posted 20-dec-2011 by crucifyd"comments from kevin reid on seeming contradictions about what true saving
"a) Different use of 'justified' ' the word justified in the Bible normally means 'made right'. So in Romans 3- 5 when Paul is talking about being justified by faith, he is talking about us being made right with God through faith in Jesus. Yet justified can also have another meaning. It can mean 'proved right', or shown to be in the right, that's how we often use the term today, to justify your actions is to show that they were right. In 1 Timothy 3:16 the word is used to speak of how Jesus was 'justified' by the spirit, (there it is usually translated 'vindicated'). Clearly Jesus did not need to be made right with God the Father, but he was justified or vindicated in that he was shown to be right through his resurrection. So here in James 2:24 when we read that a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone, it has that sense of shown to be right, not made right. Your faith is shown to be genuine by your actions.
You see that difference in the way James refers to Abraham. In Romans 4 Paul refers to Abraham, and shows how he took God at his word, believed his promise, and he was justified by his faith. Here James refers to another incident in Abraham's life. Genesis 22 where Abraham is 'tested'. His faith is shown to be genuine by his actions. he doesn't just say he trusts God, he is willing to do what God says, even when that means risking the son he loves.
b) Different situations being addressed. When Paul is speaking in Romans, about being justified by faith alone, he is addressing those who think we are accepted or rejected by God based on whether we keep the law. Paul is saying no, if it's on what we do, all except Jesus fall short, we can only be saved on the basis of what Jesus has done. On the other hand James is addressing those who are saying they have faith, so it doesn't matter how they live. James is showing that how you live matters, it shows whether or not your faith is genuine."
- Kevin Reid -
posted 19-dec-2011 by crucifyd
"If you look back through history and compare what happens when the federal government intervenes during a downturn in the economy with what happens when the government leaves the market free to work its own way back, doing nothing has by far the better track record.
First of all, this country existed for a century and a half without the federal government intervening to save the economy. No downturn in all that time was as severe or as long-lasting as the downturn that persisted throughout the decade of the 1930s, when both the Hoover administration and the Roosevelt administration intervened on an unprecedented scale.
There was no Federal Reserve System to help - if that is the word - during downturns before 1914. One of the few things on which liberal economists like John Kenneth Galbraith and conservative economists like Milton Friedman agreed was that the Federal Reserve made the Great Depression of the 1930s worse."
- Thomas Sowell -
posted 26-oct-2011 by crucifyd
"If you manufacture an authoritative figure, who repeats the same messages over and over, this will appeal to their conscience desires. The unwashed masses will helplessly follow that leader and go along with any message they spout."
- Edward Bernays -
posted 26-oct-2011 by crucifyd
- 1. Stop and smell the roses
- 2. Change your behavior
- 3. Get up early with your kids, drink coffee and say "ah"
- 4. Tell your spouse that you appreciate them
- 5. Talk to your family about nothing
- 6. Call your parents and tell them how much you love them
- 7. Appreciate your little girl's footsteps while you can
- 8. Tell a lot of stories
- 9. Tickle people's ears
- 10. Make less money to spend more time with your family
- 11. Take verses in the Bible out of context
- Sage Herr -
source: after we listened to Joel Osteen tell us to "stop and smell the roses" in a sermon review during an episode of Fighting for the Faith my daughter, 12, wrote up "Joel Osteen's Ten Commandments" and after reading them crossed out "Ten" and changed it to "Eleven" and added another.
posted 28-aug-2011 by crucifyd
Q: Why do world wildlife fund members feel such acrimony toward the poachers?
A: Because they are environmental wack jobs and the poachers are killing pandas.
- Forrest Herr -
source: answer to question in Wordly Wise 3000 Book 10 lesson 5E
posted 23-nov-2010 by crucifyd
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people. Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch.
- Thomas Sowell -
posted 09-july-2010 by crucifyd
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." So said Founding Father and America's second President John Adams. And he was absolutely right. And that is what is absolutely wrong with our country today: America is in a complete moral, societal, and cultural meltdown.
Founding Father and America's first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay correctly summarized the reason our new nation (and the fight for its liberty and independence) was successful. He wrote in Federalist 2, "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
In other words, a united constitutional republic can only exist within the framework of certain rather narrow and finite conditions. Remove those conditions and the framework for liberty and limited government falls apart. And the above statements by Adams and Jay succinctly summarize the conditions necessary for freedom's framework.
- Chuck Baldwin -
posted 02-july-2010 by crucifyd
A PrisonPlanet.com report says..."'Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,' Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley.
"While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet."
I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman's bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of "objectionable content" includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman's bill does.archives
The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either. And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for!
- Chuck Baldwin -