The Apostle Paul from Romans 14:

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

The Apostle Paul from First Corinthians 8:

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

The basic stance of monotheism is faith and thankfulness. God is grace and faithfulness so our attitude must be trust and grattitude.

So no matter what anyone tells you about civil religion or the questionable roots of any holiday, I hope the Spirit enables you to give thanks to the true and living God and his Son Jesus–today and every day, whether a bird is involved or not.

The problem with being poor is that you can’t afford to fix things and you can’t afford to buy things that don’t need fixing.

In this environment, every “entropic event”–the car/refrigerator/furnace breakdown, is a multiplying event in the mind. Any thing that goes wrong is a representation of a myriad of potential and imagined possibilities of like kind.

Each thing that goes requires repair brings into view all the other things that might or could conceivably go wrong. Each says to you, “Our name is Legion for we are many.” You wish you could ask for terms of surrender but the war never ends.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ [Note: Paul must have originally written “the Church” and the transcribers accidentally blasphemed]. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit [if we are among the truly regenerate].

For the body does not consist of one member but of many [though there are “visible” members that really don’t belong to the body even though they seem attached]. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” [but if he doubts whether the hand really belongs to the body, that’s just fine] nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” [but if he doubts the feet are truly feet, that’s just fine] On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable [he meant to say, “unregenerate”], and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor [he meant to write, “condemnation”], and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another [once they have assured themselves that the others are really regenerate]. If one member suffers, all suffer together [“the others can find fault”]; if one member is honored, all rejoice together [“the others search for the heresy he is preaching”].

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it [except for those of you who don’t belong].

I have been reminded of something I quoted from Heinrich Bullinger:

And indeed one may easily get in trouble here unless one proceeds on the royal highway. For those people who consider only the conditions of the covenant and in fact disregard the grace and promise of God exclude infants from the covenant. It is true that children not only do not observe the terms of the covenant but also do not even understand these terms. But those who view only the sacrament, ceremony, or sign of the covenant count some in the covenant who are really excluded. But if you consider each one separately, one at a time, not only according to the conditions of the covenant but also in terms of the promise or the mercy of God, and the age and reason of a person, then you will realize that all those who believe from among the Jews and the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham with whom the Lord made the covenant. In the meantime, however, their offspring, that is, their children, have by no means been excluded from the covenant. They are excluded, however, if having reached the age of reason they neglect the conditions of the covenant.

In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is faithful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (boldface added).

Thus wrote Heinrich Bullinger in The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant with God, which I found translated in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).

To me, this makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is giving adults unconditional assurance but making children doubt God’s promises. Constantly I hear that it is dangerous to regard our young children as believers in open assault on their own profession of faith (which is simply dismissed on the ground of their age) and then told that the warnings in the Bible don’t really apply to believers (of whom only adults really qualify).

How did we get into this insane situation?

The answer, of course, is Revivalism, but that just moves the mystery one step further. What attracted people to revivalism?

In the Westminster Confession we read that the sacraments are to confirm faith. How can we claim to be Westminsterian and then attack ministers of the Gospel for encouraging children to believe God’s promises to them in his act of baptism and the Lord’s supper?

We also read that faith can involve fearing God’s threats and that assurance comes from a life of obedience?

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

In what world dow it make sense to downplay the promise for children but then downplay the role of obedience for adults? What is the attraction of revivalism?

It would be slightly more understandable if Jesus didn’t directly address the perversity of our adult hearts to lord it over our little ones and aggrandize ourselves by marginalizing them. But behold:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

So among all the issues the Gospels could have covered, this one gets addressed repeatedly.

Would anyone know this was such an issue in the Gospels from the behavior they could observe in Evangelical churches? In Evangelical households? Constantly we are told that these children are outside the kingdom–despite their prayers, songs of praise, and professions of faith–and that we must “evangelize” them. I submit we should consider the possibility that our “concern” actually masks self-aggrandizement and pharisaism.

We are told to gently restore adults caught in sin (Galatians 6.1ff). How do we get the right to exclude toddlers who have never (yet, perhaps) sinned so seriously, and then be so magnanimous as if we held the keys to the door?

Maybe they’re the ones with the keys.

awnurmarc » Chapter 1 of John Williamson Nevin’s My Own Life: The Earlier Years – “My Childhood and Early Years”.

Forbidden Truth: US-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia & the Failed Search for bin Laden by Jean-Charles Brisard
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

–Us Gov supported the Taliban during the 90s because of desire in Gov/Corp (!) for a stable power to provide for a pipeline through Afghanistan.

##So the whole idea that we *ONLY* went into Afghanistan to punish Taliban and find Al Qaeda is suspect. And it shows why nation-building was the only option considered, rather than a punitive expedition.

–Taliban eventually got hard to handle because they resisted giving up Osama bin Laden. Plus they were embarrassing.

–In the 90s one State department official seems to has mentioned “carpet bombing” to the Taliban as the only option to cooperation with US interests (offering “a carpet of gold” as the carrot to go with the stick). When questioned, claimed he was just joking and drunk and can’t be sure if he said that or not.

–bin Laden family enmeshed in Saudi kingdom as a major Corp.

–OBL enmeshed in bin Laden family businesses. “Black Sheep” of the family may be an exaggeration or even a lie. Saudi “rejection” of OBL may be more appearance than reality.

–Qaddafi was the first (and only?) regime to seriously pursue OBL via InterPol, etc because he was a target of Al Qaeda enmity. This was a minor sidenote in the book used to compare Libya’s reaction to the lethargic Western reaction (or contrary reactionS within the West). But in light of recent events it stood out. Qaddafi was a modernizer and relative secularist. His story shows how the term “Islamofascism” is misleading since the Islamic Fundamentalist forces tend to be at odds with the secular, Western-influenced leaders like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.

–Huge part of the book is dedicated to showing the immense connections/entanglements between Saudi-Western-and Terrorist banking. BCCI is only an extreme example of many related institutions. The Bush family and co. is especially invested (literally!) in these groups.

Short book, dated by now, but essential.

View all my reviews

To give you an idea of how this sort of thing works, let me offer a historical example from the other side of the ideological spectrum, from the left. In 1934 Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California. Most students had read his novel, “The Jungle,” which exposed the corruption and health hazards of the American meat-processing industry.

Sinclair was a popular and compelling figure. The nation was in the throes of the Great Depression and the people of California liked his ideas. He stunned the Democrat Party establishment by winning the nomination and it was likely that he would be elected governor in the general election.

The conspiracy to stop Mr. Sinclair was organized by a California oligarchy, a small group of wealthy businessmen who feared losing control of the California governor’s mansion and all the money it represented. Besides, Sinclair was a socialist and had once run for Congress on the Socialist Party ticket.

The conspirators arranged for a “Progressive” to run as a third-party candidate to split Sinclair’s vote. They helped fund the campaign and poured money into the rival Republican but it didn’t stop there.

They launched a full-court press. The famous preacher Aimee Semple McPherson, unused to attention from such prominent Californians, was enlisted and persuaded to use her pulpit to preach to thousands about the dangers of Upton Sinclair and his crazy Socialist ideas.

This secret conspiracy only became known because it involved President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his records survived. Candidate Sinclair made the long journey across the country to Hyde Park where he met with FDR, the chief Democrat, and often the target of accusations of socialism himself.

Sinclair explained his situation and asked the leader of his party for help. He left Hyde Park convinced that Roosevelt would soon publicly endorse him. But we now know that the California oligarchy had already covered that base. Roosevelt was offered a proposal from the California Cabal.

They promised that the Republican candidate, if elected governor, would not oppose FDR’s New Deal in their state. In return, FDR would withhold any endorsement of the Democrat ticket. Unknown to Sinclair, the deal was struck. Upton Sinclair went down to defeat. A Republican was elected. The oligarchy ruled.

Now, this story is instructive on two counts. It shows that conspiracies do indeed take place, they can involve the highest elected officials in the land, and they almost always involve money and private corporations.

via The Conspiracy Against Ron Paul.