| Out Loud: Comments to Some of James' Last Remarks [James in Aqua, italicized.] "In this Christ has given us the structure (Matt. 22:34-40). The Pharisees who had grown to a focus of law only, asked Christ what the greatest commandment was on which you could base context of scripture upon. Christ who came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17) didn't quote one of the ten written commandments but rather turned their attention to the highest context of scripture. A focus they had missed as they had turned to the law and how it could benefit their appetites. Christ told them to "Love" your God with all your heart, soud, and mind. And second, "Love" your neighbor as yourself." Since Christ came to fulfill the Law, giving the greatest and second greatest commandments (Matthew 22:34-40) actually fulfilled the Law, or rather the Ten Commandments. This is why Christ said in Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." The first commandment Christ gave - Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind - was actually an Old Testament commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5; 1 John 2:7) which encompassed the first four of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17). These first four taught us how to relate with the Father (God). The second commandment Christ gave - you shall love your neighbor as yourself - encompasses the last six of the Ten Commandments which taught how to relate with men, or mankind, on an individual basis. This is how Christ expected Israel to fulfill the Law. "When you start with this as your highest governing context it's harder to be critical and easier to sympathize." The "highest governing context" points to the Law, that which Christ came to fulfill, that which "is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). In this context, it's easy to become critical, or a critic, since we've established earlier that criticism is rebuke, and that rebuke is biblical and - believe it or not - loving: "Better is open rebuke Than love that is concealed" (Proverbs 27:5). Perhaps one should do a word-study about what God says about "love." It isn't "sympathizing." "Duhmag seems to judge Bush but I would venture to guess they are not high priests." Again, applying oneself to a word-study concerning the word "judge" and its derivations would reveal God's view of judging, particularly for Christian Gentiles administered to by the apostle Paul. True, no Gentile is a high priest, per se, although we do share in Christ's inheritance (Ephesians 1:10-11; Colossians 1:12) to include judging the world and angels; "are you not competent to try the trivial cases?" (1 Corinthians 6:2). "It seems that you are saying ruler means judge. If so you might want to look in Strong's at all the uses of the word "ruler" in scripture. Are they all referring to judge?" I was just using the context of Scripture, particularly those of Paul found in Acts. Argue with Scripture. "Yes. But if the motives of Paul were as deceitful as you claim then would not Paul's heart and intentions be considered unrighteous. Wouldn't it be more in context of Christ's teaching that Paul was telling the truth of Ananias' actions while truly, as he claimed, didn't know that he was high priest?" Actually, it was established that (1) Paul knew Ananias was high-priest and (2) Paul was not deceitful. Based on this evidence, I never claimed Paul possessed a deceitful heart. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite (Acts 24:16). "Is it not a fallacy of all of us to believe the lie that there is some good in each of us - opposed to the truth we find in Romans?" The concept of Original Sin was not the issue at hand concerning my comments, as is easily understood within the context of my explanation. As simple as it may be to circumvent the tumid support of BushCo by those who do think BushCo is good - and I shall add here good enough not to be rebuked - by invoking the wild-card of semantics, I still submit that in this case the majority of BushCo supporters, Christians, still think BushCo is good despite the understanding of Original Sin, which in the context is even worse. It even explains why they support BushCo the way they do; they have forgotten that mankind is fallen, and the supporteres have placed their lives in the hands of one fallen man instead of God. "Is your ministry to perpetually criticize our rulers because they are not up to your standards of what a ruler should be? What if Peroutka (click here) was to get into office? Are you certain he could withstand all the pressures and temptations the office brings with it? Look at history and give me one human ruler who has?" Rebuke is a concept which functions as long as there is ongoing sin, or rather sin without repentance. My ministry, while partly focusing on BushCo, convicts those who support BushCo by revealing the abhorrent brood's (BushCo) sins. Perhaps enough rebuke will finally open the eyes of those who support BushCo by saying, effectually, that their support of BushCo has allowed sin to remain (and thrive) in our Presidency and that they are directly responsible for it. "Perpetual" rebuke is not necessary if one repents. Of course, rebuking BushCo's supporters is a "long-haul" so to speak, but so are a lot of tasks in God's Kingdom. Ultimately, when enough folks repent they will, hopefully as a voting-block, rebuke not only BushCo but the entire establishment which is not only immersed in sin, but lives off of it. Concerning Peroutka, (click here) I don't know with certainty that he could remain true to his word. I do, however, know Peroutka's political platform and, as of yet, have no reason whatsoever to doubt his ability to uphold Christ in the Public Square. I do know with great certainty that BushCo does not endorse Christ, nor does BushCo uphold His Laws, but actually violates them unscrupulously. Bushco has given us a track record by which to judge - Oh, no, judge?! - yes, judge its righteousness or lack thereof. This is why our founding fathers established a four-year term instead of eight - if the guy screwed up, we can kick him out at the end of four years, not reward his sins with four more years (or is that for more wars?). No, I can't give you one human ruler who has performed 100% to the satisfaction of Christ - No man is sinless and no man can be perfect without Christ. But if we took your logic to the extreme, then the likes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler would have remained in power. Be reasonable. "My point is that the wisdom of Christ wasn't to focus on the rulers of the nation to change the nation, but rather the people of the nation to change it. Wouldn't Duhmag be more in tune with Christ's teaching to preach the gospel [good news] of Christ as opposed to the slander of the local rulers? I'm not opposed to making the people aware of their responsibilities to God, but I have to wonder about the intent and placement of the heart when I read about accusations made with sometimes questionable sources. When the sources are from questionable web sites then how can Duhmag and it's writers claim righteous intent?" First, slander is a false charge against someone, unfounded claims which consequently damage the slandered person's reputation. To falsely accuse someone is a gross sin (Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 19:9). In fact, to say I slandered BushCo is actually a slander of my character. Which brings me to my second point: in order to prove I slandered BushCo, one must prove that my sources are incorrect. At that time I shall retract whatever statements as necessary. No one, though, has provided any evidence of wrongdoing; only empty accusations and meaningless assumptions have arisen from a wholly disturbed force which only "questions" my sources and never even investigates them with the simple "click" of a mouse. I attribute it to laziness and ignorance, the fact that my accusers only accuse and cannot prove their emotionally charged accusations. One would think that before I published my report about BushCo, I would have checked, rechecked and checked again the truth concerning my sources to minimize my public embarrassment (and punishment) if I was wrong. Alas, no one has the gall to seriously challenge me; they have the innate sense they're wrong, and are far too unsure of themselves to put anything on the record like I have. I take my ministry extremely seriously because for all that I say, I say in representing Christ's Truth. Like a scribe of old, that is how extreme I am or believe myself to be. This is how I can claim righteous intent. On the other hand, I can be open-minded about the possibility of making a mistake about one of my sources. Since to you (and others) my sources are "questionable," I shall list them and you can tell me why they are questionable and how I slandered BushCo by using or not using these sources - specifics, please: 1) The official government website (".gov") of the President of the U.S. - www.whitehouse. gov 2) The Holy Bible, NASB 3) The Library of Congress - www.loc.gov; thomas.loc.gov 4) The National Archives - www.archives.gov 5) Focus on the Family News Service - www.family.org 6) CNN News Service - archives.cnn.com; www.cnn.com; transcripts.cnn.com 7) Pro-Life Website www.lifesite.net 8) Conservative Website - The American Spectator - www.spectator.org 9) Conservative Website - www.townhall.com 10) Planned Parenthood - www.plannedparenthood.org 11) Fox News Service - www.foxnews.com 12) The Omaha World-Herald Newspaper 13) Pro-Life Website - www.lifedynamics.com 14) "Objective" approach Website - www.religioustolerance.org 15) The Sun News and Wire Service Sources - www.myrtlebeachonline.com 16) GeorgeBush.com 17) Agape Press - www.agapepress.org 18) One News - onenews.nzoom.com 19) Pro-Family Website - www.eagleforum.org 20) Conservative NewSite - www.worldnetdaily.com 21) Log Cabin Republicans (Homosexuals) - www.logcabinwa.com; www.logcabin.org 22) Concerned Women For America - www.cwfa.org 23) Washington Post - www.washingtonpost.com 24) (Homosexual) Metro Community Church - www.mccchurch.org 25) The Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult (Zondervan) 26) USA Today - www.usatoday.com 27) Assist News Service - www.worthynews.com 28) Dr. Robert Morey - www.faithdefenders.com 29) Victor Mordecai - www.vicmord.com 30) San Francisco Chronicle - sfgate.com 31) Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq - www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html 32) Middle-East Media Research Institute - www.memri.org (The preceding sources were cited in "You Will Know Him by His Fruit: Why a Christian should not vote for George W. Bush," a report I wrote just prior to the 2004 election. Click Here to read the report.) All of these sources except for two are linked to their appropriate Websites, and only one link was broken. It has since been fixed. Please tell me where I went wrong. Also, I couldn't help but notice that while you refused to pass judgment upon BushCo amidst overwhelming evidence of and controversy over its improprieties, you certainly can't help but "wonder about the intent and placement of the heart," presumably my heart. That is quite alright and necessary to do - judging, that is - as long as it's done righteously. But you present a double-standard in your judgment, and that my friend is not righteous. By the way, to answer your question, "Wouldn't Duhmag be more in tune with Christ's teaching to preach the gospel [good news] of Christ as opposed to the slander of the local rulers?" It seems as though God is forming my ministry for those who are already in the Body, i.e. supporters of BushCo, Christians. While I tell people the Good News, the real job for me is focusing on the Body - Christians. Not everyone can be a foot, or a hand, or an ear, or an eye, or a nose within the body. The apostle Paul explained it best: "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Corinthians 12:4-7). I have an aunt – a devout Christian - whose body is for the time being infected with cancer. Her condition was diagnosed in January 2005 as terminal and given only months to live with almost no hope of recovery, especially without chemo or radiation “therapy.” We visited her in Montrose, Colorado in April. Her husband, Uncle Steve, at that time was wise enough – by the grace of God – to understand the trial under which he, his wife and their family were suffering. He, Uncle Steve, was gracious to even share this realization with me. In a nutshell, Uncle Steve explained it to me like this, and I’m paraphrasing: “The Body of Christ can be compared to the human body. When the body of Christ becomes ill, God instructs us to administer the Word regularly in order to fight off disease. God doesn’t instruct His Body to invite foreign entities to fight off disease – just His Word. This is sufficient in and of itself. God knew what He created when He made the Body. He provided the Body a mechanism – the Word – to fight off disease when it invaded the Body. Nothing else is needed. “When the human body becomes sick, filled with cancer, there are also mechanisms God provided to fight of the infection. Like the Word, God provided natural methods to fight infection; there was no such thing as chemo or radiation therapy. Just natural means, and why would anyone administer poisons such as chemo or radiation to a 'dying' person when one would never give such poisons to healthy individuals?” I've been telling you that something within the church - the Body - is amiss, diseased. My ministry is shaping to be that which combats this spiritual disease with nothing but the Word - Christ. I fully expect this fight against the disease to appear futile to many, as though I was on the losing side. But just like how a fever can appear to overcome its victim, it actually only makes the body that much stronger. Fighting sickness takes time. No foreign mechanism is able to do the job of the Word - no amount of mass marketing, no 40 days of purpose, no mindless music, no cliches. In fact, those things, like chemo, can only harm the Body. Just like how chemo can break the immune system and let other illnesses invade, foreign mechanisms can also allow spiritual diseases to enter the Body. This fits the understanding of a Body which cannot bring into it all the world has to offer. The Body can only function upon what God intended. When the Church strives to market for that which is not right for the Body, the Body becomes ill. When the human body is invaded with chemicals and foreign substances, then the human body becomes ill. It is time for a cleansing of the Body, a purging of what is destructive to it. These impurities can only be present for so long until they completely destroy the Body and/or until they can be exposed as injurious. With the ever-present existence of the Word, however, the only real outcome will be Christ's victory over that which seeks to destroy the Body. There is no alternate finale. |