My assessment is very mainstream, at least with regards to what will happen to national budgets in European nations.
A study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, authored by Yvan Guillemette and David Turner, examines the long-run fiscal position of member nations.
It warns that government debt levels will increase dramatically if they don’t change current policies.
… secular trends such as population ageing and the rising relative price of services will keep adding pressure on government budgets. Without policy changes, maintaining current public service standards and benefits while keeping public debt ratios stable at current levelswould increase fiscal pressure in the median OECD country by nearly 8 percentage points of GDP between 2021 and 2060, and much more in some countries. …governments will need to re-assess long-run fiscal sustainability in the context of higher initial government debt levels…when considering expenditure pressures associated with ageing…, the OECD structural primary balance would deteriorate rapidly and net government debt would more than double as a share of GDP by 2050 (Figure 12).
Here is the aforementioned Figure 12. As you can see, both deficits (left chart) and debt (right chart) are driven by the cost of age-related entitlement programs.
The report also explains that the increase in red ink is being caused by a bigger burden of government spending.
Under a ‘business-as-usual’ hypothesis, in which no major reforms to government programmes are undertaken, public expenditure is projected to rise substantially in most countries… Public health and long-term care expenditure is projected to increase by 2.2 percentage points of GDP in the median country between 2021 and 2060… Public pension expenditure is projected to increase by 2.8 percentage points of GDP in the median country between 2021 and 2060… Other primary expenditures are projected to rise by 1½ percentage points of GDP in the median country between 2021 and 2060 (Figure 13, Panel A). This projection excludes potential new sources of expenditure pressure, such as climate change adaptation.
Here’s Figure 13, mentioned above. Notice the projected increases in spending in most European nations.
Since more government spending is the problem, you might think the OECD would recommend ways to restrain budgetary expansion.
But that would be a mistake. As is so often the case, OECD bureaucrats think giving politicians more money is the best approach.
The present study…uses an indicator of long-run fiscal pressure that is premised on the idea that governments would seek to stabilise public debt ratios at projected 2022 levels by adjusting structural primary revenue from 2023 onward. … all OECD governments would need to raise taxes in this scenario to prevent gross government debt ratios from rising over time… The median country would need to increase structural primary revenue by nearly 8 percentage points of GDP between 2021 and 2060, but the effort would exceed 10 percentage points in 11 countries.
To be fair, the authors acknowledge that there might be some complications.
Raising taxes…appears feasible in some countries…, in other countries it may present a substantial challenge. In Belgium, Denmark, Finland and France, for instance, structural primary revenue is already around 50% of GDP… Pushing mainstream taxes on incomes or consumption further up, even by only a few percentage points of GDP, may be politically difficult and fiscally counter-productive if it means reaching the downward-sloping segment of the Laffer curve… Lundberg…identifies five OECD countries where top effective marginal tax rates (accounting for income, payroll and consumption taxes) are already beyond revenue-maximizing levels (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden). Thus, if taxes are to rise, it might be necessary to look to other bases, such as housing, capital gains, inheritance or wealth. Recent international efforts to establish a minimum global corporate tax could also enable more revenue to be raised from corporate taxes.
I’m happy that the study acknowledges the Laffer Curve, though that is not much of a concession since even Paul Krugman agrees that it exists.
And even when OECD bureaucrats admit that it may be unwise to increase some taxes, their response is to suggest that other taxes can be increased.
A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, 1st AC Brian Andrews, Sound Mixer Gus Salazar, Written and Directed by Brian Stepanek. Help us spread the word by clicking ads or at http://www.debtlimitusa.org.
________
I am hoping that this last election fell short of giving a mandate to take us to Greece but I do wonder.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a good cartoon about his interpretation of the results, and this Bob Gorrell cartoon definitely is amusing.
But it’s amusing – albeit in a disturbing way – because it hinges on something that is true.
America is heading into the fiscal toilet. Indeed, both the BIS and OECD predict that our long-run fiscal situation is more perilous than Europe’s welfare states.
To be fair, we were in a mess even before Obama took office. But Obama wants us to move in the wrong direction at an even faster pace. And he definitely opposes the types of entitlement reforms that could save the country.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court decision removing a 17-year-old minor from the custody of his parents for their refusal to affirm him in a female gender identity. Pictured: the Indiana Capitol building. (Photo: Rudy Balasko/ Getty Images)
Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana on Friday affirmed a trial court decision removing a 17-year-old minor from the custody of his parents for their refusal to affirm him in a female gender identity. The case displays the messy, personal qualities in a gender identity crisis, as well as the disastrous implications of permitting the transgender ideology to gain a foothold in law.
In May 2021, the Indiana Department of Child Services “received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child’s transgender identity” (the court used “Mother” and “Child” in place of proper names to protect the minor’s anonymity).
These are serious accusations. But, in an age where some people believe that “misgendering” is a fireable offense, it’s prudent to examine whether the substance of any such charge matches its interpretation.
The Court of Appeals reproduced only one of the mother’s remarks, which we may take as the most extreme. The mother said, “[Child’s preferred name] is the b—- that killed my son.” Wow. That’s a severe sentiment. At the very least, we could say it’s not a model for how parents should strive to respond when their child “comes out” to them.
But is it abusive? An increasing proportion of Americans, including those in positions of power, would say yes.
The trial court agreed that the child was a “child in need of services” (CHINS) due to the parent’s actions and removed him from their custody. The Indiana Department of Child Services had argued in court that “Child’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents’ neglect” (CHINS-1) and “due to injury by the Parents’ acts or omissions” (CHINS-2).
Here’s a different interpretation of what happened. The parents were (probably still are) overwrought, paralyzed with grief. They had tried their best in the 18 short years their son lived under their roof to train him to be a man. Now, he had thrown away 16 of those years, telling his parents, “Actually, I’m a girl now. Those 16 years of memories you made with your precious boy were all a lie.”
No one ever talks about the emotional trauma parents endure when their kids stab them in the back like this; our culture cares way more about the “emotional abuse” the child might endure from parents who continue to lovingly train them despite their rebellion.
It’s not difficult to understand how these parents said things they shouldn’t have. Upset, grief-stricken people are liable to utter rash words they later regret. In fact, “If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (James 3:2).
Unfortunately, families often bear the brunt of unkind words, since they are the ones around when people are off their guard. Without endorsing rash words, we should recognize that they are all too common—even expected in a world peopled with fallen sinners.
It seems, at some point, the Indiana Department of Child Services realized it had a weak case. It added another petition arguing that the child was in need of services because “the Child substantially endangers the Child’s own health” (CHINS-6).
The court explained, “Child had lost ‘a significant amount of weight,’ Child was throwing away and hiding food and neglecting to eat full meals.” A clinical neuropsychologist “diagnosed Child with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria.”
Before a November 2021 hearing, “the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement that DCS would dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the Parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute.”
Essentially, the Department of Child Services abandoned its original line of attack and created a whole new strategy.
Based upon what has happened since, it appears that the department’s pivot duped the parents and their legal team. The government agreed to drop the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, that parental misconduct put the child at risk, in favor of a CHINS-6 allegation, that the child was a risk to himself.
That seems like great news for the parents, so they didn’t object. However, they did not regain custody of their child. When they appealed, the court dismissed the question as moot because the parents did not object to the CHINS-6 declaration. It’s not obvious why their failure to object rendered the question moot, and they clearly didn’t believe it was so, or they wouldn’t have appealed.
It seems the trial court was attempting to weave together taking the child out of the parents’ custody but not blaming them for it—two incompatible fabrics. It identified “a [nexus] between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues” (brackets in original). Nexus is an obscure synonym for “connection,” used here to obscure the issue.
The court implies that the parents’ religious beliefs caused the child’s other medical issues, while abstaining from saying so outright, which would be an accusation. While claiming neutrality, “not taking any issue with the child’s views or the parent[s’] views,” the court subtly imputes blame to the parents’ religious beliefs by alleging an undefined “nexus” between them and their child’s medical issues.
But Jennifer Bauwens, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Family Studies, refuted that alleged connection.
“People who identify as transgender have many more issues than just gender dysphoria,” whether they are affirmed or not, she said. “People who are ideologically driven on this matter want us to think that one of the reasons why people have all these other mental health issues is what’s called the Minority Stress Framework, which means society doesn’t accept you.” But she said that argument is undercut by the fact that many minority groups are far less likely to harm themselves than people who identity as transgender.
Instead, clinicians “should be looking for what is contributing to the gender dysphoria,” Bauwens proposed. Those other mental health issues “merit a clinical exploration. But if someone comes and says, ‘Gender dysphoria is my issue,’ then everything else gets set aside, and there’s no room to get at the root issues.”
The real problem, Bauwens added, is that “counseling has become so politicized. Gender dysphoria has become the root issue for some psychologists, and those other issues are going to be secondary to anything that presents in the realm of gender dysphoria.”
It’s possible these Indiana parents had encountered a counselor with just such a bias. Per the court, “Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it.” If it were my child, I would discontinue it, too, if it were a type of therapy likely to do more harm than good.
After poorly concealing its illogical decision, the court went on to reject all the parents’ claims regarding fundamental rights. First was parental rights, which the court acknowledged and then overruled. “A parent has a fundamental right to raise his or her child without undue influence by the state,” it justly acknowledged. However, it added, “the State has a compelling interest in protecting Child’s welfare.” That statement itself is less problematic than the reason it gave for it, “the unchallenged CHINS-6 adjudication.”
Did the parents know they were effectively signing away their parental rights by refusing to challenge it? Are fundamental rights so flimsy that they can be sacrificed to a legal loophole? This case raises concerning questions.
Next, the court steamrolled the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The parents refused to use their child’s preferred pronouns “based on their sincerely held religious beliefs,” and the court never objects to those on the surface. Rather, the child was taken from the home “based on Child’s medical and psychological needs and not on the Parents’ disagreement with Child’s transgender identity.” Yet the court found a “nexus between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues,” so the parents’ religious beliefs were ultimately the reason.
The court takes away their child because of their religious beliefs, just like it would if it were because they were guilty of gross negligence or abuse; the court then denies this action is a punishment, or that it is based on their religious beliefs. The court demonstrates so much talent for verbal gymnastics it could create oceanfront plats in Arizona.
To add insult to injury, the court even squelched the parents’ freedom of speech, forbidding the parents “from discussing Child’s transgender identity during visitation,” but they could discuss it in family therapy. Once again, it grounded its reasoning in the claim that “Child’s eating disorder and self-isolation were connected to the discord at home regarding Child’s transgender identity” (at least it forsook “nexus”)—which, again, is code for, “We think it’s the parents’ fault.”
The court of appeals further explained that private speech deserves less protection from the First Amendment than public speech and, under Indiana case law, that permits courts to restrict parents from discussing topics of disagreement with their children.
At least four implications follow from this shallow dismissal of the right to free speech.
First, this seems patently unhealthy. Parents and teens don’t have space to construct a healthy relationship with an elephant in the room.
Second, this appears to be a further encroachment on parental authority. If courts can dictate off-limit topics to parents, how can parents maintain the authority to direct the upbringing of the children?
Third, surely children can game the system. If they can figure out how to exploit differences between mother and father, two people who have learned to live together for years on end, surely children are clever enough to exploit differences between parents and state in the adversarial environment of a courtroom.
Fourth and most important, matters of identity are too important to be restricted. Unlike disputes over bedtime, music volume, carpooling, and homework (purely private matters), discussions of identity are fundamental to who we are as human beings and how we relate to one another. This is why they so frequently become public matters (as the culture war skirmishes in states nationwide illustrate).
Never is this more important to discuss than in the teenage years, shortly before an adolescent leaves home. They desperately need a solid grounding in their own identity, and no one is better suited than parents to help them attain this. In fact, this is one of the chief responsibilities of parents in those final years before their children fly the coop. For the state to positively ban parents from carrying out this vital function does a disservice not only to the parents, but to the child as well.
Why has The Washington Stand chosen to highlight this sad situation and messy legal setback? Conservative media has often highlighted religious freedom victories, featuring the most accomplished legal teams representing clients of impeccable integrity. But by definition, not everyone can expect above-average outcomes. Everyone has flaws and a legal spotlight often exposes them.
This situation, featuring imperfect parents trying to care for their struggling teen and imperfect lawyers trying to represent them, paints a far more realistic portrait for the legal struggles ordinary families will face as the transgender tidal wave sweeps away everything in its path.
Just this month, a Virginia state delegate planned to reintroduce legislation that would take children who identify as transgender away from non-affirming parents by criminalizing the parents’ refusal to affirm their child’s preferred gender (she later backtracked after criticism). Meanwhile, in Indiana, courts and social workers are obtaining the same outcome under existing law.
Progressives are clear about their legislative objectives, but by twisting a few definitions, the present legal structure can suit them just fine. “This is not even a slippery slope; it’s a cliff—that we would have ideological removals of children from their parents,” Bauwens warned.
And remember, we aren’t talking about a progressive stronghold here; this is Indiana. If this could happen in the Hoosier State without any changes to the law, then parents in any red pocket of the country could find themselves at risk.
There is no “live and let live” with the transgender ideology. Inflamed with its conquests, it rushes imperiously on to more. It’s targeting children, and it won’t allow parents to stand in its way. The only sound strategy of resistance is to cut off the head of the snake.
We must argue—patiently, persistently, persuasively, and powerfully—that any gender identity contradicting the biological reality of a person’s genetically determined sex is fiction, a mental delusion that must be treated, not coddled.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
i have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
Think about sexuality. The bible says that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is assumed that Adam and Eve were heterosexual, because they were commanded to “replenish the earth.” Jesus made the same assumption: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (This is also sexist, from the male point of view.)
Sexiest? Sounds like you are modern day woke and you will end up turning on your buddy Richard Dawkins?
TRANSGENDERISM SEEN BELOW
——
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
——
——
I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!
Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner.
Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
Identitarian:A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit.(Source: Urban Dictionary)
“The Affirmations of Humanism”:We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.(Paul Kurtz,Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)
The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.
Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.
The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.
Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.
Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.
This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.
It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.
Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.
Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll1 recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial, ethnic, and gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.
In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.2 Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.
Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.
Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.
Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?
As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.
If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:
Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.
The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.
Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade. John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent Psalm 19 Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276). 2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.” 3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63). Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks? I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6 God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation
Helen Pashgian on Georges de La Tour | Artists on Art
FEATURED ARTIST IS DE LA TOUR
GEORGES DE LA TOUR (1593-1652)
The influence of Caravaggio is evident in De la Tour, whose use of light and shadows is unique among the painters of the Baroque era.
—
Francis Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…
1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
Today, here are my thoughts on why there should not be a bailout if/when a crisis occurs.
I have moral objections to bailouts, but let’s focus in this column on the practical impact.
And let’s start with this chart, which shows debt levels in Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (the so-called PIGS) ever since the misguided bailout of Greece about a dozen years ago.
As you can see, OECD data reveals that there’s been no change in these poorly governed nations. They have continued to over-spend and accumulate ever-higher levels of debt.
Defenders of bailouts assert that Greece was forced to engage in “austerity” as a condition of getting a bailout.
I have two problems with that argument.
First, notice how Greece’s debt has continued to go up. If that’s a success, I would hate to see an example of failure.
Second, the main effect of the so-called austerity is a much higher tax burden and a somewhat higher spending burden.
If there’s a bailout of Italy (or any other nation), I suspect we’ll see the same thing happen. Higher taxes, higher spending, and higher debt.
I’ll close by acknowledging that there are costs to my approach. If Italy is not given a bailout, the country may have a “disorderly default,” meaning the government simply stops honoring its commitments to pay bondholders.
That is bad for individual bondholders, but it also could hurt – or even bankrupt – financial institutions that foolishly decided to buy a lot of Italian government bonds.
But there should be consequences for imprudent choices. Especially if the alternative is bailouts that misallocate global capital and encourage further bad behavior.
The bottom line is that the long-run damage of bailouts is much greater than the long-run damage of defaults.
Simply stated, almost all western nations suffer from the same toxic combination of dependency, demographic decline, and poorly structured entitlement programs.
But some nations are heading in the wrong direction more rapidly than others, and Greece is best example (perhaps I should say worst example?) of a country that is careening toward catastrophe.
It’s such a basket case that I’m not sure whether the politicians or the people deserve the lion’s share of the blame.
The politicians deserve blame because they treat public office as a tool for self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement, largely by steering taxpayer money to friends, cronies, contributors, and supporters. Sometimes they do this in a search for votes. Sometimes in a search for cash.
The people deserve blame because they view the state as a magical source of freebies and they see no economic or moral problem with using a coercive government to steal from fellow citizens. They realize the system is corrupt, which is why they seek to evade taxes, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to live at the expense of others.
In a best-case scenario, this type of dysfunctional system reduces prosperity. But when the number of people mooching off the state reaches a critical mass (as illustrated by these two cartoons), then you get societal meltdown.
Which is a good description of what’s happening in Greece.
And even when the government is on the verge of collapse and there’s pressure for reform, the political elite somehow figure out how to screw things up.
The latest example is the possible creation of “special economic zones.” When I first glanced at the story excerpted below, I thought this meant the Greek government was going to create something akin to “enterprise zones” featuring lower tax rates and less red tape.
Because I’m a supporter of the law applying equally to everybody, I’m not a big fan of such policies. I want to reduce the burden of government, of course, but I want that approach for entire countries, not just a handful of areas selected by politicians.
But at least the concept is good, right?
Not when Greek politicians are involved. They have taken the worst features of enterprise zones and combined them with the worst features of redistributionism. Here’s some of the story from Ekathimerini.
The government is paving the way for negotiations with the European Commission regarding the creation of special economic zones (SEZ) in Greece, Development Minister Costis Hatzidakis confirmed on Tuesday in Athens. …“SEZ will give a boost to the basis of the real economy,” said Hatzidakis, reiterating that the existing labor legislation will be fully respected. ..This forms part of the 10-point priority plan Hatzidakis announced yesterday aimed at boosting growth. Changes to the investment incentives law and the fast-track regulations will be completed within the next 15 days. The bill to be prepared will include subsidies of up to 80 percent for smaller companies… Public-private partnerships will be used for bolstering regional growth.
So the zones will keep all the bad labor laws, but provide big subsidies and create “public-private partnerships” (i.e., cronyism).
I hate to sound negative all the time, but that sounds precisely like the kind of nonsense that put Greece in a ditch to begin with.
To be fair, the article does talk about targeted tax relief and accelerated procedures for dealing with red tape. But that’s not exactly good news. Targeted tax cuts are a form of discrimination and they create an environment favorable to lobbying and corruption. And while it seems like good news to approve licenses more quickly, why not just get rid of bureaucratic hurdles? After all, this is the country (this is not a joke) that requires stool samples from entrepreneurs seeking to set up online companies.
It’s very hard to have any optimism after reading this type of story. Greece surely is an example of statism run amok, but let’s return to the point I made above about almost all other western nations heading in the same direction. Greece may be closest to the fiscal cliff, but the rest of us are driving in the same direction.
P.S. The BIS and OECD numbers show that the United States is in worse shape – in the long run – than every European welfare state. I assume this is largely based on assumptions of health care spending rising more rapidly in America. The bad news is that this is a reasonable assumption (thanks to our third-party payer problem). The good news is that we can easily solve the problem with a combination of entitlement reform (which deals with a direct cause of third-party payer) and tax reform (which deals with an indirect cause of third-party payer).
A man’s pride will bring him low, but a humble spirit will obtain honor.
(Proverbs 29:23)
What is the desire of a proud man? He only has one really. He wants to be lifted up. He longs to be known and honored, recognized and revered. His arrogance makes him believe that he deserves such acknowledgments and, like wood to a raging fire, he looks for every opportunity to feed his ego and increase his standing among men.
The paradox is that, in God’s economy, exactly the opposite of what he desires takes place.
UPSIDE DOWN
Pride lowers, humility exalts. A desire to be known will cause a man to be known for all the wrong reasons.
Pride is not a sin that hides. Its’ very nature pushes itself into view. To see a man’s pride is a vulgar thing, for God created us for the opposite. We were designed to glorify Him and anything less than that is a tragic caricature of a creature fearfully and wonderfully made by none other than God Himself. Pride pushes our features out of place and distorts the image of God we were destined to display.
HUMILITY EXALTS
But the opposite is also true. A humble man will always be lifted up—in time—in the eyes of God and men. God loves to exalt humble men because he knows they will handle such recognition properly.
A humble man has a proper view of God and himself and knows the difference. When he is acknowledged, he has enough self-awareness to know it is only by God’s grace. He gently, with no false humility, gives thanks to the Almighty and defers the credit. He does this, not out of duty or pretentious piety, but because he genuinely believes it is exactly where the recognition belongs.
Do you want to be recognized? Then realize the genesis of this desire and put the ax to the root of the tree. Ask God to show you His glory so you may properly bow before Him, vowing never to steal what He alone deserves.
Stay before God in the word and in prayer long enough to rid yourself of the ugly desire to be known. Ask trusted friends to point out pride when it rears its head. Watch what comes out of your mouth and the injection of words and phrases that draw attention to you instead of God.
Evaluate ruthlessly, for your future usefulness depends upon the elimination of this deadly trait which is the mother of all sin.
And realize that you must protect your heart from pride until you die. Unguarded moments will be seized by the enemy when you least expect it. A lifetime of humility can be undermined in a moment of unguarded pride.
Lord, please show me the groundwork of my heart. Reveal to me every particle of pride, every subtle turn of arrogance and self-absorption. Let me be genuinely willing to take the lowest seat, reserving the highest place for others and for You. Help me grow in the grace of humility so you can be more clearly seen.
——-
What were five euros for students in a bar with Tyler he would. Former CEO of what were fighting.
Today Adrian Rogers starts a brand-new series getting a handle on your emotions and I’m emotional right now right arm all play some up on down him all around. But that’s is to try to harness that. Many times Adrian Rogers would stop by the studio.
We have the privilege of asking him questions regarding the series about getting a handle on your emotions.
We asking the question what can our listeners learn from the series about our emotions, they can learn how to use their emotions rather than letting their emotions abuse them.
They can learn how to have the joy in the victory.
The piece, the satisfaction, the contentment that is our legacy in the Lord Jesus Christ carry today’s message is called God’s answer to anger. Proverbs chapter 19 verses 11 and 12 will be looking at that with Adrian Rogerssaid that unjustified anger is like an acid brings harm to anything this Portland including the very container it inhabits. And sometimes that container is our very lives. That’s true also think a righteous anger you know doing it in the right way for the right reason at the right time God cannot lie. I think that’s so true Carrie learning how to use our emotions the right way. Adrian Rogers said it this way when it comes to learning how to use our emotions the right way. Someone is wisely said the only way to be angry and sin not, is to be angry only at sin if single children abuse doesn’t make you angry of seeing dope pushers take advantage of the innocent youth doesn’t make you angry.
If racial pride than the arrogance our prejudice doesn’t make you angry. In the something wrong with you but that anger needs to be channeled.
It needs to be controlled.
It needs to be righteous anger, and so this is a very important subject for us.
You know that’s a great word.
I think many times we have to remember that your people are looking at us almost as the pacesetter and that depends on our emotions and that depends on our reaction to the action you what I think that’s a great point Adrian Rogers makes about righteous anger. It is expected. In fact, injustice all to stir us and move us to act with Jerry. We love hearing from our lobar fighting listeners and I think you have a comment is coming recently.
This is having been saying for over 70 years and I’ve taught Sunday school for over 30 of those years, yet I’m still learning so much from the teaching and preaching of Dr. Rogers.
Thank you for sharing these timeless messages coming. We love to get this in mind that this is a affirmation it’s a shot in the arm. What we did well. If you been listening, you know, just for the first time are like this listener for 30 years benefiting from the ministry of lobar fighting in your Christian walk in us the ripple effect of the ministry and and that’s our prayer that it will continue to saturate Carrie as we wrap up, 20, 21, the year winds down no lover fighting really appreciates and values the prayers and the faithfulness of our friends we do in and let me say this.
This is a critical time of year for us. This is the time of year that our supporters and friends really rise to the occasion and they just give me they give of their time. They give of their treasure.
They give of their of their prayers and we welcome all of that because that is the livelihood of lobar funding so I just want to encourage our supporters our listeners to raise the bar no go one step higher this year. All that money goes right back into the ministry so that we can reach the world for Jesus Christ. If we do want to challenge our lobar fighting community to give at this year’s event to help share the gospel of Jesus Christ through those timeless messages of Adrian Rogers. You can call with your calendar year and gift at 1877 love God or you can give online@lwf.org/radio. Once again we appreciate so much your support will what today’s message called God’s answer to anger part one. Here’s Adrian Rogers that they were going to be. It was something that I believe I just believe may be personal important to you, but I want to check out.
So let me ask your question while you turn Proverbs chapter 19. How many of you ever get angry, lose your temper or find it. Whatever the case is were going to be speaking today on God’s answer to anger God’s answer to anger.
Proverbs chapter 19 in verse 11 the discretion of a man for it is aimed that is a smart fella not quick to get mad.
The discretion of a man before his anger and it is his glory to pass over a transgression. The king’s wrath is as the roaring lion, but his favor is as good do upon the grass God’s answer to anger as somebody said that anger is an acid that destroys its container. Indeed it does and is a corrosive acid that does harm to anything that it is portal not talk about ungodly anger, unjustified anger. Not all anger is bad as we can see in a moment to modify some anger is good to see in a moment that the Bible on at least one place commands us to be angry so we going to learn about God’s answer to anger unjustified on godly anger. Now, therefore, basic thoughts and the first is this that saddening sudden anger is to be controlled.
That is if you’re a person who pride yourself and having a short few, you better be careful. Bible has a lot to say about you. Rather, some people you know I just I was my Irish. It just runs in the family. Whatever it is and there like a loaded shotgun with a hairtrigger time they jostle they blast away last little while, will so did that tornado I want to see what the Bible has to say about getting angry in a hurry about being to be angry. Now our verse. Our text says here the discretion of man before his design. That is a man who is a wise man does not fly off the handle some of the Scriptures and by the way, the book of Proverbs has things that go all the way through it, so you must will just lick your fingers. We’ll look at a lot of passages in Proverbs Proverbs chapter 14 and verse 17 look at it. He that is so great deal of foolishly friend in plain, unvarnished language, you are a fool if you quit getting is I don’t call me a fool I didn’t God. He that is so angry foolishly like again if you will, in chapter 15 and verse 18 are wrathful man startups try but he that is slow to anger a piece of strife you want to get in trouble. I mean if you want somebody to rearrange your face that you be one of these kind of fellas who is quick to anger and somebody’s going to explain something to you that you don’t explain one of these days. That’s what God is saying right here in Proverbs 15, verse 18 Proverbs chapter 25 in verse eight does not hastily describe. That is, don’t jump into an argument quickly less. I will not want to do in the end thereof that is you start something you can’t finish and when thy neighbor had put me to shame. You put your mouth in action before you brains in gear and you go to find out that you’re not going to be able to finish what you started is what God’s words is what you will hear in Proverbs chapter 29 and verse 20 says now a man that is hasty in his words, there is more hope of a fool than of him. You come up being you got improve your food.
Now when you get angry, dear friend. There is so much that you you can lose your job you can lose your friends lose you children English a while you lose your health may lose a few teeth you can lose your testimony is nothing more debilitating your Christian testimony of the fact that you just fly off the handle. Now the Bible tells us here that we are to deferring.
That is, sudden anger is to be control how you control over all you have to confess now that a lot of us who just would like to admit. We getting a Christian and I am not mad with sweet little bear little us that we can get angry because we can. And so the very first thing we must do is confess by the way, if you repress it rather than confessedly all kinds of damage you may say that you not angry, but your stomach keeps the school not apply to be surprise what kind of physiological, psychological and spiritual problems take place when you have repressed anger are in for that matter even expressed anger that is not handled properly football your body responds begins to pump that adrenaline into your bloodstream and then your blood pressure rises and then your muscles get tense and ready for flight or flight are both in your heart beat your hands become sweaty your eyes dilate and up. One man said my life is at the mercy of any rascal who can make me angry. My life is at the mercy of any rascal who can make me angry. And every time you get needlessly unjustifiably angry, drive another nail in the coffin. So first thing when you find these feelings coming confess.
Confess don’t repress contestant to the Lord bring them to the Lord say Lord is some movement in the Ottoman line and tell Lord about someone as well said that if you repress anger is like lighting a wastebasket and putting it in the closet and closing the door. It may burn itself out or it may burn the house is burning. There is very first thing you need to do is just open the closet door and say there is Lord in the here has my wastebasket and I set it on fire. Now is the very first thing you need to do is to confess, and then the second thing you need to do. You need to consider. You say I’m getting upset that you need to consider and say what is it, Lord. That is making me upset, looking you in Proverbs chapter 14 and verse 29 here for moment. Chapter 14 verse 29 he that is slow to wrath is of great understanding you see when you don’t get angry right away or when you feel his anger coming you just kind of confess it to the Lord and say now, Lord, show me he will show he that is slow to wrath is of great understanding you need to analyze what it is this making a they don’t all have to confess it, consider control is I can’t control yes you can. This something comes over me.
I can’t control myself yes you can.
Yes you can. Sometimes husband widely and when these family discussions can be heard. About two blocks away and they will just be at one another’s throat and the phone will ring hello, don’t tell me you can’t turn it on and turn it off. You can write, you know, don’t surpass you and I know to telling you folks, I’m telling you that all is just a lot of excuses to say that we can control we can control what we can control and we better learn out of control in Proverbs chapter 29 and verse 11. Letter of his mind.
A wise man keep the land you keep just about everything, all wise man can control it if you will know it� Way, help to welcome with. So what I’m trying to say is that if you find that first class of anger over and over and over again in the book of Proverbs and in other places in the Bible.
The Bible says that we are to control something we have a chance confess considerate and contain all right now look. Sudden anger is to be control. Secondly, sinful anger is to be condemned.
Why do we defer anger as our text tells us to do. Why is it that we are slow, so we might find out whether it is righteous anger sampling if it is sinful anger is to be condemned is to be dealt with harshly.
It is to be repudiated is to be repented. I don’t treat anger, unjustified anger, sinful anger as weakness is not weakness. It is wickedness. One thing that God will not accept percentages in alibi by the way, what is sinful anger well number one is anger without a call when Jesus said, except to be angry with his brother without a cause to be in danger of hell fire.
Anger without a call. Many times the problem is not what somebody is done with the problem is within us is our own frustration. It’s our own lack of peace with God and sinners in our lives. By the way, nobody outwardly can control your motion. You do that anger without a call that a something else that is sampling is anger that is centered in a person rather than anger that is centered on an offense when you get angry so that your anger makes you hate a person rather than hate what that person is done will say more about that in a moment that sampling sinful anger is anger that burns and desires remain. That is sampling sinful anger is anger that is cherished up and stored up in the hard way not to stir up anger and when not to start paying some people love their anger they hold onto sinful anger is anger that has an unforgiving spirit that will not refuses to forgive. Now we must deal with sinful anger as we would be with any other sin.
It must be condemned.
It must be repented of God will not accept an alibi. All right. Sudden anger is to be control sinful anger is to be condemned now. Stubborn anger is to be conquered now. The Bible goes on to say in our textbook at again if you will hear in Proverbs chapter 19 the discretion of Amanda Firth is anger and it is his glory to pass over transgression. What a glorious victory.
It is when we learn the Passover transgression. That is to forgive and to get some people don’t seem to be able to do that you not to be copied by anger God wants you to be victorious. Now how you going to do it. I going to get rid of the stubborn anger welling the book of Proverbs, in turn, if you will for moment to Ephesians chapter 4, and I’m sure you some amazing scriptures here on anger in the book of Ephesians and will use Proverbs as a steppingstone to the New Testament, Ephesians chapter 4 verse 26 be angry and sin not let not the sun go down upon your wrath not here to talk about stubborn anger again when you let the sun go down upon your ring. That is when you live with during their husbands or wives get into an argument and then rather than meeting by the bed and getting right with God.
Get right with one another. You go to bed.
Back to back and let the sun go down upon your knee what you’ve done.
You open the door whole slew foot what you’ve done is this you said that will come in and write my home that will come in and destroy my family that will come in and write my testimony. You have given the devil place.
The Bible says let not the sun go down upon your wrath need to give a place to watch of God as you give the devil a beachhead a foothold abound asked and believe you me, he’s ready to come in and it is that anger that’s stubborn pain. That’s stubborn anger that the devil loves to have the campground now let me show you how the devil works when you open the door, you let the sun go down upon your wrath and you come in. The devil has six this is going to destroy you with this matter of stubborn anger that I’m talking about beginning verse 31 when Ephesians 431 let all bitterness, one, and wrath to an angry three and clamor for an evil speaking. Five. Be put away from you, with all malice. Six those are the six steps six the number remain. And when you open the door to the devil you let the sun go down upon your wrath. Sudden anger becomes stubborn anger sure what happens. First of all he talked about bitterness here.
What is bitterness bitterness is that feeling of resentment when somebody does your wrong or you think they’ve done your wrong and you get better in your heart.
Now the Bible in the book of Hebrews calls this a root of bitterness trying to ban a lineup. So Jim dealt with at rascal because the room is down there and there is that root of bitterness and it gets in their and you began to feel hurt somehow you feel that your rights have been trampled on. Somehow you been overlooked.
Somebody wrong and you feel that you are justified and that’s what the Bible calls bitterness that step number one bitterness now what happens to bitterness. Well the next thing is the next word he uses here is that step number two. The word wrath come from the Greek word that means you get all hot about you get all hot and bothered as a slow burn start and the bitterness turns the burning you just feel at fire starting and its mole smokers, you know, I feel it’s an ugly feeling that bitterness I felt that business becomes that hotness that burning that smoldering thing. Look at the third step here.
The third word is anger now wrath speaks of that which is on the inside.
But anger speaks of that which is only outside and the Greek word for anger here means that which is open and outward. It is outward hostility. Now, as the smoldering rags that are in the attic of the mind now burst into playing we may been better for quite a while. We may be doing the slow burn for quite a while and then just the right catalyst happened and that is anger. That’s the third step. This is outward now and is active now and then.
That’s followed by number four clamor. Now the word clamor as the idea being vocal being live and maybe tears, but most often it is shouting you ever notice when people get angry and begin their divorce rises and saying you talk to the person is that when I you don’t have to shout and clamor comes in but I want Paul is when we start we lift our voices that way. That clamor turns to evil speaking, then when we hear ourselves talking that way and open hostility breaks out. Then we start to say things we never really meant we began to speak evil is evil speaking, slander, I hate you. I wish you’d never been born. A stupid shop person I ever knew, and we began to say thing that we know not true but will the role I’m doing good now me and telling this and you start to say those things you know me, but you verbalize because that bitterness turned up burning and burning to anger and that anger turned to clamor and I clamor turns an evil speaking men that evil speaking, does one turns to malice, no analysis as when you hurt somebody you can hurt them with the official hurt, with words can hurt them with words you hurt them with money get hurt with Mike. That’s when a mother will slap as when a husband will that’s when somebody goes for go on a ghost or sticker are just some foolish, silly thing about just sitting over there grinning and having a time and you’re the one who open the door, only write my home right my life write my help destroy the whole thing your you gave a place that because you let the sun go down upon your wrath. And that’s great anger.
They begins to take its toll. Terrible and awful. It is not is not one of his had been at one time another pastor is exactly the way work you only some psychologist dictate God’s word is already here to tell us exactly what the devil wants to do the harm is the hardest to rightist directors to destroy us to destroy testimony, listen to you, not going be able to conquer anger, or anything else of the Christ on the inside is not victory over the devil you need. It is the victor of the devil, the Lord Jesus Christ and having Christ on the inside and you know whatever you feel with Watts Bills Ave., Jocelyn the right you will know what you feel with this. He Was Bills Ave., Jocelyn you feel with Jesus, somebody just as Jesus your part to this message coming up tomorrow on love worth finding today. If you have questions about who Jesus is what he means to you. How to begin a relationship with God through Christ were discovered.
Jesus page@lwf.org/radio you find resources and materials there that will answer questions you may have about your faith again go to LWF.org/radio and click Discover Jesus, so glad you joined us for today studying God’s word start receiving daily devotions and links to our program sign up for our daily emails LWF.org/radio and join us tomorrow for the conclusion of God’s answer to Hank right here on love
The rock ‘n’ roll pioneer passed away after suffering from various illnesses throughout the years, his publicist said Friday in a press release.
“He was there at the beginning, with Elvis, Johnny Cash, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Fats Domino, Buddy Holly, and the rest, and watched them fade away one by one till it was him alone to bear witness, and sing of the birth of rock ‘n’ roll,” the release added.
“‘Who would have thought,’ he said, near the end of his days, ‘it would be me?’”
Rock ‘n’ roll legend Jerry Lee Lewis has died. He was 87. (Dimitrios Kambouris)
Jerry Lee Lewis performs on stage at the London Rock’n’Roll on Aug. 5, 1972. (Michael Putland/Getty Images)
Over the years, Lewis struggled with drug and alcohol abuse, legal disputes and physical illness.
“He is ready to leave,” his wife Judith said just before his death, according to the press release.
Jerry Lee’s indelible mark as a rock & roller in no way obscures his impact as one of the greatest country singers of all time,” Kyle Young, CEO of the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, said Friday in a statement. “He was the ultimate stylist, taking songs to places they could never have gone without his unique voice and soul. Known as ‘The Killer,’ in reality he was a reviver, resurrecting music and emotions. The country records he made with producer Jerry Kennedy will never be replicated or surpassed, and we were honored to recently welcome him into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Among the greatest of artists, he was, as his friend Kris Kristofferson put it, ‘a table-thumpin’ smash.’”
Lewis began as a rock ‘n’ roll performer in the 1950s. Other big-name artists at the time included Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Little Richard.
From left, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash gather on Dec. 4, 1956, in Memphis, Tennessee. (Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
In the 1960s, the Louisiana-born musician rebranded as a country music artist. He continued to be successful, earning three Grammys.
Lewis was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame on Oct. 16. He had 34 Top 20 country hits between 1968 and 1981, according to the Country Music Association.
The singer was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986.
“To be recognized by Country Music with their highest honor is a humbling experience,” Lewis said in a statement when the induction was first announced.
The singer was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986.
“To be recognized by Country Music with their highest honor is a humbling experience,” Lewis said in a statement when the induction was first announced.
“The little boy from Ferriday, Louisiana, listening to Jimmie Rodgers and Hank Williams never thought he’d be in a Hall amongst them. I am appreciative of all those who have recognized that Jerry Lee Lewis music is country music and to our almighty God for his never-ending redeeming grace.”
Jerry Lee Lewis performs on stage at the Country Music Festival at Wembley Arena in London in April 1987. (David Redfern/Redferns via Getty Images)
Lewis also collaborated with top artists throughout his career. In 2006, he released the song “Last Man Standing” featuring Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, B.B. King and George Jones. Lewis also produced “Mean Old Man” in 2010, which included works with Jagger, Keith Richards, Sheryl Crow and Tim McGraw, among others.
Lewis was no stranger to controversy throughout his life. At one point, he was married to his cousin. Once the press learned of the marriage, at the same time he was married to his first wife, his career almost ended.
“I probably would have rearranged my life a little bit different, but I never did hide anything from people,” Lewis told The Wall Street Journal in 2014 when asked about the marriage. “I just went on with my life as usual.”
Lewis married seven times, and was rarely far from trouble or death. His fourth wife, Jaren Elizabeth Gunn Pate, drowned in a swimming pool in 1982 while suing for divorce. His fifth wife, Shawn Stephens, 23 years his junior, died of an apparent drug overdose in 1983. Within a year, Lewis had married Kerrie McCarver, then 21. She filed for divorce in 1986, accusing him of physical abuse and infidelity. He countersued, but both petitions eventually were dropped.
Jerry Lee Lewis performs at MJC Stadium in California on June 9, 1988. (Larry Hulst/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
Sam Phillips, born Samuel Cornelius Phillips (January 5, 1923 – July 30, 2003), was a record producer and the man responsible for the emergence of rock and roll as the major form of popular music in the 1950s. A native of Florence, Alabama, and a graduate of Coffee High School, Phillips is, perhaps, most notably attributed with the discovery of music legend Elvis Presley.
On January 3, 1950, Sam Phillips opened the doors at 706 Union Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, to what would become one of the more famous recording studios in the world, the Sun Records label studio. Originally known as “Memphis Recording Service” throughout the 1950s when the building also housed the Sun Records label, the studio was later redubbed “Sun Studio” when the building reopened to the public in 1987. The studio had previously moved to a larger facility on Madison Avenue in 1960, and the Sun Records label had been sold in 1969 to Shelby Singleton’s Sun International group.
According to some, notably, music historian Peter Guralnick, the first rock and roll record was “Rocket 88,” recorded by Jackie Brenston and his Delta Cats, a band led by 19-year-old Ike Turner. Turner also wrote the song, which was recorded by Sam Phillips and released on the Chess/Checker record label in Chicago, in 1951. From 1950 to 1954 Phillips recorded the music of black rhythm and blues artists such as James Cotton, Rufus Thomas, Rosco Gordon, Little Milton, Bobby Blue Bland and others. Blues legends like B.B. King and Howlin’ Wolf made their first recordings at his studio.
Throughout this same period, Sam Phillips was looking for a white singer with a special “sound.” Phillips soon changed the face of popular music when he brought together the diverse elements that created rock and roll. When Elvis Presley played his version of “That’s All Right Mama” at his studio, a whole new era in music began.
Presley’s success would be a drawing card for Sun Records as singing hopefuls soon arrived from all over the Southern USA. White singers such as Sonny Burgess (“My Bucket’s Got A Hole In It”), Charlie Rich and Billy Lee Riley recorded for Sun with reasonable success while others such as Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, and Carl Perkins would become superstars.
In late 1955, Sam Phillips studio was in need of money and he had little choice but to accept an offer for Presley’s contract. Atlantic Records tendered $25,000, but the powerful RCA Records secured Presley’s services with an offer of $35,000.
On December 4, 1956, Jerry Lee Lewis was playing piano for a Carl Perkins recording session at Sun Records studio. While Johnny Cash stood by watching, Elvis walked in, and the impromptu jam session was soon nicknamed the “Million Dollar Quartet”.
In 1986 Sam Phillips was part of the first group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In 1987, he was inducted into the Alabama Music Hall of Fame. He received a Grammy Trustees Award for his lifetime achievements in 1991. In 1998, he was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame, and in October 2001 he was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.
Phillips died of respiratory failure at Francis Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee on July 30, 2003.
Many people think of former President Bill Clinton when they think of Arkansas, and they think of Elvis when they think of Memphis. However, the great Mississippi River separates both Arkansas and Tennessee. It’s history is worth looking into. CNN’s David Mattingly describes how high and wide the Mississippi River is in Memphis, Tennessee. Everybody […]
Memphis has such a rich history of music and the other night I saw the David Letterman Show with Freesol. They are a new group out of Memphis. Below is an article about them from People Magazine. Justin Timberlake’s Signed Band FreeSol: All About the Group By Catherine Kast Tuesday September 06, 2011 06:35 PM […]
Tonight, Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman and Dr. Mehmet Oz, face-to-face for the first and only time. Both been looking to prove they have what it takes to represent the people of Pennsylvania.
Welcome to Debate Night in America. I’m Leland Vittert from News Nation. The stakes tonight could not be higher, not only for the Keystone State, but for the country. Control of the US Senate for either party runs through Pennsylvania. Dennis Owens, WHTM political reporter and anchor here in Harrisburg, along with Lisa Sylvester from WPXI in Pittsburgh, will moderate tonight’s debate.
(01:16)
We want to welcome our viewers watching tonight from across the country on News Nation. Voters can watch this debate in all 67 Pennsylvania counties on nine television stations serving the Commonwealth. Before we get started, let’s go over tonight’s rules. Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Oz, you will have 60 seconds to answer each question. If there’s a follow-up question or rebuttal, you will have up to 30 seconds. Each candidate will also have 90 seconds for a closing statement. When your time is up, you’ll hear this bell. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Dennis and Lisa,
Thank you, Leland. Good evening, candidates, who moments ago just met for the first time. We’re happy to have you here. Welcome to our audience watching at home on air, online and on News Nation. And we encourage everyone who is watching tonight to share your thoughts on social media. Remember to use the #PASenateDebate.
And you may notice these large monitors that are behind us. This is part of our closed captioning system. It was requested by John Fetterman to help him process the questions that we are asking him tonight, and approved by both campaigns and both candidates can see the monitors.
One of the screens will show only the questions being asked tonight. The second screen will caption the questions and responses from Mehmet Oz. We have live, experienced captioners in studio to ensure we are as accurate as possible in what Sure to be a fast-paced program.
And just to note, for those of you using closed captioning at home, the captions you see are not tied to the captions that the candidates will see here tonight.
Thank you, Lisa. With that, let’s get started. Mr. Fetterman, we’re going to begin with you. Your political experience includes serving as the mayor of Braddock, a small borough near Pittsburgh, and one term as Lieutenant Governor. You’re running for a seat that could decide the balance of power in Washington. What qualifies you to be a US Senator? You have 60 seconds.
Hi. Good night, everybody. I’m running to serve Pennsylvania. He’s running to use Pennsylvania. Here’s a man that spent more than $20 million of his own money to try to buy that seat. I’m also having to talk about something called the Oz rule, that if he’s on TV, he’s lying. He did that during his career on his TV show. He’s done that during his campaign about lying about our record here. And he’s also lying probably during this debate. And let’s also talk about the elephant in the room. I had a stroke. He’s never let me forget that. And I might miss some words during this debate, mush two words together, but it knocked me down. But I’m going to keep coming back up. And this campaign is all about, to me, is about fighting for everyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down, that needs to get back up, and fighting for all forgotten communities all across Pennsylvania that also got knocked down that needs to keep get back up.
Thank you very much Mr. Fetterman. Mr. Oz, you are a doctor, a businessman and television personality, but this is your first run for elected office. What qualifies you to be a US senator from Pennsylvania? You have 60 seconds.
I’m running for the US Senate because Washington keeps getting it wrong with extreme positions. I want to bring civility, balance, all the things that you want to see because you’ve been telling it to me on the campaign trail. And by doing that, we can bring us together in a way that has not been done of late. Democrats, Republicans talking to each other. John Fetterman takes everything to an extreme and those extreme positions hurt us all.
(05:05)
Let’s take crime as an example because it’s been such a big problem. Maureen Faulkner accompanied me today to the studio. You know that her husband was a police officer in Philadelphia, was brutally murdered. John Fetterman, during this crime wave, has been trying to get as many murderers convicted and sentenced to life in prison, out of jail as possible, including people who are similar to the men who murdered her husband. He does it without the rest of the parole board agreeing. He’s doing it without the families on board. These radical positions extend beyond crime to wanting to legalize all drugs, to open the border, to raising our taxes. I want Washington to be civil again. We need it to be less radical. John Fetterman, unfortunately, would bring that.
All right. Gentlemen, onto the economy. Pennsylvanians are struggling to put food on the table and gas in their cars. Our Nexstar Emerson College The Hill Pole shows the economy and inflation are the biggest concerns for voters. 39% of them listed that as the top issue. Beginning with you, Mr. Oz, you have blamed President Biden and reckless democratic spending for the inflation crisis, but voters would like to hear your specific plan to cut spending. Please explain in 60 seconds.
Well, if you ask the US government, they’ll tell you. They have 4% waste in fraud. Now, I’ve traveled over the Commonwealth and spoken to countless people. There was a lady in Beaver County at a county fair who told me with fear in her heart that she wanted to provide food for her son, highly nutritious chicken. She couldn’t afford it anymore. That’s a big problem. If we’ve got 4% waste in fraud, we ought to be take to be able to take care of that.
(06:45)
John Fetterman’s, however response, continually is to raise taxes. He raised taxes as mayor. He tried to raise taxes as Lieutenant Governor, 46%. That’s a big tax rate. He supported Joe Biden’s recent tax rate increase and he’s done that without paying his own taxes 67 times. I’ll say that again. He hasn’t paid his own taxes 67 times, but he is raising mine and yours. Those are radical positions. They’re extreme. They’re out of touch with the values of Pennsylvanians and I can make the difficult decisions as you do in the operating room as a surgeon. I’ll make them cutting our budget as well to make sure we don’t have to raise taxes on a population already desperately in pain from the high inflation rate.
Mr. Fetterman, I will allow a 15 second rebuttal. He has specifically said you have not paid your taxes and that you want to raise taxes on Americans. How do you respond?
Absolutely. The Oz rule, of course, he’s lying. It was helping two students 17 years ago to help them buy their own homes. They didn’t pay the bills and it got paid and it has never been an issue in any of the campaign before. It was all about nonprofit.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Fetterman. Continuing with you, Mr. Fetterman, your opponent has criticized Democratic spending as you heard. Has the Biden administration overspent and if so, where do you think spending should be cut? You have 60 seconds.
No. Here’s what I think. We have to fight about inflation here right now. That’s what we need to fight about inflation right now because it’s a tax on working families. And Dr. Oz can’t possibly understand what that is like. He has 10 gigantic mansions. We must push back against corporate greed. We must make sure that we’re also pushing back against price gouging as well, too. We also be able to make more in Pennsylvania, make more in America. When he had a choice to make his merchandise, the Oz label is on, he made it all in China. Who can you believe that can fight against inflation and pushing back against corporate greed or somebody that has chosen working in China versus over American workers?
I’ve been trying to talk about policy issues with the people of Pennsylvania. As a doctor, I listen to their ideas and I want to talk about them. When John Fetterman brings up houses, the irony is he didn’t pay for his own house. He got it for a dollar from his sister and he hasn’t been able to earn a living on his own. He’s lived off his parents. So it’s not a topic that we should be debating on the stage. We should be talking about crime and inflation, the issues that are hurting Pennsylvanians that they’re talking about at their kitchen table.
Mr. Fetterman, we have to continue on. We’ll continue on with a question. A follow-up question to you, Mr. Oz. This one is just for you. You tweeted in August that you will never stop fighting to lower gas prices for Pennsylvanians. Does that include supporting a suspension of the federal gas tax? You have 30 seconds.
I’m supportive of reducing taxes, but we want to be thoughtful about the long-term game plan to get gas taxes down, and frankly, all energy prices down. I have gone around the Commonwealth. I’ve witnessed people say, “I’m not going on vacation this year because I can’t afford to pay to take my trailer to the campground.” They can’t even get there. What we have to do is ensure that we don’t have increased inflation, and the best way to do that is reduce gas prices. John Fetterman has gone after the energy industry. He’s called it a a stain on Pennsylvania and argued we have to ban fracking. That is disconnected from Pennsylvanians.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Oz. We will get to the issue of fracking later on in this discussion. But meantime, turning back to you, Mr. Fetterman, for a follow-up. In an OpEd for the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, you wrote, “It is time we crack down on the big, price gouging corporations that are making record profits while jacking up prices for all of us.” How do you plan to do this, sir? You mentioned going after price gouging corporations. How do you plan to do this? You have 30 seconds.
Yeah, exactly. We have to keep pushing back on that and he would never make that choice to fight for families here in Pennsylvania. He has never met an oil company that he doesn’t swipe right about. He has never been able to stand up for working families all across Pennsylvania. We must push back. Inflation has hurt Americans and Pennsylvania’s families and it has given the oil companies record profits.
The minimum wage in Pennsylvania and at the national level currently sits at $7.25 an hour and has not been increased since 2009. Each of our neighboring states has raised minimum wages, you see them there on your screen, including New Jersey at $13 an hour and West Virginia at $8.75. But Pennsylvania has not followed suit. The first question is for you, Mr. Fetterman. Do you support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour? Why or why not? You have 60 seconds.
Yeah, I do. Absolutely. I think it’s a disgrace at $7.25 an hour. And how can a man with 10 gigantic mansions has unwilling to talk about a willing wage for anybody? Imagine a signal mom trying with two children trying to raise with them. Realizing making $31,000 a year, $15 an hour. I believe every work has dignity and every paycheck must have dignity in it as well. True. I’ve always supported a living wage and we make sure that everyone has economic security.
I have a follow up for you, Mr. Fetterman. What do you say to small business owners who have told us that if the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, it would put them out of business? You have 30 seconds
No. We all have to make sure that everyone that works is able to. That’s the most American bargain, that if you work full-time, you should be able to live in dignity as well true. And I believe they haven’t have any businesses being… You can’t have businesses being subsidized by not paying individuals that just simply can’t behave to pay their own way.
Okay, Mr. Fetterman. Thank you. Mr. Oz, turning to you. Do you support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour? Why or why not? You have 60 seconds.
I think market forces have already driven up the minimum wage. I was with a hotel worker actually here in Harrisburg a few months ago and he was telling me how hard it was to live on the $15 an hour that he was getting paid. John Fetterman shoots too low. We want much more money than that and there are many ways to achieve that, but John Fetterman thinks the minimum wage is his weekly allowance from his parents. He’s not really cognizant of the real challenges of business owners who’ve got to balance that with employees. Thankfully, we have a solution. And John, you didn’t answer the question. You can’t put businesses out of commission in order to pay more wages because the wages will go to zero, which is John Fetterman’s radical plan if you really follow it to conclusion.
(14:07)
Here’s what I would do. We have one of the richest energy states in the country. I believe if we could unleash the energy beneath our feet here in Pennsylvania, there’d be plenty of money to go around. We’d have increased wages, a more reason for students to take vocational classes to be able to learn trades, which I’m strongly supportive of. We’d also be able to pipe that gas and improve our economy and reduce inflation. That’s a plan that works and it’s humble enough that I can say broadly-
No. Again, it’s remarkable. He hasn’t really had any answer that he actually had about that in his… He doesn’t want to talk about having somebody having a living wage and to having somebody able to survive again.
And I want to come back to you now, Mr. Oz, for a quick follow-up. What do you say to those Pennsylvanians that he just spoke of that are trying to survive on $7.25 an hour, which is less than all of our neighbors?
Oh, I don’t think you should have to survive on $7.25 an hour. I want the minimum wage up as high as it can go. I want to highlight that I have an agenda for prosperity, unlike John Fetterman, I want us all getting paid a lot more than $15. And I answered your question directly in a way that would preserve business owners, job creators, so they thrive, and we’d have lots more employees entering the workforce and then prospering getting paid $25, $35, $45 an hour. But we’re never going to get there if we don’t unleash our energy. And John Fetterman’s stubbornness on calling it a stain on Pennsylvania is an insult to those workers.
All right, thank you gentlemen. Another big issue for voters is abortion. Mr. Oz, we will begin with you. You say that you’re pro-life, but you do support abortion exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. Aside from those three exceptions, should abortion be banned in America? 60 seconds.
There should not be involvement from the federal government in how states decide their abortion decisions. As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves. Contrast that with my opponent, John Fetterman, who on this debate stage said that he would demand federally mandated rules for all states they’d have to follow that would allow abortion at 38 weeks on the delivery table, and he would force it to be subsidized by taxpayers across the country no matter what their personal beliefs are. That’s radical. That’s extreme. That is out of touch with what the average voter in Pennsylvania believes is appropriate.
(16:57)
Now, ironically, John Fetterman has been running ads on this topic, dishonest ads. I need to correct the record. They were so bad they got pulled off television stations. Even on this station, he was running dishonest ads that I had pulled off. I haven’t had a single ad pulled down. My ads tell the truth. John Fetterman’s are a fiction of his imagination.
All right, I’m going to let Mr. Fetterman respond specifically about the ads being pulled off the air, and then we will return to you, Mr. Oz. Mr. Fetterman?
Yeah, I want to look into the face of every woman in Pennsylvania. If you believe that the choice of your reproductive freedom belongs with Dr. Oz, then you have a choice. But if you believe that the choice for abortion belongs between you and your doctor, that’s what I fight for. Roe v. Wade for me should be the law. He celebrated when Roe v. Wade went down. And my campaign would fight for Roe v. Wade, and if given the opportunity to codify it into law.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Fetterman. Going back to you, I want to circle back to something that you said, Mr. Oz, you mentioned the decision to regulate abortion should be something that is left up to the states. Now, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has introduced a federal bill to ban abortion after 15 weeks. I know that you’ve been asked about this question before. If the vote were held today, you were elected senator, you’re on the Senate floor, the clerk calls you, there’s a roll call vote, are you a yay or a nay? How would you vote on the Lindsey Graham bill? You have 30 seconds.
Lisa, I don’t even need 30 seconds. I’ll give you a bigger answer. I am not going to support federal rules that block the ability of states to do what they wish to do. The abortion decision should be left up the states and specifically when John Fetterman-
I’ve been very clear on my desire as a physician not to interfere with how states decide. So when John purposely, knowingly misrepresents that to women, he scares them. He’s purposely trying to alarm them. And the fear mongering isn’t working. Running tens of millions of dollars of ads claiming that I’m against all abortions when he knows that’s not right, claiming that I’m going to strict with Pennsylvania when he knows that’s not honest. I can’t be any clearer than I’ve been on this stage today. John Fetterman, if you just hear that one story today, I’d be really happy. But I know you’re not going to, because you’re going to go right back to telling the fables that you believe.
Mr. Oz, I want a 15 second clarification. You are saying that you would leave it up to the states if the federal government does not have a role here. So are you saying you would not vote for the Lindsey Graham bill?
Any bill that violates what I said, which is the federal government interfering with the state rule and abortion, I would vote against. What I feel strongly about is that women in Pennsylvania understand what I’m saying and not believe that someone who’s taken an extreme position like John Fetterman represents them. Because most women do not believe that we should, at a federal level, codify 38 weeks of permission to have an abortion and have taxpayers pay of it.
Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Oz. Turning to you, Mr. Fetterman, you have frequently stated your belief that abortion should be safe and legal. Do you support any limits on when a woman can have an abortion? Please explain it. 60 seconds.
You know what I support, I support on Roe v. Wade. That was the law of the land for 50 years. He celebrated when it fell down and I would fight to reestablish on Roe v. Wade. That’s what I run on, that’s what I believe. And I’ve always believed that the choice [inaudible 00:20:27] women and their doctors and he believes that the choice should be with him or Republican legislators all across this nation.
I’m sorry. I must correct that. Once again, he’s misrepresented what I’ve said. But he also said something very dishonest. On this debate stage, he said very specifically, in his primary debate, when he was still debating, that he would support 38 weeks of mandated rules by the federal government that would prevent any state from blocking it. So that’s not Roe v. Wade.
All right, Mr. Oz, we must continue on. Mr. Fetterman, turning to you, we have a follow up question. Would you support allocating federal funds to transport women who live in states where abortion is banned to states where they can get one, and why? 30 seconds.
I would. I would. Because I believe abortion rights is a universal right for all women in America. I believe that abortion is healthcare, and I believe that that is a choice that belongs with each woman and their doctor.
Thank you, Lisa. Let’s turn to what has become one of the key themes of this race, fitness to serve. For these individual questions, there will be no rebuttals allowed. Mr. Fetterman, we begin with you. You suffered, as you mentioned a moment ago, a stroke four days before the May primary. Last week, you released this note from your doctor saying you can work full duty in public office, but you have not released your detailed medical records surrounding your stroke. Mr. Fetterman, will you pledge tonight to release those records in the interest of transparency? You have 60 seconds.
To me, for transparency is about showing up. I’m here today to have a debate. I have speeches in front of 3000 people in Montgomery County, all across Pennsylvania, big, big crowds. I believe if my doctor believes that I’m fit to serve and that’s what I believe is appropriate, and now with two weeks before the election, I have run a campaign and I’ve been very transparent about being very open about the fact we’re going to use captioning. And I believe that, again, my doctors, the real doctors that I believe, they all believe that I’m ready to be served.
Okay. Mr. Fetterman, thank you. Mr. Oz, you have built a lucrative career around medicine, but you’ve been criticized even by some fellow physicians for promoting, quote, “Unproven, ill-advised, and at times potentially dangerous treatments.” What is your response to that? You have 60 seconds.
One of the great blessings of traveling around Pennsylvania is you run into people who have watched the show. They thank me very much for giving them lifesaving advice on chronic issues like high blood pressure or dealing with their anxiety. The show did very well because it provided high quality information that empowered people, which is exactly what I want to do when I’m a senator. Give people the power, let them make decisions for their wellbeing.
(23:48)
Now, John Fetterman’s approach to health is a very dangerous one. He believes we should socialize medicine. He embraced this with Bernie Sanders, who endorsed. The two candidates called themselves the two most progressive people in America. When you have socialized medicine, Dennis, you shut down the ability of people to get access to healthcare. Doctors stop practicing. There are no medications available. The lines get long. It’s a disaster, and it puts people at risk. So I don’t believe we should allow socialized medicine, the abolition of all private healthcare insurance in America. And radical positions like the ones taken by John Fetterman make him too extreme to serve. If we’re going to bring balance to Washington, you got to bring people who understand the ramifications. Even Joe Biden, even Joe Biden called John Fetterman’s idea, I’ll quote him, preposterous.
Mr. Fetterman, I’m going to let you respond in just a minute, but I have a follow up for you first, Mr. Oz. Did you or your company make a profit from promoting those products? You have 30 seconds.
I never sold weight loss products as described in those commercials. It’s a television show, like this is a television show, so people can run commercials on the shows, and that’s a perfectly appropriate and very transparent process. I ruffled a lot of feathers on my show because I told people the truth and I’m proud of that and I’ll do the exact same thing as a US Senator. But there’s no way to defend what John Fetterman has done with socialized medicine. That is a radical departure from what we in America have accepted and [inaudible 00:25:12].
John, you’ll have your turn. John, let me finish. There must be a relationship between a doctor and a patient, and that’s what I would direct patients to do.
Yeah. Again, it’s the Oz rule. He’s on TV and he is lying. I never supported any of that thing. He keeps talking about Bernie Sanders. Three years ago, he was on his show and he hugged him and he said, “I love this guy.” Why don’t you pretend that you live in Vermont instead of Pennsylvania and run against Bernie Sanders? Because all you can do is talk about Bernie Sanders. Because my truth is is that healthcare is a basic fundamental right, and I believe in expanding that, and I believe about supporting fighting for healthcare, the kind of healthcare that saved my life.
We are going to move on to the next topic, and this has come up earlier, and that is the issue of fracking. Pennsylvania only trails Texas in terms of natural gas production. Both of you have taken shifting positions on the issue of fracking. Mr. Oz, we begin with you. You wrote a column in 2014 calling for no fracking pending health study results. But in a video posted on social media in March, you said, “Natural gas guarantees high paying skilled jobs right here in Pennsylvania. So back off Biden. Give us freedom to frack.” Mr. Oz. Please explain that changing position. 60 seconds.
I’ve been very consistent. Fracking has been demonstrated, it’s a very old technology, to be safe. It is a lifeline for this commonwealth to be able to build wealth similar to what they’ve been able to achieve in other states. For that reason, I strongly support fracking, drilling, the piping of that natural gas. In fact, I’d build a facility even in Philadelphia so we can export it to our allies and help them, the ones that are struggling now in Western Europe because of the Ukrainian war. John Fetterman calls fracking a stain on Pennsylvania. He says that he will sign a moratorium to ban its continued use. He’s against pipelines. He supported the vote against the Keystone pipeline that ended up shutting it down. He supports Biden’s desire to ban fracking on public lands, which are our lands, all of our lands together. This is a extreme position on energy. If we unleashed our energy here in Pennsylvania, it would help everybody. Why John Fetterman is so rigidly stuck on fighting against energy companies is stunning to me because it’s the jobs I want, tens of thousands of high paying jobs to help Pennsylvanians.
Oz Rule. I absolutely support fracking. In fact, I live across the street from a steel mill and they are going to frack to create their own energy in order to make them more competitive. And I support that, living closer to anybody else in Pennsylvania for fracking to myself. I believe that we need independence with energy. And I believe I’ve walked that line my entire career. I believe Democrats-
Mr. Fetterman, I do have a specific question, which you can continue on this topic, but you have made two conflicting statements regarding fracking. In a 2018 interview, you said, quote, “I don’t support fracking at all. I never have.” But earlier this month, you told an interviewer, “I support fracking. I support the energy independence that we should have here in the United States.” So Mr. Fetterman, please explain your changing position. 60 seconds.
I’ve always supported fracking and I always believe that independence with our energy is critical. We can’t be held ransom to somebody like Russia. I’ve always believed that energy independence is critical and I’ve always believed that, and I do support fracking. I’ve never taken any money from their industry, but I support how critical it is that we produce our own energy and create energy independence.
Just a second, Mr. Oz. I do want to clarify something. You’re saying tonight that you support fracking, that you’ve always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, “I don’t support fracking at all.” So how do you square the two?
Mr. Oz, we want it now turn to public safety. Mr. Fetterman, Republicans have called you dangerously soft on crime. The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association has endorsed Democrat Josh Shapiro for governor, but in this race it endorsed your Republican opponent. Mr. Oz, what is your response to those endorsements and what is your response to accusations that you are “dangerously soft on crime?” You have 60 seconds.
I believe that I run on my record on crime. I ran to be mayor back in 2005 in order to fight gun violence and that’s exactly what I did. In working with the police and working with our community, I would say I was able to stop gun violence for five and a half years as mayor ever accomplished before or since my time as mayor, because I’m the only person on this stage right now that was successful about pushing back against gun violence and being the community more safe.
(31:10)
All he’s done is just put a plan up on his website in the last 24 hours. He has no experience. He has never made any attempt to try to address crime during his entire career, except showing up for photo ops here in Philadelphia.
The Fraternal Order of Police from Braddock, the small town he represented, endorsed me. They supported me because what he’s saying is not true. Violence skyrocketed in Braddock. The town wasn’t in a good shape when John got there. It got worse when he was there. People kept leaving, so of course you’re going to have all kinds of bear aberrations, but John, the city was dangerous under your leadership and that’s why [inaudible 00:31:52].
Mr. Oz, this past summer Congress passed the first gun control bill in decades. That would not have happened without the support of the man you are running to replace, Pat Toomey. How would you have voted on that bill and would you continue Toomey’s legacy as being one of the lead Republicans in Congress on pushing for gun reforms? You have 60 seconds.
I have been supported by Pat Toomey. I have enjoyed working with him. I think he’s done a wonderful job. There are parts of that bill that I like a lot. For example, I like the fact that their background checks that are being strengthened now, so we can make sure that people who should not have guns don’t get guns. I also like the fact that there was a lot of money invested for mental health, which is an important part of the equation.
(32:34)
I’ve been to Philadelphia. I’ve done prayer vigils with Black clergy leaders who are desperately trying to save the people in their community. Half the murders in Philadelphia are committed by people under 18. We have got to get mental health services to these people and it’s not happening now.
(32:48)
But part of the problem is that we have taken away the ability of police to do their job and that’s on John Fetterrman, because John Fetterman has taken such a harsh position against them. He’s undermined them at every level, taken away some of their funding. He’s pushed for Crashner, who he admires tremendously and he’s spoken highly of him just this week. He’s taken his policies to a new extreme. He’s argued that people should be let out of jail without any bail, no matter what they did to get in there. He’s argued to release one third of all prisoners, one third of all prisoners out of touch.
I would’ve tried to improve that bill. There are things that I think most of us appreciate. I wasn’t there at the time, so I can’t speak to what was possible, but I do know there are parts of that bill that do make sense and the ones I described should be followed. Let’s see how it works out.
Onto our next issue. And that is illegal immigration. It has been a problem in the United States for decades, but it is now spiking. US Customs and Border Protection just released numbers from fiscal year 2022. They show more than 2.7 million total enforcement actions in the US. That is the most ever.
(33:56)
Mr. Oz, beginning with you. Republican governors in the South have been sending migrants to Democratic run cities and states without a plan or without any coordination. It is certainly gaining a lot of attention, but is it an effective way to deal with the influx of migrants? You have 60 seconds.
Lisa, we have a catastrophe at the border and we should not have sanctuary cities as John Fetterman has tried to introduce, but I’ve been into the parts of Philadelphia and Allentown and Redding where we have large Latino populations. I understand the challenges of the border. My father was an immigrant. My mother were immigrants. I understand what legal immigration offers us, but the completely porous, open nature of our border, which John Fetterman supports has created a humanitarian crisis with cartel’s profiting, with human trafficking operations.
(34:42)
They take the money, they buy narcotics from China and bring that into our country and it’s making every state a border state. Pennsylvania is already a border state, because we’re top three in the country in fentanyl overdoses. Lisa, I can’t go anywhere where and giving any big event where I don’t meet multiple people who say their personal lives have been destroyed because of fentanyl overdoses. Yet John Fetterman not only wants an open border, not only supports sanctuary cities, but he wants to legalize all hard drugs in America, including narcotics. That is out of touch with everybody, that radical position was tried in Oregon, which he endorsed, 50% homicide increase rate.
Yeah, that is again, [inaudible 00:35:24] rule. That is just not true. Here, his family’s company was levied the largest fine for immigration hiring of immigrate illegals. And I think he should sit this one out about in terms of what, a secure border.
All right. We do have a follow up specifically for you. Mr. Fetterman, Vice President Kamala Harris says, “The southern border is secure, yet we are seeing an unprecedented number of migrants crossing.” Is the border secure? And if not, what would you do to fix what both parties are calling a crisis? You have 60 seconds Mr. Fetterman.
Yeah, I believe that that secure border can be compatible with compassion. I believe we need a comprehensive and bipartisan solution for immigration. That’s what I believe. I don’t ever recall in the Statue of Liberty did they say, “Take our tired, huddle masses and put them on a bus and use cheap political stunts about them.” I believe we have to develop a comprehensive and bipartisan solution to address our issue here for immigration here in our nation.
I believe is right now is China. I believe China is not our friend and I believe that we can’t be able to push back and we need to stand against China. And I believe that Dr. Oz has chosen to manufacture all of his merchandise on his name on it in China, which one of us on this stage is going to stand up against and stand firm against China. And I believe that’s our single biggest issue right now to make sure that we address China and make sure that we know that it’s not our friend.
The fact that our country’s not projecting strength. Take for example what we’re doing with Iran. In order to try to get them to give us a little oil so we can deal with the catastrophe that Russia has caused, we have gone to them and tried to sign a deal that would allow them, once again, to have the nuclear power to blow up Israel, which they promised they would do. John Fetterman supports that deal.
(37:54)
It doesn’t make any sense for America to treat our enemies better than our allies. We have the message with our strong voice and the energy we have in our country that we have control over our future. And the best way for America to establish its dominance is to unleash the energy here in Pennsylvania and across the country. By not doing that, not only do we cause all kinds of problems with local jobs and inflation, but we’re destroying our ability to remain energy dominant and we’re not able to become allies like we should be for countries like European nations, which are going to struggle with their coldest winter ever.
(38:27)
It’s the best way to punch Putin back and to teach China lesson is American energy to reign supreme. And John Fetterman doesn’t like American energy and they’re scared of him, because they know they can’t trust them. He’s proven it.
All right to on our next issue. In our recent Nexstar poll, a hypothetical rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in 2024 would be a statistical tie in Pennsylvania. 46% of people said they would vote for former President Trump, 45% for President Biden. Mr. Oz, would you support a Trump 2024 run and why? 60 seconds.
I’ll support whoever the Republican party puts up. And I have reached out across the aisle on my campaign because I want to bring balance to Washington. And I’ve tried to work with Democrats and Republicans and people in the middle and people aren’t sure and people who forgot and people who got angry with where their party was headed. I want to bring us together to make this country do what it’s always been able to do. Unify, not divide and address the problems as a surgeon because in the OR, that’s what I do.
(39:27)
I just fix the big problem in front of me. John Fetterman, however, cannot go to Washington and work with the other side because he doesn’t even get along with his own side. He criticized Joe Biden for not spending enough money and not sidling up close enough to Bernie Sanders. He says he won’t work with Joe Mansion. He said, “If you like Joe Mansion, don’t vote for me.” So if you’re picking fight with your own party, you’re not going to be able to reach across the aisle to the other side. His extreme positions have made him untenable For Republican lawmakers. We need to send someone to Washington who understands the importance of balance, sensible decision making and a common sense approach to the challenges that we all face. That’s not John Fetterman
I haven’t followed them very carefully. I’ve been campaigning pretty aggressively. They’ll work themselves out. I have tremendous confidence in the American legal system and I believe law and order will reign supreme. But speaking about that topic, there’s one person on this stage who’s broken the law, we believe. John Fetterman took a shotgun, chased an unarmed African American man and put the gun apparently according to that man, to his chest. John, you weren’t pulled over by the police. They let you go. You were the Mayor at the time. Why haven’t you apologize to that unarmed, innocent Black man who you put a shotgun to his chest?
No, I made the opportunity to defend our community as the chief law enforcement officer there. Everybody in Braddock, an overwhelmingly majority community of Black community, all understood what happened. They understood what happened and everybody agreed that. And nobody believes that it was anything about me making a split second decision to defend our community as well.
Mr. Oz, please. We are still with Mr. Fetterman, turning to you right now. You support a Biden run. Do you support a Biden run in 2024? Why in 60 seconds?
That’s honestly, it’s up to his choice. Whether he, and if he does choose to run, I would absolutely support him. But ultimately that’s ultimately only his choice.
All right. Thank you Mr. Fetterman. A follow up question on this, our Nexstar poll shows 51% of Pennsylvania voters disapprove of the President’s job performance. You have publicly supported many of his policy positions. Are there any that you disagree with? 30 seconds.
Oh, I just believe he needs to do more about supporting and fighting about inflation. And I do believe he can do more about that. But at the end of the day, I think Joe Biden is a good, good family man. And I believe he stands for the union way of life. And I believe that unemployment is already down to the lowest level in the last 50 years.
Let’s turn now gentlemen to the issue of social security. It is only fully funded through 2034. Many Americans are worried that they will never receive their full benefit or have to accept cuts to their benefits. Mr. Fetterman, how are we going to make sure it is there for them? You have 60 seconds.
We need to make sure that Dr. Oz and the Republicans believe in cutting Medicare and Social Security. And I believe that they have to support and expand Social Security. And if somebody sends me to send me to Washington DC I would support and stand and to support security, Social Security.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Oz. Same question to you. How are you going to make sure that social security is available for future Americans? You have 60 seconds.
We made a deal with the wonderful seniors of our nation. They worked their hearts out. They paid into a program. No one’s going to touch it on my watch except to make sure that it’s stronger than it is right now. Social Security, Medicare, which I know a lot about as a doctor, are the fundamental element of security for our seniors. And they deserve to feel like they’re value by nation.
(43:47)
John Fetterman, again, has been burning ads and saying that I’m against those with no proof. I have never said anything different than what I’m saying to you on this stage. But in effort to fear monger with people who are older and can be taken advantage of, he’ll run these ads. John, it’s re reprehensible, but it’s also reflective of your approach to doing these things. You haven’t shown up on the campaign trail. You haven’t answered questions from voters, not once on the campaign trail.
(44:10)
You haven’t answered questions from media once on the campaign trail, even just to show that you could do it. And this is the only debate I could get you to come to talk to me on. And I had to beg on my knees to get you to come. And if it wasn’t for Dennis probably getting involved, I don’t think it would’ve happened. Seniors need to know more about your radical left positions, and I need to be able to tell them about my positions. That’s what democracy is built on. We exchange ideas. The voters decide you have hidden from that.
Mr. Oz, I’m going to let you have 15 seconds at a moment, Mr. Fetterman, but can you give us a specific example of what you would do to protect social Security?
Well, for one, we have to make sure that it adequately increases with the higher inflation rates that we have. So we’ve got to make that 4% of wasted money that right now is in the budget redirected appropriately. And one of the first places that I would use it is Social Security and Medicare. And here’s the reason. One of the worst things we can do to a people is give them bad quality care. And so if you have-
Bad quality care. And so if you have people who are not going to see a doctor, for example, because they can’t afford it, they’ll get sicker. Bad medicine means more cost. No one benefits.
It’s absolutely a fact. It’s a fact. You would’ve voted against the inflation reduction act, which has dropped our prescription drugs and he doesn’t believe-
All right, we are moving on to the topic of education. The cost of college tuition is now out of reach for many, many families. Our question is for both of you. We start with Mr. Oz, What is your plan to bring down the cost of higher education long term? You have one minute, Mr. Oz.
I’ve worked in an academic medical centers my whole life, so I’m in higher education. And I can tell you the reason that the prices have gone up sixfold in the last 40 years is not because the education quality’s better. We’ve added extra layers of middle level individuals who don’t actually improve the quality education in my opinion. There’s a lot of expenses now incurred by these institutions. And it’s not right for the American people to be stuck with the bill. I would push them to offer more electronic classes. Half the kids don’t live on campus anyway.
(46:28)
John Fetterman’s approach, however, is not to deal with the unnecessarily high cost, but just to pay it. So if you want to pay students who didn’t pay their loans back, basically what John Fetterman and Joe Biden are arguing for is for plumbers who didn’t go to college and couldn’t for a bunch of reasons afford it, to pay the bills of lawyers who went to graduate school and haven’t paid their debt back. I don’t think that’s right for the American people. We want a fair system, drop the cost down by pushing for more value for the money we’re spending, and then ensure there’s a high quality education that lets people make a living when they graduate.
Again, Dr. Oz loves free money when it’s a half a million dollar tax break on one of his homes down in a ranch in Florida. And whether it was a $50 tax break about his farm in Montgomery County. So it’s about supporting and helping young earners, excuse me, young students to give them a break. I believe that supporting-
All right, let me just ask specifically, with the plan to ease student loan debt, the debt forgiveness of $10,000, $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients, do you support that position?
I do absolutely support that. I believe, like I said, it’s about helping young learners be able to get a better start, getting off in the start of their life. And I do believe that, and I believe a majority of Americans support that as well too. Helping young learners.
All right. Mr. Fetterman, I want to ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Oz, and what is your plan to bring down the cost of higher education long term? You have one minute.
You didn’t. I fundamentally believe that every quality public university education should be very affordable in every state. And I think that needs to be a significant investment to make sure that anyone be able to afford to go to get a four degree university degree at say at Penn State or at Pitt or any state schools, to make it much more affordable. And that means inquiring a significant investment to make sure and create it affordable that every family can afford.
I just believe I just making it that much more. It costs too much. And I believe providing the resources to reduce the tuition to allow families to be able to afford it.
All right. We have a follow up question. This one now is for both of you. This is from NewsNation viewer Ann Andrews a registered nurse from near Erie and is a vocational educational instructor for university and a practicing registered nurse.
I’ve visited vocational schools. I’ve an answer, but John, because you obviously I wasn’t clear enough for you to understand this. There’s no question that cutting out the middle levels of higher education and providing digital programs would reduce the cost of education. It’s a concrete set of ideas that I’d like to move on. With regard to vocational education. This is really important for us to allow our trade unions to get more closely linked with the vocational schools. I was in a vocational school in Westmoreland and they have about a thousand kids. They could take 2000 kids. Funding those programs is the smartest way to invest our tax dollars, will turn out twice as many children who have a job as soon as they graduate. It supports our trade unions who want those kids in their positions anyway. It makes the whole program work.
Again, it’s just the same, the way that University for degrees as well too. Supporting that and partnering with the unions and making sure that vocation training is affordable and providing the resources to make sure everyone has the opportunity. Going to college isn’t the right choice for every person, but going to those kind of vocational schools, able to create a career to weigh, to, excuse me, to raise a lot of high salary. And again, supporting to reduce those costs are critical too.
Moving now. Multiple members of Congress, specifically Democrats have called for the Supreme Court to be expanded candidates. We want to know where you stand on this, Mr. Fetterman. Should the Supreme Court be expanded? And if so, by how many justices. You have 60 seconds.
I don’t believe. I don’t stand and I don’t believe in that. I fundamentally believe that even though I don’t agree with the ideological breakup of the Supreme Court, I believe it’s not about changing the rules, it’s about acknowledging where we’re at. Much the way the Republicans want to try to change the Constitution about how our Supreme Court in Pennsylvania is going to be done. And I don’t support that. So I think it’s critical that we be consistent and I do not believe in supporting the Supreme Court.
I would never touch the make up of the Supreme Court and I would advocate to leave it the exact same size it is, but John Fetterman’s radical positions have spilled over into what he would do in Washington. One of the first things he has said, and he came back to the campaign trail, is that he wanted to bust the filibuster, which means removing the brakes on the Senate overreacting. That’s a risk.
But if you do that, then you would free up the Democrats in the Senate without getting the normal amount of votes to actually expand the Supreme Court, add more states, do things that are detrimental to the wellbeing of the country. So I think, and your first day back arguing that we should get rid of the filibuster is a dangerously radical move that would hurt Washington. It’s not in our nation’s best interest.
All right. At this time we are ready for our closing statements. You each have 90 seconds to convince Pennsylvanians to vote for you on Election Day. Mr. Fetterman, you are first. 90 seconds.
Once again, I would just like to say that my campaign is all about fighting for anyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down, that had to get back up again. I’m also fighting for any forgotten community all across Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down, that had to be made to get back up. And I’ve made my entire career dedicating to those kinds of pursuits. I started as a GED instructor back in Braddock over 20 years ago because I believe it’s about serving Pennsylvania, not about using Pennsylvania for their own end, interests as well. To me, careers are or field… By your real underlying values. And my values have always been about fighting for forgotten communities all across Pennsylvania.
I’ve loved traveling to the four corners of the beautiful Commonwealth, and I’ve heard your problems. I’m a surgeon doctor. I listen to what you say and I’m trying to help address them today. I’ve talked to seniors worried their social security checks wouldn’t go far enough with the raging inflation. I’ve talked to couples want to make their first down payment on a new house and they can’t afford it anymore because of interest rates. I’ve talked to families.
I’ve talked to families worried about fentanyl, showing up in their mailbox and literally taking the lives of their children, who they find blue in bed. I’ve talked to families who won’t let their kids go outside because of the crime wave that’s been facilitated by left radical policies like the ones John Fetterman has been advocating for. But here’s the deal, right? None of this has to happen. This is all very addressable. I’m a surgeon, I’m not a politician. We take big problems, we focus on them and we fix them. We do it by uniting, by coming together, not dividing. And by doing that we can get ahead. But I’ve got one question to challenge you with. Just one question. If you take what I’m saying to heart, ask yourself this and others in your family, are you unhappy with where America’s headed? I am. And if you are as well that I’m the candidate for change.
(55:22)
I’m a living embodiment of the American dream. I believe we’re the land of opportunity, the land of plenty. I believe we can balance a budget without recklessly spending. I believe we can have an unleashed energy policy that helps us all. I believe that we can have safe city streets and a secure border so legal immigrants can come across, but you shut the fentanyl out. I believe we can give parents choice in where their kids go to school. We can have affordable healthcare. But most of all, I believe in you. And if you can do this together and we can, I would ask for your vote on Election Day. God bless you.
We do have one final question. An important issue in Pennsylvania. The eyes of the state are on this debate tonight, but on Sunday they will be on Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia as the state’s two NFL teams go head to head, Mr. Fetterman, Steelers or Eagles. And why?
Gentlemen, thank you both so much. This does conclude our debate. We do want to thank our candidates for being with us, Mr. Fetterman and Mr. Oz, and for all of you at home who have been watching, thank you so much.
And we want to thank our team at WHTM for hosting us at their studios tonight. Remember, voters on Election Day is just two weeks from today on Tuesday, November 8th. Thanks for being with us and have a great night.
1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter – 10/28/80
Above is the video of the complete debate. Below is the 9th part of the transcript that deals with the closing statements of both candidates. This segment begins at 1:28 minute mark.
MR. SMITH: Gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. President Carter, you’re first.
MR. CARTER: First of all, I’d like to thank the League of Women Voters for making this debate possible. I think it’s been a very constructive debate and I hope it’s helped to acquaint the American people with the sharp differences between myself and Governor Reagan. Also, I want to thank the people of Cleveland and Ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. I’ve been President now for almost four years. I’ve had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. I’ve seen the strength of my nation, and I’ve seen the crises it approached in a tentative way. And I’ve had to deal with those crises as best I could. As I’ve studied the record between myself and Governor Reagan, I’ve been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. I think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of Presidents who served before me. The United States must be a nation strong; the United States must be a nation secure. We must have a society that’s just and fair. And we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. I believe that since I’ve been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. In each case, I alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. I’ve done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness; sometimes consulting experts. But, I’ve learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. And the final judgment about the future of the nation – war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern – has to be made by the man in the Oval Office. It’s a lonely job, but with the involvement of the American people in the process, with an open Government, the job is a very gratifying one. The American people now are facing, next Tuesday, a lonely decision. Those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. And I think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. If one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, John Kennedy would never have been President of this nation. And if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, Hubert Humphrey would have been President; Richard Nixon would not. There is a partnership involved in our nation. To stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. I ask the American people to join me in this partnership.
MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, I would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the League of Women Voters for making these debates possible. I’m sorry that we couldn’t persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. But still, it’s good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. Next Tuesday is Election Day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn’t have to be in the shape that it is in. We do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. We talk about the unemployment lines. If all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from New York City to Los Angeles, California. All of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. I have not had the experience the President has had in holding that office, but I think in being Governor of California, the most populous state in the Union – if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world – I, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. I know that the economic program that I have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. I know because we did it there. We cut the cost – the increased cost of government – in half over the eight years. We returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits and cuts to our people. We, as I have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. And I know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. I would like to have a crusade today, and I would like to lead that crusade with your help. And it would be one to take Government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that I know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. Thank you.
I have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
In his book Reasonable Faith, Craig claims that if purpose is not “ultimate,” it is worthless. “If each person passes out of existence when he dies,” he asks, “then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life?” He replies with the nonsequitur, “Thus, if there is no God, then life itself becomes meaningless. Man and the universe are without ultimate significance.” How does it follow that if there is no “ultimate significance,” life is meaningless? Craig doesn’t make the connection. He seems to be confusing meaning with “ultimate meaning” (whatever that is). He thinks we are hammers. This is very much like Rick Warren conflating the two different usages of purpose. Purpose and meaning scurry through Craig’s book like greased piglets. He never defines purpose (as I do) or meaning (as I will in the final chapter). He sloppily treats them as synonyms. Neither does he directly define absurd: “For if there is no God, then man’s life becomes absurd.” What does absurd mean? “It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.”25 So life is absurd if there is no ultimate meaning, but life lacks meaning because without God it is absurd. He is talking in a circle. According to believers like Craig who are unhappy with blunt reality, life needs to be more than it is, otherwise it is absurd, and since we can’t possibly allow life to be absurd, then life must be more than it is! As an atheist, I think that is absurd.
I had an interesting correspondence with Dr. John Hospers on this very subject and let me share some of our discussion:
Here is a link to an interesting article by John Hospers on his presidential race in 1972.
I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link. Over the last few weeks I have posted portions of Dr. Hospers’ letter and portions of the cassette tape that he listened to back in 1994, but today I want to look at some other comments made on that cassette tape that John Hospers listened to and I will also post a few comments that Dr. Hospers made in that 2 page letter.
Kansas – Dust in the Wind (Official Video)
—
Francis Schaeffer answered a similar question. Here is the question:
Last week one the points you developed concerning the evolutionary view and you insisted that the perspective of life that is based on man being produced by time and chance is one that only lead to despair. I can visualize that some could respond to this that there is no need for despair because there are still pleasures to life. One can still enjoy life even though man is really insignificant in the whole movement of the cosmos.
Francis Schaeffer answers:
What I would say is that we can live in a small, small area and we can enjoy life, but when we begin to think we are thrown into this problem. We can say why don’t we just live and forgot all these BIG QUESTIONS and the serious cinema like Ingmar Bergman, Fellini and Antonioni. However, we are not allowed to forget all these BIG questions. In reality these are the very things on which our lives are based. We are being totally infiltrated with the whole concept of the uniformity of natural cause in a closed system and totally infiltrated with the concept that man is mechanical and that man is only a machine and if we don’t have a North Star to keep our balance then either we or our children will be sweep away. Even if we don’t ask the big questions then our children and others around us will!!!! We will be forced to face the results of these big questions. Rather than being a meaningless exercise to consider these questions in reality these are the most important questions we can ask for ourselves and for our children.
There are two ways to consider the question of propositional revelation and infallibility. The first is through consideration of the presuppositions involved; the second is through consideration of the detailed problems. This article will deal with the first. However, until the first is in place, the second cannot be sensibly pursued.
To modern man, and much modern theology, the concept of propositional revelation and the historic Christian view of infallibility is not so much mistaken as meaningless. It is so in the same way, and for the same basic reasons, that for most modern men and most modern theology the concept of sin and guilt, in any real moral sense, is meaningless. But, of course, one must ask if their presupposition is the proper and adequate one.
The Christian presupposition is that there was a personal beginning to all things—someone has been there and made all the rest. This someone would have to be big enough, and this means being infinite. One still has the question of the personal-infinite someone always having been there; but if this were the case, the other problems would no longer exist. And everyone has to explain the fact that the universe and he, the individual, does exist; thus, something has “been there.”
Now if this personal-infinite someone always having been there is the case, everything else would be limited in contrast to his own enough-ness, or infiniteness. But just suppose that he made something limited, but on his own wavelength—let’s say in his own image—then one would have both an infinite, noncreated Personal and a limited, created personal. On this presupposition, the personality of the limited, created personal would be explained. On this same presupposition, why could not the noncreated Personal communicate to the created personal if he wished? Of course, if the infinite, uncreated Personal communicated to the finite, created personal, he would not exhaust himself in his communication; but two things are clear here:
Francis Schaeffer invites readers into a deeper understanding of the philosophical issues that plague the post-modern world by investigating the Christian perspective of who they are, who God is, and how they know what they know.
Even communication between one created person and another is not exhaustive; but that does not mean that for that reason it is not true. Thus, the problem of communication from the uncreated Personal to the created personal would not have to be of a qualitatively different order from the communication between one created personal being and another. It would not be exhaustive, but that would not make it untrue, any more than the created-person to created-person communication would be untrue, unless the uncreated Personal were a liar or capricious.
If the uncreated Personal really cared for the created personal, it could not be thought unthinkable for him to tell the created personal things of a propositional nature; otherwise, as a finite being, the created personal would have numerous things he could not know if he just began with himself as a limited, finite reference point.
In such a case, there is no intrinsic reason why the uncreated Personal could only communicate some vaguely true things, but could not communicate clear propositional truth concerning the world surrounding the created personal—let’s say, truth about the cosmos. Or why he could not communicate propositional truth concerning the sequence that followed the uncreated Personal’s original creation—let’s call that history. There is no reason why he could not communicate these two types of propositions. The communication would not be exhaustive, but can we think of any reason why it would not be true?
The above is, of course, what the Bible claims for itself concerning propositional revelation.
If the uncreated Personal wished to give these communications through individual created personalities in such a way that they would write (in their own individual style, etc.) the exact things the uncreated Personal wanted them to write in the areas of religious truth and things of the cosmos and history—then by this time it is impossible to make an absolute and say that he could not or would not. And this, of course, is the Bible’s claim concerning inspiration.
How God Communicates
Within this framework, why would it be unthinkable that the noncreated Personal should communicate with the created personal in verbalized form, if the noncreated Personal made the created personal a language-communicating being? And we are (even if we do not know why) language-communicating beings. There is only one reason to rule out as unthinkable the fact that Jesus gave a propositional communication to Saul in verbalized form in the Hebrew language, using normal words and syntax (Acts 26:14), or that God did so to the Jews at Sinai—that is, to have accepted the other set of presuppositions—even if, by using religious terminology, one obscures that one has accepted the naturalistic presuppositions.
Now one may obscure what one has done in accepting naturalistic presuppositions by using religious terminology and saying or implying, “Jesus (without in this case having any way to know what or who that really is) gave to Saul some form of a first-order, noncontentful experience, in which the words used in the biblical text to express this inexpressible are just words which reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current.” If one does this, however, one is left with a faith which is equivalent to saying, “I believe . . .” without ever finishing, or being able to finish, the sentence—or even knowing if a definite or an indefinite article comes next in the sentence.
Further, if the noncreated Personal placed the communication he gave man in a book of history, why would it then be unlikely that the noncreated Personal would communicate truly concerning the space-time history in that book? How strange that if the noncreated Personal is not a liar or capricious, that he should give “religious truth” in a book in which the whole structural framework, implicitly and explicitly, is historic, and yet that history be false or confused. Surely, except on the preconceived presupposition that that book can only be “man feeling upward” within the framework of the uniformity of natural causes, such an idea would be peculiar beyond measure. This is especially so, as the book itself gives no indication of two levels; it gives no indication of a “religious truth” out of contact with the history in the book. It repeatedly appeals to the history open to verification as a proof of the truth of what is given; and it gives no indication of the enveloping space-time history being only so much errorconditioned incrustation.
Why could not the noncreated Personal teach the created personal truly on the level of knowledge which is the basis of so much of what we know on the created personal level: namely, one who knows, telling one who does not know—not exhaustively, yet truly? Surely this is how we have our knowledge from other created personal sources. Further, why could not the noncreated Personal also tell about Himself truly (though not exhaustively)—unless we have already accepted the presupposition that that which is the “noncreated” must be the “philosophic other.” If we begin with a noncreated Personal creating man in His own image, what rules out the statement of the Westminster Larger Catechism that God made known to us, through the Scripture, what God is? Is there any reason why the noncreated Personal could not so tell us truly about Himself, though not exhaustively?
Dealing with the Nonsense Connotation
By this stage, two things should be obvious: first, that from the presupposition that all things started from mass or energy, the idea of either revelation or infallibility is unthinkable; and second, that from the presupposition of a personal beginning, these ideas are not unthinkable or nonsense at all. The reasonableness of the matter thus rests totally on which way one begins—that is, on which presupposition one adopts at the outset.
The Christian presupposition is that there was a personal beginning to all things—someone has been there and made all the rest.
If one starts with the impersonal everything, then the question naturally has nothing to do with even the possibility of an uncreated Personal communicating to a created personal; that, from the premise, is nonsense. Yet if one does begin with a nonpersonal everything, there is a question that now really shouts: Is not manto-man communication equally nonsense?
With this presupposition no one has discovered a way to find meaning either in man’s speaking to man or in man’s hearing, except through an act of faith against his whole basic presuppositional structure. Worse yet, for those who hold this other presupposition, the little men (I and the others) are not content to think that they do not speak meaningfully; and furthermore everything in experience convinces us that the others hear truly, though not exhaustively.
By this time, is this not something like a Francis Bacon painting? One must scream, but the whole situation is a lostness and a damnation, including the scream.
Well now, in the light of this total confusion to which the other presupposition (the impersonal + time + chance) leads us, the presupposition of a personal beginning is worth another very careful look. If everything did begin with that uncreated Personal beginning, then neither communication from the created personal to the created personal, nor from the noncreated Personal to the created personal is unthinkable. Nor is it even intrinsically unlikely.
The importance of all this is that most people today (including some who still call themselves evangelical) who have given up the historical and biblical concept of revelation and infallibility have not done so because of the consideration of detailed problems objectively approached, but because they have accepted, either in analyzed fashion or blindly, the other set of presuppositions. Often this has taken place by means of cultural injection, without their realizing what has happened to them.
Having accepted the other presupposition against the evidence of true, though not exhaustive, man-to-man communication, I wonder what would make them listen? It is strange to communicate the concept that one rejects the concept of a noncreated Personal “being there,” when there is no way then to know the how, why, or what of communication with my own kind. And the strangeness continues if one says that it is unreasonable per se to consider the fact of the noncreated Personal being there, when that would explain the how, why, and what of the communication I do have with my own kind!
Having come to this point, we are in a position to consider the detailed problems—the so-called “critical problems.” But the historic view of the Bible and of the Church about revelation and infallibility is no longer nonsense per se; and even most of the detailed problems look very different once the nonsense connotation is dealt with.
Francis A. Schaeffer(1912–1984) authored more than twenty books, which have been translated into several languages and have sold millions globally. He and his wife, Edith, founded the L’Abri Fellowship international study and discipleship centers. Recognized internationally for his work in Christianity and culture, Schaeffer passed away in 1984 but his influence and legacy continue worldwide.
In another letter I wrote about Francis Schaeffer’s experience when he compares it to King Solomon in ECCLESIASTES:
Ecclesiastes 1:2-11;3:18-19 (Living Bible): 2 In my opinion, nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile. 3-7 For what does a man get for all his hard work?Generations come and go, but it makes no difference.[b] The sun rises and sets and hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south and north, here and there, twisting back and forth, getting nowhere.* The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full, and the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea . .everything is unutterably weary and tiresome. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied; no matter how much we hear, we are not content. History merely repeats itself…For men and animals both breathe the same air, and both die. So mankind has no real advantage over the beasts; what an absurdity!
—-
Here is a portion of Hospers’ June 2, 1994 letter to me that refers to the song DUST IN THE WIND specially to his message that WE ARE JUST DUST IN THE WIND ultimately:
Then follows one of the countless non sequiturs in your missive: IF LIFE HAS MEANING BECAUSE OF RELATIONSHIPS, DOES LIFE HAVE ETERNAL MEANING ONLY IF WE HAVE ETERNAL RELATIONSHIPS?
First, does life have meaning only because of relationships? with whom? are animals included? books? anyway, why should life be MEANINGFUL only because of relationships? A very doubtful premise.
Second, nothing follows from this about ETERNAL RELATIONSHIPS, as any elementary student of logic knows. Why should relationships be eternal? Our lives can have profound meaning thru various activities and relationships; why do they have to be eternal? Why is it so uncomfortable for you to realize that all things pass? They are none the less real and noble because they are temporary. In another couple of thousand years. the earth will undergo another ice age; in another 6 billion years the sun will be extinguished and life on earth no longer possible. That’s just a fact; can’t you face facts? why do you have to spin fancies to feed your wishes, and make things other than they are? Can’t you take reality straight? The child demands the universe to be as he wishes it; I would think we would get over that delusion by the time we become adults.
I sent Dr. John Hospers a cassette tape that started off with this song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life. FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.
Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. DAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
Kerry Livgren of the rock group KANSAS and writer of the song DUST IN THE WIND
Kansas in the 1970s, from left: Kerry Livgren, Phil Ehart, Rich Williams, Robby Steinhardt, Steve Walsh and Dave Hope.
Kerry Livgren/Dave Hope: 700 Club Interview (Kansas) Part 1
Francis Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…
1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer
—-
THEODORE GÉRICAULT (1791-1824)
Key figure in romanticism, revolutionary in his life and works despite his bourgeois origins. In his masterpiece, “The raft of the Medusa”, Gericault creates a painting that we can define as “politically incorrect”, as it depicts the miseries of a large group of castaways abandoned after the shipwreck of a French naval frigate
—
JAMES ABBOT MCNEILL WHISTLER (1834-1903)
Along with Winslow Homer, the great figure of the American painting of his time. Whistler was an excellent portraitist, which is shown in the fabulous portrait of his mother, considered one of the great masterpieces of the American painting of all time
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
“”Do not forsake your own friend or your father’s friend…””
“”Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.””
(Proverbs 27:6,9-10,17)
In 1993, after I watched a godly man close to me take a serious moral fall, I realized that if he could fall, so could I. I needed some friends who knew me deeply, would look me in the eye regularly and ask me the hard questions, and who would persevere in holding me accountable.
I called three men who were pastor buddies. To be honest, my purpose in inviting these men together that first year was actually more utilitarian than relational. I needed them. We were close, but I never dreamed what would develop over the next 20 years. They would become my most treasured friends.
OUR FIRST RETREAT
…lasted for three days that first year and we got completely honest with each other. I designed a simple self-evaluation tool that looked at each area of our lives. We filled this sheet out privately and then openly shared about each area. We realized that if this was to work we must be completely transparent. And…we ate together and played a little, very poor golf together.
Over the last 20+ years we have met annually for this 3-day retreat. And increasingly more and more often during the years we have gathered to check each other’s spiritual, emotional, and physical health. We have pushed each other, rebuked each other, challenged each other and counseled with biblical counsel.
We have cried together and laughed together. We have prayed together and played together. What started with a single round of golf evolved to three days of golf and hours of prayer and sharing in our retreats. Our golf has become a bell curve. It began with 18 holes and evolved to 36 holes a day for three days for several years…and now has gradually returned to 18 holes a day…and some days we don’t even want to do that! But as our golf has become weaker, our friendship has grown stronger.
Recently, at my 97-year old father’s memorial service (the one who unknowingly began these friendships), I looked up and there were my three buddies. Although I didn’t ask, if I had thought about it I would have known they would be there. But seeing them reminded me once again of the rich man I have become. Other than my family, these three men have been the fullest relational treasure of my life. No money could buy what our deep affection affords. And, the model of their friendship has changed every other friendship in my life. I have many, many friendships now.
GOD’S INTENT
…is for us to have such relationships. In the beginning it took perseverance to get these men together for a concentrated time. One of our guys was the best about calling us often and making sure we were all connected. He is our relational bulldog. Another is the most disciplined man we know, challenging us to continually take fresh steps in every area of our lives. Another is our greatest intercessor. Over twenty years he never entered his Sunday pulpit without first praying for the rest of us, and our children, by name. Our families have been carried by his intercession. And another continually pushes us to love Jesus and each other more deeply.
ONLY HEAVEN KNOWS
…where my life would have been without the accountability of these friends. Right now in America, 50 men leave the pastorate every single day. The pressures and temptations are intense. What began for me as a necessity has grown to a priceless treasure that I nurture now, not by duty, but by genuine Jonathan-David love.
TO HAVE A FRIEND
…you must be a friend. Friendships, it seems to me, must be cultivated. You must work hard at times to make them grow. The best relationships are fueled by intense honesty. Some men are not ready for their lives to be openly scrutinized (and even rebuked at times). But if you will pursue friendships and be the best friend someone else has ever had, the reward is overwhelming.
If you love everybody but have no deep relationships, re-evaluate your life. Make your ambition this year, along with all you do, to connect with 2-3 other men on a deeper level. Take a retreat. Tell them your intent. Work hard at this accountability and do not let go. And pray that true friendships will develop.
“”HISTORY IS CHANGED
…among friends,”” my good friend, Bob Bakke often says. And he’s right. However God desires you to be a change agent in this world will be dramatically enhanced by friendships. That simple statement has made me more intentional the last years in developing—not just acquaintances or ministry partners—but real friends.
I don’t know if I’m very good at it. And my selfishness often gets in the way, but the older I become the more I relish friendships. Even among my staff and Elders, I want us to be a team of men who love each other and will live and die for one another. Friendship will take you light years farther than utilitarian business or ministry relationships and will make it a lot more enjoyable along the way.
I know some pastors who disagree with this approach, but it seems biblical to me and has proven true in my life. And, without question, the greatest Friend, who was willing to give His life for His friends, modeled this. He loved his closest friends—even unto death—even when they did not know how to love Him.
I DON’T KNOW
…what my life will ultimately accomplish for God’s glory. But I do know this: it has been richer and deeper because of the gift—the cultivated, but blessed gift—of some real friends. And, I’m a very, very grateful man
As water reflects the face, so one’s life reflects the heart. — Proverbs 27:19
While chasing prey, cheetahs can run about 60 miles per hour, but only in short spurts. This fast cat’s speed is limited to sprints because of its small heart. Endurance at that speed would require a larger heart.
The Christian’s life of obedience calls for endurance. It cannot afford the “heart condition” of a small heart, possibly engaging only in a spurt now and then. Proverbs talks about a person’s life as a reflection of his or her heart.
Talking about someone’s “heart condition” and how it shows in their life, one might ask, “How big-hearted is he?” or “Does she have the heart for it?”
A physical heart condition may prevent someone from strenuous activity, but a spiritual heart condition is more dangerous.
For example, if we have a heart condition that makes us miserly, we are not apt to share from the abundance we have been given. On the other hand, a heart condition that leads to sharing the joy of Jesus, who lives in our hearts, gives us the stamina for a life of faithful obedience.
Who or what has your heart? Remember, we should “have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). Filled with his unconditional love, we’ll have a large, well-conditioned heart!
Prayer
Faithful Father, thank you for people in our lives who demonstrate hearts of compassion and obedience. Grant us the largeness of heart to be what you want us to be. In Jesus’ name, Amen. vin
27 Don’t brag about tomorrow, since you don’t know what the day will bring.
2 Let someone else praise you, not your own mouth— a stranger, not your own lips.
3 A stone is heavy and sand is weighty, but the resentment caused by a fool is even heavier.
4 Anger is cruel, and wrath is like a flood, but jealousy is even more dangerous.
5 An open rebuke is better than hidden love!
6 Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.
7 A person who is full refuses honey, but even bitter food tastes sweet to the hungry.
8 A person who strays from home is like a bird that strays from its nest.
9 The heartfelt counsel of a friend is as sweet as perfume and incense.
10 Never abandon a friend— either yours or your father’s. When disaster strikes, you won’t have to ask your brother for assistance. It’s better to go to a neighbor than to a brother who lives far away.
11 Be wise, my child,[a] and make my heart glad. Then I will be able to answer my critics.
12 A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
13 Get security from someone who guarantees a stranger’s debt. Get a deposit if he does it for foreigners.[b]
14 A loud and cheerful greeting early in the morning will be taken as a curse!
15 A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. 16 Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands.
17 As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend.
18 As workers who tend a fig tree are allowed to eat the fruit, so workers who protect their employer’s interests will be rewarded.
19 As a face is reflected in water, so the heart reflects the real person.
20 Just as Death and Destruction[c] are never satisfied, so human desire is never satisfied.
21 Fire tests the purity of silver and gold, but a person is tested by being praised.[d]
22 You cannot separate fools from their foolishness, even though you grind them like grain with mortar and pestle.
23 Know the state of your flocks, and put your heart into caring for your herds, 24 for riches don’t last forever, and the crown might not be passed to the next generation. 25 After the hay is harvested and the new crop appears and the mountain grasses are gathered in, 26 your sheep will provide wool for clothing, and your goats will provide the price of a field. 27 And you will have enough goats’ milk for yourself, your family, and your servant girls.
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Tagged Gene Bartow, John Wooden | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. It is tough to guard your […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. What does it mean to fear […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 4-6 | Solomon’s Dissatisfaction Published on Sep 24, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 23, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider ___________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. _______________________ Tom Brady ESPN Interview Tom Brady has famous wife earned over 76 million dollars last year. However, has Brady found lasting satifaction in his life? It does not […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Adrian Rogers: How to Be a Child of a Happy Mother Published on Nov 13, 2012 Series: Fortifying Your Family (To read along turn on the annotations.) Adrian Rogers looks at the 5th commandment and the relationship of motherhood in the commandment to honor your father and mother, because the faith that doesn’t begin at home, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular humanist man […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Adrian Rogers – How to Cultivate a Marriage Another great article from Adrian Rogers. Are fathers necessary? “Artificial insemination is the ideal method of producing a pregnancy, and a lesbian partner should have the same parenting rights accorded historically to biological fathers.” Quoted from the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, summer of 1995. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net ________________ Obviously from the video clip above, Tom Brady has realized that even though he has won many Super Bowls […]
26 Honor is no more associated with fools than snow with summer or rain with harvest.
2 Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse will not land on its intended victim.
3 Guide a horse with a whip, a donkey with a bridle, and a fool with a rod to his back!
4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.
5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.
6 Trusting a fool to convey a message is like cutting off one’s feet or drinking poison!
7 A proverb in the mouth of a fool is as useless as a paralyzed leg.
8 Honoring a fool is as foolish as tying a stone to a slingshot.
9 A proverb in the mouth of a fool is like a thorny branch brandished by a drunk.
10 An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots at random.
11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.
12 There is more hope for fools than for people who think they are wise.
13 The lazy person claims, “There’s a lion on the road! Yes, I’m sure there’s a lion out there!”
14 As a door swings back and forth on its hinges, so the lazy person turns over in bed.
15 Lazy people take food in their hand but don’t even lift it to their mouth.
16 Lazy people consider themselves smarter than seven wise counselors.
17 Interfering in someone else’s argument is as foolish as yanking a dog’s ears.
18 Just as damaging as a madman shooting a deadly weapon 19 is someone who lies to a friend and then says, “I was only joking.”
20 Fire goes out without wood, and quarrels disappear when gossip stops.
21 A quarrelsome person starts fights as easily as hot embers light charcoal or fire lights wood.
22 Rumors are dainty morsels that sink deep into one’s heart.
23 Smooth[a] words may hide a wicked heart, just as a pretty glaze covers a clay pot.
24 People may cover their hatred with pleasant words, but they’re deceiving you. 25 They pretend to be kind, but don’t believe them. Their hearts are full of many evils.[b] 26 While their hatred may be concealed by trickery, their wrongdoing will be exposed in public.
27 If you set a trap for others, you will get caught in it yourself. If you roll a boulder down on others, it will crush you instead.
28 A lying tongue hates its victims, and flattering words cause ruin.
Bill Elliff
Proverbs 26
Proverbs 26:11 (ASV)As a dog that returneth to his vomit, [So is] a fool that repeateth his folly.
The true follower of Christ will do precisely what their name implies: they follow. This means, of course, that throughout their lives, God will take them to new destinations. They will go away from some habits, places, relationships, etc., and toothers.
THE BACKWARD PULL
But it is tempting, at times, to go back. The Israelites, traveling to the Promised Land, were tempted in a moment of need to return to the “leeks and onions” of Egypt. Jesus in the New Testament reminded his followers that “no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). The wise writer of Proverbs says such a turn is often like a “dog returning to his vomit.”
One fall, our church experienced a miraculous step of faith by hundreds of families to begin to give at a new level of generosity, starting with the tithe. I have thought this morning at the temptation that came, as the New Year began a few months later, of slipping back from this resolve. How easy, in this particular area, to slide back into Egypt. To slip out of faith. To turn back.
This is just one of many areas where we will be tempted to go back to the familiar.
ABRAHAM’S RESOLVE
“The Lord had blessed Abraham in every way,” Genesis 24:1 records. The reason? When God spoke, Abraham followed in faith. God had led a trusting man into the land of blessings, and he was experiencing the fruits of that journey.
And now, close to death, he is seeking a bride for his son, Isaac. He tells his servant to return to his old homeland to find a wife. His servant asked the very practical question: “Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?” (Vs. 5).
Abraham’s response is immediate and strong: “Beware that you do not take my son back there!” (Vs. 6). He says this in the most robust language. God had given the land of promise to him and “to (his) descendants,” and that same God, Abraham said, would provide a wife for his son. But then he says again, “Only do not take my son back there!” (Vs.8)
Abraham knew the depth of faith and resolve it took for him to get up and follow God into the promised land years before. He also knew how easy it would be to slide back into the familiar: the old ways, old relationships, and ancient paths.
BEWARE AND BE STRONG!
Perhaps you are being called by some naive friend (or demonic enemy in disguise) to fall back into the familiar old ways. Old habits, old pleasures, old relationships, old doubts, old disobediences. Do not give in! Stand strong and firm following Christ into the new ways and lands He has taken you. The lands that were gained by faith.
Father, thank You that when we walk with You, we are going somewhere. You lead us from lesser ways to greater ways. From not having Your presence, into Your presence. From not serving you and others to serving You and others faithfully. Help me today to resist the devil who would tempt me to turn back to my old life. Give me the courage to say “No” and the grace to take each successive step in faith with You.
Adrian Rogers: How to Answer a Skeptic [#1534] (Audio)
How To Answer A Skeptic
Sermon Summary by Bro. Adrian Rogers
We live in a day of accelerating skepticism, humanism and scientism. We as Christians
are going to be ridiculed and made to look ignorant and uneducated because we believe
in God. Do we have sound reason for believing what we believe? Are we not worthy of
real, honest thought? How do you respond to this skepticism in this day and age in
which we live?
The Bible tells us how to respond to skeptics in 1 Peter 3:10-17, especially verse 15
which states, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an
answer to every man who ask you to give a reason of the hope that is in you, with
meekness and fear.” (As a believer, you must understand what you believe and why we
are Christians, and then be able to explain your beliefs humbly, thoughtfully,
reasonably, and biblically.)
Often we are told to keep the faith, but not only should we keep it but we need to give
it away. If you have no desire to give it away, you ought to give it up, because what you
have is not the real thing. Any man that has been born of the spirit of God, has an innate
desire to share his faith with others.
There are two things that must be true of you before you are ready to share your faith
with anybody. First, you must be Real. You are to have a full-hearted, burning,
compassionate, overflowing love for God. You are to be a zealot for the Lord Jesus.
Yours is to be a full faith, a fearless faith. Don’t let anybody intimidate you because you
are a Christian. They can hurt you but they cannot harm you, therefore don’t be afraid.
Second you must be Ready. When you live a Christian lifestyle, people will start asking
questions about you when they see something in you that cannot be explained. They
are going to want to know why you believe what you believe and why you act the way
you act. Do you know how to respond to a skeptic? There are four basic ideas to
remember as you respond to this skeptical age: 1) Forego the Folly of Fools – Some skeptics are fools, not all but some. In the Bible,
fool means someone who is morally depraved, not mentally deficient. Don’t
argue with someone who shows himself to be a fool. Give him the mind of God;
tell him what God says then go your way. In Proverbs 26:4 it says, “answer not a
fool according to his folly, less you be like unto him.” Don’t answer him; don’t get
in a debate with a fool. You won’t be able to do much with these type of people.
Also see what Jesus says about this in Mark 6:11. 2) Learn the Limits of Logic – Logic is a valuable tool but it can only carry you so far.
When you get to a chasm that logic can’t leap, then faith will have to fly. The logic
for God is found in creation and design and universal moral beliefs. It is logical to
reason that if we have a creation, we must have a Creator since nothing comes
out of nothing. Also logic tells us that if there is design in nature, there must be a
Designer; and the more complex the design, the greater the designer. The
creation found throughout the earth and universe is immensely complex and
organized. The logic of there being universally held beliefs in a moral law shared
throughout mankind also says there is a god. If anyone ever comes up to you and
says, “Prove there is a god.” Be Bold and say, “I can’t, but can you prove there is
no god?” He’ll say he can’t either. Then if he says “You just think there is a god
because it is just what you believe.” You can say, “I believe there is a god and you
believe there is no god. I have faith that there is, and you have faith that there
isn’t.” What we as Christians believe is reasonable, but it goes beyond reason. 3) Remember the Resource of Revelation –If we are to know a god, he is going to
have to reveal himself to us. The finite can never understand the infinite, unless
the infinite explains himself and reveals himself to the finite. 2 Peter 1:19-21
shows us three things about the word of God: 1) The Inspiration of the word of
God. The Bible is like no other book – it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2) The
Illumination of the word of God. It shines into our hearts – it enlightens us. It
reveals to us what we could not know without it. 3) The Confirmation of the
word of God. We believe not only because of what any other person has said, but
also because of what the Bible has said. The Bible is power whether you believe it
or not. It does not matter what we believe; what matters is what is true. Use the Bible because you know it is true. 4) Fortify the Force of Faith – A Christian with a glowing testimony is worth a library
of arguments. Share what Jesus means to you and what God has done for you
and how He has changed your life. Let Jesus be real to you. Sanctify God in your
heart. Strengthen your faith by staying in contact with God through prayer,
reading and listening to His word, and sharing your faith with other believers as
well as non-believers. Your faith will be as much caught as it will be taught.
Remember 1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready
always to give an answer to everyone who ask you to give a reason of the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear.”
Adrian Rogers: Does a Loving God Believe in Capital Punishment? [#2183] (Audio) Kenneth D. Williams was executed at 11:05 pm in Grady, Arkansas on April 27, 2017. In this post I want to take a short look at Adrian Rogers’ sermon THE BIBLE AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT and then look at the life of Kenneth […]
On 11-15-05 Adrian Rogers passed over to glory and since it is the 10th anniversary of that day I wanted to celebrate his life in two ways. First, I wanted to pass on some of the material from Adrian Rogers’ sermons I have sent to prominent atheists over the last 20 years. Second, I wanted […]
Francis Schaeffer I remember like yesterday hearing my pastor Adrian Rogers in 1979 going through the amazing fulfilled prophecy of Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of the city of Tyre. In 1980 in my senior year (taught by Mark Brink) at Evangelical Christian High School, I watched the film series by Francis Schaeffer called WHATEVER HAPPENED […]
My good friend Rev. Sherwood Haisty Jr. and I used to discuss which men were the ones who really influenced our lives and Adrian Rogers had influenced us both more than anybody else. During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and […]
Clips of Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer from the film “With God on our side” ______________________ I grew up in Memphis going to Bellevue Baptist Church and Adrian Rogers was our pastor and he had a great impact on me. He had a lot to say on the issues of the day and that included […]
______________ Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below: _____________ Milton and Rose Friedman pictured with Ronald Reagan: My heroes in 1980 were the economist Milton Friedman, the doctor C. Everett Koop, the politician Ronald Reagan, the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, the evangelist Billy Graham, and my pastor Adrian Rogers. I have been amazed at how many […]
How can I know the Bible is the Word of God? by Adrian Rogers ________________________ _______________________________________ How can I know the Bible is the Word of God? How Can I Know the Bible is the Word of God? By Dr. Adrian Rogers Overview The historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy of Scripture, along with its life-changing […]
Adrian Rogers: How You Can Be Certain the Bible Is the Word of God [#1725] (Audio) What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God’s Word? Adrian Rogers ___________ I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the Word […]
Adrian Rogers: An Old Testament Portrait of Christ Published on Jan 27, 2014 I own nothing, all the rights belong to Adrian Rogers (R.I.P.) & his website http://www.lwf.org. Story of Abraham is told. ______________________________________ Adrian Rogers: Why I Believe in Jesus Christ Adrian Rogers: The Biography of the King Published on Dec 19, 2012 Series: […]
Adrian Rogers: 3 Truths to pass on to the next generation Published on Feb 7, 2013 Just a few weeks before Glory ___________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: ________________________________ Adrian Rogers, ‘rising star of Memphis,’ elected 35 years ago by David Roach, posted Wednesday, May 21, 2014 (5 months ago) NASHVILLE (BP) — Thousands of […]
and to warn that demographic changes were going to lead to an even-bigger burden of government in the future.would increase fiscal pressure in the median OECD country by nearly 8 percentage points of GDP between 2021 and 2060, and much more in some countries. …governments will need to re-assess long-run fiscal sustainability in the context of higher initial government debt levels…when considering expenditure pressures associated with ageing…, the OECD structural primary balance would deteriorate rapidly and net government debt would more than double as a share of GDP by 2050 (Figure 12).
The Daily Hatch 
