This is just too funny and completely disturbing not to post:
Congresswoman Jane Harman made pseudo headlines when Congressional Quarterly revealed that she had been caught on a wiretap agreeing to help two Israeli lobbyists accused of spying. In exchange, wealthy Democratic donator Haim Saban agreed to pressure Nancy Pelosi to make Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which deals with spying.
Harman also pressured The New York Times to kill a story on wiretaps, which she supported alongside former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
All efforts ended up failing, and created merely a headache for Harman. And also for people trying to follow all the wheeling and dealing.
I don't know which is worse, that there are Israeli lobbyist spies in the US or the corrupt Congress that hides their wrongdoings. California, corrupt and completely evil...No Way!
Update: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government today said it would drop charges in an espionage case against two pro-Israel lobbyists because it was unlikely to win at trial and classified information would have to be disclosed. Imagine that. Your government not at work. tinyurl.com/dj3kvh
Christianity just jumped the shark in the US. The Judgment for this nation is now upon us. May God be merciful. We must never ever allow a Muslim to be president again.
Two days ago I received a press release that ICR will be suing Texas.
The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS), a California-based science education institution established in 1981, has filed suit in both federal and Texas state courts against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), its commissioner, and some of its board members, for interfering with the constitutional rights of ICRGS in its application to move the school to Texas.
In fall 2007, the THECB Site Evaluation Team and Advisory Committee recommended approval of the ICRGS application to grant degrees in the state of Texas. However, both agency recommendations were subsequently rejected by Commissioner Paredes after evolution-only activists pressured the commissioner to deny ICRGS a degree-granting license in the state.
I remember reading about when God's mighty victory was provided in the similar case against California Department of Education. At the time the ACLU was labeling ICR as Public Enemy #1, but with God's help they won three lawsuits: In administrative court, in state court, and in federal court.
It is understandable that the cheerleaders of Evolution only, believers in metaphysical naturalism, are afraid of the truth. And as it was said in one of my past posts:
Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?
I can understand how frightened they will be, if people find out the truth. God existing would be very bad business for the secular scientists that believe in Neo-Darwinism. With blinders on, they trek on from that past theory. How absurd for us to think that Scientists should be looking at evidence instead of philosophical positions.
"Our Dawkins, who art in England; Richard be thy name. Thy book-sales come, thy talks be fun; on television and the radio. Give us this day our daily blog, on Pharyngula and Raytractors; as we ridicule those who post comments against us.
When considering statements about things that are said to have happened, contradiction is a simple logical test for truth. Say you strike up a conversation with a man you meet at the coffee shop and he says, “I was in Chicago yesterday at noon.” But then a moment later he says, “I was in L.A. yesterday at noon.” You raise your eyebrows and start looking for an exit. One of his statements might be true, but one is certainly false. Not only that, his integrity is so diminished, you’re not likely to trust anything else he says.
Now what if this same truth-tester is applied to the Bible’s most important story? Dan Barker is the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his 1992 book, Losing Faith in Faith (FFRF, Inc.), he challenged Christians to assemble the various resurrection accounts in the Bible together as one consistent narrative. I was personally confronted with this in April of 2003 when a skeptic in a nearby university town published his own abbreviated version of Barker's “Easter Challenge” in the Letters to the Editor section of our regional paper. Barker and Nielsen’s ultimate hope is the de-conversion of Christians, or at the very least a de-spiriting of our Evangelical zeal. However, their challenge has had the opposite effect on this small town pastor—I am more persuaded than ever. Although I am not a scholar, I will add this claim too: I have succeeded in answering their challenge. This article contains a foundational piece of my argument.
As promised I need to review John's Book. John keeps pressing me to do so but I was hesitant since I feel so sorry for him. That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles.
Jill Maxick the Director of Publicity at Prometheus Books was so very generous and kind to send me a copy of his newest version called "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity." What's needed is a circular-reference tagline of "from the author of Why I Became an Atheist." like Colbert. Didn't Colbert say about his own book though "written so good there is no need for another." John cannot claim that. Anyway moving on.
Ludwig von Mises said: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
"A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism: is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings."
"The salesman thanks the customer for patronizing his shop and asks him to come again. But the socialists say: Be grateful to Hitler, render thanks to Stalin; be nice and submissive, then the great man will be kind to you later too."
People chose to bankrupt America when they voted for this current president and Congress. They also wanted their freedoms taken from them. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. Time is short. Take Peter Schiff's advice to save yourself.
rhiggs said to 3graces: "Check this out. The pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth. I can't decide what is dripping more, the irony or the gold draped all over his hypocritical body."
I have to admit that was pretty funny and I agree, but lets get the record straight about the Roman Catholic church (RCC).
The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it's of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit.
We don't even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, millions of defectors, etc. to determine the fruit, it is obvious. That doesn't mean there are not truly saved people in the Catholic Church, which there are, but they are saved in spite of the RCC doctrine.
I hope you will agree that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Scripture, to me, goes against RCC. (Matthew 23:9, Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 Peter 5:3,John 14:26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6[not priests], Colossians 2:16, 1 John 2:27)
"Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the "all authoritative leader" of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter)." (gotquestions.org)
I agree with Matt when he stated: "Being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.
The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism -- making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven.
No one can say whether a Roman Catholic is truly a Christian or not since we cannot know people's hearts. But, if anyone, Catholic included, openly denies essential doctrines then he is not saved, and this is the problem. It appears that the Roman Catholic church is denying the essential doctrine of justification by faith."(CARM)
As far as Christianity, if the wrath of God is like a freight train, think of us preachers as the railroad crossing merely warning and flashing lights that you're headed for danger.
False religions, like the RCC, have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation, in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ's works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them. We have been made clean by the Sacrifice and Godhead of Jesus Christ. The false religions make themselves clean.
Like I said I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
"But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity."
RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?
I finally get it! I understand what I was doing wrong all these years!
I finally decided to give it a shot, I tried with all my heart to hear the LORD Jesus Christ: I knelt on the ground, accepted that I was a guilty sinner, and asked him to help me AND HE DID!
It was the most amazing, indescribable experience of my life! I can no longer hold any doubt about His existance: it's as self-evident as the SUN! He just is!
Thank you Ray, for bringing me to Jesus! I thank the LORD for your work and your ministry!
