Knee-mail: “Black Jack” Pershing

From:    Kent Hovind
Sent:    April 16, 2008
To:    Muslim Terrorist
Subject:    I can’t trust in Jesus!

KH:    Whoa there, fella! You look totally terror stricken! Why are you running through the jungle screaming and crying? What happened?

Muslim Terrorist:    Oh, it was awful! It wasn’t supposed to end this way! We, the Muslims are supposed to be the ones doing the terrorizing, not the Americans. I can’t believe this happened! I’ve got to warn the others.

KH:    Wait, calm down for a second. What has made you so scared?

MT:    I can’t believe what he did. It was awful!

KH:    What who did?

MT:    That infidel American general they call “Black Jack” Pershing. He came here to the Philippines in 1899 to fight with us. Oh…it was so awful! I’ve got to go warn the others.

KH:    Wait a second! What did he do?

MT:    Well, we have been killing villagers and Americans for a while now. Everyone was scared of us. That’s how it is supposed to be. You see, if we Muslims die in a holy war killing Jews or Christians, we get to go straight to paradise and get seventy-two beautiful virgins as wives. But now, oh this is awful! I’ve got to warn my friends about what happened.

KH:    So what happened?

MT:    Twenty-four of us Muslims were captured yesterday by the Americans. They tied us all to stakes to execute us. We were so excited to be martyrs in a jihad. That’s the only way to be sure of going to paradise. Then, Pershing did the unthinkable. It was awful!

KH:    What did he do?

MT:    While we were tied up waiting to be martyred and go to paradise, his soldiers dug a big pit in front of us, killed a pig, dipped their bullets in the pig’s blood, and shot everyone but me. All of their bodies were put in the pit and the pig’s blood was poured over them! It was awful! Then the soldiers threw the dead pig in the pit and buried them all together!

KH:    So? What’s wrong with that? You said that they all thought that they were going to paradise.

MT:    Oh, don’t you see? Our religion teaches that anyone who eats or even touches anything from a pig is damned to hell forever! Those men should be in paradise right now, but Pershing sent them all to hell! I can almost hear their screams! I’ve got to go warn the others!

KH:    Wait! Pershing didn’t send those men to hell and neither did the pig’s blood. Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. He died on the cross to forgive our sins. Believe on Him and be saved (Rom. 10:9-13).

MT:    Jesus didn’t die on a cross. They killed someone else who looked like Jesus.

KH:    Whoever taught you that was lying. God created the world and came down to save us. Jesus’ blood is the only way to be forgiven, not your works. You can be saved and set free from your hated, fear, and superstition right now by calling on Him for salvation.

MT:    I can’t do that! My family would kill me! Oh, what can I do? How can I tell the families of those poor men? General Pershing dipped one last bullet in the blood and put it in my shirt pocket before he cut me loose. I’m afraid to touch it! Would you get it out for me, please?

KH:    Ah…no, you’d better show it to your friends. If you will not trust Christ, maybe that bullet will at least stop you from being a terrorist.

MT:    Oh, I’m terrorized now. I’ll never get anywhere near another U.S. soldier as long as I live! I have to go warn the others (running off). Ahhhhh! It’s awful! I can’t believe it!

kh:    Oh, God, please help these poor souls to come to the truth before it is too late.

GOD:    Many have come to the truth and more will come, Son. Stay faithful to Me. I’ve got your back.

57 Comments

  1. pabramson June 17, 2008 8:52 am

    Dr. Kent E. Hovind is currently at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution, in South Carolina.

    –Send postcards and letters to:
    Kent E. Hovind #06452-017
    FCI Edgefield
    P.O. BOX 725
    Edgefield, SC. 29824 USA

    Send him a letter or a postcard! A postcard with colorful scenery would be a nice thing to send. I have sent him a few letters with a couple of tracts enclosed in the past. He would share them with others. He can receive new books only directly from bookstores, but not hardcover books. Only paperbacks! No DVDs, or CDs, or anything else hard or sharp, no staples, etc. (No tracts with staples in them.) Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately. They do not always return postal items that do not get delivered to inmates. (So you may want to save a copy before mailing, in case one week later you learn that he has just been moved again.) http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/visiting.jsp

    Expect that anything and everything you write will be read by the guards. Please don’t write political stuff, or negative tax-related things, or angry things, etc.

    He cannot write back, for the most part. So even though you may not get a reply, know that your words will strongly encourage him. One can always check for the current address, via the Bureau of Prisons – http://www.bop.gov/ Use their “inmate locator”.

    http://www.creationism.org

  2. pabramson June 17, 2008 9:17 am

    “Flood victims worry: What’s in the water?” – June 17, 2008
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080617/D91BJHS80.html

    From Article: “The floodwaters that deluged much of Iowa have done more than knock out drinking water and destroy homes. They have also spread a noxious brew of sewage, farm chemicals and fuel that could sicken anyone who wades in.

    “On Monday, Bob Lanz used a 22-foot aluminum flatboat to navigate through downtown Oakville, where water reeked of pig feces and diesel fuel. …

    “All manner of refuse could be seen floating down the Cedar River – 55-gallon drums labeled “corrosive,” propane tanks, wooden fences and railroad ties. Dead birds and fish sat on the city’s 1st Avenue Bridge. …

    “The flooding also raised concerns of contamination in rural wells, said G. Richard Olds, professor and chairman of the Medical College of Wisconsin.

    ” ‘For rural folks, it’s going to be hard to know if their water’s safe or not,’ he said.

    “Adding to the misery were mosquitoes, which can breed rapidly in the standing water. …”

    ====

    If/when Tokyo has its awaited “big one” – an overdue major earthquake, it is believed by some that consequential aftereffects may cause more permanent damage following the catalyzing earthquake.

    The book, “Sixty Seconds That Will Change the World: The Coming Tokyo Earthquake” by Peter Hadfield, (as I recall) points out that ringing Tokyo Bay are some 900 large oil storage tanks, 300 large chemical storage tanks, and many small chemical-using-industries all interspersed between old wooden housing structure built decades ago, i.e. very dry wood. If fires erupted would the air and water become completely toxic within a few hours? How many millions of people would suddenly be at risk!

    “Hurricane Katrina unsettles Japan” – from Japan Today, 2005
    http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/comment/842

    As a foreigner (to Japan) with many Japanese friends, who lived there for five years, I am deeply concerned about what could happen on the day when Tokyo’s “big one” does hit. So many people go about their daily lives with no preparation in case of an interruption in the complex distribution systems that make our lives easier. An extra gallon of water at home, a couple extra cans of soda in a bottom desk drawer, some extra contact lens solution, and a few days of prescription medicines at one’s primary work or school location – in case one can’t go home for a couple of days. Easy to prepare for, probably never needed, but vital if anything should go wrong.

    Fouled wells (per first article above) was an ominous problem for the recent Bangladesh catastrophe as well. Tens of thousands of people in misery, with dead fish, and wells that “filled in” when the salt water rose above them. How many days can folks survive without clean drinking water? Could such wells be cleaned out or would new wells need to be quickly dug?

    Two weeks ago in Iowa (just like where you live) one could buy a gallon of distilled water for under one dollar. It could be set aside and stored for several years. But now in parts of Iowa good, clean drinking water is at a premium.

    http://www.creationism.org

  3. Jason June 17, 2008 4:33 pm

    Geno
    Said this on June 14th, 2008 at 2:42pm:

    If God is male, then the females would not be made in the image of God. (Unless God is a hermaphodite.) That would eliminate half of the human population.
    That is why my belief is that God was saying He made us in His spiritual image, not a physical one. Humans are unique in that we alone share God’s spiritual nature which allows us to share His eternal life.

    Geno
    Said this on June 16th, 2008 at 4:44pm:

    (Quoting Welders Wife)
    The rule of thumb is that scripture explains scripture. You’re going to find that if you investigate it in the Hebrew, that the God of the Bible is always Masculine.
    ***********
    Geno:
    By that argument, women are not made in the “image of God”. I will leave it to you to explain if you believe women are made in God’s image and what that way might be.

    ……………………………………………………

    Hi Geno,

    Who’s image do you resemble more, your mother or your father?

    By the logic you present above, I would guess that it must be your father because if you resembled your mothers image that would make you a woman.

    Many people say that Prince William (of Great Britain) bears a strong likeness to the image of his mother Princess Diana, but yet they are both different Genders, how could that be?

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  4. Jason June 17, 2008 4:53 pm

    The Welders Wife
    Said this on June 16th, 2008 at 4:03pm:

    WW: Dear Jason, I agree with you 100%!
    and every work that is acceptable to God is a result of faith. There’s nothing/no work that you can do to earn salvation.
    Our salvation is solely on Christ’s sacrifice alone. He is the LAMB on whom God placed all our sins.

    ……………..

    Thank you very much for describing the simple truth of the Gospel perfectly.
    If there is a ‘super important’ theology, surly it has to be, how to be saved.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  5. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 17, 2008 6:14 pm

    PA:_ I haven’t checked the source of this but it was sent to me as an example of an eighth grade examination paper for the year 1895. Purportedly it was a 5 hour exam and here I am forwarding the first two sections only. [The editorial comment to the post was the deliberate “dumbing down” of public education……….]

    8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS – 1895

    Grammar (Time, one hour)
    1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
    2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
    3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
    4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of “lie,””play,” and “run.”
    5. Define case; illustrate each case.
    6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
    7 – 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

    Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
    1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
    2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
    3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for tare?
    4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
    5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
    6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
    7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
    8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
    9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
    10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

    I got to this above question ten/ Arithmetic Section and wanted you to read it. In 1895 a public school student was being taught what a promissory note is.

    They were probably also being taught that the word “dollar” derives from a certain purity and weight of real “Silver”

    They might also have been taught that the word “money” comes from an ancient word meaning “warning”.

    The “teaching hand” has admitted into evidence here that he is not at liberty to discuss these things.

    A real flesh and blood man has been separated from his wife and moved 400 odd miles plus from his home and the fellow labourers in that Church ministry of the Christian Gospel have had a source of material/ livelihood benefit to them either cut off or put under severe stress.

    ie. an actual crime has occurred.

    so here in 2008 is Truth Justice and the …………………….. Way.

    God bless America.

    [JRTurner continues to be right]

  6. The Welders Wife June 18, 2008 7:55 am

    Geno,
    here’s how the Hebrew reads: Notice the Hebrew word for ‘man’
    “And He-creates[masculine-singular] /vi vivra
    Elohim et /Elohim et
    the /ha
    man[noun-masculine-singular] / adam
    in-image-His[masculine-singular] /bitzalmo
    in-form-of(image)[masculine-singular] /bitzelem
    Elohim /Elohim
    He-creates[masculine-singular]/ bara
    him/oto.

    Male & female/ zachar oo nkeivah
    He-creates[masculine-singular]/ bara
    them/ otam.

    It doesn’t say that He created ‘ha eeshah’/the woman in His image. It only says that He created ‘ha adam’ in His image.
    It then goes on to say that He created male & female.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 & 8 confirms this by saying, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image & glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. verse 9 goes on to say, “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”

    And here’s the spiritual picture: The woman is a picture of the bride of Christ.

    1 Corinthians 15:45 says, “And as it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. [47] The first man was of the earth, made of dust: The second Man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust: and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.”

    Geno, I don’t know if you are going to comprehend this or not. It all depends on if you have put your trust in Christ alone to be the atonement for your sin. If you haven’t put your trust in Him alone, you’re not going to be able to comprehend it, because 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

  7. The Welders Wife June 18, 2008 8:24 am

    Aussie Bro,
    um… did they have metres back then? Go back & read what you wrote on #7 of the math exam.

    Are you sure you would pass this 8th grade English Exam? I’m not convinced most Americans would. When I was teaching, whenever a new student came, we would give them diagnostic tests in order to know where to place them in our curriculum. Generally, it didn’t matter if they were 6th grade or 10th grade, we usually had to set them back to the 4th grade level of English in our curriculum. It was a real eye opener!!

    Looking over this Math test, I would say that most kids back then were required to have a working knowledge of farming economics……. Their lives depended on it! Many in our area finished school at the end of 8th grade & were expected to go out & make a living after that.

    And… I’ve actually met some people around here who live in these mountains, who still think that you are doing just fine if you have an 8th grade education….. Of course, when you talk to them, it’s like stepping back in time to a century ago….It’s quite an experience just to get to know some of these characters….

    And then there’s the University of Montana…

  8. pabramson June 18, 2008 9:43 am

    …?!…

    “RBS issues global stock and credit crash alert” – June 18, 2008
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/18/cnrbs118.xml

    From Article: “… A report by the bank’s research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as ‘all the chickens come home to roost’ from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets. …

    ” ‘Globalisation was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a dangerous corner at some point. We have got to that point,’ he said.

    “US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank both face a Hobson’s choice as workers start to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut off credit.

    “The authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food costs continue to push headline inflation to levels that are unsettling the markets. ‘The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see much lower global growth in order to get lower inflation,’ he said. …”

    http://www.creationism.org

  9. pabramson June 18, 2008 3:30 pm

    Isn’t there a single governor in the USA who knows that judicial review is inherently unconstitutional?

    ====

    US Constitution:

    Article I – The Legislative Branch makes the laws.

    Article II – The Executive Branch, under the President (or Governor, at the state level), enforces the laws.

    ====

    Only AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution supersede it.

    The court case “Marbury v. Madison” 1803-4 was NOT an amendment to the Constitution. It was just a court case, and one that was unenforced by President Jefferson at the time.

    Therefore the very foundation for “judicial review” (that particular court case, above) is legally inapplicable for allowing judges to make up their own laws, ignoring the elected legislatures!

    Would Rush Limbaugh listen to such reasoning? …Is there anyone here who hears his program very often and would call in? …

    Judges do not have the right or responsibility to MAKE laws.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section I:

    “All legislative [ALL LAW MAKING] powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    Judges are to adjudicate only; i.e. to discern according to the duly passed and applicable laws (created by the legislature) for that city, county, state, or at the federal level.

    “Judicial Review” is unconstitutional. What is Constitutional is “Citizen Review”. If “We the People” don’t like the laws they make, then “throw the bums out” in the next election. This is called: Representative Government, unlike what “Judicial Review” gets us with raw judicial power; unjust power that does not answer to the will of the people.

    “Citizen Review”, in elections by “We the People” – that is Constitutional!

    US Constitution Preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. …”

    Constitution Full Text:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#preamble

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  10. Learned Hand June 18, 2008 10:00 pm

    Therefore the very foundation for “judicial review” (that particular court case, above) is legally inapplicable for allowing judges to make up their own laws, ignoring the elected legislatures!

    Law, like biology, is a relatively complex discipline. It turns on more than your presuppositions and assumptions. You might consider studying topics more assiduously before posturing as an expert and making such ridiculous proclamations.

    Judicial review was incorporated into British law, the basis for American law, more than a century before the founding of the American state. Prior to the enactment of the Constitution, it was considered to be an inevitable and necessary result of a government divided into three equal branches. Your abbreviated summary of the Constitution entirely omits Article III, which establishes courts to adjudicate the laws. That function necessarily incorporates judicial review, as explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78: “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

    Hamilton’s view was so prevalent among the founding fathers that not a single drafter, to my knowledge, spoke against the jurisprudential result in Marbury. They were familiar with the concept from the fundamental bases of American law, both in the British system and among the colonies where it was generally practiced.

    Sir, you often posture as an expert on topics about which you know little, such as (most obviously) biology. Your pronouncements regarding constitutional law are particularly benighted, even by the low standards of self-appointed creationist experts. Please consider reading a book, or at least a pamphlet, on the topic before making bold but ridiculously wrong pronouncements. Please recall that the man whose graven (or at least scriven) image you glorify through this site is currently incarcerated after committing serious crimes he justifies and glorifies through similar erroneous teachings.

  11. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 19, 2008 1:31 am

    dear WW,
    I went into a catholic bookstore some time ago to purchase a copy of Cannon Law. What I found was that everything in the store had price tags on it. Lots of books and they were all for sale. They also had little statues and pictures and things – also, all for sale. The whole time I was in the store no one offered to pray for me, or feed me, or load me up with materials of any kind.

    Ah, having visited their store I now know what Catholicism is all about.

    I did have some loose change and would gladly have bought a few indulgences or maybe paid to get few of someone’s relatives out of purgatory but no-one made me an offer.

    anyway, having visited their bookstore and one website I now know what its all about. [ps. LooseChange II is well worth the download – helps calm the nerves for a good nights sleep]

    Jesus is Coming – and as the bumper bar sticker reads, boy is He ………………..!!!

  12. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 19, 2008 1:49 am

    PA/WW……that’s Canon Law for those not so interested in how big guns work, Cannon Fodder is what people send to the third world to sure up big gas deals;

    what follow then is Canon Lawyers…

  13. eecreationist June 19, 2008 7:17 am

    Interesting post today. I looked online to read more on this and it seems to be based on an urban legend.

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm

    God bless Hovind, his family and Ministry!

  14. darling June 19, 2008 8:07 am

    pabramson Said this on June 18th, 2008 at 3:30pm:

    The court case “Marbury v. Madison” … was unenforced by President Jefferson at the time.

    You say that like it means something. But it doesn’t.

    The Marbury court refused to order Jefferson to deliver Marbury’s appointment.

    There was nothing for Jefferson to enforce. He won.

  15. pabramson June 19, 2008 8:50 am

    Dear Learned Hand,

    Thank you for your comments of – June 18th, 2008 at 10:00pm.

    Such a well written discourse, but – I would contend – incorrect. You describe what we have FALLEN to. I recall the ways things ought to be.

    No, the UNelected judges are NOT to second guess the elected representatives.

    America’s is to be a representative government!

    Here is the oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of ——–, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    It is the US Constitution that is to set the standard for laws in the USA, not UNelected judges making arbitrary whimsical decisions.

    A small panel of 3 or 9 (who are UNelected), “overriding” the will of the ELECTED representatives!? Sorry, that is wrong.

    Lawmakers – elected by the people; i.e. representative government.

    Law Enforcers – some are appointed or hired, not not all elected.

    Pick up this book below sometime. Learn a little about how US law is supposed to be:

    “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”
    http://books.google.com/books?id=kBQam8BZBDsC&dq=levin+men+in+black&pg=PP1&ots=DfFKHQ9dKE&sig=Exw1ut06Y7jAV9wuUkplXddo4oA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR7,M1

    http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6606

    From 2nd link: “From same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, and economic socialism to partial birth abortion, political speech, and terrorists’ “rights,” judges have abused their constitutional mandate by imposing their personal prejudices and beliefs on the rest of society. No radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And we, the people, need not stand for it. …”

    If any judge wants to MAKE laws, fine, all she or he needs to do is to get ELECTED to a legislative office!

    Then (and only then, legally at least) he can MAKE laws.

    Judges are NOT to MAKE laws.

    This is America. (I realize what we have FALLEN to. You describe the way things ARE, yes. But I describe “the way things ought to be”.)

    When a judge proclaims “unconstitutional” for a law at his/her level of government, then that very act is unconstitutional! Judges are not in the business of MAKING laws. A separation of powers … checks & balances … power corrupts … et cetera.

    Are we all in a fog?

    Folks, don’t you/we discern the difference?

    UNelected judges are destroying the USA with their immoral proclamations. I don’t want my country destroyed. What US law has fallen to, is not right.

    Again, isn’t there a single governor in the 50 states of the USA who will verbalize that he or she (as elected) is NOT to be held captive by the whims of a few left-wing UNelected judges with their EVIL anti-human, anti-normalcy, anti-America agenda?

    It has been said, “If God doesn’t destroy the USA, he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  16. pabramson June 19, 2008 8:59 am

    “O’Neill Uses Snowplow On Hail” – June 18, 2008
    http://www.ketv.com/weather/16645224/detail.html

    From Article: “OMAHA, Neb. — Holt County snowplows were out Tuesday night clearing 8 inches of hail that fell during a storm.

    “Near O’Neill, pea- to marble-sized hail piled up on one stretch of roadway.

    “In Atkinson, there were reports of baseball-sized hail that broke out windows at the town’s airport.”

    http://www.creationism.org

  17. The Welders Wife June 19, 2008 9:56 am

    Dear Aussie Bro,
    Somehow I missed the connection & lost your train of thought….

  18. DQ June 19, 2008 11:46 am

    Dear Paul,
    I have read with great interest your exchange with Learned Hand regarding judicial review. I must admit I am a little confused by your objections to judicial review. (Please note: I understand your anger at some of the outcomes of judicial review, but not your problem with the concept itself.)

    You say that judges are supposed to stay within the law. What is the Constitution, if not the supreme law of the land? If the legislature passes a law that goes against the Constitution, the court is faced with a dilemma. They are bound to follow the law, but they have two laws that conflict with one another. They HAVE to choose which law they are going to follow to decide the case, right? And, in this situation, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, has to trump the lesser law that was passed by the legislature. Your argument: “judges are supposed to follow the law” makes no sense in this case, because there are two mutually exclusive, conflicting laws!

    Let’s try an example. Suppose Congress passes a law stating that everyone is required to put down a rug, face east, and pray to Mecca five times a day. Suppose you refuse, and get arrested for doing so. Now your case is before a court. The court has to look at the laws to decide your fate. In your case, there are two conflicting laws: 1) the law passed by the legislature mandating Muslim prayer; and 2) the First Amendment to the Constitution. These two laws are in conflict with one another; if the court decides to follow one they must necessarily break the other. Naturally the court must decide to follow the Constitution, since it is a higher law than the recent one passed by the legislature.

    Does that make sense? It didn’t need to be written into the Constitution because it is the only logical way for things to work. Otherwise the courts could not function, because a tangle of conflicting laws would make any consistency impossible.

  19. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 19, 2008 5:56 pm

    PA:_
    I think maybe? I follow a little bit about what you are saying about “End Judicial Review”

    and When Do We Want It? “Now” – so the cadence rings.

    Remember Lord Sir Edward Coke, or was it William Blackstone

    ‘Facts are to be decided by Juries’ [a paraphrase]. And one fact that every Jury should know of before sitting down and being considered worthy to hear anything is the fact of Jury Nullification.

    but lets take one step back in time and space. What if Roosevelt is simply right – simply and absolutely truly “right”:-

    “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”
    unquote

    by turning up at a court and participating is one entering into a suverainty covenant with a private individual or private individual owners of “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and or their “agents at law”

    every Christian should consider why Jesus did not enter a plea at his sham illegal and unlawful trial – and why Pilate might ultimately have suicided. Why was Pilate’s wife deeply disturbed?

    Oh for a good earthquake. Suverainty covenants as well as parity covenants are ancient near east literature/ basic archaeology. One wonders if the difficultly googling the word isn’t all part of ‘dumbing down’ the slaughterhouse.

    in brief why can’t appeals be ‘lodged or filed’ directly with david rockefeller or whoever the controlling owners of the Federal Reserve Bank are?
    lets just meet them and dance before them throwing rose petals on their path. lets throw olive branch laurel wreaths at their feet and say ‘they speak like god’

    how can an agent of the court question anything about the integrity of the court? And if it is all really just about knowing which way your bread is buttered? – well why did Pilate suicide?

    Games might actually be good until you break a real law and satan lines up the indictments before the Holy “vengeance is mine” God. Him who has the power to destroy the soul.

    Juries decide facts – what a novel revolutionary idea? would californian gay married men ever entertain such a repugnant idea.

    let their cup fill to overflowing – we know how the story ends.

  20. Geno June 19, 2008 6:50 pm

    for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on June 19th, 2008 at 1:31am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    dear WW,
    I went into a catholic bookstore some time ago to purchase a copy of Cannon Law. What I found was that everything in the store had price tags on it. Lots of books and they were all for sale. They also had little statues and pictures and things – also, all for sale. The whole time I was in the store no one offered to pray for me, or feed me, or load me up with materials of any kind.

    Ah, having visited their store I now know what Catholicism is all about.

    ****************
    Geno:
    Ya know. I went to a Baptist bookstore after reading this and had the exact same experience. Everything in the store had a price tag on it. No one offered to pray for me. No one offered to feed me. No one offered to load me up with materials of any kind.

    I guess that means I now know what the Baptist denomination is all about.

    Or, just maybe, the purpose of a STORE is to SELL things.

  21. mollypitcher June 19, 2008 9:44 pm

    Shalom; Someone talked about bumper stickers on the comments above, I saw one
    the other day I liked – It said “the ten commandments are not multiple choice”
    I am so sickened and through talking to people who have created their own self-made religion and convenient “god” for their live’s justification. I am glad to know my God who created me, not the other way around. As Jesus said “don’t cast your pearls before swine” Just move on. Some of you people in here just beat each other over the head on the same peripheral topics repeatedly. Why don’t you take the time to pray and bless someone with a good thing you read from God’s word? No sense in apologetics. I do like Kent Hovind’s shedding light on the substantial and vast amount of supportive evidence of the God’s account of creation from all the scientific findings that we never get to hear about by mainstream liars and textbooks being propagated as fact. He is a hero no matter how many taxes the gov’t has claim on.

    http://misspow.tripod.com/

  22. pabramson June 20, 2008 8:49 am

    Dear DQ,

    Thank you for your comments of – June 19th, 2008 at 11:46am.

    You wrote: “Let’s try an example. Suppose Congress passes a law stating that everyone is required to put down a rug, face east, and pray to Mecca five times a day. Suppose you refuse, and get arrested for doing so. Now your case is before a court. …”

    A good example.

    If we look at past Supreme Court decisions we can see (what we call in retrospect) both good and bad decisions.

    The “Dred Scott” decision of 1856. Mr. Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his master to a free state for several years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott He tried to claim that he should later have been allowed to be a free man, but the court decided that Mr. Scott remained the “property” of his “owner” and was not free.

    But about 100 years later, the “Brown v. Board of Education” decision of 1954 opened the way to desegregation of the schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

    Wherein lies wisdom?

    Should nine UNelected magistrates OVERRIDE the cumulative wisdom of 300-400 ELECTED representatives?

    And besides, the US Constitution HAS provided a review process!

    “Citizen Review” – where the voters determine their own representatives, from among the people. “Of the people, by the people, and for the people…”

    Citizen Review of the legislatures is Constitutional.

    Judicial Review of the legislatures is Unconstitutional.

    It seems to me that sane/insane has to be considered.

    An individual – can go insane.

    A small group (like some religious cult that doesn’t get out much) – can go insane.

    One could argue that even an entire country (as a country/culture) – can go insane. (Surely one could argue that Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan could be possible examples of this, from WWII.)

    If the, for example, Ninth Circuit Court went insane in its decisions, then who is to review their decisions…?

    Conversely, if the California legislature went crazy – in the next election the voters could replace all of them. That is Citizen Review. And that is Constitutional.

    It is inherently WRONG for the courts to be second-guessing the legislatures. My argument here is not based on whether or not I like their decisions!

    The legislatures (i.e. the Law MAKERS!!) are to (whoa, hold on to something): MAKE the laws.

    The executive branches (federal and state levels) enforce the laws.

    The judicial branches (at each respective levels) adjudicate BASED upon the duly passed laws and ordinances.

    I do like your pertinent example. Areas of Michigan (near Dearborn) may be close to passing such laws about enforced Islam.

    In passing, to quote Mr. Bill Federer, “If the West naively promotes tolerance of a belief system that does not promote tolerance, it is effectively promoting intolerance.” From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56286

    Let’s take a different example: Prohibition.

    These guys back then AMENDED the Constitution! They made the drinking of alcohol – unconstitutional! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

    …It is possible for an entire country (even the USA) – to go insane. (In that case, turn to the Bible – it is our only lasting standard for truth.) Actually, not just at the nation-level, but it is possible for the entire human race to be partially insane. Consensus opinion is no guarantee of having reached truth. But the bigger the consensus, doesn’t that give us at least a better chance of doing the right thing?

    Wherein lies wisdom?

    – 300-400 ELECTED representatives, who must later campaign for REelection.

    – 7-9 UNelected (sometimes life-time) appointed judges.

    Logically, wouldn’t it be harder for 300-400 to make a crazy or radical decision, than for a mere four or five (simple majority) of a small UNelected quorum?!

    And besides, “Judicial Review” is unconstitutional in the first place.

    “Citizen Review” is the process that was built-in to the Constitution; and it works.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  23. The Welders Wife June 20, 2008 9:06 am

    Mollypitcher said,
    ‘take the time to pray and bless someone with a good thing you read from God’s word’:

    Ok……
    Hodu l’Adoni key tov, key lay olam chasdo!
    word for word: Thank to YAHVEH because good, because to-forever mercy/loving-kindness-His!
    Psalm 136:1 O give thanks to the LORD for He is good, for His loving kindness endures forever!

    Mollypitcher also said: “I do like Kent Hovind’s shedding light on the substantial and vast amount of supportive evidence of the God’s account of creation from all the scientific findings that we never get to hear about by mainstream liars and textbooks being propagated as fact. He is a hero no matter how many taxes the gov’t has claim on.”

    WW: Amen!

    Is there such a things as global warming? Probably not in Montana, & this might be some of the cause for the flooding down stream
    http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/06/20/news/top/news01.txt

    Mollypitcher, shalom shabbat b’Yeshua!
    Hanniel-echad

  24. pabramson June 20, 2008 12:49 pm

    Executive – one who executes action, or who acts, a doer.

    Judicial – to adjudicate, to judge, based upon pre-set rules or laws.

    Legislative – to make laws applicable for use by the other two.

    http://www.creationism.org

  25. darling June 20, 2008 2:00 pm

    pabramson Said this on June 20th, 2008 at 8:49am:

    “And besides, the US Constitution HAS provided a review process!

    “Citizen Review” – where the voters determine their own representatives, from among the people. “Of the people, by the people, and for the people…””

    What is the point of a Constitution if the people, through their elected representatives, are free to pass unconstitutional laws?

  26. Learned Hand June 20, 2008 5:16 pm

    Executive – one who executes action, or who acts, a doer.

    Judicial – to adjudicate, to judge, based upon pre-set rules or laws.

    Legislative – to make laws applicable for use by the other two.

    Please re-read Federalist No. 78. The judicial branch does judge “based upon pre-set rules or laws” (including, as intended by the founders, the common law). Where two laws conflict, the court must determine which law has priority and which must yield. The Constitution is law, and cannot be overriden by any act of the legislature that is not a formal amendment. When a statute or common-law precept conflicts with Constitutional law, therefore, the courts must find that the Constitution has priority over the lesser law. Judicial review is accordingly a fundamental and inescapable function of any court empowered to sit in judgment of a statute, as our courts are designed to do. You may recall the phrase “checks and balances” from your education; please consider that phrase in the context of Darling’s comment. You may also wish to consider not teaching on subjects about which you know little, although this would leave most creationists with a great deal of free time. Perhaps you could take up gardening.

    Areas of Michigan (near Dearborn) may be close to passing such laws about enforced Islam.

    Really? Can you substantiate this, or is it another casual deception?

  27. The Welders Wife June 20, 2008 5:35 pm

    By Pairs They Entered The Ark, By Families They Exited The Ark

    Genesis 6:14 KJV says ‘rooms shalt thou make in the ark’
    The Hebrew word used here is ‘kiniym’ & the root word means ‘nests’. It’s translated once as ‘rooms’ & 11 times as nests. To be able to do this, they had to have an understanding of every kind of ‘house’ that an air breathing land animal or bird makes. This included all birds because later it says ‘birds of the sky’ [Most water birds fly, & those that don’t come up on land to nest.] A nest is something that is used to raise young. Most critters build ‘nests’ (chambers or cells) only when they are producing offspring. Not when they’re not!
    We see pictures of animals both entering & exiting the ark by pairs, & the KJV says that they exited the ark by ‘kinds’, but that’s not what the Hebrew says… The Hebrew says that they exited the ark by ‘families’ {l’mish-pcho-teiy-hem) …that’s more than 2! Everything multiplied while they were on the Ark, & probably the people too. The wives probably exited pregnant, because if you look at Shem’s descendants {10:22 & 11:10) his 3rd son was born 2 years after the Flood, when Shem was 100 years old…. well his wife could have had twins or triplets, but would God really do that to a pioneer lady? One baby at a time is plenty of challenge all on his own! and especially when you have to start from scratch…

    So… did the animals hibernate the whole time they were on the ark?

    And if they all exited by ‘families’, critters like elephants were ‘with child’ when they entered the ark because gestation takes more than one year & ten days for elephants, which was the amount of time spent on the ark.

    Baby Bears are born during hibernation.

    When Noah offered the sacrifices, it was the best of the first born of the original pairs that entered the ark, not the original pairs themselves.

    When he let the raven out, was it one of the offspring or one of the original pair?

    By the time he let the dove out, how many doves did he have on the ark?

    If you start out with a pair of kittens (domestic house cats), they can reproduce at 6 months, & gestation is about 63 days. By the time a kitten is 3 months old, it’s mother has usually trained it to be a good hunter.

    Dogs have the same gestation as cats. Sheep take 5 months…..

    The excess offspring of the rodents probably got fed to the carnivorous critters on the ark…
    Tasty!

    The animals were better off exiting the ark after they were no longer ‘new borns’.

  28. The Welders Wife June 20, 2008 5:38 pm

    The excess offspring of the rodents probably got fed to the carnivorous critters on the ark…
    Tasty!……

    That way the guys on the ark couldn’t use them for target practice later on….

  29. Geno June 20, 2008 6:05 pm

    Paul continues to claim that judicial review is unconstitutional. I noticed, with interest, that he was unable to tell us what would happen if a legislative body were to pass a law that is clearly unconstitutional if the courts do not have the power to review the law.

    He says: “the US Constitution HAS provided a review process!” for legislative bodies. Well, the Constitution also has provided a review process for the judiciary. It’s called “impeachment” and the power lies in the very legislature whose acts are the subject of the judicial review Paul claims is unconstitutional. In other words, if the “300-400″ legislators are sufficiently upset with the acts of the courts, they have full power under the constitution to remove the judge(s).

    Paul asked: “If the, for example, Ninth Circuit Court went insane in its decisions, then who is to review their decisions…?” I respond, the United States Supreme Court is to review the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court…. and they do. I read somewhere that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit court in the United States.

    Paul points out, in his response to DQ that: “I do like your pertinent example. Areas of Michigan (near Dearborn) may be close to passing such laws about enforced Islam.” I ask, if judicial review is unconstitutional then what recourse is there if such a law is passed? What if the law is passed in January, 2009? Does that mean the law is in effect until January, 2013? What if the legislative passes a new law in January, 2013 and the executive vetoes the new law? Is it then in effect until 2017 when a new executive takes office?

    Sorry, Paul, judicial review of legislative (and executive) actions is both constitutional (Article III) as has already been pointed out to you, and necessary.

  30. Geno June 20, 2008 6:27 pm

    On the matter of God’s “image”:

    Jason
    Said this on June 17th, 2008 at 4:33pm:
    ——————————————————————————–
    Who’s image do you resemble more, your mother or your father?
    ************
    Geno:
    Keep in mind it is WW, not I who is raising the issue of God’s gender.

    Issues with the Biblical meaning when it says we are made in God’s image goes far beyond gender. There are many people with whom I have little (or no) resemblence. Yet they are made just as much in God’s image as I am. Next time you are in a crowded place, look around. Is God tall or short? Is He fat or slim? Does He have brown eyes or blue? Is He black, white, or some other race? There are many physical attributes that constitute our “image”.

    IMO, it is a serious error to attempt to assign physical traits to a pure spiritual being such as God.
    **************

    The Welders Wife
    Said this on June 18th, 2008 at 7:55am:
    ——————————————————————————–
    However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
    **********
    Geno:
    I agree completely. It is still my position that when the Bible says man is made in the image of God, it means His spiritual, not physical image.

  31. Ekkman June 21, 2008 12:42 am

    One of my favorite Christian singers went to be with Jesus recently. He is a super neat brother in the Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote articles in the paper for a while entitled, “As I see it”. Below is one of his articles. He was used to bring Bob Dylan to the Lord, Keith Green, and causing the Vineyard to come into being, also Jews for Jesus. That brother wanted to be used by the Lord and God used him. Check out his web site at http://www.larrynorman.com

    “what is art? – 1990

    What is ART? God is the Creator of our World, Our Universe. His art is LIFE. He has made a visible world around us, full of detail and complexity, and He has lavished the same intricate care on the world outside of our periphery. High in the mountains where men seldom walk, God has always given rich colours and delicate perfumes to each flower He has made. He didn’t smudge the definition, forget to cluster the priapic pistil with pollen kissed stamen simply because explorers and their sherpas might not see them.

    Deep in the ocean where the pressure-per-square-inch prevents any man’s eyes from watching, unseen and uncategorized fish-things enjoy their life cycle in God’s gaze, particulate, fluorescent, soft-boned and shimmering in gilled glory, not for the approval of man but for God’s pleasure.

    Life is God’s art. God has rendered His art in our universe in three dimensions; revealed Himself to us in the Trinity, Given man the triune aspects of body, spirit, soul; set us in motion on the planes of time, space and matter, bonded our entities with the protons, neutrons and electrons; translated matter catalystially into energy through proteins, carbohydrates and fats; supported our life on land, air and sea with food, oxygen and water.

    He has given to man and woman a child, and the three perceptive senses of touch, sight, and sound. While textbooks errantly include taste and smell and scientists debate the presence of quarks and black holes, God moves on and doesn’t move at all. He is the Alpha, The I Am, and the Omega; The Past, The Omni-Present and The Future.

    There were three crosses on that hill. One man was perfect, one man repented of his imperfection, and the third man embraced his sin in wilful death lock, unrepentant. Christ spent three days in the grave. He broke the gates of death and arose, sealing the resurrection, redemption, and salvation for the cause of our body, spirit and soul. Now we have good, great reason to walk in faith, hope and love in this three dimensional realm He fashioned for us. One third of the angels fell and the other two-thirds stand against them in the strength of that majority, while God sustains us as we wrestle not against flesh, or blood, but against spiritual principalities; that wickedness ascribed to high places.

    What is the art of man? It is sufficient as a pale copy of God’s visible Creation. No painter ever brushed, colored, and shaped at his canvas with any original vision. No sculptor molded the clay, chiseled the marble, or smelted the metal with any unimaginable result. We are God’s unbound art, His Creation. Let us reflect this in our own art; His Love, His Mercy, His Forgiveness.

    Larry Norman – East Berlin 1990”

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  32. Ekkman June 21, 2008 12:55 am

    I see that Yahweh has now become Yahveh but that is wrong too. Oh well! Hopefully by the grace of God, he might get to be who he is one day. His name will not be forgotten except by those who choose to disbelieve him or ignore the proof that his name is Jehovah in English and Yehovah from the Hebrew.
    And that is speaking in love PA, a strong love that will not compromise on the super important issues.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  33. Ekkman June 21, 2008 2:13 am

    Comparisons between The Majority (KJV) and Minority (NIV) Texts

    Richard Anthony

    http://ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  34. pabramson June 21, 2008 1:10 pm

    Dear Learned Hand, DQ & Darling,

    The system of government chosen for America was to be representative government. And specifically a republic – NOT a democracy.

    Someone has to MAKE the laws. Great, let’s call them lawMAKERS, or the legislature.

    No, judges are not the final arbitrators “deciding” by whim what they think is Constitutional or not. That is not their job.

    Citizen Review – is Constitutional.

    If we believe that the legislature has made some bad laws then we vote them out of office.

    UNelected judges are simply to arbitrate based upon the laws prepared for their use.

    Wherein lies wisdom?

    4-5 left-wing UNelected radicals?

    300-400 of all stripes, elected from among the people?

    Here is a set of the Federalist Papers.
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

    Learned Hand referenced #78.

    From Fed#78: “…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. …”

    So, should I call you “learned” Hand from now on?

    What part of this is unclear? … They are supposed to abide within: “can take no active resolution”, i.e. the judges are NOT to be making up (anti-America & anti-normalcy) laws!

    Father, please give us at least one honorable governor within the USA to openly challenge the evil that is judicial review. Please God, hear my prayer. Amen.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  35. pabramson June 21, 2008 1:47 pm

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    Thank you for your comments of – June 20th, 2008 at 5:16pm.

    You wrote: “[First quoting P.A.]:Areas of Michigan (near Dearborn) may be close to passing such laws about enforced Islam.

    [L.H.’s Reply]: Really? Can you substantiate this, or is it another casual deception?”

    Well, I haven’t actually knowingly participated in any “casual deceptions”. I don’t teach evolution, for one. And I don’t hide from the US Constitution, either.

    Let’s see, there is lots of info on this. …Here is an article from the “Christian Science Monitor”

    “Public schools grapple with Muslim prayer” – July 12, 2007
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.htm

    From Article: “The San Diego district took special action regarding the timing of recess because ‘the Muslim faith requires specificity of prayer obligations … that most other religions do not,’ Mr. North says. …

    “Schools elsewhere in the country have made decisions quietly, such as allowing Muslim students to avoid strenuous exercise while they’re fasting. In Dearborn, Mich., schools offer students the option of eating hot dogs and chicken nuggets made with meat that has been slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law. The Dearborn district, where at least 1 in 3 students is of Middle Eastern descent – some of which are Muslim – also schedules two days off during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. …”

    ====

    “Dearborn House of Prayer”
    http://www.transformmi.com/Dearborn-House-of-Prayer.cfm

    From Article: “…In 2007 we were told that the Islamic leaders in Michigan have a goal to make Michigan the first Muslim state in America by the year 2015. …”

    ====

    “Teacher spills beans about Islamic classes” – April 9, 2008
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61129

    From Article: “…Then, the teacher told columnist Katherine Kersten, ‘teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day,’ was preparing to lead prayer.

    “Beside him, another man ‘was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered,’ the teacher said.”

    ====

    Also, you recently took a swipe at me regarding biology. Sigh, it is the same today as back in the 1920’s, except that we know even more.

    “The Predicament of Evolution” from 1925, by George McCready Price.
    http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/index.htm

    From Chapter 2, about REAL biology, which means Heredity and Variation, i.e. predictable descent (unlike the magic proposed in evolutionary hocus-pocus): “It has been found that when a kind with two dominants is crossed with one possessing two recessives, the results become more complicated. For out of every sixteen hybrids thus produced, nine will show both dominant characters, one will show both recessives, while the remaining six specimens will show two distinctly new types, three of one and three of another.

    “For example, if we cross a tall yellow pea with a dwarf green pea, the first hybrid generation will be all tall yellows; for both tallness and yellowness are dominant. But in the second hybrid generation, out of every sixteen plants, we get nine tall yellows, one dwarf green, with three dwarf yellows, and three tall greens. These last two kinds are wholly new forms, which are thus called mutants. Many other and even more extraordinary mutants have been produced among both plants and animals. …”

    Note that REAL biology shows tremendous built-in variation, due to wise design.

    But magic (which evolutionists rely upon) does not occur. What does occur is …. Heredity and Variation. Surprised?

    It is logical to: fear God and keep His commandments.

    Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

    ====

    Learned Hand, in some ways you are a very smart person. (…You appear to anger easily, but nonetheless…) I challenge you to pray. The words are not special. (Actually any of the skeptics could pray these words below, if desired.)

    Creator, if you are out there, why all the pain and suffering? The Christians say you are good, and all knowing, and other things. But if that is the case and if you knew that the serpent would tempt Eve, et cetera, then why didn’t you stop it ahead of time. Some (or all) of the things that they believe about you do not make sense. Or maybe they are completely wrong. Maybe another religion is closer. I do not know. In fact, I question whether or not ANYONE is even hearing me pray this prayer. But I know that I will die. Whatever is going on in this life I think I’ve tried to learn and think logically. Maybe you see my efforts differently. Here is why I am addressing you, or at least trying to address you – I ask for – for lack of a better term – mercy. Please show me what you would want for me to learn and how I should act in this life. To you it is probably obvious. It is not obvious to me. If you are there, please do not let me find that out the hard way shortly after I die. Lead me to the truth, please. I have hurt other people in the past. Here are some of the things I have done wrong: ____. The Christians say that Jesus Christ is actually the Jewish Messiah. Did he die for my sins?, as quaint as that sounds. What would you have for me to do to be the person who you want me to become? I humbly ask for your help, if you are out there, please. Amen.

    Please read the Gospel of John, (also called: “John”) the fourth book of the New Testament. Do not skim, but read it, one chapter at a time. And see if the God of Creation will reveal Himself to you.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  36. pabramson June 21, 2008 2:04 pm

    Dear Ekkman,

    You are BACK!

    Welcome back.

    Last evening … you posted so many messages that you seem to be making up for lost time!

    I have one request as you take me to task for praying to our Creator, http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html and other monumental issues.

    USE LOVE.

    If you do not, I will have some questions. Jesus told us how to determine His own. Are they loving? Do they lift OTHERS up, or rather exalt themselves?

    Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

    Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

    1 Californians 13:4-7 “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

    -Just not so interested in you spouting off about how right you are on doctrines all the time. Show some love.

    Lead others towards the truth, rather than berating others who would dare to disagree with you about some little petty detail or another. Life is too short.

    James 2:8 “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.”

    James 3:17-18 “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  37. Ekkman June 21, 2008 2:42 pm

    pabramson
    Said this on June 21st, 2008 at 2:04pm:

    Dear Ekkman,

    You are BACK!

    Welcome back.

    Last evening … you posted so many messages that you seem to be making up for lost time!

    Ekkman said: PA, Are you going to post the replies that I made to you since you were slamming me thinking I was gone for good. I can’t get to a computer like I could in times past. I have asked you time and time again and you won’t answer me. What is love to you? I even went into it in more detail in the posts that I made to you yesterday that you haven’t posted yet for some strange reason.

    I have one request as you take me to task for praying to our Creator, http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html and other monumental issues.

    Ekkman said: God’s name is “monumental” whether you think it is or not. He said that it won’t be forgotten, Welder’s Wife says that her Jewish friends are not sure of his name or something to that effect a while back.

    USE LOVE.

    Ekkman said: WHAT IS LOVE? PA, please answer my questions. If I am wrong then show me, I have been using the word to show you that love is strong, it isn’t wishy washy.

    If you do not, I will have some questions. Jesus told us how to determine His own. Are they loving? Do they lift OTHERS up, or rather exalt themselves?

    Ekkman said: I am not exalting others or myself. So why the question. Speaking of questions, why don’t you ask Welder’s Wife if it is love ignoring me

    Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

    Ekkman said: Is evil fruit to you, PA standing for God’s pure word, and believing him when he said that his name would be remembered forever? You seem to use the word of God like the cults use it, totally out of context. I have shown you in the posts that you haven’t posted from me to you that Paul rebuked Peter for false doctrine. Was he moving in love, by your definition of love, that is?

    Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

    1 Californians 13:4-7 “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

    Ekkman said: So is asking questions, standing for truth not moving in love? In seems that by using the scriptures that you are using above on me then those who speak against homosexuality, abortion, etc are not moving in love. Right?

    -Just not so interested in you spouting off about how right you are on doctrines all the time. Show some love.

    Ekkman said: Love is one doctrine among many, you can get off balanced even on love. Use some wisdom with your words PA. So who is really the one “spouting” off to those who don’t agree with him?

    Lead others towards the truth, rather than berating others who would dare to disagree with you about some little petty detail or another. Life is too short.

    Ekkman said: I am leading others to truth, I don’t think that I will love them into the kingdom, at least not by your view of love. That is what I see of your view of love. You shut down the evolutionists because they don’t agree with you but you do “love” those who love you but what thank have ye? Even sinners do the same.

    James 2:8 “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.”

    Ekkman said: If I don’t love your or Welder’s Wife than I wouldn’t be speaking truth to you, I would just say what you want to hear.

    James 3:17-18 “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
    Paul Abramson

    Ekkman said: We can sow in peace but if a person wants to take it wrongly, he or she will because it doesn’t line of with the preconceived views.

    “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal. 4:16

    So are you going to post the three part answer to you that I wrote or not? Are you going to control what the Christians say to you too if you don’t agree with them by not letting others know what they say in return to your comments?

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  38. pabramson June 21, 2008 3:19 pm

    Dear Ekkman,

    Here is Gustav Dore’s image of “The Good Samaritan”:
    http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/tLuk1033Dore_TheGoodSamaritan.jpg

    I understand that my brief story of “The Good Catholic” was not acceptable to you. Well, sorry about that.

    i do not know anyone (except Jesus) with perfect theology and perfect doctrines.

    When I read “The Sermon on the Mount” I see our Savior calling us to action, not telling us exact verbal doctrines to espouse as a primary aim. Actions speak louder than words.

    And here is Dore’s “The Sermon on the Mount” too, if any folks are interested.
    http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/rMat0507Dore_TheSermonOnTheMount.jpg

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  39. pabramson June 21, 2008 3:36 pm

    Dear Ekkman,

    Oh – very sorry! I saw about three versions of them from last night. I thought that I’d approved ONE SET, then deleted the other two sets of three. I do not see any of them now.

    I sincerely hope that you made backups. YES – I would like to post them if these are words you’d like posted.

    P.A.

    http://www.creationism.org

  40. Ekkman June 21, 2008 4:57 pm

    PA, Here it is again for the third time. Thanks for agreeing to post them

    Part 1

    pabramson
    Said this on June 13th, 2008 at 9:50am:

    Dear Jason,

    Thank you for your comments of – June 10th, 2008 at 1:31pm.

    The “whore of Babylon”. The interpretation of the “Catholic Church” may indeed be correct. I know that many teach this. But I admit that such delineation is not my primary focus. So I haven’t worried about it much.

    One thing about Bible prophecy is that it sometimes has a double fulfillment. For example:

    Luke 21:20 “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”

    That happened in 70 AD, with Roman armies. The Christians, believing Jesus, got out of town! Most of the Jews stayed and were murdered as they tried to flee during the siege. But if it should have a future fulfillment as well, then the principle (or I should say “exact wording”) is the same. It would be a different sending institution, but the same situation – of armies surrounding Jerusalem.

    Maybe the Catholic Church, only selectively believing the Scriptures (a very stupid thing to do), and then falling into further error will cause this. -Eventually turning wholly against God in their beliefs. Believing church traditions over believing the Word of God is wrong, as Jesus said.

    Ekkman said: PA, Wouldn’t it be true that you “selectively” believe the scriptures? I have asked you time and time again where are your scriptures. You answer with the Hebrew and the Greek. You nor Welder’s Wife know the Greek and you have only had two lessons in the Hebrew when I talked with you lastso I could safely say that you don’t know the Hebrew either. You remind me of a J.W. that I was debating the other day. We ended up talking bibles since that is an absolute, we must talk it if we are really going anywhere in our conversation. He said the same thing as you tell me. He brought up the Hebrew and the Greek. I then asked him did he know Hebrew and Greek. He didn’t. He laughed at me when I told him that I have the perfect word of God in the English language, the KJV. I told him that he could laugh at that but prove me wrong. I also told him that I could laugh even louder at his statement being that the perfect word of God is in the Hebrew and the Greek and he couldn’t read it. I told him that was a total blind faith. I said, “You are telling me that it is perfect and you can’t even read it, what a joke. And you are laughing at me cause I have a book that I can read and study. A book that has never been proven wrong.” It is easy to say, “I believe in the perfect word of God but for most, they cannot show it to anyone. Sad! PA, you keep telling the evolutionists that we have the scriptures and that is our foundation but in reality, you don’t have the scriptures. At least you have never told me where they are at. You then get into my comment a tiny bit below in this post to Jason, that is why I am writing in this post because you made another negative statement about me. I said, “Doctrine is super important and I still say that it is. You keep bringing up love and you never gave me a definition of love. Was Jesus moving in love when he rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees? Was Paul when he rebuked Peter? What is love to you? Is it love when I reprove Welder’s Wife when she makes false statements? Is it love when I ask her questions that she never answers? Is it love from her side to ignore me like she tells me that she does when I write her? Is it love to tell me that she isn’t gong to talk Hebrew with me till I learn it? Is that really love since she will talk Hebrew with everyone else on it whether they learn it or not since they are “learning” from her and not disagreeing, I guess.

    Mark 7:13a “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition….”

    Ekkman said: Isn’t that what you are doing and many other Christians? There are those in “power”, so to speak, who have determined that a translation can’t be the word of God. Even though it is the word of God when they went from Hebrew to Greek when they quoted many verses in the Old Testament to the New Testament.

    Differentiating between individuals and institutions:

    Ekkman said: Regarding Roman Catholicism, you can’t deal with them or any other cult as you would a denomination. A cult demands total obedience to its doctrine. There is that word, “doctrine”. Doctrine is telling a man how to live, it is very important, that is one of the reasons for scripture. You cannot be a true Roman Catholic and a true Christian, it is impossible. You can be a true Baptist, Charismatic, or Nazarene, or from other Christian denominations and still be a true Christian since they teach the born again experience in the biblical way.

    …
    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  41. Ekkman June 21, 2008 5:00 pm

    Part 2 in answer to PA’s comments to Jason

    PA said:
    We know that Herod had John the Baptist killed. (Hey Geno, if you’re reading, this proves that the Baptists pre-date the Catholics! John — the BAPTIST was there first.) -Folks, just a joke here. – But I have pointed out that the wife of Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3) helped support Jesus’ ministry financially. The “institution” is one thing, but God can use individuals – in spite of “what they stand for” externally.

    Ekkman said: The Roman Catholics were never a Christian religion from their inception. They never were, but they did get more and more pagan as time went on, they kept adding more and more unbiblical doctrines to their belief system.

    Institutions are secondary. It is my experience to ignore someone’s institutional affiliation. In fact I overtly try to show respect and to even ask questions related to their “official” beliefs. I have to try to be careful in what I say, in order to be appropriately inclusive, while also Biblically exclusive.

    Ekkman said: Institutions are not secondary in a cult, they are primary, of the utmost importance, they keep the “sheep” or should I say, “goats” under control. If you don’t keep up with their affiliation then it is more than likely that you will never get very far with them since those in the cults are talking another language. They will use born again, Jesus is the Son of God, salvation is free, etc but those statements and many more have completely different meanings attached.

    When I was living in the Bay Area, in Berkeley, there were a couple of times when I was trying to line up speaking engagements for Dr. Hovind. Stanford University is not that far away so I went down there a couple of times. I sent Emails to all the Christian groups on campus. Zero response. Fine. There are other doors to knock on.

    Do you know who tried to help me!? – The leader of the Stanford atheist group!!

    The Christian groups did not even bother replying to me. “Oh the Bible literally true? Yawn. Pass me the hymnbook.” Let’s stay out of touch and separate “science and religion”.

    Ekkman said: PA, what bible are you talking about above that is literally true? Yawn past me one please.

    The young woman responded to my message and thought that my writing to her group in the first place was kind of funny. She was my ONLY lead. Okay – no problem with me. I took the buses on down to Palo Alto, and reached Stanford. My job is to knock on the doors – and see which ones open. I met with her for coffee. I discussed the importance of our origins and why there is even life and whether or not there is a God (god) of some kind. What a big debate this is, huh? I listened to her views on this. She understood this kind of language and soon thought that the idea of some “leading creationism speaker” coming to Stanford would be interesting for folks. Great! That was what I wanted!

    Before, I had tried to make some contact with the “religious studies” leaders on campus, but they (I am paraphrasing) replied: “We want to stand in line with the Pharisees and false prophets on Judgment Day, and we like being comfortable and respected now; us going straight to Hell later – oh, but God is “loving” isn’t He?) Anyway, with her in the lead – we went to their small building – went right in and she introduced me to them. Isn’t that amazing!

    Ekkman said: Since we are going to be judged by God’s word, we better have it, don’t you think?

    …

    There have been a few Catholic creationists over the years. But tragically, tragically! – the Protestants eventually run them off each time. How terrible. Looking at name badges and institutional affiliations sometimes weighs heavier than trying to look past those things.
    Ekkman said: PA, surely you are not implying that a Catholic creationist is saved because he believes in a creation? I agree, don’t run them off, share truth with them, Catholics are taught that they are saved by having water poured on their heads, that is the born again experience. They stay “saved” by eating and drinking Jesus at their Eucharist, confessing their sins to a priests and many other things.

    Leave their theology alone (IMHO), especially at first. And maybe there is a place for increased liturgy! Mosaic Law is filled with liturgy. Maybe the Protestants are off-balance in these regards. And maybe the Orthodox and Catholic churches are closer to the way that things should be. But, I don’t know. Jesus gave us few instructions regarding church organization and almost no ceremonies to uphold.

    Ekkman said: Since doctrine isn’t all that important to you then I could see you telling others to ignore their theology, since that has to do with doctrine and that isn’t important as love, whatever that is.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  42. Ekkman June 21, 2008 5:02 pm

    Part 3 in answer to PA’s comments to Jason

    PA said,
    If I could strengthen a Catholic’s beliefs in Genesis and what Moses wrote, then I have strengthened his or her understanding of Scripture as a whole. I don’t need to “bring them out” of the Catholic Church, per se. Maybe, like Martin Luther, they should stay and help tell others about an upcoming creation teaching event or other things that we’d have in common.

    Ekkman said: Gods commands his people to come out of her. Martin Luther would have been a dead man if he didn’t “come out” of her. Those who saw her as the whore she is came out.

    Jesus’ example of “who is my neighbor” is intriguing. He tells His fellow Jews of the “good Samaritan”. “Hey, but they’re folks that are *all wrong* in their theology and doctrines!” (A “good” Samaritan!? “What an oxymoron!”, some would have thought.)

    Ekkman said: “Love” them enough to speak truth to them even at the cost of maybe becoming their enemy. It is better for them to hate you for speaking truth then to “love” you because you didn’t speak it and they die and go to hell.

    Luke 10:30-37 “And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

    The Good Catholic: A certain man went to Brooklyn and fell among thieves. They beat him and stole his money. A Pentecostal pastor drove by on his way to a revival meeting. Then a Methodist elder saw him, but did not stop. A Catholic daycare worker paused, helped the man into his car and took him to a nearby clinic to bind up his wounds. He called the man’s family so they could send someone to help him get home. “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?”

    Ekkman said: The neighbor spoke to him and shared the love of God with him, didn’t ignore him, hit him or whatever but spoke of word of God by the Spirit of God to him, ministered. They wouldn’t ignore them or their doctrine, theology since that can send a person to hell, the wrong belief system.

    We used to have a person named, EKKMAN, here. I think he went away a couple of months back. But I remember a phrase he used, that “…doctrine is super important”. It is important, we need it! But I strongly disagreed with him that it was somehow “most” important. He seemed to me to be mean to some persons here. I strongly disliked his intolerance. It must be nice to be right all the time. (Okay, he is probably long gone now, so I should not take him to task here….)

    Ekkman said: IF you are moving in love then doctrine will be put forth because if you know a person has false “doctrine’ then you would not be “loving” him if you let him continue on that course without saying something. Paul said, “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Truth (doctrine) sets people free! Don’t be afraid to speak it. I have had people hate me or very angry at me for speaking truth to them but later when they realized it was true, they thanked me over and over for persisting.

    God can call and use people who are different in outlook than I. Well, I am probably rambling too much in this message. But I have seen God use atheists before. I know that God can use Samaritans, and He can use Catholics. Doctrinally, I am closest to Bible-believing Protestant teachings. But I am one who does not put “doctrines” and my understanding of what is going on, as most important.

    Ekkman said: Rambling is a good word for it.

    So brother, are we still in agreement?
    Paul Abramson

    Ekkman said: I don’t know about Jason, but we certainly are not in agreement and we need to be, the word will unify us if we let it.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  43. Jason June 21, 2008 5:42 pm

    Hi Geno,

    Thanks for the reply (June 20th, 2008 at 6:27pm), I will bear in mind that Welders Wife raised the issue of God’s Gender, so I guess that this reply is as much to her as well.

    I noticed that WW’s reply to you was a very different take on the subject than my own (posted earlier). It does seem as though that you and WW are in agreement (to an extent), and also it seems as though that where you both agree I disagree.

    Hmmm, a scripture comes to mind……..

    Proverbs 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

    In future I think I should think twice before contributing my thoughts in this manner.
    Ahh well, ‘one’ lives and learns… :)

    Since I have already ventured into this area, I will reply with what I read from Scripture. However I am not interested in taking the dog by its ears.

    I read in scripture that God is Male, I am aware of a multitude of references to this throughout the whole of the Bible (Him, His, Father, etc… all referring to God). I am not aware of any references to the contrary. I would be interested if you knew of any.

    I have no problem with Genesis 1:27 referring to the Physical (spiritual also maybe) but definitely Physical.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    The whole inference of the verse is Physical, “male and female created he them”. I read God created ‘Male and Female’ in His own image. Does that mean God is a hermaphrodite? No…

    Children are created in the image of their Parents, ‘Male and Female’. Adam was the son of God Luke 3:38. Therefore Adam held the Image of God, his Father.
    If Adam was made in the image of God, then Eve who was taken out of Adam, “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”, (not forgetting that men and women are not too dissimilar in appearance), Eve also is made in the Image of God.
    WHY? Because God is ‘HUMAN BEING’, as is God the Son, Jesus.

    Here is the (possible) division between myself and Welders Wife:

    WW said:
    1 Corinthians 11:7 & 8 confirms this by saying, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image & glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. verse 9 goes on to say, “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”

    I agree, but would add that; Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

    And also; There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).
    ……………..

    This line was also mentioned within the discourse:

    However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. (1 Corinthians 15:46 Version Unknown)

    The context surrounding this verse describes (what is commonly known as) the time of the Rapture.
    Examples are given to elaborate upon the meaning of this line, such as, a seed going into the ground and coming up as a plant (1 Corinthians 15:36-37)

    So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (1 Corinthians 15:42-43)

    Now bearing in mind that Genesis 1:27 says that God created Man in His own Image, consider this line from the same Corinthian discourse;

    “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45).

    It appears to me that, comparing scripture to scripture; ‘The first man Adam’ was made in God’s Image Physically, the ‘Last Adam’ made in God’s Image ‘Spiritually’.
    ………………..

    Well that’s my take on the subject, I do feel slightly regretful about entering into your discussion, (Proverbs 26:17), but there it is, what’s done is done, and I am sorry.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  44. Ekkman June 21, 2008 5:54 pm

    PA, I wrote this article a few years ago dealing with basically what you and I are dealing with now in a round about way, so to speak.

    Don’t Be A Bird Brain!
    Disagreement or Hate?
    Which is It?

    I was thinking about certain people that I have talked with and they seem to think that if you disagree with another’s lifestyle then you hate them. Not true. Disagreement is not hate. Because of the days that we are living in I believe that is an important point to make. You can disagree with a person’s lifestyle and not hate the person. You can easily hate what he does because it is destroying his life and/or others and not hate him. To use an illustration, if I say rape is wrong and you say rape is right then we are not both correct nor do we hate each other. One is right and the other is wrong. Hate does not even come into the picture. Common sense and seeing the fruit or results of the act can tell us if it is right or wrong. Does it help relationships or destroy them? If one is getting fulfillment and the other isn’t, or even if both parties are getting fulfillment, is it right? Is right determined on what a person feels like at the time?

    There is a difference in hating what a person does and hating the person, a big difference. I can hate being lied to or stolen from but not hate the person. That person could be starving or deceived and believes that he has to do what he is doing to get by. A society cannot continue if wrong flourishes within it. It has been seen by history over and over that a country falls when it goes morally wrong. When it doesnÂ’t deal with wrong behavior. Think for a minute. How long would this society stand if it ceased to judge criminal activities? If fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals continued on with their lifestyles? In a short time sexual diseases would be running rampant.

    If thieves, murderers, cheaters continued on with their lifestyles? The innocent would be broke, dead, and/or deceived. Those practicing this form of behavior would be doing it to each other pretty soon since they would be the only ones left and hence society would be destroyed. “Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people:” (Proverbs 14:34)

    Is there a higher law at work within telling us right and wrong? Is it innately known? Do we have some sort of law written within our being that tells us certain things? And if so why and where does it come from? There are acts that most seem to agree on in knowing that they wrong, degrading, evil, etc. Things such as abortion, or other forms of murder, stealing seems to be another form of aberrant behavior, even lying and cheating donÂ’t go over well with the law or feeling within us. We know that it is wrong but why is it wrong?

    God created mankind with a conscience to know right and wrong so they could survive as a people but as mankind goes deeper into sin, this sense of right and wrong gets corrupted, deformed or confused. It is no longer a good measuring rod to measure with so others have to decide for that person since he or she has gone too far into evil things that evil doesn’t seem that evil anymore. That is a pattern in the past for nations that fell and it is the same truth for nations today. And when the others over a nation go into the same form of thought patterns then that nation will crumble from within. The bible talks about a time when evil is good and good is evil. It looks like we are almost there again. So hate, greed, malice, fear, corruption sets in and mankind will cease to be in those areas that this lifestyle is practiced.

    Finally we deal with questions of private concern. Do you hate the person that you disagree with or do you just hate his views on the particular subject that you are dealing with? Can you hate the person that you disagree with? Sure you can! But you can also love the person that you disagree with since they don’t necessarily have anything in common. More than likely, you would probably love the person that you disagree with rather than hate him. A person hating another person won’t normally speak up when the other person is doing something that could cause hurt to himself, or confusion, etc. since he hates him. He could care less about his situation. Hate or love is a decision that you make in basically the same way that you make a decision to agree or disagree with someone. But those decisions are decided upon in many different ways such as the personÂ’s attitude, his make-up or mindset, his personality, his focus, his desire for certain end results, etc.

    The bible tells us that we are to trust in the Lord with all of our heart and not lean unto our own understanding (Check Proverbs 3:5,6). The days are getting darker as time goes on. We who are Christians must shine the light of Jesus so that the world can see the way that they are to go.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  45. Geno June 21, 2008 7:11 pm

    Paul, I believe Ekkman’s comments may have been recorded on the previous thread (page 150 of the blog).

    With regard to Ekknan’s claim that the KJV is “perfect”:
    2 Samuel 8:3-4
    David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
    1Chronicles 18:3-4
    And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

    So, which was it, 700 horsemen or 7000 horsemen?

    1 Kings 4:26
    And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
    2 Chronicles 9:25
    And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

    So which was it, 40,000 stalls or 4,000 stalls?

    Keep in mind that these differences are minor, but one of them must be wrong. One error, no matter how tiny is sufficient to eliminate both “perfection” and “innerancy”.

  46. Matthew June 21, 2008 8:01 pm

    Paul Abramson refers to “The Predicament of Evolution” from 1925, by George McCready Price.

    On Yahoo Answers, someone asked what evolutionists have to dispute this:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgTcrWpHl4fXrY084CZNGjwjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080621041800AA0gQhZ

    Several people refer that Price was not a scientist and the book is not up-to-date.

    http://cms13ca.blogspot.com/

  47. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 21, 2008 8:35 pm

    PA:_
    if we are to consider FRNs to be legitimate “money” shouldn’t they be issued with an overt “warning” something along the lines of

    this bank note promises nothing, is redeemable at the point of origin for nothing, is subject to arbitrary abuses of power by statutory authorities and is perpetually owned by the FRB.

    who owns and audits the FRB?

    who are their agents or operate as an agency for them?

    I think someone on this blog indicated that ‘governments’ can enter into secret contractual agreements on behalf of their citizens, denizens and slaves, with privately owned and operated international banking institutions;

    this all seems fair?

    Fascism comes with a price. Fascism rides the shoulders of ordinary suburbanites. I’m rather sad that women working at Auschwitz didn’t get enough blueberries on their picnic day social club outings. But then they paid a secondary price for being loyal legal citizens of Greater Germany.

    They paid for it at the eastern front, they paid for it at the western front, they paid for it at the fire bombing of Dresden. They paid for it with unmarked war graves and young lives cut short. Dare I say they even carried some personal guilt!

    Of course most of what we saw was legal. And respectable lawyers and judges were there to enforce the legal process.

    remember “Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.” by Lord Chief Justice Hewart.

    Ah, how quaint the English are, they just don’t understand the important complexities of republicanism.

    but lets not get hung up on this PA. When the mob cried crucify Him they understood not that they lay in wait for their own blood.

    And the generation of Patrick Henry? Will they rise up to demand a verdict, and when shall God deliver that verdict……..

  48. Geno June 21, 2008 8:53 pm

    A while ago I had reported that the “drdino.com” seems to have become entirely dedicated to marketing. That is no longer the case as the drdino site has been reconfigured to its former self.

    The home page is in the format it has had for the last few years and the links now work.

    This has been the case for a week or two. I regret the delay in updating the return of “drdino.com” to its former purpose.

  49. Geno June 21, 2008 8:55 pm

    With regard to Paul’s comments on “judicial review”.

    I suspect Paul is equating “judicial review” (which is both necessary and constitutional) with “judicial activism” (which is both over reaching by judges intent on forwarding their personal agenda and (as far as I’m concerned) unconstitutional.)

  50. CreationCD June 21, 2008 9:18 pm

    Dear Paul,

    Just a quick note about my absence on the site for so long.
    Our house burned down back in April.

    http://tracypress.com/content/view/14297/2242/

    I’m borrowing my brother in laws internet tonight to catch up on things.
    I haven’t time to browse CSEblogs tonight. I probably won’t get a chance for a couple months.
    Keep up the good work.

    Thanks for the update on Dr. Hovind. Can’t find anything on Mrs. Hovind.

    Doug Hove
    CreationCD
    [email protected]

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: So sorry to learn this.

    Folks, in the linked article’s follow-up comments is an address where donations can be sent to help the Hove Family. (Checks made out to: Doug Hove.) Costco Meats #210, 17880 W. Schulte Road, Tracy, CA 95377 ]

  51. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 22, 2008 1:24 am

    DQ:_ What is the Constitution, if not the supreme law of the land?

    that’s the whole point – it isn’t the supreme law of the land! read the supremacy clause itself……..

    The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
    “ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Quote:_ “…..any Thing in the …..Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    a Federation is only a union of sovereign independent entities. No preexisting law within any sovereign jurisdiction could be abrogated by the Law of the Constitution.

    that’s why Dr Peter’s [EndTimes] earlier contributions [in this place] to the effect that the Historical basis of State law as being the foundations of Holy Writ remains seminal.

    The Holy Bible remains the supreme Law of the Land – and every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord – yes, you too DQ – you may or may not be in the same body you now occupy

    the Holy Bible was supreme prior to the declaration of independence and it remained so after it.

    God shall Judge the Nations because He is God……..something like Gravity – its Truth

    see Coronation Oath Act 1688 for further reading on your nations very Christian history…

  52. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 June 22, 2008 3:55 am

    i unreservedly apologize to the blog
    suzerainty, it should have read, rather than “suverainty [sic] as it was mistakenly entered onto this page June 19, 5:56 pm

    i was writing prose again from a distant memory PA – no excuse, no excuse

    in any case the treaty had to be made known to the people – or it was just another ‘unconscionable contract’. Null and Void.

    justice must be both done and seen to be done. otherwise its just another tale of fascism. Now which capitol does one go to see those on display?? fasces that is…

  53. Hubert June 22, 2008 8:49 am

    I’m in agreement with mollypitcher and the welders wife. Kent Hovind is a hero for sharing our wonderful God Jesus no matter what claims the government thinks it has on him. and my uplifting scripture for today is: Psalm 46:l God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

  54. Ekkman June 22, 2008 12:36 pm

    I would like to make a few comments on God’s image. God is a Spirit and he is everywhere present. The word tells me that God is not a man… Ck. Numbers 23:19
    But in Gen. 1:27 it shows me that God created man and woman in his image. It is not a physical image since God is not a physical being.

    The word also shows me a little of his image. Col. 3:10 says, “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”
    This verse shows me that God’s image is knowledge. Man is created with the ability to learn, dssign, plan, etc.

    Jesus said that if we have seen him we have seen the Father but the word also says that no man can see God. We can only see God when he takes a form for us to see him but this only God taking a form to be seen. When he came to earth, he came in the man Jesus Christ. Jesus was God and man, two natures woven in one being.

    Eph. 4:24 says, “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”
    Here we see the new man’s image is righteousness and true holiness.

    I will go deeper with this later hopefully. As I said before, there are words in many languages that are masculine and feminine but that doesn’t make the it that sex. The church is called feminine being the bride comprised of men and women.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  55. pabramson June 22, 2008 12:39 pm

    “Calif. firefighters wrestle with hundreds of blazes” – June 22,2008
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080622/D91F535G1.html

    From Article: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office said Saturday that lightning had sparked nearly 400 fires from Monterey County to the California-Oregon line. The governor ordered the California National Guard to assist in firefighting efforts. …”

    Mark 10:31 “But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”

    Some who appear to be respectable leaders in this life will not have a reward in the next life. They have failed life’s tests.

    For example, 2000 years ago, King Herod lived a comfortable life; but John the Baptist led a harsh life, eating honey and locusts. Locusts can fly, and to get honey one needs to convince the bees that you need it more than them! In other words, such a diet has a built-in exercise program that includes running. Speaking as a believer, after this life “…many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”

    Luke 16:19-31 – The story of Lazarus and the rich man.

    http://www.creationism.org

  56. Ekkman June 22, 2008 2:30 pm

    Geno
    Said this on June 21st, 2008 at 7:11pm:

    Paul, I believe Ekkman’s comments may have been recorded on the previous thread (page 150 of the blog).

    Ekkman said:
    Geno,
    Neither one of them is wrong that you listed below. They are both correct. I will type these two answers in for you but get the book below, he deals with a lot of the so-called problems in the KJV.. It will take me a little while to type the answer in for you. The man and I have been trying to get people to go to his page wrote a book on the so-called contradictions in the KJV. The guy who does the Geocentricity Page. His book doesn’t the contradictions, mistakes in the bibles like most do, he shows that there is not mistake in the KJV. You should go to his page and order his book, “The Book of Bible Problems” by Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.

    With regard to Ekknan’s claim that the KJV is “perfect”:
    2 Samuel 8:3-4
    David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
    1Chronicles 18:3-4
    And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

    So, which was it, 700 horsemen or 7000 horsemen?

    Ekkman said: “The problem lies with the number of horsemen which is set at 700 in one place and 7,000 in another
    Apparently the 6,300 were captured as a group while the remaining 700 were captured at a different time. In support of this, note the subtle difference in wording in the verses which precede each of the above two verses 2 Samuel 8:3 says, David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.” While 1 Chronicles 18:3 says, “And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.” On the one hand, Hadadezer went to recover territory he’d lost and in the other verse, he went to stablish (stabilize or sustain) his dominion at the Euphrates. Evidently, he sent troops to stabilize his control over the Euphrates, which troops were taken by David in 1 Chronicles 18:4. Subsequently, Hadadezer lost control and sent another army to recover his dominion of which army David took 6,300 horsemen as reported in 1 Samuel 8:4.
    The Rabbis see the 700 as elite and the remaining 6,300 as not being counted in 2 Samuel, but such an apology is very weak in that it holds a low view of God’s inspiration of the Holy Bible.

    1 Kings 4:26
    And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
    2 Chronicles 9:25
    And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

    So which was it, 40,000 stalls or 4,000 stalls?

    Ekkman said: The problem of the 4,000 verses 40,000 teaches us something about chariot warfare. The 1 Kings reference speaks of 40,000 stalls of horses while 2 Chronicles says 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots. From these we can infer that Solomon had 4,000 chariots and that each chariot had ten horses , just as we see that each chariot had tem men assigned to it. (see 2 Sam. 10:18 problem in Chapter 4 in the book I mentioned above.) The 1 Kings account is the overall number of stalls, counting one stall per horse, while 2 Chronicles groups these by tens as assigned to a single chariot. With that the numbers conform.

    Keep in mind that these differences are minor, but one of them must be wrong. One error, no matter how tiny is sufficient to eliminate both “perfection” and “innerancy”.

    Ekkman said: When we are talking about the perfect word of God then any differences, mistakes are major, to say the least.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  57. Ekkman June 22, 2008 2:46 pm

    I was reading some comments regarding the film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Here is the end of the article and the link to the whole article.

    “One of the movie’s Michael Moore-type “gotcha” moments involved Mr. Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most prominent atheist, saying intelligent design has merit.

    “It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet,” Mr. Dawkins tells Mr. Stein. “Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.”

    Mr. Mathis said Mr. Dawkins’ observation was amusing. “If it’s a space alien, it’s ‘an intriguing possibility.’ If it’s God, you’re delusional,” he said. “That pretty much sums up the debate.”
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/NEWS10/804280334

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.