Axxman

ya know AK...sometimes I think we aren't really that different...lol

Balance... I'll do ya one better than statistics and news stories. Go to your local juvenile detention center. That will rip the heart right out of your chest. For me there is not a more depressing and heart wrenching place than a juvenile detention center. There are literally hundreds of kids in those places whose lives have been ruined by drugs. I literally see kids everyday who have been ravaged by drugs. It is beyond comprehension to say that this issue is a propaganda piece. Its like you live in a cave of denial. Have you never heard of "Cheeze" or "strawberry quik" I'd say you need to educate yourself. Strawberry Quick is "meth" targeted to kids. It is just like strawberry flavored pop rocks. Dealers are giving it away to kids. They are marketing drugs as candy and energy drinks (Monkey Juice is a black tar heroine "energy drink") and flavoring them with all kinds of kid friendly flavors. It is pure lack of info on your part to assume this is some kind of govt scam. Get out of your house and go see the effects that these products have on kids. It will break your heart...seriously. Please click the links above (cheeze and SQ) and at least realize that this is not some conspiracy theory.

All I can say is...wow Bro I wish...I wish...I wish we lived in your world. You should definitely do a ride-along for a couple nights with your local law enforcement.

Shalom Axxman, No one is bashing Corrections Officers, however, they are not the ones this thread is about, nor are the the Police Officers that are getting the bad rap. A Corrections Officer is not working as a street cop and has a very different set of circumstances to deal with. This thread was not addressing Corrections, but street cops. Just differentiating between the 2 since Mike sad he had "some experience with Law Enforcement" which is obviously not the case in understanding THIS issue facing officers on the street. Nah... I get it. I was mostly responding to the "guards" comments. I have a background in Corrections and beginning on June 15th I will be promoted to a permanent supervisory position in a Direct Supervision Facility. Many of my cop friends think I'm nuts for doing it, but I like a challenge. My gang Identification background makes me quite useful "on the inside." Wish me luck...lol!

Lets not start bashing Corrections Officers (not guards)...nobody here wants that job.

I wish. The Dept. is still flying under the assumption that it is cheaper to settle. Personally, I don't see how its cheaper. As you know, I suffer little to no stress over this personally, because once cleared, I am covered by the Dept....so I lose no money either way. I do agree that it is probably not the best way to handle these "garbage" lawsuits. There is a policy to prosecute false charges against police...but for lawsuits its different. I think it has something to do with it being a "civil suit." I'm not sure but maybe in our state you can sue civilly without reprecussions. In this particular case, I think this guy needs to be stopped because I am almost certain that he initiated violence against us in order to create a lawsuit.

And you have reason to believe John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are not Christians how? My point was not to cast judgement...as I don't know them personally. My point was that simply because they are making such claims, doesn't make it so.

actually...when I read it...I was thinking of Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Another thing thats relavant. Lawsuits keep most Departments accountable too. We get sued all the time. I am currently being sued for $1.8 million dollars by a guy thats sued the Sheriffs Dept two other times. Both times the county has settled the lawsuit out of court for a couple thousand dollars (I don't know the exact amounts.) Undoubtably, this will happen again. I have been investigated thoroughly by Internal Affairs and been cleared of any wrong-doing. However, this guy STILL figures he can get a couple thousand dollars. A few more lawsuits and the dept. will figure it can save money by letting me go...even if I've done nothing wrong. You can imagine that my "accountability rating" will soar if the Dept. has to start putting out extra money.

WASHINGTON - In a rare public discussion of her husband

I basically agree with hr.jr. on this topic. The article is wildly biased in that it tries to portray no-knock deaths as the norm...clearly this is not true. I would like to add one thing for those of you who keep saying "police have no accountability." Every action and deed committed by a police officer is held accountable. I have seen officers be fired from duty for some relatively small actions. I've never had a job that required as much paperwork and documentation that being an officer requires. Every detail is scrutinized, and any difference in reports is called into question. There is no "down-time" while on duty because EVERYTHING an officer does in uniform is being watched by someone.

Why would I try to prove that? I haven't made that point in the slightest. I've belonged to small churches all my life. My father has started churches all over the world and they ALWAYS start small. Some grow big, others stay small, some don't make it. I would NEVER be so shallow as to act as though a small church couldn't be successful. However, I wouldn't be so shallow as to assume that just cuz a church was big that it wasn't a Godly church...which is exactly what Ray Baumann said. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) but NONE of those men has ever bashed a large church for having a projector, or reaching out to the community, or having relevant messages to solve problems. Seriously, I can't believe you guys can just gloss over such idiotic "ingredients" that he refers to as "ugly." My point is that NOBODY in a thriiving church, regardless of size, wishes that it was smaller. Okay...now we are getting somewhere. At least we are agreeing that big churches aren't evil. Now, pardon me again if I'm wrong, but the guy writing the piece didn't just say "any method available." The guy made the insinuation that if your church doesn't have pews, an organ/piano combo, and three old ladies in the front row wearing a flower in their hat...then your church is misguided. Just in case you missed them lets review the "ugly ingredients"... 1. Man-centered theology... never saw a Christian church that taught this 2. Relevant messages that solve people

Ak -- For the most part I agree with your 2nd section about pastors. I have no reason to put any basis on your 1st part about church size because frankly the subject is relative to experience. The ONLY people who complain about churches being too big and successful are those dead and dying churches that have no direction. I have NEVER met a pastor of a church that complained their church was too big...nor have I ever met a pastor who prayed God would keep his congregation small. The Lord adds to the church...not vice versa. The author of the original article of this thread is not a failure because he now teaches youth, and (presumably) has a small church. He fails because he refuses to realize that God can use ANY church he chooses. He condemned MY church because in his limited view of Christianity God only works with small numbers. His position is laughable. In regards to your articles. They are well written, and I really liked the second article about pastoral attitudes. My only suggestion (if I may) is that I prefer the scripture references in place, rather than as footnotes. I was kind of puzzled by the lack of scriptural context throughout...until I got to the end. While I am happy to see that you did have scriptural context a person would have to go back and reference the article to apply the scripture. Hope that makes sense. About Ed Young. I have no idea who he is, or what he represents. However, I read the posted article and in and of itself there is NOTHING in the article that makes claims about success is based on size. Quite the contrary actually. He makes the specific case that church size is determined by God and that churches who are smaller in size SHOULDN'T be concerned. The article was more or less pointing out (correctly) that people shouldn't become overly concerned about church size. Your opinion of the article was biased because of previous knowledge of Ed Young...I based my opinion of the article based on the actual words that were written. I said he "sounded" like a failure because of his attitude, and his reasoning. I have NO knowledge of the man personally, and he may be a completely fine fella...but he "sounds" like a failure based on that article. Its easy to decide God doesn't like BIG churches when you dedicate 8 years of ministry to it...and it doesn't pan out. My Pastor was hired when our church had 200 members. It is beyond insulting for Ray to act as though we only grew because we have a good praise band, and we started focusing on helping people. Our Lord would have been a failure if the story of His ministry was "most of his followers abandoned Him when His teachings got tough." As you know, that is NOT the entire story, nor the central theme of His story. Our Lord, went on to great success, with literally millions of converts to His teachings. The same for Peter and Paul. There story would have undoubtably been far more brief in God's word if all they accomplished had been getting arrested a few times. As it turns out, Peter was the "rock" upon which Christ laid the foundations of Christianity...and Paul started churches all over the region. I would say they were pretty successful.

I clicked "yes" for purely resource applications. I studied the muslim religion for two years and there are already commentaries on the Quran. I guess my bigggest question would be "how is this one different?" I used Wherry's commentaries on the Quran. You needn't study the Quran to be able to witness to muslims.

Ray Baumann sounds like a guy who failed. Now he writes articles about it to make himself sound more spiritual than men who pastor large churches. As if God is displeased when 5000 people gather together in his name simply because they have a projector so everyone in the back can see. This nut actually condemns "events and programs that reach out to the community." And God forbid you should ever hear a sermon that is a "relevant message that solves people

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household," -- Center for Immigration Studies I like Mike Gallagher, he's pretty good. I think his estimate was over-represented, or misunderstood.

Obviously, some of that is valid. My point was that if my family was in dire straits, living in poverty and oppression...it might be worth it. If I can improve my family's welfare it might be worth it. If you were making $20 a day...would your first thought be about how your decision might adversely affect a person making $200 a day? I'm not going to sit in the King's castle and throw rocks at the peasants. All I'm saying is, there is a compassionate element in this debate (at least there should be) and I don't see how it is so cut and dry for some people.

I don't see how so many people can make this such a cut-n-dry issue. Not sure why, but I'm a bit more compassionate on this issue. Maybe its because I see mexican immigrants everyday and they are not this big, evil, invading force. Maybe its because I'm not sure what I would do if it was my family living on $37-a-day. (Thats an avg. daily rate...the majority earn far less than that.) Sure, something has to be done, and it is a National issue... I just don't see the reason for such extreme polarization by both sides on this issue. Its not like were talking about killing 4000 babies a day. We are talking about a large number of people who are fleeing poverty, corruption, and oppression in order to make a better life. Sure, some of those making their way into our country have wrong intent, but they are the vast minority. There is no easy answer...or at least their shouldn't be. That is why I tend to feel like this Immigration Bill is attempting to take positive measures on several fronts. It is not a perfect plan...but it does show compassion and it does provide a plan for security in the future.

*whew* That was quite a read...but interesting. It reminded me why I enjoy the Bush Presidency so much. It also points out the very obvious...voters are fickle. I think Rove hit the nail on the head when he said, "We've been probably to some degree too successful." The Bush/Rove machine scared the heck outta Democrats, who in turn began running through the streets with every imaginable lie and fear-mongering they could come up with. There has been an unparalleled amount of negativity (and lies) about Bush in the media...and over time it began to have its effect on the weaker members of the constituency, and the moderates. Bush/Rove are not in the business of putting their finger in the air to see which way the tide of public opinion is flowing...most of us educated voters knew this when we voted for Bush (both times)...others of us are just following the winds of change set in course by constant media harrassment, forgetting what makes us strong. Its a shame really. Sure...weak-willed Republicans could stand up and admit that its not as easy as they thought it would be be...but its just so much easier to Blame Bush! Enter Newt...so far my favorite possible candidate. The man is a genius. I don't think Newt disagree's with Bush/Rove as much as he lets on. However, as the master of political insurgency he also knows the only way to appease the weak middle part of the right-wing is to distance himself from Rove-type strategy. However, his strategy is much the same. This is one of my favorite Newt quotes, "What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority. If [voters] care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots.

Sure its okay to not prefer the "big production" style...but thats just what it is...a style. For example, I know a great man of God that has a small country church. His church is decidely country...and I am not...lol. They do the organ/piano combo, and sing mostly old time religion music. It would be a horrible mistake to judge his church based on that, or the size of the youth group, or the advanced age of the congregation. My friend happens to be an Old Testament expert, who speaks and reads Hebrew fluently, and educates his flock on a weekly basis. His series of sermons on Ecclesiates were life changing for me. I'm also just as certain that his congregation prefers their setting over the "big" church setting that my church provides. And that is okay since we are all all on the same team. I wouldn't say I go to church 'wanting a show", but I would say that I am always excited to attend the SMX. I know what to expect in terms of worship, teaching, and fellowship. I just think the topic got into a "my church vs. your church" vibe...when the topic was in regards to Tozer's comments. I think by reading most of the replies it seems that most people would agree that Tozer over-stepped his bounds a bit in condemning all christian entertainers.

I think the word "entertainment" is being mis-used. My church is greatly entertaining...but that is not the intent of the church service. In every Sunday bulletin there are two business card sized "invitations" for people to invite others to the church services. The card is pretty nice with some kinda unique graphic...but otherwise it advertises nothing more than the Preachers topic and the service times. It doesn't tell you that you will hear a national recording artist leading music...or that you may see a professional athelete...or that you may see a gigantic multimedia presentation...or a play...or a dance troupe...or an award winning brass section. You invite people to hear God's word. However, of all the people I've invited, not one has ever said they didn't enjoy their experience. DO they all come back? I wish! The fact is...it doesn't matter how good your sermon, or how impressive the talent, or how entertaining...the message of the cross is still foolishness to those who are persishing. If your church is entertaining to get people in the door...your priorities are messed up. However, if your church is simply entertaining because God has blessed it...that is another thing altogether. I also think there is a misunderstanding between evangelism...and a gathering of believers for "church." EVERY member of the church is responsible for evangelizing and God will lead them in how to do that. The purpose of the church meeting is NOT evangelism. The church is the result of evangelism. As a former musician, I would evangelize all the time using music. I was able to put myself into inner-city situations as a musician that I would have had trouble entering as a speaker. I reckon there are not too many people that have evangelized in front of hundreds of Mexican mafia recruits, and its leadership. (Of course, that show ended abruptly when I prayed that God would set them free from the bondage of gangs...lol.) I can testify however, that some people I've evangelized to became members of their local church...and God used them for their purpose. It takes some nerve for a guy like Tozer (or anyone else) to act as though God doesn't give some people talents that He wishes for them to use in the process of evangelism...simply because it is not enjoyable to his ears. Most Christian entertainers...and church performances...are not done to increase the membership...that sounds almost ridiculous. However, even I must admit that there are probably some churches out there who pratice that ridiculous idea. Again, I cannot stress enough...just because some churches or Christians do it wrong...doesn't mean that the entire concept is wrong.

First, I agree with Tozer on many points scripturally...fact is, this artical by Tozer avoided scriptural use and as such it presents ONLY his opinion. While his opinion may be shared by others, it certainly doesn't make it the "right" opinion, or the biblical one. In that light, I will certainly argue against his opinion that the talent or entertainment quality in the church is universally mediocre. It may have been mediocre in his church, and therefore his opinion is valid for his own church only. However, he makes a blanket condemnation of ALL talented people in the church, and extends that thought as if untalented people should remain in their seats because they have no business trying to participate in praise. I actually thought of this thread this morning in church. We had a dance troupe of high school girls offer a gift of praise through dance. They were real good, but in a sense they were amateurish due to their age and skill level. Their turns weren't crisp. Their synchronization was a tad off. One of the girls was a bit chubby. But it was beautiful. Tozer would have skipped it I presume to go enjoy a broadway play or some other form of worldy entertainment. But I would have watched the dancers for an hour as they worshipped through dance. Not only was I entertained ( I couldn't help it ) but I was really drawn into a peaceful mood of worship. Its not the talent of the performer that God uses. Now...concerning the business side of entertainment. I'm an avid reader. And trust me, I know where you are coming from in regards to mediocre artists/authors. However, you'd have to admit that this is not a Christian phenomenon. There are plenty of sub-par entertainers in the secular world. However, they are given a chance for one reason, and one reason alone....M-O-N-E-Y! The same with mediocre Christian authors...there is a market for them. I saw a "Christian" movie recently called "The Sin Eater." Didn't like it, it was sub-par. I'm not too bothered by that though because I've been duped FAR MORE often by so-called "Blockbuster" Hits that fell below the mark. You, as a business person have to do whats best for you..and nobody should blame you for that. Lastly...The fact that some churches are built on the sand of entertainment...doesn't require that ALL churches who have entertainment are bad. Sure many churches get it wrong...and no church is perfect. That doesn't mean that all churches do everything wrong. I wouldn't go to a church that used "entertainment" to get people in the door. As entertaining as our church is...our Church spends untold amounts of money on advertising the weekly sermon on all of the local channels (radio and TV.) However, the entire SMX (Sunday Morning Experience) is fun, entertaining, and scripturally relevant. btw...I wasn't sure what to do with the goats/sheep analogy. Are the goats unsaved?

Since the entire diatribe against talented Christians included ONE reference to scripture we can conclude that this is nothing more than misguided and misplaced opinion. Certainly I can agree that the modern American Christian church has succumbed to worldliness...and his point was made by quoting the ONE scripture from Matthew 7 that he did. However, his rant against Christians being untalented and amateurish was biased and uncalled for. I am not so naive as to think that "some people" go to church for the wrong reasons, but to paint and criticize the entire church with such a broad stroke without any objective style, is tragic. My church is very entertaining. I am wholly blessed by the level of talent that God has assembled. However, I am no less moved when random members are chosen to lead worship, and their talent level is less than normal. Does Tozer actually think that God is less pleased by "amateurish" praise? Or is God pleased to be praised by his people regardless of talent or skill. Again, I can agree with him that there are some pastors and churches that have it wrong. My problem is that he makes NO exception for churches that do have a solid balance of scriptural teaching and talent. BTW...it takes some nerve to say he would rather go see a Hollywood movie (worldliness)...than experience a church play, because he thinks they lack acting skill.

Hey, ya know thats a pretty cool idea. I mean it makes sense for a business owner who deals in the gasoline market to let people know..."Hey, this price isn't something I pulled outta thin air." I just get so frustrated that almost every year we have a new "fund-raiser" for some stupid million dollar project and "all it will take" is a half-cent gas tax. We have so many half-cent gas taxes that people have voted for, for some of the stupidest things, I can't stand it. It takes some nerve to complain about gas prices when the citizens of our city raised gas prices to build a $350 million dollar bridge that will go over a mostly dry riverbed and the highway. Thats a very expensive shortcut.

Gas prices would be relatively cheap if not for all the voter approved gasoline taxes for things like artsy bridges, football stadiums, and renovations of downtown districts.