Archive for January 25, 2012


“He…was strengthened in faith.”                                      Ro 4:20 NKJV

Have you read the story of Isaac blessing his two sons when he was old, almost blind, and nearing death (See Ge 27)? When Jacob, the younger son, wanted his older brother Esau’s part of the family inheritance, which was twice as much, his mother Rebekah helped him steal it. Here’s how she did it. Esau was hairy and Jacob had smooth skin. So Rebekah wrapped Jacob’s arms and neck in goat hair and gave him some of Esau’s clothes to wear. When Jacob went in to his aging father pretending to be Esau, his father asked him to come near so that he could feel him. His father told him that he sounded like Jacob but he felt like Esau, so he decided to trust what he felt over what he heard. As a result, he gave the birthright that was destined for his firstborn, Esau, to his second-born son, Jacob. Bottom line: he was deceived by what he felt. Now we know God was at work in all this. But the point here is, you can’t always trust your feelings because they don’t always line up with God’s Word and they can deceive you. You say, “I got my feelings hurt so I haven’t spoken to my family in over a year.” Get over it! Learn to forgive. Refuse to remain offended. Practice love. If you let feelings rule your life they will mess you up. Feelings are like spoiled children: the more you indulge them the more they will control you. You shouldn’t suppress your feelings or deny them, but you must not be led by them.

http://theencouragingword.wordpress.com/

 


Dependent Freedom

There will always be danger from one or the other of these two extremes, slavish dependence or arrogant independence. Some Christians (by far the majority) will accept a place of timid conformity and surrender themselves to the bondage of authority and custom. In all things religious they will become meek followers of popular trends within their own circle. Such as these have no vision of their own, no true convictions, no inward freedom. They are slaves of the religious machine; they know nothing of the liberty with which Christ has made us free. The other extreme is found here and there among us, and while it never has as many followers as the cult of bondage, it is nevertheless quite well represented in orthodox circles. Its followers glorify freedom to a point where they deny their proper debt to fellow Christians and scorn the interdependence of the body. They are often contemptuous of spiritual authority, and they deny the right of Spirit-gifted men to exercise their gifts within the church. This breeds a kind of religious anarchy that is altogether unscriptural and, as might be expected, extremely injurious to the cause of true spirituality. Both extremes must be avoided. We must live in the paradox of happy dependent freedom.

http://www.cmalliance.org/devotions/tozer?id=439


Let God Be Enough · Max Lucado#When:06:00:59Z#When:06:00:59Z.

Worth The Effort?

Posted: January 25, 2012 in Our Daily Bread

Worth The Effort?.

Leave+Room+For+God

Posted: January 25, 2012 in Oswald Chambers

Leave+Room+For+God.


The Daily Spurgeon: Those who appreciate Him.


Did you hear what happened to Aryeh Ralbag, chief rabbi of Amsterdam? He was suspended from his post by his own Orthodox Jewish community “for cosigning a declaration which said homosexuality was a ‘treatable’ inclination.” Oh the crime!

The declaration, signed to date by 185 rabbis, community leaders, and mental health professionals, states that, “The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct.” It also claims that, “Same-sex attractions can be modified and healed,” that “Behaviors are changeable,” that there is a “process of healing,” and that there is a Jewish commandment of “love and compassion.”

The end of the statement reads, “We need to do everything in our power to lovingly uplift struggling individuals towards a full and healthy life that is filled with love, joy and the wisdom of the Torah.”

Yet for signing this very kosher, Orthodox Jewish statement, the Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam suspended their chief rabbi.

They were concerned that, “Rabbi Ralbag’s signature may give the impression the Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam shares his view. This is absolutely untrue. Homosexuals are welcome at the Amsterdam Jewish community.” (Presumably this includes sexually active, out and proud, “Orthodox gays.”)

Rabbi Ralbag told The Jerusalem Post he found it “scandalous that a chief rabbi cannot state the Torah viewpoint for his community without being penalized.” And he described his suspension as “intolerant on the part of the Jewish community – it is to deny the community’s rabbi the right to express the halachic [Jewish legal] standpoint. This is unheard of.”

Apparently he was not aware that freedoms of religion and speech are frequently trumped by gay rights and perceived gay sensitivities, even in (or, especially in?) a “tolerant” country like the Netherlands. He has now learned that when it comes to gay issues, “tolerance” is a one-way street, and rather than being “unheard of,” such discriminatory acts are becoming more common, not to mention more egregious.

Out of the scores of examples that could be cited (including two concerning my friend and colleague, Dr. Frank Turek, well-known to Townhall readers), here are just three from 2010 and 2011.

On September 27, 2011, the Culturewatch website cited a report from the UK that, “Jamie Murray was warned by two police officers to stop playing DVDs of the New Testament in his cafe following a complaint from a customer that it was inciting hatred against homosexuals. Mr Murray, 31, was left shocked after he was questioned for nearly an hour by the officers, who arrived unannounced at the premises. He said he had turned off the Bible DVD after an ‘aggressive inquisition’ during which he thought he was going to be arrested and ‘frog-marched out of the cafe like a criminal’.” (Yes, you got that right: Murray was interrogated by police for playing Bible DVD’s in his own Christian café.)

Here in the States, Dr. Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, was fired in 2010 “after a student complained that he was ‘offended’ by Howell’s academic discussion of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior in an Introduction to Catholicism course. The student was not even enrolled in the class.

So, a Catholic professor teaching a course on Catholicism (within the school’s Religion department, at that) was fired for accurately conveying to the students what Catholics believe about homosexuality. (In Howell’s own words, written in an email to the students, “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would.”)

It was only after a national outcry, along with pressure from attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, that Howell was reinstated.

More recently, Vicki Knox, a special education teacher at Union High School in New Jersey with 20 years of experience, was suspended because of anti-homosexuality comments she posted on her personal Facebook page. She was upset because a display board was put up in her school celebrating Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender History Month, expressed her disapproval on her Facebook page, along with her abhorrence of homosexuality. (She also expressed her strong Christian faith.)

Whether you agree with the tenor of her comments or not, she certainly had the legal right to express herself. Yet she has been suspended and there are ongoing attempts to get her fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

As expressed by John Paragano, a former local government official and municipal judge, “Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated. She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it.” Really?

So, it is fine for a school to publicly celebrate homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism – no matter how many students or teachers are offended – but when a teacher expresses her personal disagreement, she is in danger of losing her job.

That’s why I’ve been urging my fellow religious leaders, along with all those in roles of moral and educational influence, to “speak now or forever hold your peace,” and to do so today. Tomorrow might be too late.

Michael Brown

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.


This week marked the 39th anniversary of the greatest American moral tragedy of the 20th century: Roe v. Wade. And yet the left cheered this anniversary with the enthusiasm of an intoxicated teenager stumbling on a free copy of Penthouse. Planned Parenthood, which rakes in millions each year by performing abortions, asked via Twitter, “How has #Roe changed your life?”

The sample answers were horrifically fascinating. “Because of Roe, I have grown up knowing that my girlfriends won’t die from back-alley abortions,” one young man wrote. The young man might as well have written, “Because of Roe, I don’t have to use condoms.” It’s certainly easier to sleep after a night of unprotected sex knowing that the girl you just impregnated can always have her uterus scraped. One young woman wrote, “Because of Roe, I get to go to college, instead of bearing a child who wouldn’t.” And, as we all know, a child who won’t go to college isn’t worthy of life. The true value of human life can only be justified by attending a Modern Dance in Lesbian Thought course taught by an otherwise unemployable 45-year-old harpy.

Most of the posts, though, were not quite as foolish. Most employed the hackneyed expressions of the abortion crowd.

They spoke about women’s choice — a powerful euphemism never deployed when discussing a woman’s choice to refrain from having sex. When it comes to the choice to have sex, women are simply slaves to passion; when it comes to killing the unborn, then they suddenly have the ability to exercise choice.

They spoke about women’s health — another euphemism implying that pregnancy is a disease of some sort, a cancer eating away at the mother’s vitals. (President Obama himself used this analogy.) Women rarely have therapeutic abortions — they almost always have abortions because they simply don’t want the responsibility of bringing up a child, and they don’t want the guilt of having to give up a child to adoption.

They spoke about the right to control their body — but neglected to mention the living, breathing being inside it. Until that being was there, pro-lifers were perfectly happy to leave these women and their uteruses to their own devices. Nobody was clamoring to examine these women’s reproductive organs until they decided to begin sucking the living contents into a waste can.

The great moral evil that is abortion-on-demand — and it is a moral evil — has been papered over in the public mind by euphemisms. That’s why it’s considered impolitic to show actual photographs of abortion — we mustn’t offend the sensibilities of those who think of it as a clean, quick “termination.” No more biologically involved than a polyp removal. That’s why pro-lifers are derided as benighted apes when they have the temerity to call fetuses babies — we should never remind mothers that they themselves call the being in their wombs babies. No mother I have ever met — or have ever heard of — has ever referred to her child as either a fetus or an embryo, except by conscious militant choice.

The euphemistic thinking of liberals on the abortion issue ends in logic so twisted it should be sold by Wetzels.

Liberals scream “right to privacy,” but seem to throw that euphemism out the window when they demand that taxpayers pay for their birth control (Obama announced this week that we’d all been drafted into the War on Unprotected Sex) and abortion (Planned Parenthood is government-funded), and sanctify any sexual relationship they choose to engage in that day.

Liberals suggest that they aren’t pro-abortion — they just want it to be “safe, legal and rare.” If they want it to be safe and legal, they clearly don’t want it to be rare, and the numbers show it: nearly 55 million abortions since Roe. If liberals hadn’t been quite so concerned about keeping abortion safe and legal, they’d have an entire generation of youngsters ready to support their enormous entitlement state. Instead, they have millions of morally-scarred young women justifying the mass murder of the unborn.

The real liberal argument for abortion is simple and requires no euphemism. It states that babies are not babies until some unspecified time when they become babies — and until that time, they are entirely disposable.

The only problem with the argument is that it requires that we ignore both science (a fetus’ heart begins to beat within three and a half weeks of embryonic fertilization) and basic human decency in favor of a callous selfishness that sears our collective soul.

The left’s Orwellian recasting of abortion as an issue about “freedom” is only its latest attempt to defend the indefensible. And it has worked. Clarity of language is important. Those who defend life must not be afraid to use the language of truth — and life — to fight the emanations and penumbras of ethical falsehood.

Ben Shapiro, 28, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the four-time bestselling author of “Primetime Propaganda.” To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ben Shapiro’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.