Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thank God He Cannot Do Anything!
Heb. 6:18, “that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie. . .”Typically when you ask someone or a group if God can do anything, they immediately say yes. But do we really want God to be able to do anything? If God can do anything then God should be able to tell lies, and if that is the case, how do we know that the Bible is not one big lie by God. Luckily, Hebrews 6:18 tells us otherwise, that God is not able to lie.
1 Samuel 15:29 says, “Furthermore, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not man who changes his mind.” God also appears not to change His mind, which again we should be very happy about. If God could change His mind then maybe He will change His mind about what it takes for salvation. You appear before the Throne of God and He says, “Yeah you accepted Christ and walked a great Christian walk, but I changed my mind and I am sending you to Hell anyway.” That would not be a great moment, but we can rest assured that our God is immutable, and does not change.
I have read in papers and have heard people say that God can do anything, and I know they typically mean it in a positive light, but words matter and we need to be careful how we use them, because our Great God cannot do anything and that is a good thing. It gives us a reassurance in that we can rely on what the Bible tells us about Salvation and our lives here on earth.
Sure God can do anything within His nature, but evil is not part of that, and to say that God can do anything is also to say that God can do evil. How can God be eternal love and evil at the same time? That is not a God that I want to worship, as that would be quite the schizophrenic God.
We know who He is and we are assured of our Salvation through Christ because God cannot change or lie to us. We know we have freedom within His commandments, because He is not going to change the rules and He is not trying to trick us with lies.
The next time someone tells you that God can do anything, remind them that our God cannot do evil and cannot change and we are so thankful for that. It would be a scary thought to think our Savior could be anything but Holy. How could He not be holy, because if He can do anything then He should be able to be unholy. We know He is Holy.
As I said in the beginning, Thank God that He cannot do anything.
Isaiah 6:3, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Anti-Fairness Doctrine
Newsmax.com
Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness DoctrineMonday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PMBy: Dave Eberhart
An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.
The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.
Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”
This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.
The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.
Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.
“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness DoctrineMonday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PMBy: Dave Eberhart
An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.
The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.
Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”
This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.
The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.
Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.
“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
By Joel Rosenberg Posted: 02/17 13:08:34/2009
U.S. To Help Rebuild City Of Babylon In Iraq
Officials hope Babylon can be revived and made ready for a rich future of tourism, with help from experts at the World Monuments Fund (WMF) and the U.S. embassy," reports the Reuters news agency. "'The Future of Babylon' project launched last month seeks to 'map the current conditions of Babylon and develop a master plan for its conservation, study and tourism,' the WMF says. 'We don't know how long it will take to reopen to tourists,' said Mariam Omran Musa, head of a government inspection team based at the site. 'It depends on funds. I hope that Babylon can be reborn in a better image.'"
"Cultural, religious, archaeological, and biblical tourism is a big opportunity for Iraq. I think rebuilding Babylon is a wonderful idea, as long as it is not done at the expense of the antiquities themselves."
U.S. To Help Rebuild City Of Babylon In Iraq
Largely overlooked by the Western news media over the past few weeks was an enormously significant story. The government of Iraq is moving forward with plans to protect the archaeological remains of the ancient City of Babylon, in preparation for building a modern city of Babylon. The project, originally started by the late Saddam Hussein, is aimed eventually at attracting scores of "cultural tourists" from all over the world to see the glories of Mesopotamia's most famous city. What's more, the Obama Administration is contributing $700,000 towards "The Future of Babylon Project," through the State Department's budget."
Officials hope Babylon can be revived and made ready for a rich future of tourism, with help from experts at the World Monuments Fund (WMF) and the U.S. embassy," reports the Reuters news agency. "'The Future of Babylon' project launched last month seeks to 'map the current conditions of Babylon and develop a master plan for its conservation, study and tourism,' the WMF says. 'We don't know how long it will take to reopen to tourists,' said Mariam Omran Musa, head of a government inspection team based at the site. 'It depends on funds. I hope that Babylon can be reborn in a better image.'"In my non-fiction book, Epicenter 2.0, I wrote about the Bible prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation that indicate the ancient city of Babylon in Iraq will, in fact, be rebuilt in the "last days" of history and become the wealthiest and most powerful city on the face of the planet. I also cited my interview with Iraqi Finance Minister Ali Abdul Ameer Allawi who told me in 2006 at the peak of the insurgency,
"Cultural, religious, archaeological, and biblical tourism is a big opportunity for Iraq. I think rebuilding Babylon is a wonderful idea, as long as it is not done at the expense of the antiquities themselves."
For many, I know the rebuilding of Babylon seemed like a far-fetched idea in the Bible. For many more, it seemed like a far-fetched idea in 2006, as well. But skeptics and cynics take note: now that the insurgency is dying down, the Shia-led government of Iraq is actually moving forward with this historic and prophetic project. They say Babylon will be "reborn." And they're right. It will be. Stay tuned.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Just Download It
Romans 2:21, “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?”You’re walking through the mall with your friends and wind up in your favorite clothing store. You find this great pair of jeans, and then look at the price. You tell your friend there is no way that I can afford these. He tells you to just take them, because there is no alarm magnet on it and you deserve them.
“What? Just take them? That is stealing.”
“Don’t worry, they have thousands of pairs and have already made millions off these jeans. They are not going to miss this one pair” he tells you. Then goes on to say, “Think about it, these corporate guys raise the prices and make millions, and those of us that are poor never get the opportunity to own jeans like these, and you deserve them anyway.”
What do you do? Do you take the jeans, because “you” deserve them? They will not miss the jeans in the larger scheme of things, right?
I am praying and guessing that most of the people reading this blog would not take the jeans, because they know stealing is wrong. “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother’” (Mark 10:19).
Then why do we think it is alright then to just download music, books and games from the internet that we know should be paid for in any other circumstance, even on the internet? We have rationalized that it is alright to do it if we can find it on the worldwide web. Is it still stealing? If the musician, author, or game maker has not given their permission for free downloading, then is it not the same as just taking the jeans?
Let’s take it a step further. Maybe you are trying to do ministry in a very poor country that cannot afford the same ministry tools as you. Is it alright then to download the material for the cause of Christ? Or is it another rationale? While in Rome, right? If the country lives off of piracy, then it is alright? If you cannot afford it then, why not? No one is going to find out here, and these people would never be able to buy it anyway, so in reality they are not losing any potential customers.
The Internet has given us a whole new set of potentials as it pertains to the old commandment of not stealing. What do we do? What would you do or suggest to someone?
1 John 2:16, “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.”
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Stimulus Package
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDailyStimulus containsrationed medicine'Safe, effective' treatmentssoon to be limited by 'cost'
Posted: February 09, 20099:29 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
The former lieutenant governor of New York is warning that the $50 billion that President Obama expects to spend in the next few years on a nationwide digital health records system for every individual easily could, and probably will, result in rationed medical care.
WND recently reported on a little-discussed provision in Obama's plan that would demand every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, raising alarms for privacy advocates.
They said patients might be startled to discover documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
Now Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor in New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has released a commentary warning about the likelihood of rationed care – or a health care system that simply provides treatment when it determines the cost-benefit ratio for the treatment and the patient meets its guidelines.
A report in the Indian Express Finance suggested Obama plans to spend $50 billion "over five years" to create and use a system of electronic health records for every person who sees a doctor.
"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion," wrote McCaughey. "These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department."
"If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes … in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face … rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later."
Other nations that utilize such programs typically deny costly treatments to patients who are senior citizens, and McCaughey warns that would be the case in the United States, too.
"Daschle says health-care reform 'will not be pain free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt," she warned.
"Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard," she said.
McCaughey noted Daschle has discussed such plans, modeled after the United Kingdom, in his writings, and a national board to make necessary decisions.
"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis," she wrote.
She cited a 2006 ruling in the U.K. that determined elderly patients with macular degeneration must go blind in one eye before getting treatment with a costly drug to save their other eye, a decision that outraged taxpayers who eventually forced a change.
"Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition," McCaughey said.
The stimulus plan calls its board the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research."
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments,' and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system," she said.
She said the plan simply needs more review.
"The bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn," McCaughey said.
She said doctors would end up with no choice about treatments.
"Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties," she warned.
The Institute for Health Freedom today also renewed its warning because the system is scheduled to be mandatory for everyone.
"IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights," the organization said.
Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.
"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."
But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."
WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDailyStimulus containsrationed medicine'Safe, effective' treatmentssoon to be limited by 'cost'
Posted: February 09, 20099:29 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
The former lieutenant governor of New York is warning that the $50 billion that President Obama expects to spend in the next few years on a nationwide digital health records system for every individual easily could, and probably will, result in rationed medical care.
WND recently reported on a little-discussed provision in Obama's plan that would demand every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, raising alarms for privacy advocates.
They said patients might be startled to discover documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
Now Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor in New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has released a commentary warning about the likelihood of rationed care – or a health care system that simply provides treatment when it determines the cost-benefit ratio for the treatment and the patient meets its guidelines.
A report in the Indian Express Finance suggested Obama plans to spend $50 billion "over five years" to create and use a system of electronic health records for every person who sees a doctor.
"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion," wrote McCaughey. "These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department."
"If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes … in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face … rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later."
Other nations that utilize such programs typically deny costly treatments to patients who are senior citizens, and McCaughey warns that would be the case in the United States, too.
"Daschle says health-care reform 'will not be pain free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt," she warned.
"Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard," she said.
McCaughey noted Daschle has discussed such plans, modeled after the United Kingdom, in his writings, and a national board to make necessary decisions.
"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis," she wrote.
She cited a 2006 ruling in the U.K. that determined elderly patients with macular degeneration must go blind in one eye before getting treatment with a costly drug to save their other eye, a decision that outraged taxpayers who eventually forced a change.
"Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition," McCaughey said.
The stimulus plan calls its board the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research."
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments,' and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system," she said.
She said the plan simply needs more review.
"The bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn," McCaughey said.
She said doctors would end up with no choice about treatments.
"Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties," she warned.
The Institute for Health Freedom today also renewed its warning because the system is scheduled to be mandatory for everyone.
"IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights," the organization said.
Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.
"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."
But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."
WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)