Liberty, license, responsibility and sin…

I’ll cut to the chase.  Liberty without responsibility is license.  License is sin.  And sin is an ignored and forgotten component of American culture.

Question:  Do you believe that “morality” in the United States has declined over the past 50 years?  If so, why?

Detour.  What is “sin?”  Sin is a word that most people in this generation do not want to discuss or even think about.  Heck, most churches don’t even discuss this anymore, never mind suggest we shouldn’t do it.  Gosh, that would be mean spirited and in-Christian if Churches discussed sin. 

Oh how far we have fallen.

Quick fact:  In Christianity, if sin is not acknowledged there can be no grace.  If you think yourself a “Christian” and ignore or dismiss the concept of “sin”, you need to question your salvation.  Christianity requires the acknowledgement of sin, the heartfelt regret for that sin, and a request to God for the forgiveness of that sin.  Then the grace of God will be freely given.  Even saved people sin.  It is the regret for that sin and request for forgiveness that distinguishes the Christian from others.

Ok, back to “what is sin?”

For there to be “sin”, there has to be a standard against which a sin is determined.  Therefore, “sin” is falling short of meeting certain standards.  There are two types of standards:  Natural law, which is the belief system built into all of us that gives us a general sense of right and wrong.  I’m not talking about “cultural” standards, no.  This is more of a universal, inbred sense that all people have to some degree – some possessing the sense more than others.  An example is the universal standard of not killing another person for no apparent reason.  This form of sin is rather vague and undefined.  It can be easily twisted and perverted by cultural “group think” because of its vagueness.  Sensing this “natural law” sin is like tuning into a very weak radio station.  Islamic cultural behavior is one example of cultural “group think” that masks and overwhelms adherence to natural law.  There is often a lot of interference coming from stronger influences that will mask the weaker signal.

Then there are the more explicit standards established by God as expressed through the Bible.  The Ten Commandments are the best known.  But there are dozens of others stated and exemplified throughout Scripture that reflect God’s standards for us.  Gender affiliation, marriage, faithfulness, loving kindness, honesty, humility, and dozens more are given to us.

The extent to which we ignore or violate these standards is “sin.”  Of course there is an array of sexual perversions that warrant the sin label.  But by no means do these comprise even most. 

Some apparent sins aren’t necessarily so.  For example,  “anger” is often a sin.  But there is such a thing as “righteous anger”.  Even God has shown anger.  But such “righteous” anger has two distinguishing characteristics:  1)  It is temporary, and 2) It is for an excellent, or righteous, reason.  What might be a righteous reason to be angry?  If someone beat you up for no apparent reason or if you were given a speeding ticket for going 35 in a 40 mph zone.  God’s righteous anger has occurred when some people willfully abuse Him and his commands.

Having the behavioral boundaries of “sin” give us absolute freedom within those self-imposed boundaries.

Now, to the problem.  Over the past several decades a greater and greater percentage of the US population have been ignoring God’s primary means of communicating with us:  The Bible:  God’s written advice, commands, and standards for us.  Consequently, more and more people have less and less understanding of the standards God has for us.  The end result is we are losing – or have lost – any sense of “sin” because we have become ignorant or deniers of God’s standards.  Sin?  What’s that and who cares?

All we have left is the faint, tiny inner voice of natural law.  And that natural law is virtually drowned out by the noise of the culture claiming “anything goes.”  We had liberty when we had standards.  Do we have more liberty now?  No.  Ignoring God’s standards removes personal responsibility which creates license.  The concept of “sin” is virtually eliminated because there is little left of standards for sin to be noticed or declared.

Has this new found license created the ultimate freedom and liberty?  No.  It is the exact opposite.  The result is moral anarchy.  There is no predictability as to what is right or wrong anymore.  What we used to believe was wrong, or “sin” is now promoted by the culture as ok; maybe superior according to some.  And what we believed was right is now against the culture and increasingly against the law.  Refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay, same sex couple comes to mind.

The sense of right and wrong is becoming increasingly whimsical, subject to popular fads and preferences.

Churches cannot assume people understand, never mind agree with, the concept of sin anymore.  It is as dead a concept as cursive handwriting is to third graders.

I don’t know that anything short of another supernatural “great awakening” can bring us back to the Bible and God’s standards for right and wrong – and recognizing the very real concept of sin so that God may once again pour his grace out upon the sinner.

“Beams” are neutering Christian morality

Another Biblical verse misapplied out of context

3“Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when the beam is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

___________________________

I recently attended a beautiful Christmas musical event at a local Presbyterian Church affiliated with the liberal PCUSA denomination.  After the program’s conclusion as I was passing through the narthex I paused to ask one of the parishioners a question or two about the church.  I already knew its liberal denominational affiliation. But I know that sometimes local churches deviate a bit from precise denominational positions and wanted to know where this church stood.

I asked, “is this church considered ‘liberal’, ‘middle of the road’, or ‘conservative’?”  She answered “middle of the road – it follows the guidance of the denomination.”  I followed up with, “how would you describe “middle of the road.”  She answered, “well, we don’t discuss the social issues like gay marriage and homosexuality.  We understand this area around here isn’t very culturally diverse.” 

From that brief exchange I gleaned that her church doesn’t discuss those topics because the area is too conservative for a liberal church to discuss the liberal biases of the church, so they just avoid discussing the topics.  Yup, the parishioners and area are just not open minded and tolerant enough to sing the praises of GLTBQ options.  Bottom line:  The culture dictates the teaching.  Don’t offend anyone.

A bit later I discussed my brief encounter with a Christian friend.  After mentioning the parishioner’s response to my question, I added, “it appears that Presbyterian Church prefers to ignore a fairly large segment of Biblical teaching.  She responded, “is that a beam I see in your eye?”

Wow!  Well, shut my mouth.  I just heard a stereotypical response reflecting the attitude of todays modern church.  It is this:  Because we all have “beams” in our eyes, we dare not discuss the value of Biblical morality or the role of the church in admonishing immorality.   No sirree, Bob.  It is all “grace” and good times. 

This attitude ignores quite a lot.  It ignores half of what the Bible teaches and what the churches used to teach, but teaches no more:  The relationship between sin and grace.

Without acknowledgment of sin there can be no grace.  We dare not discuss the types of sins we commit for two reasons:  1)  We all have ‘beams’ in our eyes, and 2) We may offend someone, and the Lord knows, we can. not. do. that!

So let’s ignore sin – let’s not discuss it.  It still exists, but there is no need to remind ourselves of it.  Let’s just use the generic term “beam.”

When the Church stops talking about sin, it may as well close its doors – as many are doing.  And we wonder why crime, drug use, and immorality are on the rise.

Are we using our “beams” as a poor excuse to neuter Christian morality?  It appears we are. 

Rather than assume that verse means that we are never to judge because of our own shortcomings, it is better to interpret it as intended.  The essence is:  (Interpretation 1) Clean up our own act before we are critical of another’s act.  It does NOT mean (Interpretation 2)":Hey dude, keep quiet about that trash, we’re all doing it. 

Liberal churches and liberal Christian thought are now preferring Interpretation 2.

Oh, by the way, let’s forget about these verses:

Romans 15:14

And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.

Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Psalm 141:5

Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; It is oil upon the head; Do not let my head refuse it, For still my prayer is against their wicked deeds.

Luke 17:3

"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

1 Thessalonians 5:14

We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Attempted Deceptions by an Islamic Apologist

We know by now that the primary Islamic texts, the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, as well as their interpretation by the vast majority of Islamic scholars today promote hatred and violent jihad against both less devout Muslims as well as non-Muslim infidels.

Also, anyone who does any internet research is also aware that Muslims and their apologists (Muslim and non-Muslim) have numerous websites that go to great lengths to attempt to discredit the current interpretation of very clear verses in Islamic texts that promote such violent supremacism.

One such verse among dozens of others that say basically the same thing, is this:

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…”

What follows is a demonstration of how one apologist for Islam attempts to make us believe that Islam is something other than  what Muslims believe it is.

Here is the introduction of an article by that very title:

Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

Posted on February 18, 2015 by David Gerald Fincham

The phrase “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” appears more than once in the Qur'an. Many critics of Islam, and a few Muslim extremists, taking this phrase out of context, conclude that the Qur'an encourages Muslim violence towards non-Muslims. The following explanation of the true interpretation of the phrase is taken from the introduction to the English translation of the Qur'an by M.A.S Abdul Haleem.

David Fincham devotes four typewritten pages to explain the “true” interpretation of the phase. His thesis is that the expression is taken out of context and has very narrow application that does not apply to Christians and Jews and applies ONLY to situations where Muslims feel threatened by forces they believe are opposed to Islam.

I did not include his entire four page analysis here, but if you are curious it is located HERE. He goes by the name of “Walk Tall, Hang Loose” on his blog.

He concludes with this…

Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point.

He basically asserts that we can’t believe what we read in Islamic texts – that doing so is careless and mean-spirited.

Gosh!  It’s too bad Muslims and their leaders and scholars don’t listen to David.

David, like many other apologists for Islam, attempt to apply the type of exegesis and interpretation methodology to Islamic texts as Christians would to Christian texts.  It doesn’t work that way.

He asserts the “context” of the statement “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is crucial. He IGNORES the fact that the traditional order of Qur’anic verses is from longest to shortest. Some later translations were put in supposed chronological order.

How can “context” be important when the order is arbitrarily “longest to shortest?”

In addition to that glaring faux pas, I responded by email to David pointing out a number of other problems with his wishful thinking…

My initial response

Muslims kill other Muslims and non-Muslims in great numbers - in the name of Islam - and for the sake of Allah - every day. Jihad is Islam. No contrived "moral equivalency" please. There is none. The Ummah of Islam, its predominant leaders and a great majority of its adherents favor jihad against the infidel based on orthodox Islamic doctrine. The naïve attempt to gloss over these facts.

Here is “Walk Tall, Hang Loose’s” (WTHL) reply:

Mr. Abdul Haleem whose English translation of the Quran I quote above is a professor of Islamic studies at the University of London. He knows more about orthodox Islam than you do. I have lived in a Muslim country and have had many Muslim friends and colleagues. I know far more about what the great majority of Muslims favor than you do, and I assure you they are not thinking about 'jihad against the infidel'. By the way, the 'unbelievers' in the Quran are the polytheistic religious leaders who persecuted Mohammad and his followers. Christians and Jews are not 'infidels'.

You have been confused by thinking that the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia is 'orthodox Islam'. It is not, it is an extreme intolerant and violent sect which is behind the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, the Saudi Arabian bombing of the Shia Muslims in Yemen, and the terrorist attacks in Europe by local Muslims who have been radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi Arabia and by their Saudi Arabian Imams.

My reply

Point 1: Muslims try to follow the example of Muhammad. If Muhammad were alive today, he would be the perfect Wahhabi, or worse (or "better" from Islamic perspective.) Islamic doctrine teaches that Muhammad was the most perfect human. Go figure.

Point 2: You've known "many Muslim friends and colleagues." Great. Many "Muslim friends next door" or "at work" who were thought to be your "typical 'moderate' Muslims" have proven themselves to be anything but. Many atrocities, aka "jihad attacks" were carried out by the "nice Muslim next door" or "at work."

Point 3: A significant Islamic doctrine is taqiyya. Being as well versed as you claim, I'm sure you know all about that.

Point 4: Islamic doctrine also promotes the idea of not making friends with the infidel. Be a friend outwardly but not inwardly. They avoid true assimilation. I'm sure you know all about that as well, but fail to acknowledge it to yourself.

Point: 5: Of course there are apostate Muslims who disbelieve or do not practice the mainstream doctrines I mentioned above. But I must ask myself why they persist in identifying as "Muslim" if they 1) do not wish to emulate the life of Muhammad, or even believe in the actions he lived by and promoted, 2) why they don't believe in the other widely believed in and practiced orthodox doctrines I described.

Point 6: Zuhdi Jasser in the US is a perfect example of a self-proclaimed "devout Muslim" who interprets NONE of the Islamic trilogy as being anti-freedom, anti-jihad, anti-woman, anti-gay, or anti-infidel. But for some perhaps "strange to you" reasons, none of the mosques in the US endorse his apostate version of Islam.

Point 7: The interpretation of Islamic scripture is manifest in the actions taught and promoted by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders and scholars, and faithfully carried out by untold numbers of devout Muslim believers. Today, those actions speak volumes of how Islamic scripture is interpreted.

Point 8: True, the closer a non-Muslim is to practicing Muslims, the more he will be deceived ty them. You apparently are a case in point.

WTHL reply

What is your source for 'Islamic doctrine'? I can only think that it is a Wahhabi source. Mainstream Islamic scholars denounce Wahhabism in strong terms, as a 'vile sect', 'Satanic faith' and 'a source of global terrorism'. Wahhabis denounce other Muslims as takfir (apostates) and justify killing them. A Wahhabi would never say Muhammad was a perfect human being, because that would make him equal to God.

To find out what the preponderance of Islamic scholars say about the Wahhabi-inspired jihadi groups read their letter to Al-Baghdadi http://www.lettertobaghdadi...

My Reply

Sources: Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and most of all: ISLAMIC ACTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

"Wahhabi would never say..." It sounds like you are equating the Islamic interpretation of Muhammad with Christian doctrine.  There is no "man-God" in Islam. Islam has no "perfect" human being equivalent to Jesus Christ.   No, there is NO chance of equating Muhammad with Allah. The closest Islam gets is Muhammad - not "perfect", but the "most perfect" human to be emulated in all ways. This is not the view of only Wahhabis.  It is an orthodox Islamic teaching.

WTHL Reply

You continue to make assertions without backing them up with evidence. If you want to cite the Qu'ran or the hadith you have to give the exact verse, or no-one can check what you say. Since I doubt you can read classical Arabic, you also need to say which English translation you are using.

For example: you say that it is a Muslim doctrine that Muhammad is the most perfect human. I have never read or heard a Muslim saying that. What they do say is that all the prophets are of equal importance.

You say that most Muslims favor jihad against the unbelievers. That is certainly incorrect since Islam is based on the Qu'ran and as I have have explained in my post the Qu'ran clearly permits only defensive war. The only Islamic actions around the world today which promote offensive jihad against non-Muslims or Muslims of other sects are those inspired by the Wahhabis.

You say that if Muhammad were alive today he would be a Wahhabi. What do you mean by that, and how do you know?

I suspect you have never talked to a Muslim about his faith, and that what you say is picked up from some Islamophobic website, which you believe because you want to believe it - why, I have no idea.

My reply

Why do you continue to be blind to what is going on in the Islamic world? Why are you basing your view of the Qur'an as a "wishful thinker" unless you, yourself desire to promote deception as well?

Evidence of the truth of what I say is all around, with 10's of thousands of victims of Islamic jihad - millions if you count all of Islamic history, yet you continue to deny the reality.

I'm done here. A time waster.

David Fincham

_____________________________________

Yes, indeed.  Continuing to debate such person is a time waster.  The only possible reason why the US is spending BILLIONS in defense against Muslim attacks on our homeland is that there is some, apparently elusive, common denominator to the motive behind the attacks.  We do not want to and consequently FAIL to acknowledge that the common denominator is Islam, Islamic texts, and their interpretation by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders.

David Fincham (Walk Tall, Hang Loose) and other Islamic apologists ignore or gloss over the following realities:

1. Christian exegesis cannot be used to interpret Islamic texts - context is missing in most situations in Islamic texts.

2. The vast majority of Islamic scholars interpret Islamic texts in the manner they are written. The evidence of this? The widespread and nearly universal jihad engaged by Islamic nations against the West as well as the hundreds of Islamic terror groups that exist in nearly every nation around the globe.

3. Islamic texts and Islamic culture have inculcated within Muslims a predisposition to hate and to believe that other faiths are inferior; that Islam is supreme and must dominate by any and all means.

4. Many considered to be “moderate” Muslims have turned out to be anything but.

5. Moderate self-proclaimed “devout” Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser who talk and act as if they have dismissed the majority of Islamic texts and doctrines are considered by the vast majority of Islamic leaders in US Mosques as apostate. No supposed “Christian” who dismissed the majority of the Bible and Christian doctrine would in fact be anything but “apostate.”

6. The person of Muhammad is considered by Muslims as the most perfect human being.  That is indisputable fact.  Yet he was a child molester, warrior, assassin, and likely an addict dependent on drugs to induce his psychoses. Islamic doctrine urges followers to emulate his life in every way possible. In terms of Christian morality, Muhammad was Satanic.

Such men as Fincham likely have the ear of many of our politicians and media. They are effective deceivers on behalf of Islam. I don’t know whether Fincham is Muslim or not.  But if he is, he practices their fine art of taqiyya well. If he isn’t, he is just another leftist liberal academic that is so full of his “intellect” that he ignores what is really going on in the world.

White Christians now a minority…

Wow.  Finally we white, Christian folk get to experience the perks of “affirmative action legislation.”  Or not.

But we DO get to feel the racial and religious prejudice and slander.

By the way.  Affirmative action is racist, Christaphobic and especially misandrist (prejudice or unfair treatment of males.) 

White Christian males are especially in the minority and subject to extreme prejudice.  We are especially due an extra portion of government’s racist, sexist, Christaphobic affirmative action protections and perks.  When do I get my government rent check and my preferential, racist, sexist business loan?

I think I might go out and protest.  See ya.

This from the Associated Press:

SURVEY:

WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE NOW A MINORITY OF US POPULATION

BY RACHEL ZOLL
AP RELIGION WRITER

NEW YORK (AP) -- The share of Americans who identify as white and Christian has dropped below 50 percent, a transformation fueled by immigration and by growing numbers of people who reject organized religion altogether, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

Christians overall remain a large majority in the U.S., at nearly 70 percent of Americans. However, white Christians, once predominant in the country's religious life, now comprise only 43 percent of the population, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, a polling organization based in Washington. Four decades ago, about eight in 10 Americans were white Christians.

The change has occurred across the spectrum of Christian traditions in the U.S., including sharp drops in membership in predominantly white mainline Protestant denominations such as Presbyterians and Lutherans; an increasing Latino presence in the Roman Catholic Church as some non-Hispanic white Catholics leave; and shrinking ranks of white evangelicals, who until recently had been viewed as immune to decline.

The trends identified in the survey are fueling anxiety about the place of Christians in society, especially among evangelicals, alarmed by support for gay marriage and by the increasing share of Americans - about one-quarter - who don't identify with a faith group. President Donald Trump, who repeatedly promised to protect the religious liberty of Christians, drew 80 percent of votes by white evangelicals, a constituency that remains among his strongest supporters.

About 17 percent of Americans now identify as white evangelical, compared to 23 percent a decade ago, according to the survey. Membership in the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant group, dropped to 15.2 million last year, its lowest number since 1990, according to an analysis by Chuck Kelley, president of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

"So often, white evangelicals have been pointing in judgment to white mainline groups, saying when you have liberal theology you decline," said Robert Jones, chief executive of PRRI. "I think this data really does challenge that interpretation of linking theological conservatism and growth."

The PRRI survey of more than 100,000 people was conducted from January 2016 to January of this year and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.4 percentage points. Previous surveys had found that the Protestant majority that shaped the nation's history had dropped below 50 percent sometime around 2008. The PRRI poll released Wednesday included a more in-depth focus on race and religion. Jones said growth among Latino Christians, and stability in the numbers of African-American Christians, had partly obscured the decline among white Christians.

The survey also found that more than a third of all Republicans say they are white evangelicals, and nearly three-quarter identify as white Christians. By comparison, white Christians have become a minority in the Democratic Party, shrinking from 47 percent a decade ago, to 29 percent now. Forty percent of Democrats say they have no religious affiliation.

Among American Catholics, 55 percent now identify as white, compared to 87 percent 25 years ago, amid the growing presence of Latino Catholics, according to the report. Over the last decade, the share of white Catholics in the U.S. population dropped from 16 percent to 11 percent. Over the same period, white mainline Protestants declined from 18 percent to 13 percent of all Americans.

Lulling the Allies to Sleep: N. Korea’s nuclear endgame…

North Korea has developed a ritual of regularly lofting its missiles 200 miles, 500 miles, 1,000 miles or more over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.  And as we know, so far no one has felt it necessary to shoot down any of those “harmless” missiles.

What if…

What if N. Korea continues this practice a couple more times, and of course again no one feels it necessary to shoot them down?

But then, surprise surprise, the next missile carries a nuke detonated over Japan, unleashing an EMP that totally disables that country – an enemy of Korea in the ‘40’s, and a potential staging area for the defense of South Korea today?

Of course we would then wipe out N. Korea’s nuclear capabilities but our of big heartedness sparing its population and infrastructure, at which point N. Korea triggers one of it’s nuke equipped satellites 200 miles over the center of the US unleashing a debilitating EMP over our heartland.  See the real potential for this HERE and HERE.

How likely is this?  Did I just make up this scenario?

No.

Here is a more detailed version from The Hill:

North Korea just might be able to win a war, if it begins with an EMP in Tokyo

BY PETER PRY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/10/17 03:00 PM EDT

© Getty Images

North Korea has nuclear-armed missiles and satellites potentially capable of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. EMP is considered by many the most politically acceptable use of a nuclear weapon, because the high-altitude detonation (above 30 kilometers) produces no blast, thermal, or radioactive fallout effects harmful to people.

EMP itself is harmless to people, destroying only electronics. But by destroying electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures, the indirect effects of EMP can kill far more people in the long-run than nuclear blasting a city.

In this scenario, North Korea makes an EMP attack on Japan and South Korea to achieve its three most important foreign policy goals: reunification with South Korea, revenge upon Japan for World War II, and recognition of North Korea as a world power.

Revenge against Tokyo is a convenient rationale for someday attacking Japan. War against Japan will be necessary for the North to conquer South Korea, as Japan is an indispensable staging area for U.S. and allied forces defending South Korea.

North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong In, is the scion of three generations of totalitarian rule, a megalomaniac and ruthless murderer described by state media as a demigod having supernatural powers.

Kim’s strategy is to sever U.S. security guarantees to South Korea and Japan by raising the stakes too high—raising the specter of nuclear war—and through "nuclear diplomacy" to cow the U.S. and its allies into submission.

In this scenario, North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon at 96 kilometers HOB (height of burst) over Tokyo. The EMP field extends from the Japanese capital to a radius of 1,080 kilometers, covering all of Japan's major home islands.

Virtually all of Japan's major military bases and seaports are covered by the EMP field, rendering them inoperable. Traffic control towers and systems are damaged and blacked-out stopping air and rail traffic. Highways are jammed with stalled vehicles. Communications systems are damaged or destroyed or in blackout.

Worse, Japan's population of 126 million people is at risk because suddenly there is no running water or food coming into the cities. EMP induced industrial accidents are happening everywhere. Gas pipelines are exploding and turning into firestorms in towns and cities. Refineries and chemical plants are exploding, releasing toxic clouds and poisonous spills. Tokyo knows from the experience of Fukushima that as the nationwide blackout becomes protracted, within days Japan's nuclear reactors will exhaust their emergency power supplies and begin exploding, contaminating the home islands with radioactivity.

As a consequence of the EMP attack, Japan's critical infrastructures are paralyzed and incapable of transporting U.S. forces to aid South Korea. Indeed, with Japan's survival at risk, Tokyo would probably oppose any effort to help South Korea by U.S. forces staging from Japan, fearing another North Korean EMP attack.

The EMP field also covers the eastern half of South Korea, including the vital seaport of Busan (the key to South Korea's survival and U.S. victory in the last Korean War). All the eastern coastal seaports, and all military bases and airfields in the eastern half of South Korea (nearest Japan) are under the EMP field.

The EMP field does not extend to North Korea.

Left uncovered by the EMP field are the western half of South Korea, including Seoul, the capital, and the major highway systems radiating around and from Seoul southward—the best invasion routes. Stalled traffic from the EMP will not be blocking Seoul or the highways.

U.S. and South Korean forces covering the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) will not be covered by the EMP field. The EMP field, in their immediate rear area, will cause cascading failures of the electric grid throughout the DMZ and the entirety of South Korea.

Thus, even those U.S. and South Korean forces not covered by the EMP field will be in a paralyzing protracted blackout that will cripple or deny allied forces communications, transportation, food and water, supplies and reinforcements from South Korean bases or from overseas.

The EMP attack creates conditions for North Korea's conquest of South Korea that are ideal.

North Korean armor and infantry pours across the DMZ, thrusting through and around Seoul and down the coastal highways, flanking U.S. and allied forces paralyzed by EMP and unable to maneuver.

U.S. nuclear missiles and bombers start blasting North Korea’s nuclear forces and underground bunkers where the Dear Leader may be hiding. Now Kim Jong In knows he has miscalculated. The U.S. is no paper tiger.

In a final act of vengeance, Kim detonates the super-EMP warhead in his KMS-4 satellite, blacking out the United States.

Airliners crash. Communications and transportation stop. Natural gas pipelines explode, causing firestorms in cities. In seven days, 100 U.S. nuclear reactors go Fukushima. In a year, most Americans are dead from starvation.

The United States, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea are in ruins.

Russia and China are the winners.

Mr. President, harden the U.S. electrical grid to defend against an EMP attack, and shoot down those North Korean satellites!

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission. He served on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee and at the CIA.

Southern Poverty Law Center lists reputable Christian Ministries as “hate groups”…

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently added a number of conservative, Christian, Islam awareness and related groups to their list of “hate groups.”  Of course, the mainstream media (MSM) uses the SPLC as if it were “the Gospel” (is it allowed to use that word?) when they report to so-called “news.”  Robert Spencer's “Jihad Watch”, Pamela Geller’s “Geller Report”, and Brigitte  Gabriel’s  “Act for America” are current examples.  There are many others.

Among the most recent is one of the most reputable Christian ministries I know:  The D. James Kennedy Ministries.

I am personally familiar with the people involved in that Christian ministry.  It is one of the most solidly Christian ministries I have known.  And the SPLC has declared them a “hate group.”

That means that anyone who embraces traditional Christian doctrine, whether Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, or even Latter Day Saints are subject to slander as “haters.”

D. James Kennedy Ministries is among the first to declare “enough is enough.”  They filed suit against the slandering SPLC.

HERE is a post by Pam Geller on the subject where she reports,

This is most welcome and encouraging. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been defaming perfectly good organizations for years, with no pushback at all and blanket acceptance from an enemedia that never even once asks what makes this sinister group a valid arbiter of what constitutes a hate group and what doesn’t. It is great to see that free people are beginning to fight back. I wish the D. James Kennedy Ministries all success.

I don’t usually solicit contributions for organization in my blogs, but I’ll make this  situation my first exception.

If you feel moved to contribute toward D. James Kennedy Ministries to help defend Christianity and expression of the Christian faith and conservative values, please do so via the linked website HERE.

Closely related to this ongoing SPLC slander attack is a video by Andrew Klaven titled “Shut Up!”.  It is a summation is what the left is doing all across the nation to silence conservative, Christian, patriot, and pro-US constitutionalist views.

Those like the SPLC, ANTIFA and others who slander and protest against Christians, patriots, law-abiding and freedom loving people the loudest, accusing us of being “Nazis”, are the ones acting like haters and Nazis.

Below is a letter from Jerry Newcombe, the Executive Director of D. James Kennedy Ministries, describing the despicable and irresponsible actions of the SPLC and how the MSM blindly follows…

What Is Hate and Who Gets to Define It? The SPLC?

by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min.

A headline on Drudge (8/21/17) declares that Google is teaming up with “liberal groups to snuff out conservative websites.” Apparently the search-engine giant is partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other left-wing groups to document and publicize “hate crimes and events” in America.

After the terrible events in Charlottesville, any God-fearing, rational American would welcome this news, correct? The problem, however, is that by allowing groups like the SPLC to define what is hate and who is a hater, they show how dangerous this development could be.

Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council, an organization once attacked by a man convicted as a domestic terrorist because they were included on the SPLC Hate Map, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center is reckless in labeling groups as hate groups or labeling individuals as hate mongers, and they do both. They have no authority to do so.”

I work for a group, D. James Kennedy Ministries, which the SPLC has falsely designated a “hate group” because we don’t believe in same-sex marriage. That view doesn’t make us unique. Up until the last few years, the majority of Americans did not believe in it either—nor did Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, according to their public statements up until 2012.

Yet, according to the SPLC, we’re “haters.” The irony that I’m supposedly a hater is that I am anything but. Daily I strive to pray the Prayer of St. Francis: “Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me replace it with love…” And so on.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lost his office twice, in part because of actions by the SPLC. First, they joined with other liberal groups to sue him for a public display of the Ten Commandments. Then in 2012, he won the election as Chief Justice again for Alabama, but the SPLC filed a legal complaint against him for his stance in favor of traditional marriage---a stance that 81 percent of the voters in Alabama took in 2006 to amend their Constitution.

I got to interview Chief Justice Moore recently for our television program, “Profit$ of Hate,” about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Moore accused the SPLC essentially of psychological projection.

Moore, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center has had Ben Carson [the renowned neurosurgeon] on their hate list. They’ve had Tony Perkins and his organization [the above-mentioned Family Research Council] on their hate list. The truth is: they’re the ones that hate. They hate God, and they hate the acknowledgment of God; and [yet] they call other people haters.”

The SPLC likes to fancy itself as doing the unfinished work of the civil rights movement---which they have now linked to same-sex marriage and transgender rights, and so on.

For our program, I also got to interview Ricardo Davis, an African-American who is the president of Georgia’s Right-to-Life and is also the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia, which is on the SPLC’s hate list as an alleged antigovernment group. Davis commends the SPLC for the good work they did in the waning days of the civil rights movement. But he notes that Dr. Martin Luther King’s movement was undergirded by faith in God and in the Bible. In contrast, what the SPLC is promoting today is often in contradiction to faith in God and in the Bible.

Davis told our viewers, “If I could say something to [SPLC co-founder] Morris Dees right now, what I would say is, ‘Morris, you came alongside my father’s generation to help them get out from under injustice and it was unjust because it violated God’s Word…. but now, you’re on the wrong side of history’.”

Critics note that even many of the actual hate groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hate Map (such as the Ku Klux Klan) have been on the wane for decades. But Morris Dees and the SPLC manage to make huge profits by scaring people into thinking that behind virtually every bush in America is some sort of hate-monger.

Davis added, “What did Jesus say? What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world? If he keeps his mailing list up to date, if he rakes in millions and millions of dollars, yet loses his soul?  And The Southern Poverty Law Center in particular is an organization that has lost the soul and energy behind the civil rights movement. The honorable thing to do would be to repent and believe the gospel.”

We should all work to end true hate in America. But defining the politics of someone you merely disagree with as “hate” just muddies the waters and further divides us as a nation.

Nothing good can come out of a “free speech rally” where 30,000 protest against it…

OK.  Things are getting really weird now.

Last week there was a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA organized and led by a former Occupy Wall Street leftist Obama supporter inadvertently featuring a guy from Ohio who mowed down a bunch of counter-protesters via his car.

Today there was a “Free Speech Rally” in Boston, MA comprised of fewer than 100 where over 30,000 came out to protest against the free speech rally.

And naturally most media will or have come out for the 30,000 anti-free speech rallyers in the name of … you guessed it…free speech.  The irony is massive.  Even Trump came out in support of the leftists who marched against the free speech rally.

“But [Trump]… later seemed to back the …[demonstrators], posting: “Our great country has been divided for decades. Sometimes you need protest in order to heel [sic], & we will heel, & be stronger than ever before!”

The Guardian

The “tolerate everything” leftists are showing themselves to be the least tolerant of anyone.  The left who act like Nazi’s call the organizers of peaceful rallies “Nazis.”

Conservatives can’t speak on college campuses because the “tolerant” leftist university leaders can’t tolerate them.

Leftists tolerate or promote homosexuality, gay marriage, transgenders, Islamic ideology,  big government,  one-world government, higher taxes, and burdensome regulations.

They don’t tolerate but vilify free speech, truth, Christians, Jews, those who want a strong and successful America aka “Nationalists”, patriots, conservatives and Constitutionalists.

There was never a time in my memory where the warning “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…”  was so appropriate.

Zeitgeist is a word that came to my  attention recently.  It is a mysterious sounding word with tones of an ethereal, unseen force washing over and influencing masses of people – a poltergeist on a massive scale.  The dictionary  definition is: “the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.”  A more complete definition is “the dominant set of ideals and beliefs that motivate the actions of the members of a society in a particular period in time.”

There were fairly gradual changes to our nations “zeitgeist” over the past several decades.  But those decades were more like a pent up zeitgeist occasionally peeking his head out of the bottle in contrast to what we are experiencing today.  Today the pent up zeitgeist is fully out of the bottle, manifesting itself in ways we could not have imagined just a few years ago.

This in itself is an undeniable social revolution.

Yet, will this revolution be more than our society can bear?  Will there be a counter-revolution?  Not one where another zeitgeist peeks out of the bottle, but a physical counter-reaction to the evil forces that is todays zeitgeist.

I’ve read several accounts of recent clashes that are described as the opening salvos of a new American civil war.  Not one with physical boundaries like north versus south.  But one that has both sides battling everywhere – in every state, in every city.

The sides will be these:

The Defenders:

Conservative Christians

Conservative Jews

Constitutionalists:  Primarily “originalists”

Nationalists: those who want our nation to be successful and strong

Patriots:  Those who cherish the history and basis of our nation’s founding and what it represents.

Those who promote personal responsibility and self-sufficiency

Those who cherish individual freedoms and less government regulation and coercion

The Zeitgeist Protagonists: 

Socialists/progressives/Communists

Muslims

Most college professors

Most media

Most blacks

Those who are suspicious of the basis of our nation’s founding and who demonize it.

Those who not only disbelieve the Christian and Jewish religions but who believe they are a problem to be dealt with.

Most in state and federal government.

Most who are dependent on entitlements from the state and federal governments including EBT recipients, housing assistance recipients and others who rely on government aid and programs.

The lines are drawn.  The players are showing their hand of who they are and where they stand.  The Republicans are the biggest surprise to many of us.  I can no longer identify with Republicans because they don’t identify with my interests and values any more.

The leftists and their blind followers are making themselves into fools by crying “TOLERANCE” when they are the LEAST tolerant of any group in the nation.

The question now stands:  How will this new “civil war” play out?  Will it remain merely protest versus protest?  How violent will protests become?  How many on both sides will embrace violent means to further their cause?  To what extent will this new zeitgeist limit free speech, and along with it, the ability to express and hear the truth?

Four strikes around Guam: How would we react?

A fascinating chess match is underway.  North Korea says it is planning to fire four missiles to land around the perimeter of Guam, a major US military base in the western Pacific.

The mega players are:

North Korea/China

The United States/Japan/South Korea

Within the North Korea/China sphere we have…

Kim Jong-in, known variously as the crazy fat boy and China’s pit bull and his bevy of military generals and rocket scientists..

Xi Jinping, China’s President and Li Keqiang, China’s Premier (head of government).

Given the following facts, how would you expect China to react relative to North Korea:

“China is North Korea’s most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food and energy. It has helped sustain Kim Jong-un’s regime, and has historically opposed harsh international sanctions on North Korea in the hope of avoiding regime collapse and a refugee influx across their 870-mile border.”

Article on China-North Korea Relationship by The Council on Foreign Relations

And we have the US/Japan/South Korea…

A US that arguably has not been more divided since the Civil War

US media using scare tactics reminding us that we have not been closer to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A dysfunctional US Congress opposed to the President in most things he attempts

Japan and South Korea who are likely suffering a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome in fear for their fate from the bullying military displays from North Korea’s “crazy man.”  The crazier he acts, the more effective his bluster and aggressive foreign policy is likely to be.

So back to China’s relationship with North Korea:

China and North Korea have a lot in common:  Most important allies, biggest trading partner, opposed to sanctions, 870-mile common border.  They are both in their own side of the world.   And the big unmentioned:  China would love to see a reunification of North and South Korea under the domination of the North.  China has much more in common with the North than the South.

---

Reported this evening:

BEIJING (Reuters) - If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.

---

Is there any question as to whose side China is on visa vie attempts of the US to impose effective as opposed to token sanctions?

This raises several important questions:

The first question is:  Will China be effective in preventing North Korea from its planned firing of rockets that encircle Guam?

The second question is:  Will China be effective in preventing North Korea from continuing with its development of nuclear weapons and the systems needed to deliver them across the Pacific?

My answer to the first question was going to be “yes” until I gave it further thought as explained later, below.  Initial reaction:  “Yes” because it does not appear to be in China’s interest for North Korea to provoke the US with a display of rockets in this manner. 

My answer to the second question is “no.”  China has no interest in limiting North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.  Why should they?  China has nukes – over 260 warheads.  I would not be surprised if China assisted North Korea with that technology every bit as much as  any rogue nations such as Iran has done.

This next question is based on the assumption that China will NOT reign in their favorite ally – that North Korea will continue to fire off their display of rocketry:

What will the US do when North Korea sets off 4 missiles to land around the periphery of Guam?

Here are a few alternative scenarios should this occur…

1. We shoot down the missiles.
2. We allow them to land (we don’t suspect they are armed)
3. We attempt to impose greater sanctions on North Korea
4. We attempt to squeeze China in some fashion, e.g. tariffs on Chinese imports.
5. We bomb the crap out of North Korea.
6. We bluster/threaten more, but without any substantive action

Given the nature of Trump to bluster, ridicule, and threaten as part of his “Art of the Deal” negotiation tactics, given the nature of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to oppose most things Trump proposes, and given the distaste for and likely opposition to any military action that might upset American’s comfort zone, I place a bet on #6.:  Bluster and no substantive action.  Our action relative to North Korea will be very similar to the “horrible” agreement we made with Iran concerning its nuclear program.  There was a lot of bluster about how terrible it was and that one of the first things we would do after being elected is to tear it up.

Has that happened?  Will it happen?  No and no.

Our nation is on the downhill side of the apex of not offending anyone – socially, politically, militarily.  We didn’t do much with Iran’s program.  We will do even less concerning North Korea. We have indeed become a nation of snowflakes.  Any sanction we impose on North Korea will be token.  Any embargo we place on Chinese goods will be token.  Any military action we pursue will be minimal and token.  And finally, what significant action did we take when China built and militarized islands in the midst of international sea lanes?  It didn’t happen over night.  They were years in progress.  We have essentially done nothing.

Knowing that the above is the likely reality, China will have no interest in reigning in North Korea with regard to either their missile launches or their nuclear program.  They know the US has no effective leadership and no heart for engaging in a manner that would likely upset our addict-like comfort zone.

Those who rationalize “why shouldn’t North Korea have their nukes?  So what if they use them as a threat for South Korea to capitulate to them?” will prevail.

The US will go on, happy, but no wiser.  One more war fought in vain.

____________________________

BONUS:   Click link below…

Pentagon Unveils Plan For "Pre-Emptive Strike" On North Korea

But will we do it?  I seriously doubt we will.  Note the comments section that follows the article.

Is trusting in Christ a “selfish” act?

I have heard some folks declare a moral dilemma between not being “selfish” and what they have been taught is the “selfish desire” to save themselves from hell by trusting Jesus.  Both of these moral values are understood as the teachings of the Christian Church, rightly or wrongly.  They perceive that it is a selfish act to declare their faith and trust in Christ as a means for a reward in heaven or to avoid eternal damnation in hell.

What they may be asking is “how can I possibly express my faith and trust in Christ without seeming to do it for selfish, self-serving reasons?”

I agree that such motivation to cause or force ourselves to “believe” for these reasons IS selfish.  For me, it is also not a very inspiring reason to believe.  It is self-serving. 

The promise of “reward” or threat of “punishment” for believing or not believing misses the mark of God’s intention.  In Islam, such threats are both coercive and temporal.  They literally force conversions upon people by threatening severe punishment.  In the message and methods of many Christian evangelicals the threats and promises are spiritual and eternal.  In both cases, the motivation to “believe” is self-serving and not as God intended.

Here is one way to look at it.  Do you love a spouse to avoid punishment?  Wouldn’t THAT be a horrible relationship.  Do you love a spouse to get a reward?  Sometimes.  Hopefully that is only a subsidiary “perk.”  Are either of these the best motivation for love? Not really.  These are selfish and self-serving reasons. 

On the other hand, are you able to selflessly love a spouse because of their character, goodness, beauty and their love and care for you – without feeling selfish?

Another example:  Think of your favorite singer.  You think the world of him or her.  You respect them for their talent and dedication to be as great as they are.  You get a chance to meet them in person, not to satisfy your own passion, but to convey a message of praise and encouragement to them – telling them how they make you feel when you hear them sing and how much you appreciate their music.  Was that selfish on your part?  I didn’t think so.

Ok, shifting gears.  We have a God we say we believe exists.  He created everything.  He created beauty, music, life.  He did us favors along the way through his angels or Holy Spirit.  He had a son, Jesus, who is part of God’s being, who asks us to trust Him for eternal life in a paradise with Him.

Here we have a choice of motivation.  We can trust Him for selfish reasons to get us out of a major jam and get a reward in the bargain.  Or we can trust Him because of his character, goodness, beauty, and His love and care for us, unselfishly because of our appreciation and admiration of Him.

Which way do you think He would have it?

Like selfishness, jealousy is not a good thing either.  Unless you are God.  He is a jealous God.  This means that He wants us trusting in Him more than anyone or anything else.  We are not selfish when we do that.  We are His creation.  We love Him because He first loved us.

________________________

Here is an article I found on the internet on the same topic that may be helpful…

The Selfishness of Salvation

By Frank Fredericks

GETTY IMAGES

This is a rant mostly relevant to my fellow Christians. Anyone else is welcome to come along for the ride though.

Recently, I saw a young man loudly shouting to the captive audience during the rush hour on the N train. Specifically, he was passionately pontificating on the certain damnation that awaited those who strayed from the Way of the one Jesus Christ, complete with the vivid imagery of fire and brimstone. But the reward if we choose wisely is an eternity with riches in heaven. Accustomed to any and all forms of absurdity, the mix of tired businessmen and women, several young Latina mothers an Orthodox Jewish man and an old Chinese woman with a pushcart of the wares she was vending, seemed rather unimpressed. After all, if you ride the subway in Queens, you’ve probably seen it all.

That’s when it struck me. I was quite familiar with the story, as I myself am an evangelical Christian, and remembering being sent to the streets of Portland in middle school to evangelize, complete with a small paper track that described the four-step path to salvation. Granted, our approach was much kinder than the hell and damnation talk we were witnessing this late spring afternoon, when the newly arrived humidity finds itself into the bowels of the city, and into the train cars struggling to air-condition the smell away.

But I was also struck with another thought, a new, perplexing, troubling, thought. Something about the reward of salvation made the whole thing feel a bit self-centered. Salvation was at the center of all Christian theology I was taught. The single most important thing in life was my status as “saved.” The only other thing that mattered was convincing more people to adopt said “saved” status.

While I still identify as an evangelical, my tendency to question has allowed me to grow theologically beyond some of the more common peripheral beliefs of the evangelical movement. It has given the opportunity to hear this language with fresh ears. Upon doing so, salvation-focused theology poses two issues to me.

The first issue dived into the very basis of our morality. As Christians we’re called to live a moral life. Without going into the much larger (and warranted) debate on the nature or morality, morality is most commonly seen as the way one should act to be a good, selfless person. Putting ethical standards above our own wants and needs. However, are we truly selfless in our actions if we are seeking a reward? If I help someone with no desire for a return, then we would assume that’s moral. But if I help someone because I believe next year they’ll give back to be tenfold? It sounds like an investment.

Here lies the challenge of spiritual investment: If we are are only being honest, faithful, loyal and humble for the payment of an eternal mansion in the sky, then are we really being “good people”? If we allow salvation to be our true motive in living moral lives, then I can’t see how we’re not self-serving in the process. Do good, or else.

Which brings me to the second issue, the else. Just as heaven makes a compelling incentive for upright living, hell sure sounds like a scary place. And we can work our way backwards. If my main reason for serving God and living righteously is out of fear of eternal damnation, then how authentic is my devotion?

This is a line of logic that you can take into very murky territory. Is there any good you could do worth risking of your salvation? Today, like everyday, 16,000 children will die of hunger-related causes. Would you risk your salvation to keep them alive? If God would punish you for taking such a risk, is a God worthy of worship? Would you embrace eternal damnation upon yourself to end all human suffering? These hypotheticals should challenge us to ask if we’re really selfless in our daily lives, or just following the rules for the rewards.

This isn’t an argument about how we should look at the concepts of heaven and hell. It’s about motivation. If we let go of whether or not we are saved, or other people are saved, and love as Jesus instructed, perhaps the rest can work itself out. Maybe if we focused on making sacrifice, actual sacrifice from our own comfort for the glory of God in selfless service, rather than shouting at crowd of commuters on the N train, people may actually take notice.

Journalism equals Opinionism

Sometimes the simplest definitions of things are the most accurate.

For several decades I thought of Journalism as the high art and skill set of conveying accurate information, synonymous with “reporting.”  That gave journalists waaaay to much credit.  And was I wrong.

What is journalism, really?  It is keeping a journal.  What is a “journal” but simply a written record of how a person sees and experiences things over time.

Every person who keeps a journal jots down his observations based on their own feelings, opinions and biases.  Journalism is the most basic form of communication, but with a twist.  The “twist” is the filter the journalist imposes on his journal entries.

Where are the vast majority of journalists educated?  Public schools and leftist universities.  Is there any wonder or doubt why the journalists views are slanted leftward?  They are, for the most part, parrots.  They impose the bird seed of socialism on their observations and parrot back the bird poop of life as they see it. 

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, AP, Yahoo News and a thousand other news outlets are full of leftist parrot poop journalists.

Reporting is a bit different.  Hopefully the reporter is trained to eliminate his filter and simply report facts.  Facts not as he “sees” them (read: facts not as he filters them) but objective facts, devoid of all bias.  That has become increasingly difficult even for non-journalist, trained reporters.  And it is the rare news outlet that makes a clear cut distinction between journalist articles and pure reported articles.

One day I would like to see a news source that 1)  Prints the facts, and 2) Offers 3 perspectives of those facts.  One from the leftist perspective, one from the right, and one middle of the road.  Each perspective would be accompanied by the reasons why they take their approach – how and who it benefits or hurts.

Of course, “which facts” are chosen to be reported can show bias as well.  The MSM have clearly shown their bias by choosing to report “the facts” of the stories that suit their ideological interests best.  The carefully selected story may be factual, but may be of a non-story chosen to slander.  The Russia-related slander is the current example.

Most news sources report that “the far right” did such and such.  Of course it’s far right because it was reported by someone on “the far left.”  Two millimeters to the right seems “far right” to far leftists.

When we read the work of journalists, we need to read their bio first to understand their filter.  When we read the work of reporters, we need to understand the editorial policy the their employer.

Don’t be swayed by someone else’s biased filter.  Use your own filter to understand the difference between filtered (biased) reality and facts.

By the way, the journalism on this blog is middle of the road.  Most everyone else is far far far left.

The Challenges of Witnessing to Muslims

What Christian evangelists won’t tell you…

There are numerous Christian-based articles and books written about witnessing to Muslims. Most treat Islam as if it is just another erroneous version of Christianity, like they would treat Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, or Christian Science. Big mistake.

Many evangelists stress the commonalities of Islam and Christianity as if they believe the same god, the same “Jesus”, the same Abraham and the same Old Testament. Another big mistake. Many focus on the love and forgiveness inherent in Christian doctrine. Many propose a form of “friendship evangelism” where the objective is to “friendship” the Muslim into liking and trusting you. “Give your personal testimony” and surprise and engage them into something they’ve never experienced before. Stress “forgiveness” because there is none in Islam.

Some of these suggestions may be helpful, some are totally off base. All of them are subject to the uniqueness of Islam that makes such witness especially challenging, maybe treacherous compared to witnessing to any other group of people.

Here is a list of challenges that are unique to witnessing to Muslims:

Islam is a total way of life. It is spiritual, social, cultural, legal, economic, political, and militant. Muslim morality and sense of justice is different. So the Christian witness needs to understand the nature and degree of the Muslim’s adherence to each of these components of their heritage and faith. Some Muslims may believe and practice the whole package. Others maybe bits and pieces. But how can we know for sure?

Most Muslims were taught distorted history about the Crusades and hate Christians because of them. They ignore the facts of Christians enduring 400 years of Muslim persecution and conquest across most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa even before the First Crusade. The Crusades were the delayed Christian response of “enough is enough.”  The Crusades were the last resort to the existential threat of Islamic conquest and dominance.

Islam also distorts Biblical history. Is Islam really an Abrahamic religion? No! Not when Ishmael is their father. Not when Islam believes the Bible is full of distortions. More on that HERE.

Islam teaches “taqiyya”, deception to misdirect the unbeliever and protect the Muslim. This requires the Christian witness to be wary of what the Muslim claims to believe. He may express things that cause us to believe he is a “nominal” Muslim in the same way we understand a “nominal Christian” who only goes to church on Easter and Christmas. Is said Muslim truly “nominal”, or is he a bit more devout and practicing Islam’s very effective “taqiyya.” Many if not most Muslim terrorists in this country were first known to be the “nice Muslim next door” or a “moderate” or “nominal” Muslim.

Islamic doctrine promotes the concept of being friends with the infidel outwardly, but inwardly keeping a distance from them.

Here are just three of numerous sections of the Qur’an about infidels as “friends.”

Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Quran (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.

Quran (3:28) - "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..." This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."

HERE are more quotes from the Religion of Peace website on this topic.

Understand that Islam is like no other “religion” in that it is the ONLY one that doctrinally imposes its precepts and mandates on those of other religions and those of no religion. This characteristic is more akin to a political ideology that imposes its laws and mandates on those who are not of that political persuasion. Islamic law, Sharia, imposes severe, often barbaric, penalties and punishments upon both Muslims and non-Muslims who violate Islamic law.

Understand that many Muslims may know more about our Christianity than we do. And certainly know more about their own doctrines than we do. So we may find ourselves at a distinct disadvantage when we attempt to use facts and reason with a Muslim.

Speaking of facts and reason, Islamic culture and doctrine is dualistic. That means that they are able to believe two opposing, incongruent ideas are true at the same time, as in something can be both black and white at the same time. No, not gray, not striped, not polka dotted, but both black and white. Try reasoning with THAT mentality.

What helps that dualistic thinking is the culture of inbreeding common in predominantly Muslim nations. Muhammad did it. And Muhammad is the most perfect human – as Islam teaches. So it is normal and natural, even desirable for Muslims to marry first cousins and other close relatives. Guess what that does to the gene pool? Guess what that does to human intelligence. Guess what that does to reasoning abilities. Any wonder why Muslim protesters often appear to be psychotic?

Finally, if a Muslim claims the label “Muslim”, whether he or she is devout or not, they believe in some or all aspects of their faith. Only when we know a Muslim really well will we be able to discern their words from their beliefs. And “knowing a Muslim well” to the extent needed to be adequately discerning will be quite the challenge given the Islamic doctrines they may or may not embrace.

So, what to do? Yes, we should witness to Muslims when the opportunity arises. But prudence should direct us to treat such opportunities with caution. Some Christians who give advice will say “give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves otherwise.”

The much more prudent advice would be “witness with caution and discernment. Be wary of their words; consider them to be devout Muslims until they prove themselves otherwise.” As long as they continue to call themselves “Muslim” you know that they believe some aspects of Islam that may cause them to lie, be deceptive or even be dangerous. When a Muslim disassociates himself from being called “Muslim”, then there may be a bit more room for meaningful dialogue.

Allow for the distinct possibility of endless debate – they may be trying to convert YOU. Remember the wisdom in Matthew 10:14: “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.”

A fact to note: There was no “Islam” in the days of the Apostles, so there is little equivalent to devout Muslims as examples in Acts or any other part of Scripture.  However, there is a situation in the New Testament that comes close to the conversion of a known anti-Christian terrorist and that is the story of Saul.  How was he converted?  What formula, method or words did a well-trained apostle, disciple, deacon or evangelist use?  It was by none of these.  His conversion was through the direct intervention of Jesus Christ.

The problem today is there is not just one “Saul.”  There are potentially 1.4 BILLION.  We need to pray that similar interventions occur 1.4 billion times.

Should Muslims be a priority for our witnessing?  Actually,next to Christ,  former Muslims make the best witnesses.  For those who are so led, HERE are tips from former Muslims that may help you reach Muslims for Christ.

It is almost certain there are people who would be more receptive to and appreciative of God’s message. The chosen of Israel for one. At least they have at some level embraced the Old Testament – not the perverted version taught by Islam. Most Jews just haven’t gotten around to seriously considering the numerous Old Testament prophesies that clearly point to the first coming of Messiah at 0 AD.

There are also numerous “Christians in name only” running around this country. Many of these even attend Church, especially the liberal ones where they have learned to doubt the Deity of Christ and His forgiveness of or even the reality of sin. These may be more receptive to God’s pleas than the average Muslim.

The unchurched 20 to 30-somethings will certainly learn things they never heard.  And the elderly who are closer to an eternity with or without God, may be welcoming.

_____________________

Christian leaders, on the whole, have shown a dismal ignorance of the threat Islam poses to our nation, our freedoms and our lives. Many are no better than our newly appointed Director of Homeland Security John Kelly. In response to 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001, he suggested Christian and Jewish beliefs are also causing terrorism. No, John, there is no moral equivalence.

Final thoughts about witnessing to Muslims: Trust the Holy Spirit more than your abilities or the potential deceptions of Muslims. Use your time wisely. Others (than Muslims) are likely to be more genuinely receptive. Avoid throwing pearls before swine. And be careful not to mention swine.

_____________

Here are two “bonus” tidbits that help us understand the current problem:

1.  The Somali Muslim cop who “inexplicably” shot an unarmed woman in Minneapolis HERE.

2.  The failed attempt of an Arizona Congressman to adopt legislation that would bring attention to the numerous Islamic doctrines that promote violence and terror against less devout Muslims and non-Muslims, aka “infidels”,  HERE.

Education, healthcare: What else will we hand over to the Federal Government?

We well understand the Constitutional responsibilities that are given to the Federal government.  National defense, and entering into treaties with other nations come to mind.

Over the last century several other functions that had been under the purview of responsible families, the Church, local governments, and even the states have been assumed by the Federal government. 

Education, transportation, environment, energy, health are among the extra-Constitutional Federal responsibilities.   

Here is when several of these Federal departments were created:

• Education:   1979
• Transportation:  1966
• Energy:  1977
• Health and Human Services:  1953

I was going to write that the Federal government “usurped” these formerly local responsibilities.  But the reality is these transfers were voluntarily handed over by an increasingly passive, unengaged, and often indifferent local and state electorate. 

Over the past several decades we have seen an attitude shift among citizen activists from “personal and local responsibility” to “collective Federal responsibility.”  Now virtually everything seems to be the responsibility of the Federal government.  Banking, jobs, health care, education, the cars we drive, the air we breath, the food we eat.

The problem with this is the more responsibility we give up to more distant levels of government, the more regulations, higher taxes and fewer freedoms we will locally enjoy.

What’s next in this potpourri of responsibilities individuals and local governments hand up to our bloated bureaucratic Federal government?  And I don’t mean to use “bureaucratic” in a demeaning way.  That is just the nature of a government that must impersonally rule over millions of increasing diverse and in-united people with diverse heritage, nationalities, interests and values.

So now comes Federally legislated, regulated, controlled and mandated health insurance.  Obama, the national traitor, and his socialist minions so decreed it eight years ago.

Lets step back 38 years to the creation of the Department of Education.  What has that 38 years of multi-million, now multi-billion dollar budgets gotten us with regard to the quality of education?  $5.4 billion and over 4,40 employees in 2012, to be more exact.  And this doesn’t include the untold billions collected by local school districts for “free” public education.  It’s gotten our students a continually lower quality of education  since the formation of that Department – dismal to non-existent education in most large cities, with Common Core being the rotten cherry on top.

So now that we’ve experienced the results of the Federally controlled education fiasco, what do you think the Federally controlled health care fiasco would look like in 38 years?  We experienced what happened in the last 6 years of Obama-care.  More people are insured with premiums and copays they could not afford with care being even less accessible to more people.  No wonder it has been called the Unaffordable Care Act!

So I have asked myself this question:  Why is Trump, why are the great majority of Republicans even entertaining the concept of Obamacare 2.0?  Why are they even considering massive Federal involvement in health care?  Why can’t they leave it alone?   Why can’t they let the States, and doctors and hospitals, and insurance companies work it out? 

The answer, again, is this is what the electorate demands, in all its apathetic “let someone else be responsible” fervor.

Up till now we’ve earned the reputation of the nation with the greatest health care system in the world.  Why muck it up with Federal bureaucracy?  Why repeal and replace?  Just because it sounds catchy?  Why not just REPEAL?  You see what happened to education.  The same is virtually assured with our health system under a massive and assuredly unmanageable Federal program.

Sadly, I believe Federalization of our health care system is virtually assured.  I admit it.  I am a pessimist.

So now I look beyond Federal health insurance. 

Food:  We’ve had food stamps.  Now we have EBT cards.  It is also assured that in the not too distant future, food will become free for the masses, paid via federal taxes through a massive, inefficient and corrupt Federal program.

Income:  We’ve already heard some of the more “progressive” (read “Communist-inspired”) legislators suggest we are all mean-spirited if we don’t enable the Federal government to provide a guaranteed income to EVERYONE:  Employed, unemployed, motivated and slovenly, productive and unproductive alike.

This will all come on TOP of new laws following Europe's lead that prohibit us from writing or speaking the TRUTH if it offends ANYONE.  Anyone claiming he is offended from something someone says, such as saying “Muhammad was a pervert”, even if true, may file charges that will subject said offender to fines and or imprisonment.   So-called “hate speech” laws are proliferating in Europe out of all proportion to their original intent to curb anti-Semitism that peaked in the ‘40’s. 

From Jihad Watch:

In Britain last week, a hamburger vendor named Jim Gardiner refused to serve a customer, Piers Palmer, after Palmer disagreed with Gardiner’s Islamocritical views. That was a bit rude, but then Palmer reported Gardiner to the police for “hate speech.” Gardiner went to court, and was fined.

And the worst of it is that such laws will be applied unevenly depending on the favored group of the moment.  Right now, Christians get the short end of the stick, while urban rioters, Muslims, and gays receive special privileges.  They are the current “in” groups.

There is no end in sight as to the personal responsibilities we are freely giving over to the Federal government.

What’s worse than a Muslim terror attack?

As bad, as evil, as abhorrent, brutal and senseless as Muslim terror attacks are, there are several things that are worse, believe it or not.

What could possibly be worse?

Here are a few things that are worse than a terror attack by a Muslim motivated by Islamic doctrine in the manner practiced and encouraged by Muhammad and egged on by todays’ Islamic leadership:

1)  Claims that terror by Muslims is not Islamic: 

Media and others claiming that such attacks are not Islamic is abhorrent because it enables even more attacks by deflecting from the root cause.  There are many dozens of passages from Islamic texts that promote such acts.  Muslim doctrine encourages it and has for 1,400 years.  This is nothing new for Islam.

2) Claims that only a tiny minority of Muslims support violent jihad: 

When “experts” suggest it is a tiny minority of Muslims who practice “radical Islam” check your “crap detector.”  There is no “radical Islam.”  It is Islam.  Islam is radical.  There is no “non-radical” Islam.  Jihadists my be “devout” practitioners of Islam.  They may be practicing the “orthodox” or “fundamentalist” version of Islam.  But know this:  They are practicing Islam in the manner that Muhammad, whom they consider the most perfect human being, practiced and promoted Islam.  So whether you believe that a “mere” 5% of the 1.6 billion Muslim are devout enough to wage jihad, or some larger percentage, it is not a tiny minority.  And be aware that a significant portion of the other 80 or 95% of Muslims who are not currently observed as being violent terrorists likely support the 5 or 20% in some fashion:  politically, legally, financially, socially, or logistically – passively or actively.  That is why Muslim criticism of such attacks is so tepid and defensive.

3) Cries of concern of “backlash” or “Islamophobia” after an Islam-inspired attack:

When politicians and newscasters express as much or more concern about “Islamophobia” or anti-Muslim “backlash” than about the actual terror attack, a sanity check is required.  For some strange reason, such backlash seldom occurs.  Such concern panders to the Muslim attackers and promotes Dhimmitude among non-Muslims.  In fact outrage is way overdue.  Action to stem the teaching of Islamic hateful and violent doctrine that permeates that ideology is long overdue.  Backlash:  While it’s been non-existent, it, too, is way overdue.  The “backlash” needs to be undertaken by the media, the politicians, our government, our educational institutions and police and intelligence agencies and our military.

4) Media reliance on opinions of like-minded Muslims after a Muslim commits mayhem:

When the media interviews Muslim organizations like CAIR, neighbors, friends, mosque leaders of the jihadi be prepared to hear their taqiyya-inspired lies.   See something – say nothing.  That’s what Muslims do.  They lie.  They practice their well-honed skill set of deception and deflect any blame from Islam, Muslims, their mosque, neighbors or relatives.  It’s all a great deception and the media buys  into it and give it undue credibility.

5)  Claims that it was just a random act by an angry or crazy person:

When law enforcement claims that the jihadi was a lone wolf and was just angry or upset or crazy, understand that political correctness and avoiding offending Muslims is a higher priority than public safety and truth.  Or this:  “We have no idea what motivated him to do that” when the terrorist says Allahu Akbar, affirms he was Muslim, has ties to a local mosque, and carried out his attack to honor Allah.  That declaration of ignorance of the Muslim motive is political correctness in the extreme.

6) Claims that various types of non-Muslim actions provoked the attack:

Apologists for Islam often blame the infidel for provoking their violent jihadi behavior.  Muslims will say “We do what we do because you insulted Allah”.  Or “because you meddle in the Middle East.”  These are excuses to justify carrying out their 1,400 year mandate of hate of the infidel and Muhammad’s example to terrorize and conquer non-Islamic lands.

7)  Claims the attack was a “false flag”:

Conspiracy theorist claims that a terror attack by a Muslim in the name of Allah was a “false flag” or “inside job” for some “global world order” ignores reality.  The true source and motivation of the terror is ignored and makes it more difficult to confront the cause effectively.  This, like all the above misdirects, shows an unhelpful ignorance of Islam, its history, doctrine and present day motivation and objectives.

8) Claims that “Islam is a Religion of Peace”:

This is the mother lode of all disingenuous statements made in defense of Islam.  “Islam is a religion of peace” is a PR pitch to confuse the infidel and delay understanding of what is really going on.  And it works.  Such claims could not be further from reality - enough to make any sane man crazy.

*****

Why are each of the above common responses to a Muslim jihad attack worse than an actual attack?  Because they invite many more attacks of the same nature or worse.  They show our ignorance of Islam, its history and its doctrine.  They exhibit our lack of resolve to counter the vile and violent ideology that fosters this uncivilized, barbaric behavior.

Each one of these responses to jihad attacks need to be considered as an attack on reason and truth and as detrimental to overcoming the violent nature of Islam as the attacks themselves.  They each invite more attacks and increased boldness of Islam-inspired terror.