Weblog

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

  • Acts 17:6

    So, on Sunday, I was talking to a  one of the teenagers at my church. I had taught him in Sunday School when he was younger, and we have continued to talk. I mentioned  that Acts 17:6 was my favorite Bible verse and recited it for him. I was going to explain why, but it was like one minute before service was going to begin, so I told him I would send me a message through facebook, as to why it was my favorite verse. I thought I would share  with you, what I sent him.

    "When they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the authorities and shouted, 'these men who have turned the world upside down, have come here also" Acts 17:6

    So, what is it, about this verse, that makes it my favorite? I like this verse, because it shares a very important message. that the Gospel changes things, it change people, it sweeps through an area and nothing is left the same.

    Think about Jesus speaking to the woman at the well. She had been with 5 different guys, she comes to do a usual household chore of getting water, meets Jesus, and runs into town and brings a bunch of people with her to meet Jesus. You have the ten lepers that were healed of leprosy, You have Lazarous who was brought back to life, you have lame people who can walk, deaf that can hear. In modern times, I had a mission partner who was raised in an abusive home, where hardly a week or a couple of days would go by, without her father beating her and her mother. she gets invited to church, accepts Jesus, goes home, leads her mother to Christ, and they both pack up bags and leave and never look back. When Jesus comes into a life, things change.

    For the Jew and the Greeks in NT times, these christians would come into an area, and preach that sacrifices were not needed, that worship was not tied to jerusalem, that there was forgivness of sins, that jews were no longer the chosen people, and that greeks and romans and women, could all receive forgivness and go to Heaven. It was like the whole world for these people had been turned upside down. this made some people happy, and it greatly upset others.

    That is why I like this verse. it shows that we are not left in the same state that God finds us in.


    Do you have a verse that you like? would you like to share why it is your favorite verse?

Friday, 09 March 2012

  • Privacy

    So I was scanning this magazine, and I passed this advice column. A 16 was complaining that his mother would search his cell phone and read his text messages. He was hoping the advice lady would set the mom straight. She didn't she agreed with the mom.

    But it go me to thinking. Do children (anyone under the age of 18) have the right to privacy, is someone else is footing the bill?  Also, if they are working a part time job after school, and paying the cell or internet bill themselves, should they be allowed any extra privacy because they are footing the bill?

Friday, 17 February 2012

  • Rabbit Theology

    When I was younger, I was in 4-H, and I raised rabbits. A rabbitry, is a business that raises and sells rabbits, they are often named, and the rabbits of the rabbitry, are named following the theme. For instance, I bought my starter rabbits from the Spice Rack Rabbitry. All of the rabbits, were named after spices. My first rabbits were Cajun, Cumin, and Sugar. The breed that I raised, were called Mini Rex, So, since Rex is latin for king, I named mine the Parvus Rex Rabbitry. or in english, Little King. All of my rabbits were named after Kings and Queens.  I had among them King Arthur, Catherine The Great, and Lady Guenevere.  Now genetics, is a funny thing, King Arthur, was the result of a mating between Cajun, and a rabbit I had bought from another place, who named her rabbits after mountains. The one I bought was Kilimanjaro, which if you are unfamiliar with geography, it is the highest mountain in Africa.

    Now, Mini Rex, as a breed, are recognized by the American Rabbit Breeders Association, as a seperate breed, but they aren't genetically. They are actually the result of taking small rabbits from the breed known as Rex, and mating them, and taking the smallest rabbits from that mating, and so on and so forth, until you have a line of rabbits, stretching back over generations that are small. So the Mini Rex that I owned, were genetically small Rexs. If I was not careful, I could actually breed back up the line, and end up with Rex, and not Mini Rex. I almost did not mate Kilimanjaro with Cajun, because Cajun was 6lbs, when she should only at the time weighed no more than 4.5lbs. But Kilimanjaro, was an awarding winning buck, and was twards the small side, Cajun was a good doe, and was on the big end, so I hedged my bets and hoped for small award winning rabbits of decent size. Now Cajun was black, and Kilimanjaro was a ruby eyed white. So genetically, the babies had a chance of being black, white, and whatever else was back in the line. The babies that resulted, were 6 in number, 3 white, and 3 patterned, not a single black bunny in the bunch.

    Now, what does this have to do with theology? Stay with me, because I am going to take a small detour, and actually talk about dogs for a minute. A lot has been in the news, about certain types of dogs being mean, such as the mastiff that bit the reporter, causing something like 75 stitches if I remember.  Pit bulls also bear a certain bad rep. But do you remember how Mini Rex were created?  If you take a dog that was born mean, as opposed to an abused dog that became mean due to abuse, and breed it with a similar mean dog, then just like some of my baby rabbits were white like daddy, some of the puppies are going to be mean like their parents. If you continue to breed mean dogs, then you will continue and get a line of dogs that will literally bite the hand that feeds them.

    When we were born, we inherited a trait of sin from our father Adam. Adam and Eve sinned, and passed on a fallen nature to their kids. Just like a mean pit bull will have mean puppies, or a white rabbit will have white bunnies, we got a sinful nature from our parents. The Bible in Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  So we have all sinned. We need to get rid of that sin. Now God had laid out, that sin requires death. the only way to stop an inherited trait, is to end the life of the carriers. If I wanted no white rabbits, I would only have to breed non white rabbits, and the descendants of those, who were not white, and I would end up with a line of rabbits who genetically would have a very slim chance of being white. If God killed everyone who had a sinful nature, and bred those who did not, then He would have a line of perfect people. The only problem, was that He did not have any perfect humans. So He sent His son, to pay the penalty for us, so that we could live.

    Now, this is where my pet analogy falls short. Because we can't change genes. If I breed only nice  pit bulls, there is still a chance, if one of his forefathers was mean,  that I could wind up with a mean pit. But God is not me, aren't you glad? God, in 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that if we are in Christ, we are a new creature, the old has passed, behold all things are new.  God did not have to breed out a sinful nature, He just simply changed us into something new, He took out the old defective nature, and put in the righteousness of Christ.  He made us a new creature, one that is not a slave to sin, but is set free from sin, and capable of doing the righteousness and goodness that God has planned for us.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

  • Who's The Boss?

    Matthew 4:8-10 "8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,“‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”(ESV)

    What do you think those verses teach? What was Satan offering Jesus, and did Satan have a right to offer it?

    Two people showed up at the door, a month or so ago, and they asked me who I thought ruled the world. They used the above verses to say that Satan ruled earth. I disagree, I think Jesus is in charge, and the rest of this blog entry, will set out to show why. it will not address the question, of why there is evil in the world if God is in charge. I simply do not have room in this entry to discuss both issues. I will answer that question in a future entry.

    To answer the question, about who is in charge, we need to look at the characters involved. What does the Bible say about Jesus? What does the Bible say about Satan?

    John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

    Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."(ESV)

    So, here in these verses, we have Satan referred to as "liar" "Father of lies" and  "deceiver" These are not exactly, the terms used to refer to someone of good character. If Satan lies, how do we know, that he had control, of those kingdoms he was offering to Jesus? We only have his word for it, and he lies, and deceives.

    How does the Bible refer to Jesus?

    Revelation 19:11:16 "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in[d] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

    Now, it is important, to notice here, that Jesus, is refered to as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords BEFORE the final battle with gog and magog in Revelation 20. before Satan is bound and thrown into the bottomless pit, Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Satan at the most is referred to as the prince of the power of the air (see Eph 2:2)  If Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords before He defeats Satan, what does that say about Satan?

    If God can put into motion, a plan that has Jesus slain from the foundation of the world, a plan that involves dozens of prophecies documenting birth location, and everything, and they all happen exactly as foretold including birth by a virgin, How can there be anyone, remotely in charge of the Earth, except for the one who can do all that?

    If Satan is in charge of the Earth, How can God lay out a plan covering thousands of years, a plan that documents genealogy, birth location, death, rejection, betrayal, and a pregnant virgin, and have them all happen, exactly as foretold, and it all happen under the nose of the person, that would be defeated by such a plan?

    Satan never stood a chance, he was defeated from the very dawn of time, and had no power except that which was given to him by God, particularly scene in the story of Job, where Satan had to follow exact rules set out by God.  The war is over, all we have to do, is  go out and tell others, who won, and reconcile those in the enemy camp back to God, We have been given a ministry of reconciliation and need to do it (2 Corinthians 5:18-22)

    So the next time you think Satan is in charge, remind yourself that we serve a risen King.

    What do you think? who do you think rules over the Earth?

Monday, 05 December 2011

  • Mitt Romney part 2

    This is the rest of my post on Mitt Romney. Remember my comments are the words in red after each statement.  is there a candidate that you wish me to do next?

    Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill

    The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said.

    Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994

     

    Unless the Constitution has been changed, there is no constitutional waiting period on handguns. Something Mr. Romney has evidently forgotten.

     

    FactCheck: Romney plan virtually identical to Obama plan

    Romney tried to distance his state's universal health insurance plan from the proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates. Romney said, "Every Democrat up there's talking about a form of socialized medicine, government takeover, massive tax increase. I'm the guy who actually tackled this issue. We get all of our citizens insured. We get people that were uninsured with private health insurance. We have to stand up and say the market works. Personal responsibility works."

    There are two problems with Romney's characterization: One, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate to propose a single-payer, wholly government-funded health care plan. And two, Romney's Massachusetts universal insurance system bears a striking resemblance to the health care proposals of the Democratic front-runners. For example, the Obama and Romney plans are virtually identical. But in our view, the term "government takeover" could only be applied to Rep. Kucinich's proposal.

    Source: FactCheck on 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

     

    I don’t believe that government should be involved in healthcare. If you are truly poor and cannot afford to go to the doctor’s or for your prescriptions there are a number of private businesses and churches who are willing to help you.

     

     

     FBI wiretaps and spying on immigrants OK

    On the War on Terror: In September 2005, he suggested that the FBI wiretap mosques and spy on new Muslim immigrants.

    Source: CivilLiberty.about.com profile of Romney Dec 1, 2006

     

    Only if we have a warrant and proof that the people we are wiretapping have done something worthy of wiretapping.

     

    Eligible for draft in 1969; regrets not having served

    Mitt Romney didn't go to Vietnam. I asked him about this. "I respect enormously the people who do serve our country," he began. "There are only two things that Ann and I both agree that we regret. One is not having served in the military, and the other is not having had more kids."

    "In my life at that time I didn't get drafted," he continued. "I was eligible for the draft. I would have served in the military if drafted, but I wasn't drafted. My course was a different course, and perhaps because of the fact that I did not serve in the military I have a strong sense of a desire to serve in the public sector today.

    "There is no question," Romney concluded. "Those that served we owe a great debt of gratitude to." Romney had a combination of deferments--a religious deferment covered his 2-1/2 years of missionary work in France, and then college deferment applied. Then most deferments were sacked in favor of a lottery, which in 1969 awarded Romney's March 12 birthday the number 300.

    Source: A Mormon in the White House, by Hugh Hewitt, p.198-199 Mar 12, 2007

     

     

    I am including this simply for informational purposes. He does regret not having served and that is a plus. But I wonder about the timing of his regret.




Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Sunday, 27 November 2011

  • Mitt Romney Part 1

    4 years ago, when the Republican Party was nominating candidates I did a series of posts on the various people running for nomination. I only covered the issues I disagreed with the candidate on, to cover each issue on each person running would result in a dictionary. This is an edited repost of the first post that covered Mitt Romney, part 2 of Mitt Romney will be posted later.

    T I have taken my information as usual from www.ontheissues.org   My comments will be after each position and will be in red. Feel free to comment, just keep it civil.

    Personally pro-life, but government should not intrude

    Q: In recent months, you've said you were "always for life," but we've also heard you say you were once "effectively pro-choice." Which is it?

    I've always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I'd protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position.

    Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

     

    I disagree with Mr Romney on this issue because in a matter of life and death I believ either the federal or the state government has the right, duty, and obligation to step in and say no this wrong it will not continue.

     

    Endorsed legalization of RU-486

    • Favored basic Roe v. Wade abortion rights, though would not endorse a specific version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify those court-established rights as federal law
    • Said he would leave the matter of Medicaid funding for abortion to individual states
    • Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug.

    Source: Boston Globe review of 1994 canpaign issues Mar 21, 2002

     

    I disagree on this one because it kills a human life and therefore is just as wrong as abortion.

     

    For safe, legal abortion since relative's death from illegal

    Romney disclosed that he became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion. The disclosure came after Romney, who said he is personally opposed to abortion, was asked to reconcile his beliefs with his political support for abortion rights. "It is since that time that my family will not force our beliefs on that matter," He said the abortion made him see "that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal."

    Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Oct 26, 1994

     

    I don’t want safe and legal, I want no abortion.

     Sexual orientation should not preclude being a Scout

    I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.

    Source: Peter Gosselin in Boston Globe Oct 27, 1994

     

    The Boy Scouts are a private organization and should not be forced  to accept anyone they don’t want to.

     

    Help women thru glass ceiling by requiring annual reporting

    Women are concerned about the glass ceiling. My entire life has been one of working with women and helping women thru the glass ceiling. Public companies and federal agencies should be required in their annual report the number of women & minorities by income category, so we can identify where the glass ceiling is, and we can break through it. The marketplace will say "that company has not promoted women and minorities" and will put pressure on American corporations and agencies to respond.

    Source: MA Senate Debate with Ted Kennedy Oct 1, 1994

     

    Private companies should be allowed to pay whatever they want, If the employee does not like the salary. Then the employee should find another job.

     

    Balanced budget amendment and line-item veto

    • Opposed tax increases and new payroll taxes
    • Supported balanced budget amendment and line-item veto
    • Suggested savings could be made through cutbacks in the federal work force, reforms in the Medicaid system, and cuts in farm subsidies.

    Source: Boston Globe review of 1994 canpaign issues Mar 21, 2002

     

    This is only on here because I object to the line item veto. I object to the line item veto, only because the Constitution mentions a whole veto. There is no line item veto, mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, if an amendment was passed that allowed for it, I would not be 100% opposed to it.

     


Friday, 14 October 2011

  • Hanging out with sin

    Various people, at  various times have told me that God cannot be around sin. That God cannot let sin into Heaven, that God is so perfect, sin cannot be in His presence. You may have heard similiar things. but is it true?

    Do we need to accept Jesus, because God cannot be around sin? Because sin cannot get into Heaven?

    Job 1: 6 & 7 (ESV) "6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

    Now, please note, where this takes place. It takes place before the Lord. Where, before the Lord? Satan is asked by God, from where have you come? Satan replies FROM  going to and fro on the Earth,

    That would sound like to me, that if Satan came from walking to and fro on the Earth, that the scene now taking place is not on the Earth. But regardless of that, we still have Satan in God's presence. If God cannot be around sin, than Why is Satan in God's presence? Can you think of anyone more sinful than Satan himself? Satan is refered to as a dragon, the father of lies, the deceiver of the brethren, these are not nice polite phrases.

    Furthermore, the same people that tell you, that God cannot be around sin, will also tell you that God is omnipresent. omni = all and present means exactly that present. so omnipresent is all present, meaning God is everywhere. Note that this does not mean that God is in everything, or that everything is God,  but that God is everywhere.

    So if God is omnipresent, how can God both be everywhere, and not around sin if all have sinned? That is an act I would love to see.

    So, if it is not because God cannot be around sin, why do we need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior to enter into Heaven?

    Because Heaven is perfect, and sin destroys. God originally created everything and called it good. Sin enter into the creation through Adam and Eve listening to Satan, and corrupted the good of creation. After the sin and God kicked them out of the garden, God tells them that they will have to work for their food, they will have to plan and sow and reap and harvest and deal with the thorns and thistles of the ground. Sin corrupted that creation, and brought pain and work and strife to the life of Adam and Eve. But God was not content to let them remain that way. Even when God is lecturing them on the consequences of sin, God tells the Satan, that  someone will come and bruise his head.  That someone is coming to redeem  the creation and make it God.  God wants the best for His people, the best is not a life of sin and the pain and strife that comes with it. But the only way to get that perfect life that God wants for us, is for us to repent from sin and to turn to God and trust in Him and ask Christ to be the Lord of our life. Salvation is simpl not repenting from sin, it is repenting from sin and turning TO God.  When we focus on sin and tell people that they cannot enter into Heaven because they have sinned, we are only telling half the story, they have to surrender to God and to the teachings of Christ. They won't be perfect this side of Heaven, but when we get to Heaven, and we do become perfect, we will not want to turn back to our old life, we will not want to sin, because we can see how sin corrupted our life and made it a living hell so to speak.We can see our old life, and we can see our new life in Christ, and how it is so much better.

    God wants us to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, so that we turn from that life of pain and strife, and lead the life that God wanted originally for his creation.

    What o you think? Can God be around sin? Why do you think God wants us to accept Christ as Lord and Savior of our life?

Monday, 26 September 2011

  • Time limit on manners?

    I have mentioned before on here, that I am a Sunday school teacher for kids at my church. Throughtout my time I have taught kids from grades 1-6. As the number of kids grew, I went from grades 1-6 to grades 4-6 as we split the group due to the sheer size. We then split the group again, and i went from teaching grades 4-6 to teaching grades 4-6 but only boys. This put an end to a certain amount of behavior issues between the boys and the girls.

    But even though I no longer teach the girls on Sunday morning, I still talk to my old students and other kids on Thursday, when I do recreation and games for our weekly Childrens ministry.

    On Sunday morning,  the kids in grades 1-3 have "Childrens church" During service, while the kids in grades 4-6 go in with the adults. In September when we moved all the kids up in grades, there were 2 girls that moved from grades 3 to grades 4 and now found them selves sitting through service. I used to offer church pages for the kids to fill out by listening for various things in the sermon, that answered questions or statements on the pages. I offered this for months with some of the kids and they got tired and asked me to stop. So I asked the 2 "new" 4th grade kids if they wanted to fill them out during church. They said sure they would give it a shot, and so I told them that I would bring the pages next Sunday. Well that was yesterday, and I completely forgot. So after the service, I walked up to the 4th graders, and apoligized for forgetting them, and promised them that I would for sure have them next week.

    Both of them were not shocked. Not that I had forgotten, but because I apologized to them. Both of them could not really remember the last time that an adult took the time to apoligize to them for something the adult did wrong. This is not the first time that I have encountered kids who have said this.

    When did adults, get this idea, that because they were adults the rules of politeness no longer applied?  I know a kid, who was raised by his parents, not to cuss or swear or use "those" words, but when the kid was past 18, something happened, to the kid, where some people might have used a swear word. The father asked the kid why he didn't and the kid said because he does not swear, and the father looked at this kid, and said "yes, but you are over 18, you are allowed to."

    Does foul language, suddenly become clean, because the person saying this is a certain age? Do apologies to children, become unnecessary because the person, who wronged the kid is a parent or of a certain age?

    We tell kids they have to be 18 in order to vote,  or sign legal documents, they have to be 21, to drink, have we because of these rules and limits imposed on kids from birth, have we somehow gotten to the point where adulthood has made kids think that rules or manners no longer apply because of some set age limit they have reached? Are some kids not adults, convinced that because they reached the "adult milestone" they now get to do whatever they want? 

    I watched one of those half hour judge shows awhile back, and there was a case, where this lady defamed this guy all over facebook, and he sued her, and her defense was "I have a 1st amendment right to say whatever I want" no remorse, no nothing. She was convinced that she had a right to say whatever she wanted no matter who it hurt, because of "free speech"

    Why do we spend so much time telling kids what is right, and they need to apoligize, and they need to say nice things to people and not hurt feelings. If we as parents or adults do not emulate the same things in our life?

Contact Info

  • Yahoo: ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake

ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake

  • Visit ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake's Xanga Site
    • Name: ProudToBeAChristianFruitc
    • Birthday: 9/19/1981
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 3/12/2005
    • True

Pulse

About Me

  • The name for this site was taken from a conversation where someone told me that all christians were crazy and were fruitcakes. I figured if he is correct then I am proud to be a christian fruitcake.