Black Man Thinkin’ « Black Man Thinkin'

Tags: Arab world, democracy, Egypt, freedom, Islamists, Libyan intervention, Muslim Brotherhood, North Africa, Obama foreign policy, Saudi Arabia, Syria red line, terrorists, US foreign policy

Comments: 2 Comments

Published on: July 19, 2013

This is Mohamed Bouazizi:

Mohamed Bouazizi

He was an anonymous Tunisian fruit merchant until December 17, 2010, when local police confiscated the 26-year-old’s weighing scales, keeping him from working. Angered and humiliated, Bouazizi went to the governor’s office to retrieve his scales and was ignored. After shouting in the middle of the street, “How do you expect me to make a living?”, he then did this to himself:

Bouazizi Ablaze

Bouazizi’s suicide set off protests that brought down Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled for 23 years. The “official” story was the protests were responses to unemployment and a lack of economic freedom, and the Arab Spring “movement” spread to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen; pretty much across North Africa and the Persian Gulf. By May 2011, only Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were protest-free.

On May 19, 2011, American President Barack Obama gave a speech:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZFkwtLBLM[/youtube]

With that, the “official” story was “fixed”: the Arab Spring was about “self-determination”, “governments denying their citizens’ dignity”, and was reminiscent of America’s Founding Fathers defying George III, or Rosa parks keeping her bus seat. The Arab people were demanding freedom and the march toward democracy could not be denied. However, the true story…well, look at a map of North Africa:

North Africa Map

Two and a half years after Bouazizi’s suicide overturned an Islamist government, Tunisia has: political instability and assassination, 17% unemployment, economic decline, sovereign debt downgraded to junk-bond status, another vendor self-immolation…and an Islamist government.

Algeria apparently weathered the Arab Spring well. Until militants attacked its Ain Amenas natural gas plant in January 2013, killing more than 80 people, and exposing anew the more than 2 decade-old struggle against Islamists.

The Shiite majority in Bahrain clashes politically with the Sunni minority that rules the the government. In response, Sunnis have jailed opposition leaders and relieved some Sunnis of their citizenship. Meanwhile, at least 55 people have died since the first massive protests of Feb 2011.

Jordan is less stable, as East Bank tribes grow distrustful of King Abdullah, along with a significant Palestinian refugee community, which supports an emboldened, and Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy limits protests, but unrest in its Eastern provinces were buoyed by the Arab Spring. One expert believes the overthrow of King Abdullah is possible before 2017.

Despite his other flaws, former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi kept a lid on Islamists. However, the Arab Spring, coupled with Western intervention in Libya’s 2011 “transition” deposed Gaddafi and strengthened Islamists. They and jihadist terrorists flexed their muscle in the brazen 2012 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

The Libyan victory heartened Islamists in the Syrian opposition seeking to topple president Bashar Al-Assad. Syria’s president is in deep trouble, and deeply offensive to many in the West and elsewhere. However, now the only in-country option to Al-Assad is the “pick-your-favorite-Islamists” one.

In Egypt, the Arab Spring replaced a 30-year dictator, Hosni Mubarak, with another would-be dictator, Mohamed Morsi, whom the Egyptian military removed after one year. Now the military, long respected as a stabilizing force in Egypt, is on the defensive about an attack on reportedly peaceful Morsi supporters that killed more than 50. This provides a sympathetic, and not aggressive or oppressive, portrayal of Islamists who invaded Egypt’s political structure following Mubarak’s downfall: as those whose legitimate election victory was improperly voided, and as victims of political violence.

So, what does this mean?

It started in 2009, pre-Arab Spring, when young Iranians protested the “landslide” re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by chanting US President Obama’s name in the streets, asking, “Are you with us or against us?” Their play for democracy and freedom was ignored, souring Iranians on the idea that America stood for freedom…or against Islamist oppression.

President Obama declared US interests and values at risk, without saying what they were, as the reason for intervening in Libya’s civil war, directly contradicting public statements by then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Obama’s policy was exposed in September 2012 by Al-Qaeda. Their 8-hour attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, during which the US president failed to defend US interests and values, came with Islamist shows of contempt, including posing for pictures,

Benghazi Attack

and raping the US Ambassador before killing him. To date, the Obama administration holds no one accountable for the attack, though leads and suspects were known since October 2012. Islamists need not fear, nor respect, the US in that country.

Islamists in Syria received the same message via Obama’s “red line” warning. First, the US president indicated the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria would make him rethink opposition to US involvement, but then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-drew the line to allow movement but prohibit use. Then Israel, Great Britain, Russia, France, and the UN all confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria, Obama backtracked further, acknowledging a “small amount” of usage, and that he needed to reconsider what to do, leaving the “red line”, and respect for American resolve, in tatters.

In Egypt, Islamists are regrouping, but US prestige is not. Obama backed the wrong horse, regarding freedom, when he supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, who can the US support? Neither Obama nor US interests have many friends left in Egypt, if pictures are any indication:

North Africa sees Obama’s foreign policy as pro-terrorist, and Islamist terrorists are uninterested in freedom. Consequently, an anti-American “glaze” is now brushed across the region, awaiting the kiln fire of violence to make it a hard shell opposed to American interests, no matter which side prevails. If the Islamists win, then Benghazi will represent the normal regard for US interests; if freedom wins, then that the US stood with the enemy will dull Arab ears to US concerns.

Since all this was US foreign policy, does anyone believe this is unintentional?

Zimmerman Trial Shows Trayvon Martin May Not Be Only Black Fatality

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: black abortion rates, black marriage rates, black moral leadership, black net worth, black political decline, black self destructiveness, black social decline, black unemployment, failed democrat policies, george zimmerman, rachael jeantel, racist, trayvon martin

Comments: 21 Comments

Published on: June 30, 2013

George Zimmerman is guilty.

George Zimmerman is guilty of profiling Trayvon Martin while acting as a neighborhood watchman.

George Zimmerman is guilty of saying Trayvon Martin “looks black”, when asked about Martin’s ethnicity.

George Zimmerman is guilty of following Trayvon Martin, leading to a confrontation.

George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting an unarmed Trayvon Martin to death…..

And none of these things are crimes in the State of Florida, unless prosecutors can refute Zimmerman’s self-defense assertion. That appears unlikely after the trial’s first five days.

The prosecution put on: a star witness who struggles with the truth; an eyewitness who said Martin did an MMA-style “ground-and-pound” on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman screamed for help; and a witness who photographed Zimmerman’s injuries, and heard Zimmerman claim self-defense. At some point, the prosecution might wish to start eliminating reasonable doubt, instead of creating absolute doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of anything apart from weight gain.

However, the real story of the trial is the black reaction to it, for that may signal the decline of blacks as an American political demographic. Simply put, blacks are losing political and social respect – not because of what comes upon them, but for what emerges from them, which is clearly demonstrated by the Trayvon Martin ordeal.

Blacks, who owe their political standing to overcoming race-based injustice, are showing themselves racist. From the outset, blacks called the shooting a white-on-black crime, and, apparently, many still do, though Zimmerman’s parents are Jewish (father) and Cuban (mother).

(According to Jewish tradition dating to the 2nd century, and US Census bureau policy, maternity determines a child’s race. George Zimmerman is Cuban, not white. The same tradition and policy makes Barack Obama just another white man in the White House.)

The New Black Panther Party wanted whites killed in response to Martin’s death and placed a bounty on Zimmerman. The Martin family said they did not “condone those people”…which differs from the condemnation that should have (but did not) come from them and all people of good faith.

Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman’s address, telling followers, “feel free to reach out and touch him”. Lee later apologized and paid the couple he put at risk. Again, blacks were silent.

Had the Ku Klux Klan advocated killing blacks or placed a bounty on anyone, or had a minor white celebrity threatened an elderly black couple, black outrage, and that of most other Americans, would have come swiftly…because such things are wrong.

The black non-reaction to these things, including ignoring and excusing racist comments from Trayvon Martin the night he died, shows that blacks, who once rose in opposition to slurs and injustices cast upon them, now sit in acceptance of their own casting slurs and committing injustices…and the nation notices this.

Trayvon Martin died during an election year, which likely prompted the incumbent president to seek connection with blacks during the re-elect campaign:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt_g5JPdP8Y[/youtube]

Now, blacks supporting Obama at 96% in 2008 is understandable. But, since then, world economists recognize America’s decline under Obama, and the American middle class, for which Obama claims to fight, lead the downward spiral. Yet hardest hit are America’s blacks. High unemployment, diminished net worth, a worsening racial climate, etc. make being black in America tougher under Obama.

However, instead of punishing Obama in 2012, blacks gave him 93% of their votes. Obama also got a pass for showing greater concern for issues affecting hispanic and homosexual communities than for those impacting blacks. Indeed, blacks scarcely criticize Obama, and quickly label anyone who does.

So, blacks look like an abused woman who, despite her split lip and blackened eyes, defends the guy who beats her as “good”. Thoughtful people will conclude there is no reasoning with the woman, leaving her to the insanity. They are reaching a similar conclusion about black political and social reasoning.

Non-blacks see Detroit and other cities under long-term Democrat Party rule, so financially corrupt as to have emergency managers or be in receivership. They see Chicago, where Democrat rule contributes to “open season” on blacks, despite the nation’s toughest gun laws. They see Los Angeles, where long-term Democrat control brought that city near bankruptcy with schools that graduate only 2/3 of students. They see a welfare state, begun in 1965, that has lowered black marriage rates, sent illegitimacy rates soaring, and helped blacks, though under 13% of the US population, account for 30% of US abortions.

Despite this and more, they see the self-destructive thoughtlessness of blacks continuing to vote for liberals and their policies. When they seek to engage blacks on this, they are labeled racists or sell-outs, which ends meaningful dialogue.

Blacks once boasted the “moral leader” of the nation. But now: they support a president who fails them, is disrespected abroad and is a scandal factory at home; they elect blacks to Congress who are impotent; they elect a disproportionate number of corrupt black officeholders. And blacks, who once excoriated all racists everywhere, now excuse blacks offering racist testimony in court.

If the nation sees blacks as unable or unwilling to look after black interests, then why should they seek to work with blacks on national interests?

When blacks fought injustices by being on the side of right, countless others, of all races, creeds, and colors joined them. Not because they were race issues, but because they were issues of right and wrong. For example, trafficking in men is not racist; it is wrong. Jim Crow segregation is not racist; it is wrong. Arbitrarily denying the vote is not racist; it is wrong. When blacks led such fights, pursuing what is right, they prevailed and gained political and social respect.

However, now, no black leadership pursues what is right, but rather what is “black”. It focuses on what is wanted, on laying guilt, on what others have that can be taken. Fortunately, that is not the view of all, or even most, blacks.

However, unless and until the desire for right returns as the premier aim of black political and social discussion, those who sang “We Shall Overcome” will be overcome by the perception that they are too self-centered and bigoted to be taken seriously in national debates. Political and social respect for America’s blacks is dying; all one need do is watch the Zimmerman trial, and how blacks react to it, to understand why it ebbs away.

Are You Willing to Act?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: church at Corinth, Demas, Ezra, going with the world, harsh righteousness, Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, staying with God, the apostle Paul, willingness to act in righteousness

Comments: 31 Comments

Published on: June 22, 2013

It was Passover in Jerusalem, a festive time for Jews, and one of great preparation for remembering God’s liberating Israel from bondage. There was plenty of activity and good spirits in the city, and there was likely no more festive and active place than the Temple of the Living God. However, not everyone was happy:

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: (15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; (16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Righteousness has a reputation for being gentle, caring, and a danger to no one. However, seemingly unprovoked, the most righteous man fashioned a Roman implement of corporal punishment and went off on the people in God’s Temple…as they prepared for Passover. This does not square with the perception many have of Jesus; there is a broad perception of Jesus as someone who would not hurt a fly. After all, it is written of Him:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (2) He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. (3) A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Yet, there He is, whip in hand, turning over tables, scattering money, and running folks out. Was Jesus being righteous? Could this actually be righteousness? Of course, the answer to both questions is “Yes.” In fact, it was a willingness to act forcefully on behalf of righteousness. Of course, Jesus is a special case, as human beings go; He did things in the name of righteousness that would be inappropriate for others to even consider…

Oh really?

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

So, Moses was meek, even before Christ had come. And the meek are hardly harsh or forceful, right? There is that Christ-in-the-Temple incident, but Jesus of Nazareth was God manifest in flesh, a little indignation is forgivable; others should never represent God in that way, right?

And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. (20) And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it…Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. (27) And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (28) And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

That sounds like pretty harsh and forceful action, in pursuit of righteousness, from the meekest man on earth, does it not? Now, I can hear the objection, “Well, that was BEFORE Numbers 12; Moses did not have his act together yet. After he walked with the Lord awhile longer, THAT’S when he became so meek.” Well, only if Numbers, Chapter 12 occurs AFTER Numbers, Chapter 20:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (8) Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. (9) And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. (10) And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? (11) And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. (12) And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Moses displayed the same “anger management” problem in the wilderness that Jesus of Nazareth showed in the Temple. Or was it simply a willingness to act for righteousness, even when the action was harsh?

There are numerous examples in scripture of righteousness that many would consider harsh, cruel, or injurious; they are righteous nonetheless, because righteousness is not determined by how it impacts people’s thinking, but by whether it adheres to God’s standards. Therefore, the prophet wrote, But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6) and, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

So, the question, the only question, for the saint of God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, even when such actions bring harm? Moses did so, as did Christ. Recall what happened in the time of Ezra:

While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. (2) And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. (3) Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. (4) Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it…” (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. (11) Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” (12) Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. (13) But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. (14) Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us.”

Could righteousness require family break-ups and sanction divorce, something God hates (Malachi 2:16)? While many see God hating divorce yet compelling His people to divorce wives and abandon children as contradictory, I do not. God had, long before, forbid such unions for Israel (Exodus 34:10-17, Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Ezra, along with the Israelites, was willing to act for righteousness, despite the pain it would cause. Most people, including those in the church, would think the right way to address the matter would be to leave things alone. After all, the people had acknowledged their guilt, and were truly sorry. They would prefer that to the way of God chosen by Ezra and Israel. To those having that view, that God’s way somehow was not the best approach, God has a reply:

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? (26) When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. (27) Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

The trouble is, many of us would like for God to amend His decrees to make our unrighteous choices at least acceptable, because we see no problem with our decisions. This is especially true if making things right with God is painful for us or those for whom we care. We object: “How insensitive of God to ignore our pain and demand we do hurtful things to be righteous. A loving God should never bring pain upon His children in pursuit of what is right. That’s too narrow a view and has no compassion. With God, nothing is impossible; there is always another way!”

Well, not exactly:

And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. (36) And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

If the Son of God was unable to alter what God required for Him to do in pursuit of righteousness, though it meant excruciating pain and temporary alienation for Him, should anyone believe that God will change the requirements of righteousness for them?

Correcting our unrighteousness requires no action on God’s part; He has already done all to pave the way to heaven. However, there remain some things for us to do:

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (18) And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

God’s righteousness will require that people do things they would rather not do, as Simon Peter learned from the resurrected Christ, John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. When all is said and done, there are only two responses:

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. (11) And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Or,

For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

Again, the question, the only question, for the person who belongs to God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, whatever that may require. For those who seek compassion for the flesh, they should remember that saving the soul will always be more compassionate than sparing the flesh any pain.

Why Immigration Reform?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Democrats, e-verify, ignoring american electorate priorities, illegal immigration, immigration reform, racial politicization

Comments: 5 Comments

Published on: June 20, 2013

Let us begin with what is widely known though not widely reported: many things are more important to the American people than immigration reform, including:

Those first two have been Americans’ top concerns since the election…of 2008. So, the American people are left to watch a government, that won’t address their priorities, put great effort into something that is not their priority. Between this, gun control legislation about which the nation does not care, and the daily fixation on the almost daily increase of Obama administration scandals, the 2014 midterm elections may simultaneously: A) not come soon enough for Americans to voice their disdain, and B) not matter a hill of beans for, if historic re-election rates hold, then those who drove the nation into this ditch will yet have their hands on the wheel in January 2015.

However, the important question may not be, “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate?”, but “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate to do THIS?”

In 1986, there were about 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the US; then the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did the following:

Consequently, 3.2 million illegal immigrants were no longer held accountable for violating the sovereignty of US international borders…and the borders were not secured…and the immigration restrictions and penalties were not enforced (on illegal immigrants or their US employers)…and there are now 11.1 million illegal immigrants in these United States.

Now, in 2013, there is Senate Bill S744, which:

Requires employers to verify their employees’ immigration status with E-Verify

Holds employers harmless for knowingly hiring illegal workers

Legalizes agricultural illegal immigrant workers

Legalizes illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and puts them on a 5-year path to citizenship

So, this movie has played before, with two primary differences: 1) in 2013, employers of illegal immigrants get a better deal than they had in 1986, and 2) the Democrat Party is pushing this to the exclusion of more pressing matters. Now, if the 1986 Immigration Reform Law increased illegal immigration by nearly 250%, then what might a 2013 version, which looks pretty darn similar, do?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates the number of illegals will climb more than 300%, to 46 million by 2033, in less time than it took the 1986 law to increase them nearly 250%. The CBO also indicated that S744 encourages illegal immigration.

Given those facts, it is no surprise that the public is not overly fond of the bill, especially if securing the border is not a primary outcome of the legislation. It is also no surprise that Democrats are eager to pass this as soon as possible, since the following are true:

1. Illegal immigrants vote in US elections,
2. Illegal immigrants vote Democrat, and,
3. Should comprehensive immigration fail to pass, Democrats are confident it will be a winning issue for them in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

So, the Democrat Party fights for illegal immigrants to receive: food stamps; housing; medical care; education, including lower college tuition than US citizens attending the same school; etc., and all at the taxpayers’ expense.

Such is the Democrat Party’s modus operandi when it seeks the electoral loyalty of any demographic: blow up the nearest treasury and let “compassion” rain…funded with other people’s money. The strategy is successful, especially when racial animosities can be exploited. Blacks remain fiercely loyal to the Democrat Party, even though entitlement “compassion” has devastated black families and communities for nearly half a century. In fact, blacks are so loyal that they seem blind to hispanics supplanting them as the Democrat Party’s main ethnic squeeze. Remember, Obama snubbed the NAACP, sending VP Joe Biden instead, while packing his administration with hispanics.

Disrespectful (to blacks)? Perhaps. Deferential (to hispanics)? Definitely. Coincidence? I think not.

Immigration reform is not about addressing a top priority, like fixing the US economy and encouraging robust trade with countries from where immigrants come, creating jobs there and here…which WOULD address the top priorities of the American people. It is not about building the US workforce; that would require lower taxation and a smaller regulatory burden on businesses. If low-skilled and low-wage workers (which are the majority of illegal immigrants) made for a stronger economy, then the South should have won the Civil War. This cannot be about compassion, since there is no compassion with borrowed, or other people’s, money, in the form of entitlements. Finally, this is not about a cost-effective way to address the problems of illegal immigration, since the federal government already determined, more than 2 years ago that deporting all illegal immigrants costs less than allowing them to stay.

This is about the political left being so close to nearly unchecked power, at least in the next session of Congress, they can almost taste it; they had that power from 2009 to 2011, and the country has yet to recover. They are eager for another two-year stretch to finish the job “Hope and Change” started. Since blacks have outlived their political usefulness, the left looks to saddle up the hispanic community and ride a new race in pursuit of their agenda…

Adding another 35 million people to the country by 2033 who should not be here, registering them to vote (which they should not be able to do), and ensuring the majority vote for Democrats…THAT is the WHY of Immigration Reform.

Protestin’ or Profilin’?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: American political protest, brimingham protests, declaration of independence costner iv, founders, naacp moral monday, reimer, tianenman square, wisconsin recall

Comments: 5 Comments

Published on: June 18, 2013

Political protest in America has a long history, being the essence of the nation’s founding; 18th-century English colonists dissociated themselves politically from the British Crown and fought the most powerful military of the day to win their liberty. And political protest has remained an important form of national expression.

American political protest is somewhat unique; where protests in other countries often threaten the government’s existence, American protests generally do not put forward a serious alternative to the Constitution. Whether the Whiskey Rebellion, the Abolition Movement, the Civil War, the Labor Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Civil Rights, Viet Nam antiwar, the Tea Party, etc., American political protests, even violent ones, normally seek to adjust the government’s attitude, not seek to bring it down, the Civil War being an exception.

Beginning with the nation’s founding, American political protest has generally involved risk. The Declaration of Independence concludes with this sentence:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

At the signing, Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” indicating the risk the Founders accepted. Risk has accompanied American political protesters ever since:

Those in the Whiskey Rebellion risked a military confrontation with President Washington

President Grover Cleveland calling in federal troops against striking railroad workers

1850 Fugitive Slave Act

John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry

incarceration

physical attack

murder

4 student protesters who were killed at Kent State in Ohio in 1970

Even nonviolent Tea Party protesters were at risk. Their 2010 political success brought scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service, which can incarcerate and financially ruin citizens, with consequences often coming before proof that a citizen did anything wrong.

Nevertheless, since the Civil Rights Movement, a high-water mark for modern American political protest risk, protesters seem to have less skin in the game.

For example, the Occupy Movement was disruptive, but suffered little backlash from those they targeted. They protested Wall Street about its “obscene” profits; in “retaliation”, Wall Street hired them. The Occupiers challenged and irritated the governments in some of America’s major cities. In retaliation, governments turned a blind eye to acts like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luq4NTSK50M[/youtube]

Though the Occupy Movement included by rape, assault, murder, tuberculosis, arson, etc., the protests went unchecked for quite some time…until the public outcry, unlike the protesters, could no longer be ignored. When all was done, the Occupiers risked little, changed less, and became unpopular in America and elsewhere.

However, more popular protests seem to have the same amount of risk and change.

In South Carolina, Roy Costner IV ripped up his Pickens County School District-approved valedictorian’s speech in favor of a recital of the Lord’s prayer. The crowd erupted in response to protest of the school district’s new policy to prohibit prayer at graduation ceremonies.

Did Costner risk anything?

School district spokesman John Eby said, “The bottom line is: We’re not going to punish students for expressing their religious faiths.” Clemson University, where Costner plans to be this fall, did not rescind its acceptance of the incoming freshman. And the outpouring of positive sentiment was quite strong. No harm, no foul.

And what did it change? The Pickens County School District did not rescind the no-prayer policy; would not that have been the point of the protest? However, perhaps change, in response to Costner’s protest, happened half a continent away.

When Valedictorian Remington Reimer began to ad lib his graduation address, Joshua (TX) High School let him speak; they simply cut power to the microphone. They did not sanction his words, they controlled who heard them, perhaps a more frightening prospect. And Mr. Reimer is now off to the Naval Academy. Regarding risk, again, no harm, no foul.

And high schoolers are not the only low-risk protesters.

The North Carolina NAACP chapter has organized “Moral Monday” protests against the state’s General Assembly, which now has a Republican majority, for the past 7 weeks, resulting in nearly 500 arrests at the state capitol. But what is this likely to change? The Governor and the majority of the Legislature, both Republican, won elections. So is the NAACP and its supporters protesting the government, or the majority of their neighbors who vote? We saw how such protests wrought governmental change in Wisconsin. Why should the result differ in a state that is even more “red.” Again, no change and no risk…did anybody do anything to anyone who tried to unseat Scott Walker?

And what is at risk for “Moral Monday” protesters, after the NAACP also buses the protesters to the capitol and provides them snacks? An hour in a detention center, before the NAACP pays their bail and provides legal representation?

Once all is said and done, real protest looks more like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrHwmiUMH0[/youtube]

or this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ[/youtube]

Only when people would rather be harmed, than ruled in a particular way, does political protest have honest power. Even nonviolent leaders like Ghandi and King understood that successful protest meant blood; they simply chose the side which would shed none. Today, people are more likely to be seen AT a protest, engaged in meaningless acts of no consequence to them, than involved IN a protest, where taking a stand is neither fun nor free. King David once said, “I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. (2 Samuel 24:24)

If your defiance against what is wrong is an enjoyable endeavor that brings neither harm to you nor requires anything of value from you, then that is not protestin’; that is profilin’.

The “Editors” Are At It Again

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith, ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Bible polygamy, false doctrine, homosexuality as sin, homosexuality forbidden, interfaith marraige, interracial marraige, marriage equality, polygamy not condemned, twisting of scripture

Comments: 3 Comments

Published on: June 8, 2013

Periodically, the modern equivalent of the moneychangers Christ drove from the Temple set up shop in the marketplace of ideas, pushing some odd notion and finding isolated scriptures to support their point.

This past week, a trio of Iowa-based religious scholars published an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Turns out, their agenda item is to weigh in on the subject of marriage equality. While it may not expressly be the editorialists’ aim, the aim of many citing the editorial is clear: to use scripture to argue against the idea that homosexual marriage has any biblical opposition.

The citers’ argument is a bit roundabout, challenging the idea that the Bible teaches marriage is always a one man, one woman proposition. After successfully disputing that idea (and, I believe, they were successful), they, in effect argue that, since God does not limit marriage to one man and one woman, how can one conclude that He limits marriage to two people of opposite genders?

Sigh…

To support this assertion, they point out that the Bible does not condemn polygamy. Indeed it does not; rather, it teaches that those who would have leadership positions in the Church of Christ should have a monogamous marriage:

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Even those who would be recognized as widows were to have had a monogamous marriage, 1 Timothy 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

To be exact, the Bible does not say a man cannot have more than one wife, provided he is not seeking to serve in a leadership role. The writers also, and correctly, cite the polygamy of Abraham and David, whom God favored and blessed. They could have included Israel, Elkanah (the father of Samuel), Solomon (whose wives numbered in the hundreds), and others. The point of course is that polygamy is more of a social than a moral issue. That is a difficult assertion with which to disagree.

The editorial writers went on to state, among other things, that Jesus encouraged self-castration, using this verse:
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Personally, I don’t quite see how stating what some have chosen to do, followed by saying, in effect, “If that’s you, then go for it; if not, then leave it alone”, qualifies as encouragement.

They also revive the worn, torn argument that the Bible teaches against interracial marriage:

Ezra 10:2-11 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. (3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (4) Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. (5) Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. (6) Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away. (7) And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; (8) And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. (11) Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

However, if that is the case, then why did God have no problem with the marriage of Joseph (to an Egyptian), or of Moses (to an Ethiopian)? Then there is Song of Solomon, the Bible book devoted to Solomon’s love for his black wife who was not a Hebrew. The idea that God had a problem with “race-mixing” is, therefore, illogical on its face. Recall, Paul’s words to those at Mar’s Hill:

Acts 17:24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

If all men came from one man, indeed from one blood, then what “races” are there? Can there really be more than one race in the view of Him Who created all men from one man? The simple truth is that God’s prohibition against inter-marriage was not a matter of trying to keep races pure, but of trying to keep faith from being tainted:

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So, playing the race card, when discussing marriage and the Bible, is more than a little intellectually dishonest.

The editorialists concede that it is not accurate to state that the Bible allows for homosexual marriage, and further conclude that the Bible is not hard over on marriage being a “one-on-one” proposition. Again, those two ideas are difficult to dispute. However, they end by warning against the use of “ancient texts” to regulate modern ethics and morals, when those texts “endorse” practices that most Christians would condemn today.

Of course, this is a nod to the idea that ethics and morals are man-created and, therefore, subject to human revision once the original documentation becomes old or out of fashion. And this opens the doors for those who would promote consensual sodomy as something with which the Bible has no problem or does not speak against. One of the editorialists is quoted as saying, “[Anyone who argues that] the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage … haven’t take[n] the time to read all of it.”

Indeed.

How these learned men missed Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, or:

Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

The simple test of scriptural truth remains: if you take a position, concluding what the Bible represents on any issue, and that position fails to harmonize with all of scripture, then that position is not what the Bible teaches.

I personally believe heaven chuckles whenever the term “marriage equality” rises higher than the cloud layer, especially when used to validate the practice of homosexuality. However, that is because heaven is governed by the one who says, “I am the Lord. I change not…” Unfortunately, under the sun, there is a disturbing lack of resoluteness, which those who oppose God consistently seek to exploit – and every challenge resonates, to some degree, with some soul who is lukewarm toward God’s word.

This challenge is no different. The argument is, and remains, flawed, hilariously so, yet it will sway some from a steadfast position to a more “enlightened” point of view…which is why it will be used again. Can only hope the Lord returns before too many yield to arguments designed for itching ears.

Which Battle Are You Watching?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: government controls people, government ignores people, government tyranny, people losing freedoms to government, politicians prefer gridlock

Comments: 16 Comments

Published on: June 3, 2013

Every day, the faux battle continues – party vs. party, conservative vs. liberal, etc. – frustrating the country and its citizens. Issue after issue becomes kindling for the sordid fire whose smoke is the stuff of political and legislative gridlock; they are talked at, not about. Those who should lead instead examine polls and rally their “bases”, and those who seek meaningful change are mocked or scorned. Blame is plentiful, progress is scarce and, more importantly, truth is nearly absent.

Interestingly, it seems the political class, with few exceptions, prefers this. Those furthest left or right tug at each other, accomplishing nothing, while “moderates” posture for loose votes, with all honing their pitch as either the “champions of their view” or the “voices of reason.” While the political class, well, politics, they ignore the concerns of voters and citizens.

For example, the economy and jobs are the number 1 issues with the American electorate today. This was also the case in 2008 , 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, since the last general election, the political class have devoted most of their time to bickering over gun control and immigration reform, two issues about which Americans are largely indifferent.

The last major effort by the 536 Keystone Cops in D.C. (435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, and 1 President) to impact the economy and jobs was the 2009 “Stimulus” Bill. Criticism and praise aside, the Labor Force Participation Rate, or the proportion of the “working age” population that is willing and able to work and is either employed or actively seeking employment, is down nearly 2.5 percentage points since January 2009, to a 34-year low, and continues to decline. The current administration promised to add jobs. However, since January 2009, 9.5 million Americans left the workforce instead. Compare that to the 1.2 million jobs created during the current administration. Not only does the political class pay little attention to the citizens’ concerns, when they do take action, it makes matters worse.

Yet, the media provides regular reports of the improving economy and job market, bantering back and forth about the political implications. It would seem much of the press is more interested in political intrigue than in the political accountability of elected officials.

Meanwhile, 15% of Americans are in poverty, and that is likely a low-ball number. Food stamp enrollment has increased more than 70% since 2008, to a record near 48 million people. Thirty-three municipalities have filed for bankruptcy since 2010, including 7 cities. The national debt, which the government decries, even as deficit spending continues, has grown to 105% of annual GDP; under the previous administration, it only once went above 40%.

Instead of addressing these matters, the political class tells the nation that a decrease in the government’s ever-increasing spending plans is somehow a budget cut, lies about the events in which four Americans, including an US Ambassador, were killed on American soil in Libya, and throws itself into a frenzy of self-investigation.

American voters, by a 7 to 2 margin, view the economy and unemployment as bigger issues than the multiple Obama scandals. Apparently, all that dust in the air has not blurred their of what matters to them.

Yet, public discourse often demonstrates a kindergarten level of sophistication: blaming racism for the government’s ills, blaming the last administration for what’s wrong (even though the exculpatory information, about taxes, job creation, or the Great Recession is undeniable). And while people defend this president and bash his predecessor, or vice versa, they do nothing about a government that seeks more power while ignoring the people’s problems and priorities.

…and that is the real battle…

The American people are battling the federal government for control: of their lives and liberties; of identifying, defining, and addressing problems; of whether the American Experiment can continue, in any form, as the Founders delivered it to them. And the American people are losing.

As government power grabs increase (the administration recently issued Executive Orders which essentially nationalize state elections, plus a host of other things), Americans are witness to the most significant flaw in government today: the inability, or unwillingness, of one branch of government to check and balance another when it works against the people’s will.

Obamacare remains unpopular among voters, yet the Supreme Court essentially re-wrote to find it constitutional, and Congress has failed repeal it. For its part, the national press, instead of chiding the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government for failing to uphold the people’s will, mocks the attempts in Congress to do what their constituents want, even as those in government acknowledge Obamacare will be a “train wreck”. When the federal government misses multiple opportunities to do the people’s will, opting instead to increase its own power…”Houston, we have a problem…”

And that problem will snowball, as the federal government prepares to unleash the IRS to implement the health care law. When $20,000 per year becomes the least expensive health insurance option for a family of 5, making $120,000 per year (and that ain’t as much as you think with 3 kids), and failure to comply means quality time with the tax collector, what recourse will the American people have, after two branches of government have failed to protect them, and the third believes nothing is wrong…and controls the IRS?

Speaking of (no) recourse, let’s not forget the 23 Gun Control Executive Orders issued earlier this year, which include having doctors ask patients about guns in their homes, and encouraging a national health care database to authorize gun purchases. So if anyone plans armed resistance against the government, then they should buy their guns early and lie to their doctor about it.

And all the while, the government assures us that it has no tyrannical characteristics:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIOF5R-7rx8[/youtube]

However, the founders who gave us a Constitution, had different thoughts. James Madison said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Does anyone else look at this government and not either feel abused, or fairly certain they might easily be abused?

And Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Does anyone else look at this government today with no fear of what it might do to them?

When you boil it all down…does anyone really not understand that the political battles that dominate the headlines are a head fake to distract from the real battle between the government and its people? And does anyone actually believe the people are winning?

What to Do with a Multitude of Sins?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: addressing the sin of saints, covered sin, hidden sin, multitude of sins, purge sin, remit sin

Comments: 31 Comments

Published on: June 1, 2013

Part of the problem in coming to a proper response may lie in how some prefer to regard Romans 3:23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. I find people often tend to see their sins as one, or just a few, transgressions and that, on the whole, they are pretty good people. And some things that Jesus said can reinforce this odd notion among the self-righteous:

Luke 7:39-47 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (40) And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. (41) There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. (42) And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (43) Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. (44) And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. (45) Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. (46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. (47) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Those who do not see themselves as having the lifestyle as a prostitute might believe that they are not very sin-burdened sins and, therefore, in a different class from those who are criminals, the immoral or general ne’er-do-wells. They may only owe the fifty pence as opposed to the five hundred. I daresay most of us fall adopt that line of reasoning.

However, that simply means that most of us have forgotten God’s view of His own people (Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.), God’s view of people in general (Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one), and the insight Paul gave into how each man might view himself (Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?)

There are not a few people with a lot of sins, while most have a smaller sin problem, and others deal with not much sin at all. Everyone has a supertanker’s worth of sin, with more added daily, as John wrote, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

This does not diminish the Jesus’ Name baptism’s power to remit all sins, nor the power of Christ’s blood to cleanse sins that occur after a man is saved. However, people are sin factories – at any time, every man is awash in a multitude of sins…unless Paul was just out of his mind when he wrote Romans 7…and the cleansing of sin is a continual process. The word and blood of Jesus would not continue to cleanse if no new sin stains did appear.

So, it is not so much that the saint has fewer sins than the unbeliever as it is that the former has subscribed to a divine cleaning service. Of course, the man who embraces God’s Gospel will demonstrate marked changes in behavior and abandon any consistent practice of past misdeeds. However, the saint who believes he has beaten sin is mocked not only by 1 John 1, but also by the apostle Paul, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

I cover all this in preparation to present the following verses as being more applicable to those inside the church as to those without:

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; (20) Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

The writers of these verses were not addressing the circumstances of those who had not heard the gospel, had not repented from sin, had not received the Jesus’ Name baptism, or had yet to receive the Holy Ghost; they were writing to the saints of God regarding the saints of God. Why does this matter?

Well, for one thing, it should increase humility among the faithful. If more saints are willing to say, “I have a sin issue and it will continue until I see God face-to-face,” then few of them should be on the wrong side of Isaiah 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

For another, those who recognize what it took for God to redeem them, and what is required to keep them, are more amenable to Jude’s admonition, And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 1:22-23), when interacting with the lost or fellow saints.

However, what may matter most is that they get an understanding of how to deal with the sins of the saints, whether theirs, or someone else’s.

Neither James nor Peter wrote of removing the multitude of sins in the verses cited above. The word “hide” in James 5:20, and the word “cover” in 1 Peter 4:18, are the same Greek word, καλύπτω, kaluptō (kal-oop’-to); to cover up (literally or figuratively): – cover, hide.

That is a far cry from what John wrote of in 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The word “cleanse” is καθαρίζω, katharizō (kath-ar-id’-zo); to cleanse (literally or figuratively): – (make) clean (-se), purge, purify. It is also different from what Luke described in Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. “Remission” is ἄφεσις, aphesis (af’-es-is); freedom; (figuratively) pardon: – deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.

So, John speaks of purging sins, and Luke wrote of sins being pardoned. However, both James and Peter wrote of hiding sins. There are other points as well: Luke wrote of what is done regarding the sins of the unregenerate, while John, James, and Peter refer to the church’s sins. Also, while John and Luke addressed what only God can do, James and Peter addressed what saints should do.

This should not be confusing, because scripture is clear . However, there is a fair amount of muddled teaching out there. To break this down into more direct language:

To many, those last two points will seem hypocritical. How can one treat sins differently, just because one person says they love God, while another is not part of the church? After all, sin is sin, and no person is better than another, right?

The answer is sin is not treated differently; if a man’s sins are to be removed, then no matter who that person may be, they must be taken to God. However, different people are handled differently getting them to take their sins to the throne. The preaching of the Gospel exposes sin; for the unregenerate, it can lay bare his misdeeds before all, and give him a perspective he did not previously consider. Recall that, on the day of Pentecost, those whose hearts were pricked had not thought themselves in sin regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Suddenly, their sin was being loudly publicized in Jerusalem. It brought them to repentance…at least some of them.

Those who belong to God are handled another way – not because they are better than the unregenerate – but because they are in greater peril:
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The unregenerate always has a chance; the misguided saint may not. You plead with the enlightened to regain their senses; it is useless to preach to them as though Jesus is a new concept. Exposing them to open ridicule may be the surest way to push them to dig in their heels against God.

Nevertheless, hiding or covering sin does not mean ignoring sin. There is the work of restoration, referred to by James and explained more fully by Paul:

Galatians 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (2) Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (3) For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. (4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. (5) For every man shall bear his own burden.

That is hardly looking the other way; it’s simply not making a news item of something that is a family matter, between God and his (wayward) child.
Consequently, it is difficult to explain the popular practice within the church of saints “carpet bombing” one another regarding sins, real or imagined, and broadcasting the faults they see in one another far and wide. However, scripture makes it clear that is not the working of love as described in 1 Corinthians 13.

And, again, neither is ignoring sin the working of love. As Matthew recorded:

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

When dealing with the multitude of sins, remember that you are dealing, primarily, with those who know God. What is paramount is to get them back to God and to separate them from their sins. Only God can perform the separation, but it is up to His other children to encourage the errant one to bring what must be purged to God, and not to make sin a public affair while that most private transaction occurs.

The Problem with Government

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: choosing between God and government, failed government, God and government, government, government problem, nature of man

Comments: 15 Comments

Published on: May 25, 2013

Government is failing; failing in its responsibilities to its citizens, and failing to take responsibility for its shortcomings. Whether the failure to safeguard (or even allow) freedoms or liberties, the failure to protect private property, or the failure to protect life and limb, government is being exposed as unable to deliver on promises it makes to those who live under its rule.
Nevertheless, mankind continues their love affair with government. Having deemed it necessary, they endure government abuses…and even pay for the “privilege”…with seemingly no concern for its costs, economic or otherwise.

This is not about any political party or organization. Nor is it about any particular system, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. This is about human nature or the design of man; the simple truth is that man was never intended to be governed by another man.

Now we witness governments under-performing everywhere. The US is troubled; a growing government has put its citizens’ liberties and welfare in decline. Europe abandoned many liberties for the “safety” of the state long ago. Now, as economic turmoil continues unabated, governments there are further imposing themselves upon their people. The Arab Spring, which many hailed as a democracy movement across North Africa and the Persian Gulf, has not been a move away from dictatorships and totalitarian control.
As governments fail, in so many ways and in so many countries, it amazes me that so many people miss a clear thread in scripture: all human government is a departure from God’s plan for man, and an assault upon God’s design of man.

The first man, Adam, answered only to God. Indeed, it was as much an interaction between friends, with God coming to the Garden in the cool of the day to enjoy the man’s fellowship, as a superior-subordinate arrangement. In the absence of sin, God imposed no rule upon the man, save one, regarding eating of the tree whose fruit unlocked the knowledge of good and evil. With that single, and hardly onerous, exception, Adam was free to do as he pleased. Then he fell.

Adam was ensnared by sin; attaining the knowledge of good and evil made him subject to his own conscience. However, he was still not subject to another human being. In response to sin’s arrival, God instituted an order, applicable to marriage (Genesis 3:16) The wife became subject to the man for whom she was created, yet God demanded no other superior-subordinate associations for mankind.

While sin changed man’s relationship with God, it did not change man’s nature. Man was created an innocent ruler, with dominion over the earth’s animal and the planet itself, accountable only to God. When Adam forfeited his innocence, God did not then make him a slave; each man subject to his own conscience. Unfortunately, that did not work out well (Genesis 6:5-6) God determined to destroy man, but not completely: Noah, a descendant of Adam, found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

When the floodwaters receded, God did not start mankind over with a new group that would readily submit to human rule. God remained true to the idea that man was answerable to Him alone – not another man – by repopulating the earth with people descended from Adam.

However, men became uncomfortable with that idea. If you know much about Nimrod, then you will understand that organized rebellion against God, in the form of human government, likely began with him. There is no mention, in scripture, of a king prior to Nimrod’s appearance in Genesis 10. While it requires external reading to understand how evil his influence may have been, the proof of that influence appears in the following chapter (Genesis 11:1-4).

God desired that the whole earth be inhabited by mankind. I do not believe God has a problem with men forming societies and partnering, one with another, to accomplish any purpose that is consistent with His purposes for man. However, that is not what went on here. Instead of wanting to be called by God’s name in all the earth, man wanted to be called by a name of their own choosing in one part of the earth. The confusion of languages once again made each man more accountable to God, as he could no longer communicate with his fellow. It also made them more compliant to populating the whole earth, but that did not kill off human government: by the time God called Abram, there were many kings on the earth. Mankind had nearly given themselves over to the notion of being ruled by other men.

As an aside, has anyone noticed that were no kings are (euphemistic term for any form of human government), it is exceedingly difficult to find any wars? That is likely the subject of another post.

A notable exception to the mad rush to humans ruling humans was the nation Israel. Not that Israel had no societal hierarchy, or governing practices; indeed, the Law of Moses was intended to keep things in check. However, the Law of Moses was not human, either in nature or origin. And, as was written at the close of the book of Judges (Judges 21:25). Translation: all remained answerable to God, via their own conscience; external leadership was not the rule, per se.

Let me be clear: Israel always had leaders, beginning with Moses and Aaron who led them out of Egypt. However, compliance with God’s laws was different. First of all, it was voluntary; no police force and DA checked the people to enforce the 10 Commandments. Matters usually became issue for Law when those involved could not handle it on their own, and sought help. In other words, they would take their troubles to the priests; the priests did not go looking for the peoples’ troubles.

And so it went until the end of Samuel’s days, when Israel made its demand (1 Samuel 8:5), and Samuel described to them what that would mean (1 Samuel 8:11-18). These warnings made no difference, as the people showed Samuel just how much confidence they had lost in God (1 Samuel 8:19-21).

They would rather be as other nations, even having a man to fight their battles, though God had prevailed over men in battle on their behalf. And so the subjugation of man to man was complete, as God’s people abandoned the true King to pledge loyalty to one never intended to rule.

Again. Let me be clear: the problem with government is that it places those not designed for subjugation in the care of those never intended to rule. Consequently, human government will always create the problem the apostles faced in Jerusalem (Acts 5:27-29). Unfortunately, men often bend to the will of government, which lacks both patience and compassion, and seek a less stressful moment to bend their will to God. What is more, human government has no problem punishing those who will not put allegiance to them first, even if the only One above government, in the eyes of those the government would punish, is God (Hebrews 11:35-39).

I recognize the Romans 11 crowd will be out on this, citing that those in governmental authority are put there by God, and they are correct. However, in the same way God gave in to man’s insistence on getting a divorce when hearts were hardened against spousal reconciliation, He similarly acquiesced regarding human government. However, the same is true of human government as is true of divorce, “…but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8)

Those things of which Samuel warned Israel are now upon us even more heavily than the seer would have imagined. It is the fact that we have strayed so far from what God intended, that some have great difficulty understanding, after receiving salvation, with whom their allegiance should lie.

Those who should never rule another have subjugated us all. Men were never intended to rule other men, and they fare quite poorly in the task. Though we are charged with following the laws of the land, we must never forget that this is not the land we were promised.

The Good Dr. Carson Had Breakfast

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: ben carson, healthcare, obama national prayer breakfast, taxation

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: February 14, 2013

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA[/youtube]

The National Prayer Breakfast, held on 7 February this year, is normally not newsworthy, though that is not always the case with a Democrat president in attendance. Bill Clinton sought national sympathy, after his Lewinsky lie collapsed, by inviting 125 clergy to a prayer breakfast in September 1998. Fortunately, Barack Obama lacks some of Bill Clinton’s personal weaknesses. Perhaps that is why, instead of seeking something he might receive, he received something he did not seek at this year’s event.

The breakfast usually has two special guest speakers. One is the President of the United States; the other’s identity remains a secret until the event. Dr. Benjamin Carson was this year’s other special guest speaker, and his remarks generated so much interest that…does anyone recall what the president said? The media attention has made forgetting what Carson said a difficult task.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) introduced Carson as a man who:

and said that he hoped Carson could “help us sort some things out”.

Now, America likes “compelling life stories”; even cop-killer Christopher Dorner found social media fans with his “manifesto”. However, the country struggles with accomplished people, outside of sports and entertainment, speaking to “political” issues, and too many Americans believe no one can love Jesus and be scientific. Consequently, many consider Dr. Carson to be a leprechaun or a unicorn — a figment of someone’s imagination. So, when this man — raised by a single mother with a third grade education, who knew poverty and suffered from being a poor student, and who yet became Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, while maintaining faith in God — dragged his pot o’ gold and spiral horn to the lectern for 25 minutes, he surprised many.

Predictably, Carson’s eloquent challenge to Obama’s policies and ideology, while the president sat, noticeably displeased, several feet away drew the most attention. Yet, his remarks on deficits and debt, tax policy, and healthcare were less than a quarter of his speech, coming toward the end. The media overlooked his other, powerful points, more concerned with the “trials” of the president than they are with the trials of the republic.

Dr. Carson called political correctness a horrible and dangerous thing. His reason: instead of encouraging honest debate, it seeks to create unanimity of speech and thought, stifling honest conversation by holding people hostage to the fear of offending someone. Political correctness shuts down the true marketplace of ideas by keeping certain ideas from being widely heard. Consequently, the country does not consider the broadest range of ideas when looking to address problems, nor does it easily reverse policies that fail. Given where the nation stands today — politically, economically, socially — that is dangerous indeed.

The doctor did not mention was that those playing the “offense” card normally lean left, politically.

Carson spoke of his mother: married at 13, 1 of 24 children, and possessing a 3rd grade education. Yet Carter recalled, despite dire poverty, she “believed in me…would never allow herself to be a victim, no matter what happened…never made excuses and she never accepted an excuse from us”, forcing him to seek solutions instead. That, he said, allowed him to overcome poverty, a horrible temper, poor self-esteem, “all the things you think would preclude success”. A memorable thought expressed here was, “if you don’t accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving ’em and they start lookin’ for solutions.”

But we now have a body politic with no shortage of victims or excuses…and no solutions. Whether the “fault” lie with the 1%, or corporations, or racism, or being born poor, or the lack of some resource or another, all who “have not” are the victims of those who have. And the “haves” are, of course morally, ethically, and financially accountable for the “have not’s” predicament. Countering that idea, Carson offered the following:

…the person who has the most to do with you and what happens to you in life…is YOU! You make decisions…and I came to understand that I had control of my own destiny. And at that point, it didn’t hate poverty anymore, because I knew it was only temporary. I knew I could change that…”

This exposed the ideology gap between Ben Carson and Barack Obama. Dr. Carson believe people change their own lives when they decide to do so, a classic American thought. Barack Obama believes changes only comes when “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Carson’s statement is proven by millions who, like himself, leveraged their talents and efforts along with those of neighbors and countrymen to escape poverty. The president’s comments are proven nowhere, and his egalitarian utopia has never existed, yet more people have succeeded in an “unfair” United States than anywhere else. Successful people don’t need a fair shot…just the courage to take the shot they have.

Carson defended the idea that accomplished people, not simply sports and entertainment celebrities, should take part in government and the debate of important issues, reminding the audience that 5 physicians signed the Declaration of Independence.

Carson also sounded the primary reason for the Founder’s support of an effective education system, stating, “…our system of government was designed for a well-informed and educated populace and when they become less-informed, they become vulnerable…”

And many Americans are vulnerable. The have become low-information people who know more about what happens in the lives of athletes and celebrities than about what they can do to maintain their liberty, or even why liberty is important. They are more sensitive to personalities than ideas, though the former always has a shorter shelf life and is of lesser consequence.

It was a brilliant speech of powerful ideas. Some say it was rude to the president. However, I can never recall a time when truth’s timing was welcome, or when those who opposed it did not complain when it appeared. The fortunate thing is, while many Americans are not as informed as they should be, the vast majority can understand the truth in Dr. Carson’s words.

May that same majority embrace what I am confident they can understand.

«page 6 of 9»

ARTICLE ARCHIVES