Review of Nelson's Biblical Cyclopedic Index

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

When I got this Cyclopedic Index, I was surprised at its size. It’s pretty small, yet contains a lot of information.  It’s a great reference if you’re trying to find scripture references on a certain topic. It also has a short definition of some of the words and a nice Word study for selective words. However, with all that being said, you must be warned that this will not be your only reference book. While the book is good, it still needs other references. If you’re hoping on making a sermon with just your Bible and the Cyclopedic Index, you’ll be in for some trouble. You’ll need something else to use alongside it. One of the only issues I found with it is that you definitely see doctrinal beliefs brought into the references that aren’t actually Biblical (i.e. this word is translated to mean this, not this). That’s another reason why you’d need another resources. But other than that, it’s not a bad reference at all.    

Review of Transforming Church In Rural America by Shannon O'Dell

Note: The publisher has provided me with a complimentary copy of this book through Booksneeze for the purposes of review.

    I had high aspirations for this book, but sadly I was let down, as I usually am with this subject material. In this book, Pastor Shannon O’Dell lays basically how to make your church in rural America a success. Sure, you can apply the principles anywhere, but specifically in rural areas.
     The book started taking a downhill when Pastor O’Dell told how he and his wife “had thrown out one last fleece” to decide whether or not to take the pastorate at a church. I’ve heard similar stories of fleeces being thrown out, in the exact same scenario and the only thing that got fleeced, in another pastor’s words, were the congregation and the pastor. We live in the New Testament now, where we are led by the Holy Spirit, not by fleeces. Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone put out a fleece. They do however allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. From this, I could see the tone of the rest of the book.
    More issues that came up in the book were the church voting to do things. Maybe it’s just how it’s written, but a church that is led by votes, the congregation, fleeces, or anything other than the Holy Spirit is bound to end in a bad way.
    Another generalized statement made is that “Rural America is in the middle of a massive drought - a spiritual drought caused by a lack of vision, attitude, and leadership.” It’s generalized to the point that I don’t know how he knows, but plenty of rural churches I’ve seen, and I’m from a small, southern, farming community, are on the verge of a spiritual outpouring. And that doesn’t infer drought.
    Overall, I couldn’t recommend the book. This is why: Most of what is shared, I could get from a business book I’d pick up on Amazon. I could get a lot of it from leadership classes or somewhere else, even the internet. Now granted, he does have some good things to say. However, the book is one of those where you “eat the hay and spit the sticks.” However, with so many other good books out there on the issue, why bother with one that you have to spit so many sticks on.
       Psalm 127:1 states, “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.” Notice that the house did get built. I’m not saying Pastor O’Dell is not seeking God to run his church and ministry. I’m not saying he’s a bad person. Bless him. He’s doing a great work for the Lord. But I do think that the practices he uses miss the mark. I believe a lot of what he does is more natural and soulical, than spiritual and guided by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
     The book contains a few pictures and I followed some links to his churches website and found a church that looks more like a rock concert than a church. Churches where worship services (services in general) are more like concerts, catering to a person’s soul and natural desires, always tend to be farther away from meeting people’s spiritual needs. Can they meet their spiritual needs? yes, to a degree. But they mold and help develop people that are more soulical than spiritual, that are less than what the Word of God calls us to be.
    When I see a book (or anything) that has flags like being led by a fleece, or being more naturalistic than spiritual, I want to stop reading because it may be building up my soul, or my mind with knowledge, but it’s not helping my spirit much.
    The bottom line: the book has some good stuff in it, but if you want to know how to grow your church or ministry-get on your face. God leads his people by the Holy Spirit. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).” Will it take more time than reading this book? Most likely. Will you want to do it more than reading this book? No. Will the devil fight you more than applying some of things in this book? Most definitely. But in the end, you’ll have God’s specific plan for you.
    Note: Pastor O’Dell did comment about doing this, but I do believe he missed it in some areas. I’m not mad at him or think anything other than good thoughts for him. May he be blessed in all He does for God. I don’t intend to sound like I am attacking him, just simply reviewing a book.

Child, Meet Adulthood

    A poll came out a few months ago in USA Today that said that nearly 6 in 10 moms said children were growing up too fast. Why did these parents believe this? There were a few reasons actually. One was because children were allowed to use the internet without being supervised. Of course, you give kids free range of endless information and they are bound to suck in that information like a sponge--good or bad.

Another reason was because parents over-schedule their children's lives. When your kids are running around so much and have little time to actually be a kid--to have fun, to....well, just be a kid--they tend to grow up faster. 

Another reason was because parents give their kids cellphones. I don't even understand this. What possible reason does little 9-year old Jenny need with a cellphone? "Well all of her friends have one." That's always a great argument, which is followed by "If all your friends jumped off of..."

I didn't even have a cellphone until I entered college. Yes, the times are different, but not so much to change the need for a cellphone. The reasons kids want cellphones are the same reasons raccoons go after trashcans outside your house--They're nice and shiny. For the most part, there is no need for a child to have a cellphone unless it comes from the dollar store.   

The final reason, which I wanted to look at, was because parents dressed their kids in age-inappropriate clothing. Of course, for the most part, you can understand this if you have kids. Go shopping for little girl’s clothes at Walmart and you’ll see that Walmart is a nice supporter of little girls dressing like prostitutes. Oh. Did I say that?

Yes, it's true. A large amount of the clothes you find out there for little girls look like they're for teenagers (which too is inappropriate). And that's not an opinion. That's a fact. Any clothing that is intended to sexually arouse a person is inappropriate-unless that clothing is for your spouse-and then it should not be worn in public.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with my statement or not, the rest is true. Go back 15 years or so and you can actually find little girls clothes that are somewhat appropriate for children. In today's culture, it's seen as a norm though for stores to sell children's clothes that makes them look like prostitutes. That doesn't make it right.

I ran across a post yesterday that really displays this kind of acceptance by our culture. Now remember, I said the culture, not everyone. People will always be on one both sides, but when it gets to places like Walmart, it's become a cultural thing, even if people disagree with it.

Hannah Montana's little sister is proving my point. Little 9-year old Noah Cyrus announced that she is coming out with a line of lingerie for kids. Yes, welcome to corrupted immorality or earth. The designers say that the line will be cute but edgy. And we wonder why our kids are pregnant at 12.

   But it's all okay. I myself can't wait until my little princess is pole dancing at the age of seven (sarcasm anyone). There's a bigger issue to this, and the USA Today pole that reaches into parents not doing their job as parents, but I won't cover that. 

   The little kiddie lingerie isn't necessarily surprising from the little Cyrus. Apparently Billye Ray has no problem with it or his daughter dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween. So it's not unexpected when he lets his little girl grow up to be so.....(whorish is what I would put here, but she's 9 years old. I have a dilemma about saying that about a 9 year old even if it's true).  

     Just wait until Billye Ray's achy breaky heart gets broken when he finds out his little girl isn't little anymore....at the age of 10. Thankfully though, this isn't how all of America is, but not too far off. I walk through Walmart and see the parents who let their little girls dress in miniskirts because they think it's cute.

   Hopefully though, most of us aren't like this. Hopefully we have since to know that a seven year old dressing like a teenager isn't right. Hopefully we know that just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean our kids have to. And hopefully we realize that are kids are just that--kids. And that means they will act like kids, be emotionally-controlled just like kids, and be kids, no matter what they dress like, pretend to be like, or want to be like by having the shiny new toy they see everyone else have.

I Have To Wonder If Dewey Bartlett Is An Idiot

Dewey Bartlett is the mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma. You probably have never heard of him unless you live in the area. The issue that Mr. Bartlett is facing is a budget issue. The mayor entered office just around two months ago and stepped into a budget crisis that was not properly explained to him, as he states. So now he is faced with the reality of having to layoff 150 police officers and make budget cuts that will effect other city workers, including firefighters.
    Mr. Bartlett and his mayoral staff have come up with an option that instead of laying off 150 police officers, and thus help crime rise even more in Tulsa, would cut the pay of all officers. It would also include reduction of hours and shifts on the part of the police officers. These two options, as Mayor Bartlett has said, are the only options. Mayor Dewey Bartlett is indeed an idiot.
     I don't mean to attack the man, but before he was even elected, I knew he was an idiot. Why? One day in the mail I found a flyer advertising the campaign of "Dewey Barttlet" or "Dewey Bartlett," whichever you'd prefer. At that point I knew a person that did not catch that mistake or at least have someone employed who could catch that mistake would be a person who lacked a spirit of excellence to have the job as mayor. However, I was not a fan of his opponent either. 
 
    Now please understand that I realize that the new Tulsa mayor stepped into this problem and did not create it or have any hand in it, just in trying to fix the problem. However, when you're faced with the problem and you can only come up with two options, both that hurt the people that work so hard to help the city and the city itself, and say "these are the only two options," you are an idiot.
   It's a lack of options that I have a problem with. If Mayor Bartlett was faced with the issue of fixing a problem that would save his job--his only means of income, he would do everything in his power. But he is not, and I think because it is because either he doesn't care that much about it (which I really doubt) or hie and his mayoral staff are so closed-minded that this is the only option that he can think of or wants to allow in the discussion.
    Today on the news he was interviewed and the news anchor asked about a group on facebook that was petitioning to have $5 added to their electric bill to save police officers job. He was asked his thoughts and replied that he didn't want to look at that because he wanted to show the citizens of Tulsa that their government can run on it's own, be self-sufficient, and successfully get through this and operate (paraphrased of course). The only problem is it can't, it hasn't. It's going to lay off 150 police officers (I believe that is 1/8 or so of it's force). It can not operate on it's own. It has failed. And those who will pay will not just be city employees but citizens of Tulsa when they are robbed, murdered, killed in car accidents because there are not enough police officers (or firefighters or another needed city employee) because the city has managed it's money poorly and the guy brought in to fix it can only think inside a small box that constrains any thought of creativity in dealing with such a significant mater. 
    My question is this: How come politicians can have $500 plate dinners to raise money for their campaigns when running for office, but can't call those same friends back in to buy a $20 dollar steak at $250 to help save a police officer's job that has worked so hard to protect them and other citizens of the city. How come with all the information out there, all the different things at his disposal to find an answer to this question, he can only come up with one option? I do not know how the city budget is laid out, however I do know that to only come up with two options--both of which will surely lead to a rise in crime--is idiocy.
    Every year I pass firefighters on the streets holding boots filled with cash taking donations for charities. They ask for donations, they hold fundraisers, they reach out to the public to help those in need. Now when they are in need, the government are going to let them hang out to dry. Now the one person who has been elected to deal with the budget crisis is letting both firefighters and police officers get laid off (or reduce their paycheck) all because he refuses to look at options that would help save jobs, and more importantly lives.  
    On one hand I feel sorry for Mayor Bartlett. He walked into a problem and is expected to be the savior who can fix the budget problem, keep the streets safe, and keep police officers on the street and on the payroll. However, he is no savior. He really has no answers. He has an option that is almost no better than the first choice. I feel sorry for him because he "inherited" this problem, but at the same time, I feel upset because he's trying to give an easy answer. Instead of working hard to come up with options that would save officers jobs, such as fundraisers, donations, and so forth, it seems he's taken the easy way out. Is it really easy? No. But if his job was on the line and it meant either a job or all income was taken away with no bright out look, he'd find another way. But he hasn't. Am I against the man? No. Am I for him? Yes!!! But it seems that his outlook on the issue has been narrowed down to "this or this and nothing else will work." There are more options, even if he won't look at them.
   Again, I don't know the whole story, just what I hear, read, and see. However, I know this issue at hand is not just about a person's job, it's about people's lives. And that's something too important to be left up to a two option decision.    

       

All The Promises Of God Are Yes And Amen

  
    Every now and then my son gets promised that if he's good for a certain length of time or while we're doing something, he'll get a prize of some sorts. Some times it's candy, sometimes it's a cheap little toy that you wouldn't spend a nickel on (but someone else would). Either way, he behaves for that time for 2 reasons: 1.) He knows if he is good, he'll get a toy. 2.) He knows if he isn't good, he'll get in trouble. Probably more so though, it's that promise of a surprise at the end of the excursion. That's the thing that's in front of him more so than than the thought of being disciplined.But he believes that whoever said he could have whatever it is when they're done will give them whatever it is. He believes in them. He counts them trustworthy. He's four. That's what they do. They have a child-like faith and assurance that what you say is true and you wouldn't lie.  
        2 Corinthians 1: 30 states, "For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us." The Apostle Paul wrote this not so you would have faith in the promise. In fact, the promise itself is really nothing in itself. Promises are not judged by the promises, but by the Character and what is known about the one who has promised. The character of the person determines the weight of what is said. 
     Hebrews 11:11 says, "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised." Sara judged God as being faithful and trustworthy that what He had promised, He would do. Why? Because she knew Him, His character. Many people don't believe what God's Word says because they don't know Him. They don't know His character.
    Just like our authority in Jesus Christ, a promise is not valid unless the one backing it is valid. We have authority over certain things in Jesus Christ because of Jesus Christ and what He did--the one backing it. We can believe the Word of God (the promises of God) because of the one backing it--God Himself.
    We do this all the time and don't even realize it. We sit in a chair and put all of our weight on it believing it will keep us up because we believe in the person who made the chair, the materials it is made out of, and our ability not to break it with our weight. We have judged those things faithful to do what they need to do so we can sit safely in that chair.
    We use a piece of paper that has pictures of dead presidents on it to pay for stuff at stores across this nation. We do the same with metal coins. Why? Is this special paper? Kind of. It's special because of the one backing it-the United States Treasury and the United States of America (not a certain political figure but the nation itself). We have counted it trustworthy because we know it's character. It has a long track record of being faithful. It has proven that it will take that paper with a a number five on it, and it will actually be worth five dollars.
    How more should we trust in God, who was faith that when we were enemies, He still dies for us and our sins. The character of God is without question. The problem people have is their point-of-view, their opinion, or their past experiences with others have already judged God one things that do not pertain to God or His character.
    People don't believe God's Word, even when they speak it out of their own mouth because they themselves are liars and they can't believe anything that comes out of their mouth already--even if it's the Word of God. Some people can't trust God as their Heavenly Father because their won earthly father was so terrible, or they didn't even have one. Neither of those things are valid excuses and neither would hold up in a court of law if applied to any case. You can not judge the character of a man (or God) by someone else's actions. Some people want to do this on every level, but you can't. The truth is that God is faithful. His character has been proven over and over throughout ALL TIME and no one and no thing can prove Him otherwise. With the character at rest, it is only a matter of ability. God is the one who create the universe, Heavens and Earth, raised Christ from the dead, owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and silver and gold are His. God is able, He is will, His promises are yes and amen because they are true. We just have to put trust in Him to do so, and He will.      

Why I'm Note Renewing My Subscription to Relevant Magazine

    I got an email in my inbox today asking me to renew my subscription to Relevant magazine. I've had the subscription for nearly 2 years now, and originally only described because graphically, they are a pretty good magazine. However, over those two years, and the years I look back at them since they started, they're not what I want in a Christian magazine. They're nowhere near what I'd want in a Christian magazine that seeks to be...well, relevant.
     In their email, they stated that the goal of Relevant magazine has been to "provide you with a magazine that pushes boundaries, asks questions, spots trends and challenges worldviews—all while helping you pursue God in everyday life." However, for what I want in a magazine that helps me pursue God in everyday life, the magazine is no closer in doing this, than watching Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino.
    In fact, in a recent issue, they reviewed Gran Torino and had a lot to say about it. Okay, not really. The review stated that the movie "embodiment of the Eastwood mythos." As for the character Eastwood played, it states that you won't like him, but as he opens up, you'll respect him. For a magazine that desires to help you draw closer to God, the characteristic of being able to know the truth and tell, as seen from God's point of view would be helpful, but is sadly absent.
    I watched Gran Torino, much to my regret. I remember that I had wanted to see it in the theaters so much, but never got the chance. Then it came out to the local video store, or for me and most of America now, the Redbox, I had to walked by it for weeks before I could rent it. And during all this time I had not read a single review to prepare me for what was in store. Of course if I had read this review, I would have been even more excited than I was.
   This was not the case as I sat down with my wife, pushed the play button, and exposed myself to F-word after F-word, after....well, another F-word followed by a dozen other four-letter words, offensive language, and other words and phrases not socially attractive. In the 119 minutes of the film, we can find around 82 F-words, and over 100 profanities all together.
    Though the story contains many good points about redemption, friendship, etc, etc, the question still remain: Do you want to subject yourself to all of the baggage contained in the film just for a few glimmers of "life lessons" or whatever you want to call it? Sadly many would have no problem with it. That "many" though, should not include a magazine that desires to help you get closer to God. This is especially true in light of what God has said about words: Life and death are in the power of the tongue; But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man; You are snared by the words of your mouth.
    What is the price you pay for subjecting yourself to this, or anything else that is not spiritually healthy. The Bible tells us that "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." If faith comes by hearing God's Word, what comes in hearing other things, such as a tidal wave of profanity?
   My point is not to attack Gran Torino, or Relevant magazine, but a for a publication that says their goal is to help me get closer to God, their recommendation of such a movie does exactly the opposite.
  In the same issue, the cover story was titled, "The Inspired Life of Zooey Deschanel." However, in my reading it, there was not much inspiring about it. In fact, I've found that many of their cover stories, and stories in general talk a lot about spirituality, religion, but not so much about Jesus, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or things that would actually pull you closer to God. The only boundaries that I've seen pushed are the ones that ask the readers to follow their example in a life that may fight injustice around the world or talk about it at least, stand up for the environment, and tell you about "really cool music," but leaves you lack a deep, personal relationship with Christ that is guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus intended. 
   The latest issue I have in my hands has a cover story titles, "The Winding Spiritual Road of Jeff Tweedy & Wilco." While the article does look at Jeff Tweedy's "spiritual" life (like we all does not have on), not once does it look at his Christian life. That is  because he doesn't have one. While you can always catch a glimmer of spiritual nuggets from anything, a magazine that desires to get you closer with God uses something that does little of that.
     The Bible focuses on the righteous, the Godly to point out characteristics, traits, and examples of how to live our lives in a Godly, righteous manner that is pleasing to the Lord. However, this is not hoe Relevant does it, as most of their articles tries to "bridge" the gap between the Christian and non-Christian through focusing on culture, Hollywood stars, and those who have had spiritual experiences in life, or stood up for causes that they agree with. However the only thing that can bridge the gap between teh non-Christian and the Christian is Jesus Christ, yet he is absent from most pages on Relevant magazine that do not contain an advertisement.
    The way to get closer to God is not by showcasing those who have "tried" several religions or who have fought for causes you may agree with, or trying to put a new spin on faith, but by the tried and true methods Jesus demonstrated and talked about. Getting closer to God is as easy as studying your Bible-His message to you, His love letters to you, by fellowshipping with Him in prayer, and by praying and being led by the Holy Spirit--a doctrine that has become too taboo even in Christianity today.
   These are the things that need to be spoken on, not a sixteen point plan of how this worked for so and so, but how to listen to the voice of God so He can lead you. I'm not against Relevant, I'm for them so much, but I will not spend the money God has entrusted in me on a publication that goes against what I know to be correct from God's Word.   

Vince McMahon Is An Idiot

    If you don't know who Vince McMahon is, then I don't blame you. He is the head of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). He is credited as being one of the smartest men in the wrestling industry. He took a small territorial company and turned into a world-wide business that has offices in a few different countries. Not too shabby, don't you say? However, In all my years of watching wrestling, which for the last almost ten years it has been off and on, I've noticed that wrestling has gone from wrestling entertainment to entertainment wrestling.
    Though McMahon has taken a company and made it one of the best small businesses in the country (ranked in Forbes' top 200), the product he delivers to people is lacking in....well....creativity. In the past 10-12 years the one thing I've noticed that wrestling has emphasized more vulgarity, sexuality, violence, and de-emphasized wrestling. Now I know you're thinking the violence part is an oxymoron, but instead of focusing on wrestling, they have gone to fighting. And it's not just fighting, but well, theatrical assault and battery.
    Wrestling has come from the sideshows and carnivals to returning to the sideshows on the television set. You have midgets wrestling normal people....wait. No, they're not wrestling. They're just running around trying to be caught like a leprechaun. You have the vixens showing off everything they possibly can without getting pulled from network TV, and then showing a little more on cable TV, and of course showing almost everything on pay-per-view. All this while marketing to kids as well. On Friday nights if you're not going out like normal people, you might sitting in front of TV watching soap operas that happen to mix a little bit of wrestling in with it.
    And all this is to do two things---make money and get ratings, which in turn, makes money. Anything that the simpleton mind can think of, the WWE will throw up on the TV. If it doesn't work (like killing of the boss), we'll just pretend it didn't happen. If people don't tune in to watch it, get rid of it. And that includes your own wrestlers. Who cares if it's not the wrestlers fault. After all, they're just following what the uncreative writers told them to do. And what would they do? Go against the writers and get fired for sure, or do what they say and flip a coin on whether or not they'll be there in a few weeks. Not like a contract means anything. You may have a contract, but that can always be torn up...just not by the wrestlers.    
    Who cares if you've been casts as a Muslim American (even if you're Italian) and told to go out and re-enact a beheading that is quite similar to those terrorists are doing on the next website over. Although, it will not be the writers fault, or the boss' fault, who even though he's a "genius" didn't see the crap about to hit the fan. And when it does, is it the writers fault? The bosses fault? Of course not. They're all geniuses. However, it is the wrestler's fault because he went out and did what he was told to do. And why? He likes to put food on the table.   
     But it's okay if a certain storyline doesn't work. Why? They'll just push a few half naked women out to "strut their stuff." And afterwards, before hand, or during, they can market to your kids and mine so they can watch the great programming on TV...or the half-naked women. Whatever you call it. This is the formula--half-naked women, silly story lines with oddities and other off the wall ideas, flashy and not so flashy wrestlers and other personalities who get on the microphone and talk a lot, oh, and some wrestling.
    I'm not against wrestling. I love wrestling. I loved wrestling. When I was a kid I used to sneak out of bed and watch it. I used to get up Saturday morning and watch WWF Superstars. But what I watched then was wrestling. And it was entertainment. What's on now is entertainment, along the lines of Jerry Springer, and some wrestling. Its ideas that are thrown together that people hope work. It's half-naked women that "creative writers" feel the show can't do without (and apparently are kid friendly). As Zell Miller said about the democratic party, "I didn't leave the democratic party. The democratic party left me." Real wrestling has left me. It's anything except well thought through, creative, imaginative ideas, put together rolled into a ball with wrestlers knowing what they do best and allowed to do it, to form a product that is creative and suitable for what it is being marketed as. It is not people with great ideas being shot down because you don't like that person or because there's some sort of "political motivation" behind it.
    It's not ideas like spending as much time developing and thinking on the "mid-card" segments as you do on the headliners, because God knows you can't have people that are popular on the mid-card. It's not ideas that actually make sense. It's not having to step so far out of reality you think that you have to disconnect from logic and reason to watch and believe.
    However, in a world of bulky "entertainers" and "superstars," not wrestlers; a place where we're asked to disconnect from reality for a little bit, one of the biggest things we're asked to believe is that Vince McMahon is a genius. A man who cannot sell some of the greatest wrestlers in the world to the world without having to throw in some sideshow attractions and some busty brunette busting out of her clothes, is not a genius. A man who does not realize that to make a great product you must concentrate on all the product, not just the most important parts, is not a genius. A man who markets near pornography to kids, who sells sex and violence and labels it "kid friendly" is not a genius. No, he is an idiot, in all sense of the word. And no matter how nice he may be, how many people kiss up to him, or hate him, or love him, or think he's great, or evil. Truth is truth, not mixed with politics or opinions, or the invitation to disconnect from reality. Vince McMahon is an idiot.  
    Note: There are great wrestlers out there. There are great writers out there. Most of them more than likely work for Vince McMahon. However, that still does not changethe fact that Vince McMahon is an idiot.  

The History Channel: Contradiction On Cable

The other day I was sitting around watching Cities of the Underworld on the History Channel, a station that I love and hate. On this episode they are looking at the underworld of Jerusalem. Now when it comes to religion, the History Channel is another one of those channels where you’d be wise to get your information somewhere else.
    The thing that is just so ’head scratching’ (I guess that would be a good word) is that they are looking at the underworld here and talking about archeology and all that kind of stuff. (I won’t note the thousands and thousands of archaeological evidence that they and tons of other people, channels, etc ignore when doing archaeological stuff on Biblical subjects....that’s not what this is about). What is amazing is that in the same conversation, the same talk, that they will question the Bible and it’s accuracy, yet at the same time use it as a reference for what they are discussing. And I don’t mean in the sense that "this is what the Bible says," but in the sense, "we know from the Bible that so and so had so and so."
     There’s even the nice line that Meggiddo and the battle of Armageddon is where "Jesus and Satan duke it out." Just so we all know, that is not what happens in Revelation or at the battle of Armageddon.
     This isn’t the only mistake that the History Channel makes when it comes to religion. On another show I watched just the other day, I do believe it was Battles of the Bible, they talk about the military strategies of Biblical battles. One ’battle’ they talk about is between the Egyptians and the Israelites when they left Egypt. (Just so we all know, there was no such battle. There was the Israelites leaving Egypt, guided by God, and the Egyptians chasing after them). Of course in this whole show not one time do they consider the possibility that God was with the Israelites and that there were supernatural forces working  in the midst of the two peoples.
    This just shows what God Himself has told us, the world does not know Him. In everything, they try to naturalize the works of God in whatever outlandish way possible as long  as they can erase the possibility that God is real and helping a people that are known first throughout the world as a people of God.

Bicycling Idiots & My Right To Hit Them

Just last week in Tulsa, there was a woman that was hit and killed while riding her bicycle. On top of that, the man who hit her drove off. Thankfully the cops found before the night was over. I'm sure she was riding in accordance with the law and mean no disrespect to her or anyone else who has been injured or killed while properly riding their bicycle.
   However, in the past few weeks, I have seen more morons riding bicycles than ever before. This morning on the way to work I had an idiot, yes, an idiot decide that the "do not cross" sign meant everyone except him, as he continued down the sidewalk, and across the road where traffic was driving. That traffic was me-followed by many other larger, heavier vehicles.
   Common sense should tell one that in a battle of a 40lbs  vehicle (give or take) and a 2 ton+ vehicle, you don't want to challenge the 2 ton one if your on the 40 lbs one......and an idiot. But then, common sense is lacking in this breed of humanity.
   I do not understand it here. We have sidewalks all over, yet the bicyclist ride on the road. I do not know of any law prohibiting them from riding on the sidewalk. The other day I had to sit behind one such idiot as they thought they could go as fast as a car. Of course they were never proven wrong in a way they would understand-namely a car going faster than them in the same lane, in the same mass of space.
   I used to ride my bike all the time, especially in college. Of all the rules there were, I knew one very well. I'm a bike, you're a car. You win.  

News & Notes From Around The Web

I heard this morning on the local morning show that Ellen Degeneres is going to be the new judge for American Idol. I really don't care, I don't watch the show. If satan was the host then maybe I would care a little more. But then again, maybe he is. It is American IDOL. I kid. I kid.
However, this does make me wonder: If I was a homosexual, could I get a job as a judge on a top rated TV show. I mean, we all know it has nothing to do with her qualifications. And adding a homosexual does make the show a little more gay-friendly-especially since the contestants wait until the show is over to come out of the closet, thus destroying any hope of pulling in the gay demographic for that season.
Honestly though, look at the qualifications. Ellen has been a stand up comedian, had her own comedy show, come out of the closet, destroyed her own show because 'comedies can not survive on gay alone' (don't even bring up Will & Grace), then went on to have a successful daytime talk show. In none of her experience has she sung, been a music producer, started a band, or managed a singing act. But she hasn't missed an episode of the show since it came on. If that's what it takes to get on a show, I want to take Kutner's place on this season's House MD.
Honestly though, if business executives, store managers, sports team higher-ups, or anyone else in the employment field ever hired someone for a job on the same amount of lack of qualifications as American Idol has for Ellen, that person would find themselves looking for a new job. Why? Because the idiocy of hiring someone with no prior experience for something such as a music critique show, reeks of stupidity. Of course, if the only reason they did hire her was because she is gay, to draw the demographic, think of how well that would go over (if it is true). The homosexuals would be offended, well some, for a TV show just trying to 'buy' their viewership, and the rest of the world would be offended as well, or at least should be. It is illegal to fire someone almost solely on the basis of being a homosexual, but it sure is alright to hire one on it.
Elsewhere around the web Hugh Hefner is getting divorced. Didn't see that coming. Studies have actually shown that men who look at pornography alot find their wives, significant other, less attractive no matter how beautiful they are. But then again, any marriage built on sex, and between a 70 year old and a 20, maybe 30 doesn't really seem to stable to begin with. No telling how many people's lives Mr. Hefner has ruined with divorce, molestation, rape (all which studies have proven pornography can be tied to), but hey, at least we can stick it to him by ruining a few marriages.
That's all the time I have now. Next time-something more interesting....hopefully.

Technorati Tags: current affairs, news, gossip, entertainment, idol, hollywood, playboy, hefner, marriage

What I'm Doing At Work

    I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know what's going on at my work, because I have a pretty good job. If you didn't know, I work at Randall Grier Ministries (www.randallgrier.org) located in Tulsa, Oklahoma (actually Broken Arrow). My job there is Director of Media and Communication. Most recently we just started a facebook page, (which you can be a fan of by searching for us on facebook).
    I am amazed though at the wide array of resources that we have at RGM, a fine example of what any ministry should have honestly. We have weekly podcasts, free study resources-Bible Studies, archival newsletters, various teachings, In Him Scriptures and other scripture references for prayer. We even have special downloads of full and complete messages, as well as specials on products that regularly change.
   But anyway, enough of plugging the site. However, I believe any good ministry needs to include such things, and even more. But we've just started our Facebook page a few weeks ago and have been using facebook for one reason and oen reason alone: To get the Word of God out to people. I know some people have a facebook page to keep connected with friends, family, etc, but we have one for the sole purpose of reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we do all that other stuff, great. But that's not why we're on facebook. We're not there to make money, yet we advertise our specials. We advertise our 'Escape From Hell' book for $5, shipping included, which usually sells for $8, plus shipping. Is it to sell that product? No. It's to get the Word of God out.
     Sometimes ministries forget that's why they're here. Many Christians forget that's why we're here. It's to get the Word of God out. Everything else is secondary. If we could remember that, thinsg would be a lot better. Now I know it takes money to get the Word out, but if we're following God and doing what He has directed us to do, the money will be no problem. 

Remembering The Dead

    Today is the memorial for Michael Jackson. Today many will remember him for all the "good" he's done in the world. By "good" I mean all the times of entertaining he's done. Fans will remember him as a great man, yet not really have known him past the records or CDs they've listened to, the music videos they've watched, or the concerts they've attended. They won't really have known him, just a small piece of joy, happiness, or uplifting, or a good time he's given him.
    At his service, the minister or whoever oversees it will say a few nice things about him. Hopefully they won't, as they say, "preach him into Heaven." But like most memorial services around the world, they'll try in some form or fashion. And like all of his fans around the world, they'll remember the good things he's done, while overlooking with blind joy the bad things. People will forget the allegations of child molestation, the fact that he paid off a little boy to be quiet, or the fact that he thought it was okay to sleep with little boys. People will forget this, mostly not to "tarnish the memory" of the king of pop.
    But the fact will remain, they will ignore the bad, focus on the good, and give fans, friends, family, a biased look at his life. They will ignore it all, as if it didn't happen, and celebrate him as if he was the greatest person in the world. They will ignore that he destroyed lives. He will be "preached into Heaven." But sadly, if his final moments were lived like the rest of his life, the preaching will be the closest he will get. The whole world will ignore the truth: that he caused pain, and that his eternal home is not in the wonderful place they think it is.
    He could be there now however, but if his last few moments were like the rest of his life, doubtful. But the world will not know that, because it prefers a biased, tarnished perspective that is filled with half-truths that are more appealing to their eyes, their ears, their flesh and desires, than the truth that might make them think, and act a little differently than they want to. Than their flesh wants to. And this is life.    

Patience Is No Longer A Virtue

I was driving to work this morning, listening to the radio, and on radio station there played this commercial with the tag: "Don't Wait For Tomorrow With Today Lending." I've been taking Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University, and if you know anything about Dave Ramsey, you know he is the arch-nemesis of debt and borrowing. So, partially my mind was already in this state or frame to focus in one things like this. At the same time, it's also just how I am. But this commercial, this business, is basically saying, "Why wait and save to get something? Have it now."
     Gone are the days when people took pride in what they had because of the sacrifice they put into getting it, not the sacrifice they put into paying it off. We don't realize that in America anymore. And that's truth as Dave Ramsey shows you when you take his classes. Not in the facts and figures of today, but looking at the history of our fathers, our grandfathers, and our great grandfathers--they would sacrifice not to borrow, to pay in full, in cash before they got whatever it is they wanted.   
     The same is true in the church world, our whole society. We are a microwave, we want it now, society. We can't be patient and wait on something.But that's how God is. Look up how much the Bible talks about "waiting on the Lord." In our culture today patience is no longer a virtue, it's an inconvenience. But it's still a virtue with God, it's still a good charter trait with Him, one that all of us need to learn--not just so we can move ourselves a way from the billion dollars of debt we Americans have (put on by ourselves, not the government), but also so we can put ourselves in a position to receive from God and fulfill our purpose in this life. 

The Church Today.....or yesterday actually.

       I went to a different church this past Sunday, not my usual. Actually, it was the church I used to go to, then God told me I needed to go somewhere else. As I went back to visit, I could see why the Lord moved me from that church. I'm not saying anything against this church, just that it's not where God wanted me to be. But I could see why. A wise man once told me there are two kinds of churches--1.) informational churches, and 2.) revelational churches. And you want to go to the revelational churches.
    But this past weekend I didn't. I went to an informational church. As I sat in service, with their guest speaker, apparently someone they approve of, otherwise he would not be given the ear of the entire congregation, I began to wonder if this man, who had good things to say, was even a Christian. Now why do I say that?
    He took the podium around 11:30 and not until 12:00, 12:05 did he quote his single scripture.  And that scripture was expounded on for less than seven minutes, to which he went back to talking on something else, and then closed. In this service though, the majority of what was talked about was what you'd expect at a motivational seminar or something of that sorts. He gave all sorts of statistics and psychological findings and opinions, but not until half an hour into his message did he even bring up the scriptures.
   This is what is wrong with the church today. We are too busy quoting so and so and spouting off statistics and what this and that has found instead of saying what the Word of God has to say on an issue. God is not against finding and statistics as long as the align up with the truth. But He is against those things taking precedence over the Word of God, which it did in this case. The only way that the church is going to get to where it needs to be, where God wants it to be, where we must be for the last day harvest of souls, is to put the Word of God first, to put obedience to the Holy Spirit first, and to put God first--not just in our church services, but in our everyday life.
    Now I'm sure the church I attended does not do this every week. I know they didn't when I went there every week. But it was one more opportunity that slipped through the fingers of the church to speak into the lives of those who came--some who might not come back again. And it's not statictics and psychological finds that get people saved and sets them free--it's the Word of God. 

Stupid Things Christians Say

Recently there was a discussion involving whether or not tattooing is a good thing or a bad thing, i.e. whether it is smiled upon or frowned upon by God. Now honestly, I think it’s not something God likes, but at the same time, you’re not going to Hell for it. God bless you if you get one, God bless you if you don’t get one.

However, there are more important issues in the body of Christ than tattooing. Although I do think tattooing falls into a category that is very important in the body of Christ, not tattooing, but the category.

During this “discussion of intellectuals” I saw many things brought out that were really frightening to me. This discussion was held among mostly Bible college students. The things said were from people that were learning to be ministers of the Gospels. I do think though that there were some in this discussion that were not Bible students, and as I looked back over what was said, I could see that. I could also see that these students were honest and sincere, yet either ignorant or stupid, whether by choice or not. Of course this was not all of them, but some. I didn’t want that to be a blanket statement because it’s not intended to be.

But as this discussion went on I noticed things popping out that just blew my mind(One of the things I covered in a previous blog, but I will cover it more so in this one). These things I wanted to cover in this blog and try to show you the error of what was said. Is this to show that the people that disagreed with me were stupid? No. Not at all. However, that might come out.

A lot of what was said was used to argue one person’s point or another. The problem that appeared is that the way the people argued was not logical, not reasonable, and not truthful. More so, where discussing and debating on the Bible, God, and truth, there are certain things that must be taken into account that are not required in other discussions/debates/etc. Here I want to chronicle some of them.

Of course I won’t be using anyone’s name if you wondered. Please remember that these statements were made online and thus can be short, non-formatted, and without proper grammar. Also remember that the issue being discussed is whether or not tattoos and tattooing is a sin or smiled upon or not by God.

The first one I want to mention is this one:

• I'm sorry for you . I'm sorry ur umcomfortable with an outward expression of someone individuality. Quoting the bible "for I bear the markings of Jesus Christ" well my markings or "ink" are another way for me to be able to reach someone for the kingdom

Two things on this one. First, don’t tell someone to their face (or online in a discussion) that “you’re sorry for them.” Another issue brought up later is whether or not someone was being judgmental. This short line is a smack in the face to whoever is on the other side. Nothing says, “I’m right. You’re wrong.” more than “I feel sorry for you.” Well, unless it’s “I’m right. You’re wrong.” That in itself will harden a person’s heart, mind, and ability to receive anything from the speaker.

The second thing is the use, or should I say misuse of scripture. When you quote scripture, make sure it is needed and in context. For Christians, a discussion with a atheist needs almost no scripture to begin with. Why? Because it’s something that they have totally abandoned as insignificant and full of lies. But when it comes to the point when you use it, make sure it is in context and relevant to the situation. I can’t quote you John 3:16 during a discussion of whether God thinks music in church is okay. It just doesn’t fit. In like manner, comparing the marking of Jesus—whip lashes, nail punctures—from someone who hated him and wanted him to die, to some ink that you willingly sat down and paid a lot of money to put on you, is not in context of the situation and is a terrible comparison. Though Jesus’ willingly allowed those who hated him to beat him, it still doesn’t fit.

• I believe if you have a Godly motive that's the important thing.

On the first glance this sounds good, like many things. However it’s not. Another word for motive is intentions. There’s a saying that goes that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Of course this here is God intentions, not good intentions. What’s the difference? A second ‘o.’ Don’t get me wrong. Godly motives are great, desirable, needed, and the Bible speaks good things of them. However, if you have good intentions (even God intentions) and still do a bad thing, especially after you have been told it’s bad (even if you don’t agree with it or have taken the time to think/pray on it), is it still okay? If I had the intention of glorifying God by killing some world leader who I thought was evil, say Kim Jung Ill (or however you pronounce it), would that be okay because my intention was good and motivated by my Godly desire to glorify God? Of course not. However, it might help just a little that glorifying God was my motive, but not much.

• If this is an interesting issue think of the Law of First Use and then go check on the origins of tattooing.

This one is interesting. In case you don’t know, The Law of First Use is something taught in Bible Interpretation. It states that if you want to know the meaning or use of something (such as a Hebrew word) go back to how it was first use (or it’s origin) and look at it there. This not only points the discussion (that is dealing with the Biblical and Godly applauding or booing of tattooing) back to the Bible, it also asks people to seek out more information for themselves. Good and bad things here. The good thing is that one issues of Biblical discussion you involve the Bible and Biblical principles (scripture would later be used in the discussion). This also asks people to seek more information themselves, the only problem—people are lazy bums. I don’t know how many times I have asked people to just look at the facts, and they can’t even do that because the facts are located at the library and not in their hands.

If people have to do things themselves, there is a likelihood that they won’t. Adolf Hitler once said, “What luck for rulers that men don’t think.” People are often too lazy to investigate what they believe, even Christians. How sad it will be on judgment day for many people when they realize that if they would have just spent a few hours reading one book of facts about Christianity that it would have changed their whole eternity. Greek historian Thucydides wrote “So little trouble do men take in their search after truth; so readily do they accept whatever comes first to hand.” Humans, Christian or non, tend to accept what is more pleasing to the flesh that what is truth. It is natural. The issue that we have to deal with is realize we are not natural, we are spiritual. We are a spirit, have a soul, and live in a natural body. Too many people won’t search out and investigate truth, and so many will get what Thomas Hobbes once said, “Hell is truth seen too late.”

• But does it really matter if just one tattoo on someone body gets just one person saved is it not worth it?

The reasoning on this one is just bad. If I kill you now, and some one comes to Christ because I murdered you, does that I mean I actually did a good deed? Does that make me a saint? No. God can use anything to bring a person to Christ, even sin. But the reasoning is flawed, and it's not Biblical. If you want to argument an issue over whether it is good for a Christian to do something or not, you have to use the Bible. The Law of First Use is Biblical, saying it gets someone saved is not. Paul became all things to all people to win them to the Lord, but that doesn't mean he became a pedophile to win pedophiles to Christ.

• Lev 19:28 - You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord. (Amplified)

This was brought up as the scriptural point in the discussion. However it was then brought up that it was Old Testament and was under the Law and we are now under the New Covenant and under grace. This was the argument. However, it again fails to prove their point. We must understand that thought the Covenant changes, some things do not. For one, God never changes. Things like murder, homosexuality, lying, etc do not over night go from an abomination unto God to alrighty good to go. People have used this same argument with tithing. However tithing was introduced around 500 years before the Old Covenant was made by God. We must understand certain things don’t change. Grace may be grace, but sin is sin.

• When I see that scripture I interput it as no r.i.p. Tatts.

So no R.I.P. tatts, but Mickey Mouse is okay? Those three words are damned above all others. This one is just one you have to think one. Don’t be stupid in your arguments.

• i have never once felt convicted about my tatts so i guess to each his own.. i use my tatts to be a witness to other ppl and to get them to ask questions them so that i can possibly use those to win them to the lord.

The argument of “I have never once felt convicted” falls flatter than a pancake. There are many honest, sincere Christians who don’t believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues and never once have they felt convicted. While these people are sincere, they just plain wrong according to the Bible, not a denomination. Some times conviction doesn’t come from the heart, it comes from the head (guilt, might be a better word for it then) and thus, we have to actually think or meditate on it, and a lot of us don’t do that. As for the other part, a t-shirt can’t do the same, without being in the debatable proper/improper question of a tattoo (or anything)?

• Yes there are a lot of ways to lead the next generation astray, I personally know of two youth pastors in my hometown, one is teaching that there is nothing wrong with consuming alcohol, the other is dating a 17 year old girl from his youth group, and he is 32. Now if you ask me, a tattoo seems a little meek compared to either one of those situations…

This statement here, if you can read into it, is the same argument many non-saved people use as their excuse to be going to Heaven when they died. I’m a good person. Define good. God is the one who defines good, and we define good by other’s evils. We may have cheated and lied, but we haven’t murdered anyone or raped anyone. In like manner, I may have this thing, but I don’t tell kids to get drunk or date 17 year olds. If you try to say something is okay by comparing it to something bad, you will fail. Something is good because it is good, not because it is better than something worse.


• Who are we to judge someone motives or heart?

This statement, along with many other saying how Christians shouldn’t judge, popped up numerous times. Many times you could hear something revolving around “judge not, lest ye be judged.” This was a big one for me, because the Bible has some seemingly conflicting things to say on it. It’s not conflicting, it just seems like it sometimes. First, let me say that the Bible says repeatedly that we are not to judge the motives of the heart. God is the judge. With that said, look at some other points with me.

* 1 Corinthians 2:15, “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” Of course this used in an argument is likely to receive a “you’re full of pride” rebuke. As well, this scripture by itself doesn’t say much.

* 2 Timothy 4:14-16, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” This is Paul writing. Here Paul forgives this Alexander but he also keeps a not of what the man did to him so as he is not fooled again. In such a way, Paul judged this man as not being trustworthy.

* In one Bible translation 1 Corinthians 5:9 has as it’s heading Immorality Must Be Judged. Paul goes on to talk about casting those who are immoral out of the congregation of Believers.
* In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Paul says to judge those in the church, and expel the wicked man from among you.

* In 1 Corinthians 10:15 Paul tells believers to judge what he says. And in 11:31 he tells us to judge ourselves and we won’t be judged.

* In Hebrews 11:11, the Bible says that Sarah even judged God Himself.

Why do I share all of these? I do it so you can see that judging isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if we change the words around that mean the same, we’d see that we judge all the time. When we put our trust, hope, and faith in God, we judge Him worthy or such a thing. I like manner, when we don’t do that we judge Him as unworthy for such a thing.

At one point in history John 3:16 was the most famous scripture. People around the world knew it. Things have changed. Now Matthew 7:1 is the most famous. What does it say? “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Judging others has become taboo in today’s culture. Yet are Christians not judging when they say homosexuals are sinning (besides being ‘intolerant’ that is)? I want us to read some more of this scripture to understand something.

Matthew 7:1-5 states, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the splinter that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the splinter out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

Again, too many people think we are not to judge, just like they think we are to be humble in the same manner as the world. Picking this scripture apart we can see some things. First, the criteria that you judge someone by will be the same you are judged by. The scripture tells us not to judge because all too often we like to judge others by standards we don’t like to place upon ourselves. The next part is to see that this scripture is talking a lot about hypocrisy. However, notice the last line-“ first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” The Word here is telling us to get ourselves straight that we can help others get themselves straight. That is what people in leadership—ministers, do. Pastors and ministers are called to equip the saints. One way of doing so is calling sin sin and not glazing it over with sweet words. The intent is not to harm, but to help so the person can go on with God and be all He has called them to be and help others.

This is the last one (I know this has been a long one). This one too was stated over and over so I just put them together so you can get the full meaning.

• well this generation is a "live out loud" bunch group. i rather put what i believe on my body where it strikes a question…I dont think tat(ink) is OMG sooo evil and it shuldnt be so related with the WORD u knw its like a fashion statement in this Generation.. Thats dat individual....The negative stereotype of people with tattoos has changed; tattoos have become an exceptable form of self-expression for this generation.

Every one of these comments goes back to one thing—this generation. They are seeking approval, acceptance, and point to this generation for the person to justify them instead of God. You can tell these are young people, can’t you? Again, on issues such as this, Biblical questioning, the answer, the justification is not a generation, it is God. It might have become acceptable to this generation, but we aren't supposed to to decide things by this generation. This generation will not judge you when you draw your last breath. God will.

• if we can dress our church up to follow the trends of the world and christian music evolves as the worlds music evolves what wrong with us/the church change also…

Sadly, too many think this is how things should go, that we should try reaching the world by being like it in appearance and other areas. The problem is that we are not the world. God is not Satan. As one anointed teacher said, “If you look like the devil, and smell like the devil, and act like the devil. You is the devil.” But I don’t act like the devil. Well you got two out of three. Something’s wrong there. That same teacher said, “ I looked for the church and found it in the world. I looked for the world and to my dismay, I found it in the church.” At this many people get offended. They won’t take an honest look at things because they’ve become so emotionally attached, offended, or given into their flesh. Jesus Christ was relevant to the world and looked nothing like the world. In fact, as it has been said, the church has been most effective on the world when it has looked least like the world.

I’m sorry. But if you have miracle healings and the glory of God, fire falling from Heaven—you don’t need tattoos (not knocking them here), Christian “rock” music (not knocking it), or people dressed just like the world or anything else that comes close to resembling the world. And you don’t get the fullness of the glory of God by looking like the world. Look at Azusa Street. No one there looked like the world. They were too busy engulfed by the glory of God to try those things.

Some times in discussions like the ones I was in, people get so emotionally attached, so offended, their heart gets hardened or they get so convicted that nothing you can say can touch them because they are so focused on defending themselves and attacking you. It is at this point that you loose the purpose of the discussion, which is hopefully to show love to the other person (among other things depending on the topic).

Winston Churchill said that the most valuable thing in the world is truth. So valuable is it, that it has often been barricaded by a bodyguard of lies. And while many seek after truth, so do many give up when they see the bodyguard, mistaking it for the truth, not imagining that something greater, something better could be behind the larger than life bodyguard that stands between the seeker and the truth. It is the honest investigator that makes the best one. Many atheists who have taken an honest approach to Christianity have found the truth—J.R.R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, just to name a few.

I’ll leave with a comment one person stated. I hope this has helped, and has not seemed to much like an attack on the issue discussed, but more a help in discussing issues that can mean a person’s eternity.

If we want the greater glory, we have to walk in greater reverence. Dad Hagin was not one to call names, but I heard him in more than one large meeting state that we do not have to look, dress, smell or act like the world to reach the world. Love also instructs and does it's best to bring guidance and correction. We don't take the word of God and conform it to us, regardless of our generation. The word is the rock that we break on and let God mold us to. The things I used to do apart of salvation, I don't want to do. My "want to" changed, and as I continue on, it is still open to God for correction. Love opens doors to hearts, it will cross any line, any race, any age. If you that think getting a tatoo will reach people, any of us could be around those same people and see God's love pierce their heart. Bottom line is, there is a price to pay for the greater glory; coming out from the world's influences is one of the biggest ways to pay that price…. We don't have to preach about such things if our lifestyle leads in it. God cannot fully get the church in the world until he can fully get the world out of the church. While it is a process, hearts must be yielded to him for that process to work, we are to lay things down and put things off.

God bless.

Krist

The Purpose of Discussion

The other day I had the utter pleasure of joining in on a ‘discussion’ on a certain topic. Of course I’m being sarcastic. Utter pleasure is definitely not the word I would choose unless I wanted to be sarcastic.

Halfway through this exchange of ideas it came to me, “What is the purpose of all of this”? Why am I involving so much of my time, of my energy, and of myself? A few weeks ago God brought this to my attention when it came to designing graphics. What is the purpose of doing this design, besides just doing it? It hit me that there was no purpose except for fun, and just to do it. In light of everything else I could be doing and should be doing, this repetitive activity passed into the shadows of my desire.

In like manner, the purpose of this conversation suddenly dropped to the bottom of my list of priorities. Why? There was nothing at stake in this conversation because all that were involved were too emotionally invested, too blind to truth, and too hard-hearted to see anything beyond their own preference, own option, and own desires.

This discussion was based on whether or not a certain activity was smiled or frowned upon by God. And sad to say, the conversation looked more like a discussion between enemies than family, as I’m sure all who were involved were. This all made me think, what is the purpose of a discussion.

As Christians, discussion, the exchange of ideas, can ultimately be one of the greatest ways to allow someone to see the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course living your life like you should would be right up there with it, if not more so. So in a discussion, what does the purpose become.

In the one like I participated in, it was became (it was not originally intended however) to show which point-of-view was the right one of a certain issue. When that purpose has been lost of it becomes clear the purpose can no longer be achieved, there is no point in the discussion, and thus you are wasting your time.

Years ago my pastor was living as a missionary overseas and one day two Jehovah Witnesses came to his door to proselytize. They asked to speak to him about their faith. My pastor ablidged because he realized something. If you give someone time to speak their mind and their side of an issue, proper etiquette demands that that person give you time to speak your side. He did and they did. The time was late and the discussion was getting nowhere, mostly because they two gentlemen that came to his door were young and stubborn. They asked if they could come back and bring their superior. My pastor agreed.

When they returned the discussion continued with my pastor as he blasted ever point, comment, opinion, and witness manual-fed argument full of wholes. Yet no matter how factual, how reasonable, or how honest he could be with these three gentlemen, they would not relent on the thought that they were right. Finally, frustrated and tired of hearing the same thing over and over, he decided to ask them to leave. “We’re getting nowhere,” he told them.

And they left. Even though facts and truth stared them straight in the face, they held strong to their opinions no matter how much they didn’t agree with logic, reason, fact, or truth. Sadly, this happens more often than not, especially in discussions of truth. And that is when we have to realize that the purpose of the discussion has been lost, and we must abandon the time-absorbing activity in exchange for something else. Of course if it is a discussion of truth, the “something else” to replace our time waster would be prayer. At least that would be the best option.

Too often though, conversations on the Bible, religion, the truth, are taken up by people that lack the ability to ponder “Maybe I Could Be Wrong”—Christians included. Whether it’s on the validity of the Bible, the existence of a God, or whether a certain thing is acceptable by God. Too many times do people come into a discussion with their minds already made up, and thus, the discussion was over before it began, and you have just wasted your time, your energy, your words, your life. All that wasted on something that wasn’t even up for discussion in the first place, even if someone said it was.

So I ask us, as people, as Christians, open yourselves up to the possibility that you might just be wrong. On an issue like the existence of God, just opening up to the thought of God not being there will do nothing more than strengthen your belief and reliance on Him (if He’s there). For issues like the one I was involved with, the thought that you could be wrong could open you up many things. It could open you up to a deeper relationship with God, a reverence for a Holy God, the freedom in Christ, the forgiveness of a holy God. It could open you up to the truth. And it is the truth that will make you free.

The New Ipod Shuffle: Keep Your Old One

I had to grab a link from apple earlier for a website I was working on and notices that Apple has come out with a new iPod shuffle, which I had no clue about. Now don't jump me if it's been out a week, I had no clue. I love apple, I loved my iPod when it worked. Still love it, I'd just love it more if it worked.
But I saw that they had the video guided tour so I decided to take a look at the new iPod Shuffle and after seeing it, I have to say-stick with your old one. The only really good improvement I saw was the increased storage space. That's great. Other than that, it's a glorified piece of junk that made to take your money.
How so? How can someone who loves Apple so much, and if you know me you know I do, say something like that. Well, quite simple, I'm an honest guy. I watched the tour and here's the issues I've found.
The controls for the iPod have been moved from the iPod itself to the new headphones. This is great except for one thing, I've never liked the headphones that have come with an mp3 player, especially iPods. The people that I talk to don't like them either. Some do, don't get me wrong, but a lot of people I know, just don't like them. It's the whole earbud thing.
You may not have this problem, but the people I talk to do-every time you put the buds in, it's only a mater of time before they fall out. That is, unless you push them so far into your ear that they begin to assimilate into your skull. But that's only the beginning.
Besides that, Apple has now decided that the new iPod shuffle shall not just be the metal (or plastic) piece of technology that you clip on your pocket, but it shall be the headphones you try to keep in your ear. The controls for the new iPod are not on the actual iPod as they have been, but they are all on the headphones. You could previously get headphones that had controls on them(and not just for the iPod), but they were not self contained in the headphones. You always had something on the actual iPod. This has changed.
So what does this mean? It means that when a wire shorts out on your headphones that you didn't just loose your headphones, you just lost your iPod. And now you get to go fork over thirty bucks at the Apple store just to get to hear your music. You can imagine while all the smart guys were sitting around the table in Silicon Valley trying to come up with the next best iPod, the thought had to cross their minds-how can we make even more money? And course the idea of putting the controls on the headphones seemed like a winner. Of course they don't market it that way, they market it as a cool, new thing.
That's the big thing that gets me, because I've always had to go back and buy accessories for my Apple stuff, not the actual product but necessary accessories-like headphones, or power adapters, or even the cable that goes from the iPod to the computer, which died long before my iPod did the first time.
The other things are small really. Small, just like the size. I know America has an issue with small things when it comes to technology, but it just seems some things are unnecessary. The new iPod shuffle is about the size of your pinkie. Which of course means-a lot easier to lose. Fitting technology into smaller areas is great, but what do you lose by doing it? Maybe the technology itself. First try in the couch cushions.
What else is there? Apparently when skipping through songs, if you pass one you wanted, you have to go all the way through your list to get back to it. However this could just a small over sight the video didn't cover, but if not, just another reason to pass on Apple's newest iPod gift to the world.
Finally, this iPod shuffle is being billed as the first mp3 player that talks to you. That would be great except for the fact that it still sounds like a computer. This would be different if Apple had done something new with voice technology that made the robotic voice in your years sound more....human. But they haven't. So you still get to hear a robot tell you what you're listening to. However, I guess this is better than not knowing what you're listening to at all, except it is your music, you should know.
But even without the last things mentioned, the added bonus of having to buy new, crappy headphones (in my opinion) if and when they break just seals the deal on keeping my old mp3 player. Apple's marketing team might be good and highlighting the positive points of the new shuffle, but hopefully the teenagers and the other consumers out there with the cash will see that the new iPod shuffle will is nothing more than a glorified step down from previous generations.