SavedByGrace1981

If I read the article correctly, the rancher and a group of others basically took the law into their own hands in 2003. No one can excuse what they are alleged to have done (assault people who were suspected illegals) - buy you have to wonder if it was driven by absolute frustration at the lack of border enforcement by the Federal Government. What happens when elections and laws don't seem to matter? What do people do when their way of life and their property is being threatened, and politicians (of both parties - this happened in 2003 under Bush) seem as if they couldn't care less? For the life of me I cannot understand why the Federal government will not secure our southern border. (oh wait, I guess I can - Republicans want the cheap labor and Democrats want the votes) How ironic that our national policy shows extreme concern about borders in the Middle East - all the while turning a blind eye to border problems much closer to home. Blessings! -Ed

I have a theory that for pastors, as fame and fortune increase, temptations they encounter increase exponentially. In other words, it is very difficult for mortal men (and women) not to fall victim to all the pitfalls inherent in pastoring a very large flock (whether it be on TV or to a mega-church). In fact, the only long-standing, huge ministry that I can think of that hasn't been touched by scandal is Billy Graham's. (though I am sure there are others) Back in the mid-80s, my wife and I and some members of our church attended a John Maxwell conference in San Diego. Now granted, Maxwell's ministry wasn't huge on the scale of a Copeland or Benny Hinn, but he was somewhat of a super star in "holiness" circles. He did something during that week of conferences that has stuck with me: He went up on stage and surrounded himself with his staff, and he prayed with and for his staff. Among other things, he prayed that they would always be honest with him (not "yes-men") and they would hold him accountable to the Lord. As I describe it, it sounds rather un-sincere - but believe me it was a very transparent event. Maxwell came across a very sincere and humble. This was at the beginning of the TV evangelist scandals, and Maxwell did not want to fall prey to what we saw all around us. Now Maxwell went on to write books, and he may even be retired now. But I've never been aware of any hint of scandal - he's remained true to his calling. To me, he showed how it should be done if one is called by the lord to a large ministry: Don't get caught up in the trappings of fame and fortune; don't surround yourself with yes-men. Remain humble in the sight of the Lord. Blessings! -Ed

We shouldn't be surprised that children's programming tends to favor liberal or even socialistic worldviews. After all, the creators and writers of these show do all come out of the same educational establishment that produced the NEA. Sesame Street is the product of PBS, which is pretty leftist itself. Unlike some, however, I don't see a nefarious plot here. Like all of us, the producers and creators of children's programming are prone to bring their biases to their jobs. In and of itself, that may not be a bad thing as long as the message is not too controversial and is age appropriate. For instance, a writer who happens to be an extreme environmentalist can still produce a program that encourages good stewardship of the earth, not being wasteful, etc; as long as the more controversial "all capitalists are evil" viewpoints are left out. After all, can we really expect a 6 or 7 year old to understand the nuances of capitalism vs. socialism as it pertains to environmental policy? When all is said and done, we should monitor what are kids are watching and resist the temptation to use the TV as a babysitter. I know, from watching my two g-daughters (ages 5 and 3) - this is sometimes difficult to do. Fortunately for me, they are still at the age where the programs they watch just tend to teach reading and simple math. But as they get older, they may be exposed to a worldview that I, their grandmother, and their mom have problems with. Hopefully when that day comes, we will have watched the program with them and can discuss with them why we believe differently. Again, if it is an opportunity to open up discussion, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Blessings! -Ed

The first presidential election I remember as a kid was the JFK-Nixon race in '60. My parents were for Nixon (probably because he was Ike's VP and he - unlike Kennedy - wasn't Catholic). When you're a kid of 7 it's probably safe to say your political leanings come from your folks. My first vote cast was in '72 - and it was against McGovern (ugh - that meant voting FOR Nixon). I was so disgusted by Nixon's Watergate shenanigans that I registered Democrat and voted for Carter in '76. Looking back, that was about as "liberal" as I ever got. The way I see it, the idea of being liberal and conservative really didn't come into play much until the 80s - and that was when I was saved (1981). So, post salvation, my political views didn't change all that much. I've always been "liberal" in the sense that I believed in civil rights; but I've been "conservative" in most of my other views (pro-life, etc.) My family lived in the South for two years (1961-63) which was when there were still separate facilities for blacks and whites. Even as a kid, I saw that was wrong. Today, I believe the Democrat party has become the de-facto Socialist Party (JFK would be a conservative today), so I cannot support its candidates. That is not to say the republicans are much (if any) better. In presidential elections, I generally support a third party candidate (last time I voted for Bob Barr) So - that's my $0.02 Blessings! -Ed

FWIW, there was a meteorologist on Fox News who brought up (in April) the fact that we were in a La Nina cycle (the Pacific ocean goes through cyclic cooling and warming cycles - the La Nina being the colder one). He stated that these cycles seem to coincide with tornadic activity in the US. Again, this was in April when he said this. At the same time, he predicted that the month of May would bring increased tornadoes and more severe ones. This is what has happened, so perhaps he was onto something. As far as "climate change" goes (or is it global warming), there's no question in my mind it's going on. But it always has. What is "normal", anyway? And the biggie - is mankind's activity causing it I don't believe it is to any measurable degree. One volcanic eruption can probably effect more climate change in the space of a few weeks than years worth of new lightbulbs or reduced emissions. Blessings! -Ed

Yes. Blessings! -Ed

I don't really know much about Mitch Daniels - but what I HAVE heard (mostly on talk radio) has been negative. Since you're from Indiana and probably know a lot more about him than most of us, what do you see that he brings to the table that some of the others don't? Blessings! -Ed

He was VERY impressive at the debate last night. Was quick on his feet, and handled himself with poise. Personally, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if he were to be the nominee, however. The establishment Republicans (the one's who actually choose the nominees) have a tendency to nominate "the next in line." This year - Romney (or Huckabee) fits that bill. I agree that his star is rising, however. Maybe he'll get the VP slot, or a post in the next Republican Administration. Blessings! -Ed

Sadly, it appears the percentage of Muslims who are moderate is such a small number that it is insignificant. Blessings! -Ed

But that was a politically correct, Hollywood approved Jesus. Blessings! -Ed

Politically I am very right-wing. (Not necessarily Republican, mind you. More Constitutionalist or Libertarian). But I've struggled with the issue of "pre-judging" other Christians, based on their politics, ever since I became a Christian in the early 80s. During the 1984 election, my wife and I had just started attending an evangelical church. There was an older gentlemen there (I'll call him Sam) who I didn't know real well at the time. Of course, I ASSUMED he was a conservative (based on the fact we were living in a conservative state at the time, attending a conservative church, etc.) One day, in the heat of the political season, I noticed a "Mondale/Ferraro" bumper sticker on his car. (For the benefit of the un-initiated, Walter Mondale was the 1984 democrat POTUS candidate - very liberal, pro-abortion, etc.). I ALMOST (but didn't, PTL) went up to him and said "hey Sam, some joker stuck a Mondale bumper sticker on your car". Well, as I came to better know "Sam", I learned he was a very politically liberal, union-oriented man. But I also came to know him as one of the best brothers in Christ that I've had the good fortune to meet. ("Sam" has since gone home to be with the Lord) This was a tough lesson for me - one I still struggle with. There may be political issues that I am adamant on, but other Christians certainly can see things differently. I don't know - perhaps it will all make sense when we go home ourselves to be with the Lord. Or maybe then it won't matter Blessings! -Ed

I actually **gulp** - - agree with Obama on this. Releasing the photos - in this age of Photoshop - would not convince anyone who is already predisposed to believe OBL is still alive. And I believe the downside (increased risk for our troops, etc.) far outweighs any possible benefits. Blessings! -Ed

You talk like Obama took the shot that killed Bin Laden. He didn't. I doubt he knew anything about it at all until after it had already happened and he'd been briefed. So "putting a target on his back?" Not so much, and way over-dramatic. Obama is not the kind of man who would ever willingly put a target on his back, he does not have the spine for it. He is also a Muslim sympathizer. I'm betting he is not happy about this turn of events at all, but not for the reasons you claim. The way this was done was Obama's decision completely, though he certainly had advisors. We should be happy when he makes a good decision. Let's not begrudge him a victory here, since it is a victory for the USA and freedom loving people everywhere. Assuming we are being told the truth, this was an excellent operation and a courageous decision to go that far into Pakistan with a team instead of dropping a bomb. I give him the benefit of all doubt until evidence points elsewhere. If you don't want to seem like a bitter person who hates Obama strictly for personal reasons, practise saying "Congratulations President Obama on a job well done". There are still other battles to be fought. You've nailed it! Blessings! -Ed

Just to clarify my own position, I do not have a problem with how OBL was dealt with. My comments reflected my concern about how we as Christians react to it. You stated you have no problems with the celebrations, but in the very next sentence you concede some of them may have been misguided. And while you and I might understand the difference between "our" celebrations and "theirs", how would you explain the difference to a non-believer? Blessings! -Ed I don't even have a problem with the misguided ones. Why do we need to explain to the nonbeliever? Just give them the Word of God. They aren't going to understand you and I until they understand who the Lord is. Why walk around twiddling thumbs and waste time worrying about what people think in regards to our reaction to the Just end of an unrighteous murderous thug? Are we to blame for the way he was dealt with? Did we do it? We should rejoice when the unrighteous are dealt their just due with the view and the mindset that God is the Just Judge. Not in their deaths should we rejoice and neither their eternal state, but that they can no longer cause harm to the innocent or even wantonlingly murder. Do you think Christians sat around twiddling thumbs when Hitler was taken care of? How about the Jews, did they sit around and twaddle when Haman's head came off from the sheer force of the height of the gallows that he built with his own hand? Did Miriam worry about what the world thought when God dealt with the Egyptians and drown them in the Red Sea? I think we Christians sometimes are really dealing with a gulit complex or something. You raise legitimate questions. I'll leave it at this: While I am satisfied that an evil man has been dealt with justly, I am not going to be particiaping in any chants of USA! USA! or RAH RAH RAH. If others want to, that is up to them. And praise the Lord for the liberty we have in Christ! Blessings! -Ed

Just to clarify my own position, I do not have a problem with how OBL was dealt with. My comments reflected my concern about how we as Christians react to it. You stated you have no problems with the celebrations, but in the very next sentence you concede some of them may have been misguided. And while you and I might understand the difference between "our" celebrations and "theirs", how would you explain the difference to a non-believer? Blessings! -Ed

It is my understanding that most of the interviews of people who lost loved ones on 9/11 show them to be not "celebrating" Bin Laden's death. I equate the mindless celebrations that we saw to the Palestinian women we saw celebrating on 9/11; or to an intoxicated football fan when his team wins the Super Bowl. Hopefully, those who are Christian show a little more restraint and reflection. Blessings! -Ed

Since it's extremely unlikely that any of us were members of the Special Forces unit that was involved in this mission, we should remember that everything we THINK we know about this comes from two sources: 1. The Government 2. The news media. Since the news media has become just a propoganda arm of the government (and not a watchdog, like it should be), do we really KNOW anything? Something to ponder. Blessings! -Ed

Good one! This thread gave me an idea, though. If only I had access to Obama's teleprompter . . . Blessings! -Ed

My dad passed away in 2004 at the age of 88. He had been a Christian most of his life - the exception being his "mid-life" years. He came back to the Lord for good in 1974 after the death of his 9 year old grand-daughter (my niece). Anyway, in his later years he got involved in the whole King James only controversy. There apparently is a pastor down in Florida who has (or had, I don't know if he's still with us) quite a following. My Dad used to get his newsletter. Honestly, the tone of the newsletter was not at all uplifting, in my opinion. Now, I didn't share my Dad's rather extreme views on the KJV. It is the version I grew up with, and the verses I memorized as a child were in the KJV. (Psalm 23 just doesn't sound right in any other version). But other versions contain God's Word, as well. I wouldn't usually argue with my Dad about it. My Dad being my Dad, I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?" "Yes." was his answer. "Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?" He had no answer. My Dad was a Christian who loved the Lord. I have no doubt he is in Heaven. But he was so wrapped up in the KJV controversy that the simple joy of going to church was not available to him (he would usually go to church with us, and our holiness, evangelical, conservative Wesleyan tradition church DOES NOT use the KJV). He wouldn't join our church. "I won't join a church that doesn't preach out of the King James." he would say. Anyway, that's my 0.02 on the whole KJ only controversy. Me? I believe we have - as Christians - much more serious things to tackle in these last days. Blessings! -Ed

I agree 100%. Human beings do love to argue - and that is okay, up to a point. But Jesus was known occasionnaly to use the "least of these" (little children) as a example that we should follow. A little child has pure faith - pure trust. A little child can accept things at face value. We do want to use our reason and logic, of course. Another term for reason and logic is wisdom, and wisdom is a gift from God. And, to take it a step further, we need to be able to recognize and call out heresy when we see it. But heresy (to those who know Scripture) is usually obvious. It goes beyond simple denominational differences - or should. We look around and we see a lot of negativity. Perhaps some of us are dealing with overwhelming situations in our personal lives. It's easy, then, to forget that God prevails in the end. For me, I am going to strive to have more of that "childlike faith" that Jesus spoke about. Blessings! -Ed

They are if the subject is "why doesn't that person snub christian holidays?" But the person we're talking about here is the POTUS, and the way I see it there are two things in play. The first thing, which pertains to the OP, is why Obama, in the course of executing his office as President, chose to snub the Christian holiday of Easter. Especially in light of his previously issuing proclamations in observance of Muslim holidays. In other words, instead of treating all faiths equally (which a case can be made is what a secular leader should do), he seemingly elevates the Islamic faith above Christianity. This, to me, is an interesting and appropriate issue to debate on a public policy forum. As to his personal walk with Christ - whether it's genuine or not? Well, all I can say is he DID observe Easter by going to church with his family. (Though once again it was, as I understand it, a church with a controversial pastor). I agree with others who say we should tread lightly here. Since I don't know the man personally, I cannot know whether he actually prays, reads the Bible, or does other things that can define one's walk with Christ. Is there a lot of evidence that he does? No. I will give you this - If I knew him personally and had a close enough relationship with him (i.e. one in which he would give credence to my opinion), I would voice my concerns to him as a Christian brother. Beyond that, though, I think it's best not to judge somene's Christianity from a distance. Blessings! -Ed

The office of POTUS is a secular one, so I'm not sure if discussions of whether or not Obama is a Christian are appropriate. IMO if a sinner proclaims that he has accepted Christ (which Obama claims to have done), then we as Christians should at least give some weight to that and refrain from discussing it among ourselves. But that said and out of the way - I do find some interest in this story. Being such a public and visible office, everything a president does or not does has repercussions. So, it's perfectly acceptable for Obama to honor Muslim holidays if he so chooses. But it is also traditional (if nothing else) for him to honor Christian holidays. He (or his staff) chose not to do so. I am more interested in the thinking or considerations that might have been behind the decision. So much of what he does seems to be done with the intention to provoke. Needlessly, I might add. What did he expect to gain by snubbing Easter? Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know? Blessings! -Ed

Count me as one who believes Obama is the WORST (move over, Jimmy Carter) POTUS we've ever had. But from a pragmatic standpoint, I believe pursuing this issue is a waste of time. The time for Obama to have been properly vetted was when he announced he was running for the office of President. Whether by omission or by design, he was not. Not by the Democrat party, nor by the Hillary Clinton or the Republicans or the feckless McCain campaign. We're probably never going to know for sure wheter Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kenya, or on the planet Mars. But even if it could be proven without a shadow of a doubt that Obama was not a citizen, what could we expect to happen? While the House might vote to impeach, the Democrat Senate wouldn't. Not in a million years. And Impeachment is the ONLY way (other than death) a sitting president can be removed from office. I suggest conservatives put all their energy into first getting a CONSERVATIVE as the Republican nominee. That will be only the first step. When and if that happens, we must absolutely focus on getting him or her elected. We can rest assured the Democrat/Media axis will do all they can to oppose us, and work to re-elect Obama. Blessings! -Ed

Wow! Where does one begin? First of all, I agree with those who say now is the time to forgive. Forgive, and move on. Best to look on it as a life lesson. The part that is unsettling is that these folks claim to be Christian. It is a sad truism that - more often than not - so-called Christians are the worst "advertisement" for Christianity. I always tell new Christians (perhaps "warn" is a better word) that in their Christian walk, they WILL at some point be hurt or disappointed by a fellow Christian. Christ is the only One who will never let us down. Blessings! -Ed

Yes, I'm old enough to remember prayer in school (I was in 1st grade in 1959) It was a different world, then. I think what we've witnessed in the last few decades has some parallels to the Old Testament - especially in the book of Judges. When the people were poor and defeated, they drew close to God. But when they were prosperous, they felt they were self-sufficient and did not need God. Like the Israelites of old, our affluence has made us self-sufficient and not reliant on God. We're about to find out, however, that worldly riches and affluence are fleeting. God is not. Blessings! -Ed