Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attends a rally at the Veterans Memorial Building during the final day of campaigning before the Iowa Caucus in Grinnell, Iowa on January 3, 2008. Iowa will hold its presidential caucus tonight. (UPI Photo/Laura Cavanaugh)
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
Let us resist the evil urge to say it all makes sense — that the Big Huckster would be in that location and that Lucifer would have tabbed him for special responsibilities on account of his gift of gab.
Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.
That’s a little like the first three paragraphs of this column — saying something tacky by the trick of asserting that it would be inappropriate to say the thing being said. Those paragraphs were written only for ironic effect, you see, to make the point of applying Huckabee’s device to himself.
We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.
I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine.
Hell is also necessary because of the nature of man.
Human depravity requires hell. The only just punishment for sin against the eternal God is eternal punishment. God is absolutely perfect and mankind is sinful.
Romans 3:23 states that all are guilty of sin and fall far short of God’s perfect standard.Sinful, unrepentant man cannot stand before a holy and perfect God. In order for God to maintain His perfection and the perfection of heaven, sin must be accounted for. For those who have received the gift of God’s grace, sin has been cleansed by the payment of Christ’s life. Those who have rejected Christ remain guilty of sin. Heaven cannot be a perfect paradise if sin is present. Therefore, man’s sin requires separation from God.
Second, human dignity requires hell. God created us as free moral creatures, and He will not force people into His presence if they do not want to be there. If a person chooses not to be with God in his or her lifetime, He will respect that decision. In Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel because they rejected their savior and thus were not willing to accept the love of God. Christ as Lord of creation could have forced His will on His creatures, but instead respected their decision even though it broke His heart.
My grandfather suffered a stroke as the result of high blood pressure, a high level of cholesterol, and a few other ailments. While in the hospital, the doctors recommended a diet and treatment program. However, he found the diet and treatment not to his liking. The doctor explained the treatment and the ramifications if my grandfather would not change his lifestyle. He chose not to follow the doctor’s prescription. Even though the doctor knew the serious consequences that would follow, he respected my grandfather’s wish and allowed him to return home. In the same way, although God knows the consequences of our choice, He respects our dignity and honors our decision.
Romans 1 states that all have had an opportunity to respond to God’s invitation and are therefore without excuse. Human beings are created in God’s image and are creatures of incredible value. God does not annihilate beings of value even though they rejected His love. Instead He respects their decision, honors their dignity, and allows them to dwell eternally apart from Him as they have chosen.
God’s justice and love plus man’s nature requires a hell.
Notes
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
Huckabee on Bin Laden’s Death: Who Cares How We Did It, This Was a Murderer
As we waited for President Obama to speak at Fort Campbell, Mike Huckabee talked to Neil about how Usama bin Laden’s death went down.
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
So here is what happened: Super-elite American military personnel acting bravely and ably in our national defense shot Osama bin Laden in the side of the face and killed him, then dumped him in the sea.
President Obama credited himself a tad too generously in his announcement of this news to the nation. He spoke too freely of his favorite person, “I.”
Expert underlings gave him information and options on elaborate plans. He chose the most surgical, eschewing a bombing of the compound where, he was advised, there was a 50 percent to 80 percent chance of bin Laden’s presence. Then he gave the go-ahead to a daring night raid that Navy SEALS performed admirably.
That the president would have borne full blame had the raid failed — inside a sovereign and semi-hostile nation at that — is an insufficient excuse for taking too much credit. Great leadership is the art of delegation, of praise for others and of personal understatement. It is self-deference, not self-reference. Bragging should be received, not self-inflicted, and biographical, not autobiographical.
Alas, politicians swarmed like termites from the woodwork to get their names into news releases by which they could leverage some supposed association with this shooting death. Even the state Republican Party headquarters in Little Rock felt a need to make official comment.
At the risk of generalization, let us assume that politicians would not be politicians if they understood the beauty of personal discretion.
But no one — absolutely no one — could possibly compete in the grandstanding sweepstakes with the tacky Floridian, meaning the second-favorite son of Hope, Mike Huckabee.
“Welcome to hell,” Huckabee presumed to say to this dead body, revealing himself, again, as more a tabloid headline than a responsible communicator.
Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.
The doctrine of hell is a very serious thing to Christians, and I think that bringing it into political discussions does make some people laugh. However, it is not a laughing matter. Huckabee really does believe in hell, but I have my doubts about Brummett.
Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.
Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13).The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.
A second reason hell is necessary is that God’s love requires it. Love does not force itself on an individual, but honors the option of rejecting the love of another. Those who do not wish to love God must be allowed not to do so. Forcing oneself upon another is to dishonor the dignity and right of the individual. Those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime, will not be forced to be with Him for all eternity. It is important to understand that heaven is where God dwells and being the Lord of all creation, He is the heart and focus of heaven. His glory fills the entire realm, and inhabitants of heaven will be in His immediate and intimate presence for eternity. One cannot be in heaven and not know the presence of God. Therefore, those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime will not be forced to be in His presence for all eternity. Instead, God will honor their desire and let them dwell apart from Him in hell. Love honors the right of the other person to reject that love.
Third, God’s sovereignty requires hell. If there is no hell, there would be no final victory over evil. If there were no ultimate separation of good from evil, good would not ultimately triumph and God would not be in ultimate control. God declares He will have victory over evil (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and Revelation 20-22). God will defeat evil by quarantining evil and separating it from good eternally.
The biblical teaching on hell fulfills the justice, holiness, and sovereignty of God and remains consistent with His character of love.
Notes
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
We were convinced that it wasn’t so much the conservative Christian vote that catapulted Mike Huckabee to victory in Iowa as his bass playing. Huckabee played bass guitar with his band, Capitol Offense, at the Iowa Republican Party’s Lincoln Unity Dinner in Des
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter, welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
Let us resist the evil urge to say it all makes sense — that the Big Huckster would be in that location and that Lucifer would have tabbed him for special responsibilities on account of his gift of gab.
It would be wrong to say something like that.
I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine.
Why study the doctrine of hell? Very few sermons today are preached on this topic, and most Christians try to avoid the subject. However, this is an important doctrine for Christians to understand especially if we are going to share our faith in the postmodern culture that despises this teaching.
Dr. Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli write:
Of all the doctrines in Christianity, hell is probably the most difficult to defend, the most burdensome to believe and the first to be abandoned. The critic’s case against it seems very strong, and the believer’s duty to believe it seems unbearable. . . . Heaven is far more important than hell, we know much more about it, and it is meant to occupy our mind much more centrally. But in a battle an army must rush to defend that part of the line which is most attacked or which seems the weakest. Though other doctrines are more important than this one, this one is not unimportant or dispensable.{1}
Several critics of Christianity grew up in the church but eventually abandoned the faith, and many of them cite the teaching on hell as a key factor. Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in his work Why I Am Not a Christian:
I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. . . . I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture: and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.{2}
Charles Darwin grew up and was baptized in the Church of England. Despite his rejection of Christianity, he was buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin has pointed to the doctrine of hell as one of the significant reasons for his abandonment of the faith. He stated in his autobiography, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”{3}
I am sure that many of us have friends who find the Bible’s teaching on hell to be offensive and use this doctrine to paint the God of the Bible as a cruel and vindictive being. However, most unbelievers’ attacks of this doctrine are built on a false understanding of hell. Christians also have difficulty defending the justice of hell with the love of God because we lack a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches. In this article, I will present the biblical teaching on hell so that we can present a sound response when challenged.
The Nature of Hell
Hell is basically a place of eternal separation from God. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 states that those without God “will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power.” To be separated from God is to be separated from all that is good. A person in hell is separated from all the joy, love, and meaning for which we were created. Instead of knowing God as a loving father, one will know God as judge (Romans 2: 5-8). That is the attribute of God an unbeliever will know for eternity.
Many, including Christians, believe that God tortures people in hell. However, a significant thing to note is that in the New Testament, hell is not described as a place of torture but rather a place of torment (Luke 16:23-28, Revelation 14:11). Torture is inflicted against one’s will, while torment is self-inflicted by one’s own will. Torment comes from the mental and physical anguish of knowing we used our freedom for evil and chose wrongly. The anguish results from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever away from God and all that is meaningful and joyful. Everyone in hell will know that the pain he or she is suffering is self-induced. The flames of hell are generated by the individual who has rejected God. It is not a place where people are forced against their will to undergo agonizing pain. Unbelievers often use this image to portray God as a cruel and vindictive being. However, the torment of hell comes from the individual who chooses not to love God and now must live with the sorrow of being aware of all that was lost.
One of the most severe punishments leveled on a criminal is the sentence of solitary confinement. One of the reasons this is a feared sentence is that the guilty are left to sit alone in their cells and live with the regret and sorrow of their crimes with no one to comfort or minister to them. Pain comes from within as they wrestle alone with their thoughts and emotions. It must be a horrible realization to see lost forever what could have been.
Such is the anguish of hell. The pain comes from the regret of all that was lost. A person experiences separation from God, the ultimate good. This is why hell is such a horrible place and a horrible choice.
Notes
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1
Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer is easy. Huckabee wants to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wants to call Huckabee a tax fugative, but who can blame him.
Liberals like Brantley and Ernie Dumas want to praise former Arkansas governor Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7%, but that is the reason our state has the highest state income tax in the area (all bordering states have either lower state income taxes or no state income tax).
Is it any suprise that during the last census that the seven states that do not have an income tax grew in population? Arkansas has suffered from bracket creep and in 1929 you had to make 5 times the average wage to pay any state income tax at all, but now over 66% of tax payers in Arkansas pay at least some of their income at the 7% level.
Take a look at all the Milton Friedman clips that I have posted today. These liberals I mentioned above have truly forgotten how powerful the market is if not interferred with by the government.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2
Until Gov. Dale Bumpers raised income-tax rates and other taxes in 1971, Arkansas had by far the lowest per-capita state and local taxes in the United States. Afterward, we were still 50th but within shouting distance of 49th.
(June 2006) Democratic Gov. Dale Bumpers and the General Assembly raised Arkansas’ top income tax rate to “broaden the tax base” in 1971(1). Yet Arkansas’ per capita income, expressed as a percentage of the U.S. total, has barely improved, moving from 71 (1971) to 77.7 percent (2005) over the 34-year period, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The 1971 income tax increase reversed a decades-long strong growth trend and left Arkansas with the highest income tax rate among bordering states (Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).
Income Stagnation: The 1930s
One has to turn to the 1930s-the decade of the Great Depression-to find weaker income growth than in recent years.
Arkansas per capita personal income was 44 percent of the U.S. in 1929, the first year data was compiled in the BEA time series. The Great Depression started that year, and by the time it ended in 1933 Arkansas per capita income had fallen to 41 percent of the U.S. By decade’s end (1939) it had returned to 44 percent.
Growth Decades: The 1940s, 1950s & 1960s
Arkansas per capita income increased as a percentage of the U.S. in the next three decades.
In 1941, at the onset of World War II, Arkansas per capita income was 47 percent of the U.S. It was 59 percent at war’s end in 1945 and again in 1949. It was 56 percent in 1950, 62 percent a decade later in 1960, and 68 percent in 1969. If this growth rate had continued Arkansas would have exceeded 100 percent of the U.S. average in the current decade (2000-2009).
To summarize, Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971.
Anemic Income Growth (1971-2005)
The trend in recent decades is anemic growth in Arkansas per capita personal income. Fiscal policy changes effect economic behavior with a time lag. Arkansas per capita income was 71 percent of the U.S. in 1971 and 76 percent in 1973. Income growth stagnated for the rest of the decade, reaching 77 percent of the U.S. in 1979. It fell to 75 percent in 1989, and was 76 percent in 1999. Today, Arkansas per capita income, at 77.7 percent of the U.S., is barely above its high point of the 1970s.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3
Since its introduction in 1929, Arkansas‘ statutory incometax structure has changed very little. However, due to changes in the economy and in inflation, the real effects of that tax structure have changed substantially. This report looks at the effects that rising incomes and inflation have had on the Arkansasincometax structure. In addition, the report looks at the changing profile of Arkansas taxpayers in recent years, and provides a brief comparison of Arkansas taxes in relation to other states and the federal tax system.
Arkansas‘ IncomeTax Structure: Original and Revised
In 1929 Arkansas became 12th among the states to adopt an individual incometax. The structure contained five rates and net income brackets with a top rate of five percent applying to net income over $25,000. That original structure remained in place until 1971 when a new middle income bracket was added and the rate on net income over $25,000 was increased to 7.0 percent. The rates and brackets revised in 1971 remain in place today. The 1929 original and the revised current tax structure are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Arkansas Individual IncomeTax Structure
1929 Original Net Income Rate first $3,000 1.0% next$3,001 to $6,000 2.0% next$6,001 to $11,000 3.0% next $11,001 to $25,000 4.0% over $25,000 5.0% 1971 Revision (Current) Net Income Rate first $2,999 1.0% next$3,000 to $5,999 2.5% next$6,000 to $8,999 3.5% next$9,000 to $14,999 4.5% next $15,000 to $24,999 6.0% over $25,000 7.0%
Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research.
In 1975, the earliest year for which records on income tax collections by income group is available, only the top 4.0 percent of Arkansas taxpayers would have had any of their income subjected to the top 7.0 percent rate. By 1991, around 66.0 percent of the state’s taxpayers would have had some of their income subjected to this top rate–a rate once reserved for only the highest income earners.
The 1929 tax structure provided for exemptions of $1,500 for a single person and $2,500 for married individuals. In 1947 the state raised the exemption to $2,500 for singles and $3,500 for married persons. In 1957 the personal exemption was converted to a credit of $17.50 for singles and $35.00 for married persons. In 1987 the credits were increased to $20 per person. Finally, in 1991, low income Arkansans were exempted from paying incometax if their gross income did not exceed $5,500 for an individual or $10,000 for a married couple. For most taxpayers, the $20.00 credit remains in effect today.
The Value of Exemptions as a Share of Per Capita Income
Table 2 shows how the value of the personal tax exemption or credit has diminished over time. The figures shown represent the personal exemption or credit for a single individual as a ratio of the per capita personal income in the year in which the credit was first enacted. In 1929, for instance, an individual would have been exempted from any tax until their income reached a level which was equal to 490 percent of the Arkansas per capita income for that year. In 1947 with the first statutory change in the exemption, that individual would have still been exempted up to an amount equal to 340 percent of the per capita income level. By 1957 the value of the exemption (which was changed to a tax credit that year) had declined substantially, falling to 130 percent of per capita income. At the time of the next change in the personal credit (1987), the value of that credit was only 17 percent of the per capita income level. For most taxpayers (all those not officially classified as low income) in 1992, the value of the personal credit was only 13 percent of per capita income.
Table 2 Personal Exemptions and Credits As a Percent of Per Capita Income
Arkansas Year of Value of Per Capita Enactment ExemptionIncome Ratio 1929 $1,500 $ 308 490% 19472,500 737 340% 19571,6001,247 130% 19872,000 11,980 17% 19922,000 15,439 13%
Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research; Per capita personal income data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, unpublished data, April, 1993.
In other words, whereas in the first year of enactment of the incometax, the personal exemption would have allowed an Arkansan to earn almost five times the average per capita income before paying any tax.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4
For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.
The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.
First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.
Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5
1-4 ISLAM -VS- CHRISTIANITY – The Concept of God DEBATE
Last night I was on one side of the house and I heard an argument between my son Wilson and my wife. The argument was over if Osama Bin Laden was going to hell or not. My son said we would not know for sure until we were in Heaven ourselves and did not see him there. He said that Osama could have put his faith in Christ just moments before he died.
My wife said that Osama’s religious faith in Islam could be easily seen by his works and there was little or no chance that he had put his faith in Christ. I could see where both aspects of this issue could be valid talking points, and told them that according to our Christian views they both were making potentially correct statements. (Below you can see that we hold to the traditional Christian views that faith alone in Christ is the road to heaven.) However, I was a little suprised to see this below in the news today.
Part 2 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
Former Arkansas governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Americans and “decent people” have reason to cheer the death Osama bin Laden and told the Al-Qaida leader “Welcome to hell.”
According to Huckabee, “It is unusual to celebrate a death, but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer and terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead.”
Continuing, Huckabee said, “It has taken a long time for this monster to be brought to justice. Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over that the United States will be relentless is tracking down and terminating those who would inflict terror, mayhem and death on any of our citizens.”
Picture of Mike Huckabee
Part 3 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
Just as there are physical laws that govern
the physical universe, so are there spiritual laws
that govern your relationship with God.
God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.
God’s Love
“God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NIV).
God’s Plan [Christ speaking] “I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly”
[that it might be full and meaningful] (John 10:10).
Why is it that most people are not experiencing that abundant life?
Because…
Man is sinful and separated from God.
Therefore, he cannot know and experience
God’s love and plan for his life.
Man is Sinful “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own stubborn
self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken.
This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference,
is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.
Man Is Separated “The wages of sin is death” [spiritual separation from God] (Romans 6:23).
This diagram illustrates that God is holy and man is sinful. A great gulf separates the two. The arrows illustrate that man is continually trying to reach God and the abundant life through his own efforts, such as a good life, philosophy, or religion
-but he inevitably fails.The third law explains the only way to bridge this gulf…
Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin.
Through Him you can know and experience
God’s love and plan for your life.
He Died In Our Place
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
He Rose from the Dead
“Christ died for our sins… He was buried… He was raised on the third day,
according to the Scriptures… He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).
He Is the Only Way to God
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to
the Father but through Me'” (John 14:6).
This diagram illustrates that God has bridged the gulf that separates us from Him by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.It is not enough just to know these three laws…
We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.
We Must Receive Christ “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).
We Receive Christ Through Faith “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God; not as result of works that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8,9).
When We Receive Christ, We Experience a New Birth (Read John 3:1-8.)
We Receive Christ Through Personal Invitation [Christ speaking] “Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him” (Revelation 3:20).
Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting
Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us what He wants us to be.
Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross
for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience.
We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will.
These two circles represent two kinds of lives:
Self-Directed Life S-Self is on the throne -Christ is outside the life -Interests are directed by self, often
resulting in discord and frustration
Christ-Directed Life -Christ is in the life and on the throne S-Self is yielding to Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan -Interests are directed by Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan
Which circle best represents your life?
Which circle would you like to have represent your life?
The following explains how you can receive Christ:
You Can Receive Christ Right Now by Faith Through Prayer
(Prayer is talking with God)
God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude
of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:
Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life.
Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.
Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this
prayer right now, and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.
On this web site:
Copyrighted 2007 by Bright Media Foundation and Campus Crusade for Christ.
All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Permission for use from the publisher,
Campus Crusade for Christ, 375 Highway 74 South, Suite A, Peachtree City, GA 30269
Part 4 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
Would you build the house of your dreams if you didn’t plan to live in it? I wouldn’t, either. But that’s exactly what would be happening if Mike Huckabee had any serious plans of running for president.
Huckabee, for whom I worked as a communications aide in 1997-99, is constructing a $2.2 million, 11,000-square-foot oceanfront mansion in Florida, according to a front page story in last Sunday’s statewide daily. That would seem to be a huge waste of money if he also were planning on spending the last half of this year and all of next slogging through Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the country, and then the next eight years living in the White House…
Huckabee, by contrast, has too many reasons not to want it. Since leaving the Governor’s Mansion and running unsuccessfully for president in 2008, he has parlayed his likable media personality into lucrative book, TV and radio deals. He’s getting rich playing to his strengths.
Meanwhile, running for president means having to overcome his weaknesses, chief among them his inability to raise money. That will be a huge problem in an election cycle when even the losing major party candidate will raise and spend a billion dollars.
Moreover, Huckabee’s record as governor won’t play as well in 2012, when he would start the race as a contender, as it did in 2008, when he never really threatened to win it. In Arkansas, he raised taxes, created a big government-run health care program called ARKids First, and helped release a lot of convicts from prison, including two really bad guys, Wayne Dumond and Maurice Clemmons, who went on to kill people.
That’s not exactly a record that will win the support of the TEA Party – or of big business types who will back candidates like Romney…
Huckabee isn’t lying when he says that he won’t decide until this summer. There is still a part of him that hasn’t shut the door. But he’s leaning strongly enough against the idea that he is comfortable with building this big house.
KATV’s Scott Inman sat down for an extended segment with Gov. Huckabee today on which aired tonight in central Arkansas. In it, he sounds like he is inching closer to a decision to run.
I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.
Where do I stand on this? I think Huckabee will probably not run. I earlier thought that he would run and I knew that he could always come back to Fox later and get his job back.However, I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak the other day and he commented that when people like the liberal President Obama are in control, it makes his job so much more easy. The subjects for the articles are handed to him on a platter by Obama everyday. I think the same is true for Huckabee and his show. In other words, Huckabee is having too good of a time making fun of Obama and he knows he is serving the conservative cause by getting the truth out there on the air every week. Ronald Reagan said that liberalism has always failed whenever it is tried, and Huckabee has an abundance of Obama’s mistakes to make fun of everyday on his show. The comedy material is just too much to say no to!!!!
________________________________________
Taking a Rest
Britain’s Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey, London, during their wedding service. (AP Photo/Anthony Devlin, Pool)
British Prince William unexpectedly took a moment to speak to excited royal fans outside Clarence House in London on Thursday night, on the eve of his wedding to Kate Middleton. (April 28)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty discusses entitlement reform, 2012, and the president’s agenda on Fox & Friends, April 13, 2011.
Two potential Republican Presidential Candidates took off in two different directions recently concerning the budget deal that John Boehner came up with Democratic leaders. Mike Huckabee endorsed it and Tim Pawlenty criticized it. I find myself leaning towards Pawlenty in this case because I really do not appreciate the way they can call $38 billion a cut when actually it is a cut out of the projected growth in government.
The Democrats originally wanted no cuts, then they put 4 billion on the table then 6 billion, then 33 billion before settling on 38 1/2 billion… Now to get more than first offered (by the Democrats) seems a victory to me, but not to some who want it all or nothing. Let me give you a dose of reality. Democrats control 2 of the 3 moving parts of this deal, the Senate and the White House. The Republicans only control the House. You don’t have to be a math major to understand that Republicans will not all they want. We got far more that the President and Harry Reid wanted them to have….The more important battle is going to be about the more bold and ambitious plan crafted by Congressman Paul Ryan which doesn’t trim a few billion, but trillions of dollars of federal spending and then balances the budget in a decade.
Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota who is exploring a presidential bid, said Wednesday that he opposed the spending agreement that was reached late last week between President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner. Even though it averted a government shutdown, Mr. Pawlenty said the $38 billion cuts in this fiscal year were insufficient.
“The more we learn about the budget deal,” Mr. Pawlenty said, “the worse it looks.”
In a statement after the president’s speech, Mr. Pawlenty said the administration’s plan to cut spending “was nothing more than window dressing.” He also used the moment to align himself with other fiscal conservatives and some members of the Tea Party movement who said the deal did not go far enough.
It is the latest rightward move from Mr. Pawlenty, who is scheduled to speak at weekend Tea Party rallies commemorating Tax Day.
Mr. Boehner has been widely praised for his work on the budget agreement that came less than two hours before the government was set to shut down late Friday. He was not mentioned in the statement released by Mr. Pawlenty on Wednesday.
“The fact that billions of dollars advertised as cuts were not scheduled to be spent in any case makes this budget wholly unacceptable,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “It’s no surprise that President Obama and Senator Reid forced this budget, but it should be rejected. America deserves better.”
It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.
(Something below I pulled off the internet)
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Appeal of Masonic Research
Lying nearly forgotten in the archives at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, are the personal papers of John Grimes Walker. Walker was a naval officer who fought in the Civil War – later going on to become an admiral. He was born in New Hampshire, and relocated as a young man to Iowa – his uncle was governor of the state – before attending Annapolis on the eve of war. Wichita State purchased his personal papers at auction in the 1970’s, and the collection – consisting of ten folio-sized boxes – comprised the correspondence and personal stamp collection of the admiral, who was an avid philatelist and by all appearances a faithful correspondent.
But Walker was also at the center of a mystery. During the war, he was the second, and last, captain of the U.S.S. Baron De Kalb, the mysterious Masonic Ironclad.
At a Masonic speaking engagement recently, I came upon a photo of this ship – part of the Union’s brown-water navy – which bore a Masonic emblem between her stacks. I was not aware of any other ship, tank, aircraft or other implement of war so decorated, and I decided to investigate the matter for the Scottish Rite Journal. This post is a preview of that article which will appear in SRJ in the near future.
The U.S.S. Baron De Kalb was named in honor of Baron Johann de Kalb, a German officer who served as a major general in Washington’s Army during the American Revolutionary War and a Freemason. The ship was laid down in 1861 and was originally named the U.S.S. St. Louis. Upon the discovery that another ship, operating off the East coast, had already been named St. Louis, she was re-christened U.S.S. Baron De Kalb September of 1862.
De Kalb was the first “City” class gunboat, a class of ironclads that are sometimes referred to as “Pook turtles” after their designer, Samuel M. Pook. In addition to the De Kalb, the Carondelet, Cincinnati, Louisville, Mound City, Cairo, and Pittsburgh were built and these 500 ton workhorses were the backbone of the Federal river fleet. Armed with two 8 inch smooth bore cannon, four 42 pounder rifles, and seven 32 pounder smooth bores, De Kalb was a formidable foe, but a slow one. Sporting armor plate in excess of 100 tons, her top speed was a stately nine miles an hour. De Kalb saw action on the Tennessee, the Cumberland, the Yazoo, and the Mississippi rivers during her tour of duty before she was finally sunk by a rebel mine below Yazoo City on July 13, 1863.
De Kalb actually had two captains during her brief career. Her first captain, Cmdr. (later Admiral) John Ancrum Winslow (who went on to command the U.S.S. Kearsarge during her famous fight with the C.S.S. Alabama) contracted malaria on the river, and was granted a furlough to return home to recuperate on November 1, 1862. His Masonic affiliation is not known. Her second, and final captain, was John Grimes Walker, at that time a Lieutenant Commander. Preliminary research indicated that no Grand Lodge records existed in Iowa, Maryland, or Washington DC, that prove Walker was a Freemason, and I had come to Wichita in the vain hope that his correspondence would include something, anything, of Masonic significance.
After several hours sorting through stamps and postcards, old letters and financial records, I had very little to show for myself. In the ninth box, however, I came upon a folder bearing the notation “Code book.” Inside the folder was a small notebook about the size of a pack of playing cards, bound in blue leatherette. It was dated July 15th, 1859, and Grimes had written his name on the inside cover.
“That is an old code book,” the reference assistant told me, “probably a military code.”
I looked through it for a moment and then contradicted her.
“It’s not a military code,” I said, “it is a Masonic cipher.” And to prove it, I read off a few of the more innocent sentences which had the effect of a parlor trick. This discovery was of limited value, however. Although I now had proof that Capt. Walker was a Mason, I was still no nearer to any contemporary evidence proving that the mysterious symbol between De Kalb’s stacks was anything to do with Masonry.
The search continues, however; and the astonishment of the reference librarian was a thing of palpable joy.
I feel strongly about getting the 364 million of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding removed since they are the #1 provider of abortions in the USA. I thought the Republicans were going to stick to their guns on getting Planned Parenthood’s funding removed but it did not happen.
Yesterday Mike Huckabee on the Huckabee Show on Fox News made this statement:
The Democrats originally wanted no cuts, then they put 4 billion on the table then 6 billion, then 33 billion before settling on 38 1/2 billion… Now to get more than first offered (by the Democrats) seems a victory to me, but not to some who want it all or nothing. Let me give you a dose of reality. Democrats control 2 of the 3 moving parts of this deal, the Senate and the White House. The Republicans only control the House. You don’t have to be a math major to understand that Republicans will not all they want. We got far more that the President and Harry Reid wanted them to have. Personally I want Planned Parenthood off the federal dole, and I challenge anyone to find a more pro-life person than me, but fight that battle in the spotlight and not attached to a bill that is not really about Planned Parenthood. The more important battle is going to be about the more bold and ambitious plan crafted by Congressman Paul Ryan which doesn’t trim a few billion, but trillions of dollars of federal spending and then balances the budget in a decade.
Mike Huckabee had Todd Young Representative from Indiana on his show and interviewed him about this bold new program he spoke about in the statement above. Here is the clip from YouTube about this subject:
On April 5, 2011, Rep. Todd Young joined House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and other Republicans in rolling out our 2012 budget proposal. Rep. Young introduced the House plan to reform Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance and job training. The plan would save money, give states more flexibility and increase assistance to the neediest Americans.
Also on the Huckabee Show there was an exchange that really points out why Planned Parenthood should be removed completely from any public funding.
Liberal Caroline Heldman, Asst Professor at Occidental College, commented on the last-minute compromise:
I will give the Republicans the grade of an F because they made this about cultural issues and tried to do this back door assault on women under the guise of the budgetary process. I find that to be really unconscionable. Planned Parenthood it is illegal for them to spend any of their funding on abortion. They have a firewall between the 97% of their services that are family planning STI and the 3% that are abortion services.
Greg Gutfeld, host of the Fox News Show “Red Eye,” responded:
It is interesting that no ever brings up abortion. It is like saying that you are for the movie theater but not for showing movies.What do you do at Planned Parenthood. That is what you do. That is the movie that is running at the theater. That is where people go. (To get an abortion) that is the place to go.
The last few weeks former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been all over the news. Of course, the sudden burst of media corresponds to the release of his latest book. But a former governor of a rural state does not get a lot of press for a book release without something more enticing.
Thus, we are subjected to a long and painful tease, hinting that he might run for president again in 2012. In one interview with CBS and pushed out by his political action committee, he said he “very well may” run again. In a media availability at the National Press Club, he said running for president is “very much an option that he is considering” and that he is “seriously and genuinely contemplating it.”
I could list all the quotes but you get the idea. Of course, he is very careful not to go too far, which he admits is motivated by the fact that if he does, he has to give up his multi-million dollar contract with Fox News for his weekly cable talk show as well as his daily radio broadcast with Citadel Media. Just last week, Fox suspended their contracts with both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as they are “serious concerning” running for president.
In this respect, Huckabee is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. But this delicate dance between hinting at a presidential run while maintaining his media empire is becoming increasingly painful to watch.
I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.
He’s found you can say just about anything about Obama and get away with it, while firing up the base.
Much as he likes money, he probably suspects there’s a REAL pot of gold at the end of a presidential rainbow, not to mention all those limos, jets, gifts and perks he loves so much.
Wonder if the campaign HQ will be in his putative home state of Florida? It sure is remarkable how often he and Janet are seen around Arkansas. Does DF&A monitor that sort of thing when people live here but claim residency elsewhere to avoid income taxes.
________________________________________________ I think that Huckabee will run, but will put it off in order to make more money. The funny thing about Brantley’s last sentence is that liberals just can’t have it both ways. They praise Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7% and they get made when wealthy Arkansans leave the state for places like Texas, Tennessee and Florida that do not have a state income tax.
Grande Harvest Wines owner Bruce Nevins discusses the costs, time, and stress the estate tax, also called the death tax, places on his business, and the effect it will have on his family after he dies. It destroys investment in the economy.
Tomorrow I want to get back on my series about the Arizona tragedy being used by the liberals to blame the Republicans for creating an atmosphere of hate where people get hurt physically. However, today I want to drive home this point that liberals seem to stick to their liberal philosophy even if people get hurt financially.
I have wondered why liberals never seem to get the idea of people acting in their own self interest. When taxes are lowered then revenues many times go up because rich investors get out their wallets and invest further in our economy. I will give a perfect example later in this post.
It seems to me that liberals like Max Brantley, John Brummett, Gene Lyons, Pat Lynch, Ernest Dumas, and Mark Pryor seem to agree with President Obama that we should raise taxes for reasons of “fairness” even it hurts our economy.
In this series on the Estate Tax I will be quoting portions of the article “The Economic Case Against the Death Tax,”(Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2010) by Curtis S. Dubay. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Capital is any resource that individuals or businesses use to generate income. Like anything else, when the income accruing to capital is taxed, its price rises and less of it is purchased. Less capital means slower productivity growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. As such, taxes on capital should be minimal or nonexistent. In fact, there is a general consensus among economists that there should be no taxes on capital. The death tax:
Discourages savings and investment.
For those Americans who think that their estates may one day be subjected to the federal death tax, the tax sends a signal that it is better to consume today than invest and make more money in the future. Instead of putting their money in the hands of entrepreneurs or investing more in their own economic endeavors, Americans are encouraged to consume it now rather than pay taxes on it later.
Allan J. Favish wrote a brilliant article (“Obama on Taxes,” Dec 16) in which he showed how President Obama has contradicted himself lately concerning his view on raising taxes on the rich for purposes of “fairness.”
Basically President Obama said in his Democratic Presidential Debate in 2008 that as president he would still raise the capital gain tax even if it lowered the revenue received. Here’s is the transcript from the debate broadcast by ABC News on April 16, 2008 and moderated by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can’t do that for free.
OBAMA: And you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.
And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don’t propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending, unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.
GIBSON: .But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up
OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.
And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well. And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.
_____________________________
Today I am profiling State lawmaker Lane Jean.
Lane was born in Columbia County. He is a graduate of Magnolia High and Southern Arkansas University. Lane’s work experience includes working on his family cattle farm and employed in his father’s (J. L. Jean) logging contractors business.
His government experience spans over 22 years. Lane is currently serving in his 15th year as Mayor of Magnolia, Arkansas. Two terms as a member of the Columbia County Quorum Court. Lane also served four years as a Columbia County Election Commission.
Lane was appointed to a four-year term by then Governor Mike Huckabee to the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. He also served five years on the Southern Arkansas University Board of Trustees. Lane currently serves on the board of Magnolia Economic Development Corporation, President of the Lower Southwest Arkansas Solid Waste Board and a member of the executive board for the Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development District.
Lane’s other business and civic interest includes President of Reeves Land and Timber Company and a Board Members of Farmers Real Estate Corporation. Lane is also a member of the Magnolia Rotary Club and board position on our local WAGE and Adult Education Boards.
Lane is married to the former Judy Leonhard of McNeil, Arkansas. Lane and Judy have two children, Kelli Taylor and Gray Jean. They also have one grandson, Charlie Taylor. Kelli is married to Mark Taylor of Magnolia.
Lane and Judy are members of the Jackson Street Church of Christ in Magnolia, where Lane serves as a Bible school teacher for youth.