800 feet long, while the Titanic is 882 feet long, they differer in number of watertight compartments, lifeboats, weight, power, speed, etc.
• While both ships sank, exactly what they hit and how they sank varied. (The Titanic hit an iceberg, causing holes, the ship broke and sank; the Titan ran onto an ice-sheet which tipped it on its side, taking on water, it sank.)
• While the trip was in April for both, the Titan doesn’t list a date. It was also traveling in the opposite direction, though sank in roughly the same area.

Second, generalities are often used.

• I was purposely vague in how many survivors there were, saying the majority were killed.
• I was able to be a bit vague in the physical description of the ship to make them seem the same.
• By avoiding the details of exactly what happened, how the ships sank isn’t an issue.
• Picking the vague date of the month of April, and not listing the departure and destination keeps the discrepancy from being readily seen.

Third, due to the subject matter, some things will naturally match, but indicate no ‘genetic’ parallel.

• Wouldn’t a shipwreck at that time in history in the middle of the ocean generally have a minority of survivors? They didn’t have helicopters or as good of communication.
• The ships are actually fairly close in physical characteristics, yet if one were to conceive of a ‘biggest of some class’ one is likely going to be similar if at all being realistic, given the technology of the time period.
• If a ship hits some large object in the ocean, it will probably sink. It doesn’t have to be ice, but ice was a fear of the time (they simply thought these ships were going to be impervious to it). The routes where well enough established to be less afraid of rocks, which plagued previous generations of sea travel.
• These are two common destinations. Ships would take a similar path. In this time of year (spring), ice would be a big concern as it broke from ice shelves and flows.

Some of the bigger differences:

• The Titan was on the third voyage, while the Titanic was on the first.
• The Titan had 92 watertight doors, while the Titanic had only 12.
• The Titan was full, while the Titanic, fortunately, was not at capacity.
• The Titan hit the ice in foggy conditions, while the Titanic on a clear night with no moon.
• Traveling in opposite directions.
• Huge difference in number and percentage of passengers surviving.

All this considered, in the case of the Titan story and Titanic account, there is enough detailed similarity to make one a bit uneasy about simply writing the parallels completely  off. Yet, without some kind of prophecy or prescience, one will have to conclude the similarities are coincidence. We certainly know the Titanic story is true. With the Mystery Cults and Jesus, however, the parallels can, I believe, safely be written off.
Consider the idea that Mithras was a parallel to Jesus. First, we don’t even have any text concerning Mithras to give us details. What we know about Mithras comes from interpretation of wall murals. I guess they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but depending on who is looking at the picture and what presuppositions or intentions they bring, those thousand words might be quite different. Second the supposed similarities are huge stretches and everything else is ignored. For example, it is said that Mithras also had 12 disciples and was born of a virgin. The 12 disciples idea is drawn from the images where the zodiac signs surround Mithras. It is quite a stretch to link this with Jesus disciples. Mithras was born out of a rock. I suppose rocks are generally considered virgins!? Mithras was a saviour who sacrificed himself to save the world? Well, he slayed a dangerous bull, if that counts
Other things about Mithras are crude generalities or things we would simply expect to find when talking about a deity. For example, he is said to have celebrated a ‘Eucharist’ such as Jesus’ Last Supper (and consequent Communion or Eucharist of Christians). There is a bit of truth to this, as Mithras followers did celebrate a fellowship meal, however so did just about every religious group in this time and place. In other words, the assumption that Christianity is unique in the generalities of a fellowship meal is the mistake in thinking here. Or, take the concepts that Mithras was a great teacher or performed miracles. These are simply things we’d expect to find within just about any religion involving a deity. These kind of claims may be unique to Christianity in being true, but they aren’t unique claims of religions in general.
One could look at any of the other Mystery Cult figures and offer a similar analysis. This is only scratching the surface. If you do a bit more research, the absurdity of this kind of parallel claim will become even more obvious. Bruce Metzger, renowned New Testament scholar, gave the following advice when looking at supposed parallels.

“Some of the supposed parallels are the result of the modern scholar’s amalgamation of quite heterogeneous elements drawn from various sources.” “Even when the parallels are actual and not imaginary, their significance for purposes of comparison will depend upon whether they are genealogical and not merely analogical parallels.” “Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.”³

On Metzger’s last point, for example, consider that it is said Mithras followers celebrated on Sunday. While this may be true, it is true in Rome, from post-Christian times. In other words, it certainly looks like Mithras followers copied this from the Christians, not the other way around.
For more great information on these Mystery Cult claims and the problems with them, put forth in an easy-to-read, but well-researched manner, see Jim Wallace’s excellent set of articles at PleaseConvinceMe.com. On the left side, look for the pages on Mithras, Horus, and Osiris, as well as pages on the historical evidence for Jesus⁴
Also, while I have only looked in a cursory manner so far⁵, I have noticed similar assumptions and sometimes problems when considering the (quite popular) view in Old Testament studies about parallels between Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview and religious ideas, and the Book of Genesis. While there are certainly valid parallels present (with Genesis often acting as a polemic), they are often overdrawn and imposed to indicated a genetic link in the ‘development’ of Genesis and other texts of the Old Testament. We (and everyone else) need to be much more careful when we make such parallels.
Marilynne Robinson issues just such a warning with a modern day context when she speaks of scholars analyzing our culture from the distant future. She says, “They will ponder our holding great civic elections on Tuesday, and our expressing ritual gratitude for Friday, confident that Norse polytheism flourished among us.” <sup>6

This artical and the original author of this post is from http://www.tilledsoil.org/2012/04/15/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/</sup>

REPONSE: DARK NIGHT IN COLORADO SHOOTINGS

The True Knight Is Risen

I was a senior in high school a little less than one month from graduation during the 1999 Columbine shootings. Even far away from Colorado in my small South Dakota school, where the lockers don't even lock, we had a sense that everything would be different from here on. Indeed, metal detectors and lockdown drills have taken their place alongside reading, writing, and arithmetic in schools around the country. Few today question the necessity of these precautions as schools continue to top target lists for killers.

We don't yet know if or how last night's horrid theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado, will change our everyday lives. It's bad enough the murderous act has taken at least 12 lives so far, wounded 59 others, and scarred countless more who loved these men, women, and children who just wanted to see a blockbuster movie on opening night. The dark confines of a theater now seem like a murderously efficient place to conceal a weapon and spread deadly panic. A night at the movies may never be the same.
Before many even awoke to this tragic news from Aurora, reporters and pundits had already searched for blame beyond the alleged shooter, now in custody. What is his political party affiliation? What are his known beliefs? All of us who lived through Columbine and its aftermath well remember this hunt for explanations and scapegoats. Where were the parents? Who bullied the killers? Who is this Marilyn Manson character? Why are first-person shooter games so popular, and how are they affecting our kids' brains and behavior? More than a decade later, bullies still prowl school hallways, parents still struggle to understand teenage boys, and video games and musicians still celebrate violence. We learned a lot about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but we didn't learn anything new about humanity. Our track record, smeared in blood, speaks for itself.


Now is a time for mourning and comforting the victims. The hunt for blame will not bring the victims back to life. Not even interrogating the alleged killer, while good and necessary, will necessarily result in special insight about the human condition. As President Obama said this morning in Florida in response to the killings, "Even as we learn how this happened and who's responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this."
Why? And yet, we cry. What could possibly justify such murder? "Such violence, such evil is senseless," President Obama said. "It's beyond reason."
Indeed. We think if someone could only answer why---by finding fault with gun lobbyists, or theater security, or the Tea Party, or Batman---we might be able to snuff out the source of this violence. Then maybe we'd be safe. But right now, no one can promise you'll be okay tonight if you decide to see The Dark Knight Rises. One Aurora victim even escaped a shooting last month at a Toronto mall, only to die shortly after tweeting friends last night about her excitement for the movie to begin. This might be the scariest thought about this random killing spree, which follows many others in varied settings in countries around the world: Authorities will promise to do everything in their power to ensure our safety. But in the end, no one can guarantee our security.

Scary World

Our ancestors lived in a world like this. At any moment they might succumb to a disease no one yet understood. Or become collateral damage in a war they didn't start. Or suffer starvation when the skies withheld their rain. The patriarchs of the Old Testament lived in such a world. So did the apostles of the New Testament. So did Jesus.
Not even the Son of God escaped gruesome, torturous death. He lived in a world where religious leaders conspired with political tyrants to kill so-called enemies who made the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise, and the poor rejoice over good news (Matt. 11:5). He was not safe and secure in this world. In fact, he said, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8:20).


And yet this man, not even welcome in his hometown (Luke 4:24), could point to those same birds of the air and see reason to trust in our heavenly Father, who feeds them, "who neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn" (Luke 12:24). So when his season of sorrow approached, when one of his closest friends handed him over to evil men, he could say to his heavenly Father, "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42).
Jesus knew exactly who to blame for his impending execution. He stared into the faces of the chief priests and scribes who sought his death. He answered to Pilate, who signed his death sentence. And yet, when he looked out on these murderers from the excruciating elevation of the cross, he prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).


No cry of why will satisfy our search for a reasonable explanation to the horrors of this age. But the God-man who cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" comforts us in our grief (Matt. 27:46). Even more, his unjust death and ultimate triumph in resurrection is the very means by which we can begin even now to enjoy never-ending peace with the "Father of mercies and God of all comfort" (2 Cor. 1:3).
Jesus had no illusions about why the nations rage. They rage in their sin, against their God, going so far as to put God in human flesh to death. But such evil plots in vain, because the ascended Jesus promises to return in justice. He will hold his and the Aurora movie theater's murderers to account. And he will usher in the safety and security of the new heavens and new earth for all who believe in him.
"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

By Collin Hansen

"WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP"

With so many false "Jesus' out there which one is the real one and what are his authentic marks?


I want to tell you a story that happened to Ravi Zaharias.(for those of you that don’t know that name He’s a famous defender of the Christian Faith His ministry reach has expanded 7 continents ) . He tells this story in his book titled “Why Jesus” About going to a mall in Jakarta, So picture all these stores right next to each other. He walks into a jewelry store and the owner of the store sells “knock off brand watches” He told Ravi, “If you were wearing a rolex watch I would tell you to put in in your pocket because My fakes are so close to the real thing you won’t be able to tell the difference between mine and the real thing!” Then Ravi asked...”How are you even allowed to manufacture these?" Then the store owner became angry. He said.." my fakes are much better than the other store a few doors down. His are the fake, fakes! But mine are the best quality!" Then Ravi Zacharias said..."Let me get this straight... You believe that your fakes, are the best of the fakest of the fakes out there?”


This artical is by no means an exhaustive treatment on Christ but more a pragmatic and philosophical look into a little of Christ's nature!

You know, I think this is exactly the case here in the West with churches. Which if any, represents the Christianity as it really is? Which is the fake, and which ones real? And what are the Identifying marks of its authenticity? How have we allowed them to manufacture this message and pass it off as the real one? Seems like a lot of churches you walk into are all about smoke and mirrors. Some churches don't even read from the bible at all. One church that I heard of preaches sermons most Sundays, on popular Christian books instead of Scriptures.


Will the real Jesus please stand up!



In Revelation: 3 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.
“‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3  Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

Who will be able to save you from God?

To the Church of the Laodiceans

14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.
15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.I Would rather that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17  For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

19.Those whom I love, Look how lovely and awesome God/Jesus is here. To whom I love...After all that, He loves us! Amazing God! Those whom I love I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent
Jesus is responding to the Laodiceans. Most all scholars agree this is the universal church of lazy people selfish people.  

Jesus is reminding us that our Reputations and what people think of us are not going  to save us. (Why do we care about our reputations?)   He says to these people, That they are “wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 
 
John is recording this and He says Christ says, He’s going to come against The Laodiceans. Tough Talk and a Tough God!


Bobby Night was the NCAA coach of Indiana. I remember coach Night getting so mad that he threw a chair right into the middle of the court. Now let me ask you something... If you played for Bobby Night and You decided you were gonna give only about 30% of your ability how long do you think it would take before Coach night would tell  you about it? 3min? 5 Min? Imagine I gave coach night 30% of my ability... What’s he going do when the game was over? Is gonna Run up and give me a hug? Luther that 30% performance was just wonderful! No!

Listen! A Lot of people think Jesus is gonna just run up and give them a hug too! Can you imagine?? Luther that 30% effort you put forth during your life, Come give me a hug Luther. That’s my huggy God. My huggy Jesus, A lot of False gods out there. And the real Jesus isn’t one of them!!


IF YOU’RE GOING TO A CHURCH LIKE with this view of lazyness and sin STOP and LEAVE.


This artical is by no means an exhaustive treatment on Christ but more a pragmatic and philosophical look into a little of Christ's nature! 

RESPONSE TO " GAYS ARE BORN THAT WAY "

Homosexuals are born that way. Therefore it is natural and good.

by Matt Slick
One of the arguments offered by those in support of homosexuality, is that homosexuality is an orientation that people are born with and it has the same moral value as the hair color someone has at birth.  The implication is that since they are said to be born gay, then it is normal and morally acceptable.  The media seems to support this idea, and it is a common position held to justify the behavior.  But there are two problems with this position.


First of all, there are a plethora of studies with conflicting results and conclusions on both sides of the argument.  Nevertheless, we could quickly consider studies that deal with identical twins.  If genetics determines sexual orientation, then it should be manifested when studying twins who share the exact same genetic information.  However, that isn't the case.  Consider this...

"...If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins1 should have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)...there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample. Among MZ twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ twin 2 pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5 are even remotely significant17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures."3   [underline added]

In addition, genetic information that supports heterosexual attraction is more likely to be passed to offspring than would homosexual genetic information, since homosexual practice does not produce offspring.  It would seem, as the study states, that homosexuality is not genetically based.  Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation.


Born this way and morality
Second, if being born gay means that homosexuality is morally acceptable because it is natural to them, then it must also be morally acceptable for those who are born with a tendency to oppose homosexuality.  It would mean that "heteros" should not be urged to change their "orientation," nor should they be ridiculed for opposing homosexuality -- since they are born that way.  To be consistent, the homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural sexual orientation that they are born with.  After all, it would seem more likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not.  So, heterosexual orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as a normal behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be promoted in schools and the media.  And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being homophobic should be labeled as heterphobes.  Otherwise, the obvious double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its ugly head.


Another problem
Furthermore, to carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically based to its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to young boys should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation with its accompanying moral propriety.  Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not?  If so, why the double standard?  And, to step further into the abyss, what do we do with those who are born with the tendency to lie, covet, hate, and steal?  Shouldn't they all be morally acceptable as well, since that is how we are born?  If not, why not?

Conclusion

The problem with using genetics as an excuse to justify behavior is that whatever tendency we might be born with must be considered normal.  This includes lying, pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape.  But, such a logical inference will not be acceptable to the pro-homosexual community because selective statistics and discriminatory reasoning are offered to justify their behavior.

Luther Conigliaro:"Besides, when one says... "They were born that way! Christian response: Everyone was and is born into sin but you can be born again!"

READ THIS BEFORE YOU TRY AN ONLINE DATING SITE!

Step right up! Your perfect match is just a mouse click away! It seems that relationships now a days boil down to computer atha-rhythms. It seems that people are fed up to their impatient hearts with actually "choosing" to love someone. After all, love takes work! I mean, according to most of the online dating sites finding the perfect match should just really come down to a gazillion points of compatibility. Right? I mean who needs honest sacrifice, commitment, ...carrying someones burdens, and yes really, authentically, "choosing to love" rather then this pipe-dream of falling into it.


We have become such a consumer minded generation that we despise anything that takes well, Effort. It seems that the over-whelming majority of members on dating sites are shocked as soon as the relationship takes a turn and gets rocky. Many have reported on sites like match.com for example: That as soon as their online romance takes a argumentative turn, they question one another's honesty on the personal profile Q and A. It's as if their unrealistic expectations they have put into finding the super-mate wasn't the real cause of the let down. The demand for unrealistic expectations on any flawed human being is always bound to let anyone down.


Sad thing is most of these daters just throw in the towel and quit as soon as the real so-and-so shows their imperfections. The Kim Kardshian 9million dollar wedding and divorce seventy two days later is a prime example of one who believes "falling in love" is something that just "happens" to us. Rather, than "choosing" to love. The latter is a  road filled with self denial, and sacrifice and compromise. But, the rewards have a far better long-term pay off. The moment one chooses to believe and say No to the "what's in this for "me" centered relationship?... And yields to a much more noble.. "What's in this for us? This is the road less traveled. But much more rewarding, and realistic.    

Why Christians are Losing the War!

On average there are over 10,000 blog posts per day put out by Atheists and other Anti-theists. The blogs themselves are actually the atheists nucleus where they hub around. Many atheists  consider it a victory when they get even a single new subscriber to their blogs. Their mission is to rid the world of all religions. Their goal, is to remove and debunk Christianity in particular, in order to create an Atheistic Society filled full of people they consider "The Brights." Religion is something that we've all just out-grown." they say. Topics like "Sin" or Hell are considered by these anti-theists non-sensical power-grabs put forth by the religious theocrats.     

 

 

 

There is light at the end of the tunnel however for Christians: If they continue to blog, push biblical ideas, respond and answer the skeptics in a marathon race. they will win the "mind race" simply by waring down the competing worldviews by shear attrition. If it is true that the Holy Spirit lives within them, they will indeed out-number the competing worldviews and their blogs. The ideas put forth by Christian Apologists, Philosophers, and other defenders of the Faith in blog format, YouTube videos, bible studies, classes, events, personal evangelism one on one, debates and so on will really turn the tide. But Christians must be pro-active and vigilant with Blogging. At least one Blog post per day. If you can post more do it. We can accomplish much together.     

"Lying is done with words and also with silence.”

Adrienne Rich quotes

RESPONSE TO: IS LIVING TOGETHER BETTER THAN MARRIAGE?

Many young adults argue for cohabitation because they feel they should own a home and be financially secure before they marry. The assumption is that marriage is a financial drain. Another assumption is that when couples get married they will inevitably stifle one another's individuality and freedom. Terms like "Ball and chain" come to mind for many young couples.

But studies point to what has been called "The Surprising Economic Benefits of Marriage." A 1992 study of retirement data shows that individuals who were continuously married had 75% more wealth at retirement than those who never married or who divorced and did not remarry. Even more remarkably, married men have been shown to earn up to 40% more income than do single men with similar education and job histories. The stats have pretty much stayed the same if not have improved today.

But why would this be? Some of this is because married people experience greater physical and mental health. Also, marriage provides a profound "shock absorber" that help you navigate disappointments, illnesses, set-backs and other difficulties. You basically recover your equilibrium a lot faster. The increase in earnings and income probably also come from what scholars call "marital social norms" Studies show that spouses hold each other to greater levels of personal responsibility and self discipline than friends and other family members can. Other studies have shown that many single people spend money unwisely and very self indulgently with out anyone to hold them accountable. But married people make each other practice saving, investment, and delayed gratification. Nothing can mature character like marriage. The studies speak for themselves. Never underestimate the prospects for a good marriage. As for myself. If my wife is a ball and chain, I'm happy to be her slave!  

Footnote: Reason For Marriage Dr. Tim Keller

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH LESBIANS?

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH LESBIANS?

This seems to be a very interesting question due to the simple fact that if a person is a "Lesbian" they are not sexually attracted to men. Right? But, if it's true that these women are not sexually attracted to men, why go though so much trouble to dress like, style their hair,walk, talk, and act like... Well, Men?

According to Style
The Top 5 Lesbian Fashion & Style Icons were Ellen DeGeneres, Kate Moennig,
K.D. Lang, Kim Stolz, and Honey Labrador. The descriptions of how these women dress went from lesbian menswear (whatever that means) and "total tomboys at heart," to Original Butch Female Masculinity. Excuse me! It seems as though the gender/blender puree' button might be stuck. As much as I hate to break up the style and clothes worship of these ladies here. I am going too. Either words have meaning or they don't. "Masculinity" is not "Femininity" And, "Menswear" last time I checked is you guessed it... is"what men wear" To make matters even more confusing 47 year old K.D. Lang said... "I don't feel like a woman or a man. I feel like both..."

Perhaps there is one of the issues right there. There seems to be a lot of confusion on what the definition of words mean. Confusion on what consistent sexuality is. And gender sexuality identity disorder. Perhaps this will give us a clue into why it is that gays seem to be so confused when arguing that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, while in reality it's not a matter of "rights" at all but simply their desires. It's like the man who was busted for child pornography a while ago that said..."I have a "right" to view that!" IE: "I have a "desire" to view that." I'm sure that the founders of the Constitution knew the distinctions between "Rights" vs. Desires!