Driving while impared = DISASTER

This is perhaps one of the most intense commercials that I've ever seen and it's well made.  I hope that by passing this along to others, that it will make a difference and if just one life is saved, it will all be worth the effort to simply hit "send" and maybe save a life today or tomorrow or in the future.  I think that Australia should be complemented on having the guts to "tell it like it is" and get this campaign out to all of it's licensed drivers and to air it on TV...it is very moving and has a very strong impact. Please click here DUI

What Do You Believe About God?

The Nature of God is the core and foundation of Christian belief.  The way a person perceives the Almighty has a profound effect on every aspect of their life.  But while a high percentage of Americans profess to believe in God, their ideas of a divine-being vary all over the map.  A good knowledge of the scriptures regarding God is important to the believer who desires to have a deep relationship with his creator.

In a recent Facebook posting I listed a link to a Bible "question and answer" website, which very adequately lists scriptures regarding God, both from the Old Testament and New Testament.  It seems that anyone studying the Word would have a fairly clear picture of what God has revealed of Himself.

But there is an increasing movement on the fringe of the Church that seeks to redefine God. A god that is all love but without any apparent moral authority seems to appeal to them.  At first blush, some of the things they say make sense.  After all, God is love, in fact the very essence of love. But to speak of God's holiness or his intolerance for sin crosses the line with these people. 

Who are these people?  It might surprise you to discover that they are theologians and professors in many of our seminaries.  And all too frequently, they are pastors in our churches.  Stating that they are at the fringe of the church is not totally correct, since you will find them in a number of our evangelical institutions and churches.

They are practitioners of what is known a Neo-Orthodoxy or Post-Modernism.  In order to redefine God they have had to modify Scripture to fit their concepts.   They start with questioning the godly inspiration of the Bible.  They point to what they consider inconsistencies in the Word, as well as its human authorship.  Biblical Inspiration, according to them, is no more than saying Mark Twain was inspired to write Tom Sawyer, a work of fiction.  In the same way, they classify much of scripture as fiction rather than fact.  While they admit that much of the Bible is the recorded history of Israel and the Church,  is is written as a historic novel.  The stories are inspirational, but have little basis in truth.

Jesus Christ is generally accepted as a historic person.  But his relationship to God is questioned, as well as his virgin birth.  Jesus is considered to be a good example of how one should live their life and their goal is to emulate him.  But Jesus is not the only door to God.  He is the Christian's example for living, but God has given mankind many different paths to follow to discover Him.

As a result, it is not necessary for Christians to evangelize the world.  It is the Christian's duty to find common grounds for fellowship with people of other faiths.  Although they have selectively edited scripture, they like the reference where God is not willing that any should perish.  This fits their idea of universal salvation.  Of course, if everyone is saved there is no need for Hell.  And when everyone applies the attributes of Jesus to their lives, especially loving each other, society will gradually improve and earth will become Heaven.

Much of this radical thought and doctrine is coming into evangelical churches.  Young pastors are being groomed in Neo-Orthodoxy while attending mainline Christian Universities and Seminaries.  It is not always taught openly in the classrooms.  But many institutions are bringing in professors with personal leanings toward these concepts.

I grew up attending an evangelical fundamental church.  Our pastors continually warned us to be on guard against false teaching.  In my mind, I envisioned finding those ideas being presented in the secular world.  I took some courses at a public college and I heard anti-Christian/anti-God concepts promoted frequently.  But Paul in his epistles warns us of a much more dangerous and close-to-home threat; that of false teachers in our churches.   It is obvious that Paul was addressing specific issues in the early Church when he expressed these concerns.

I believe this danger is greater than ever before.  But there are some ways we can be alert and on guard.  The message of the Church should always be centered in seeking and saving the lost.  While it is helpful to teach Christian living to new converts, we should never neglect the salvation of the lost and the reclaiming of the backslider.

Our faith is built on several basic principles.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God, actually God in the flesh, who gave his life as a sacrifice for the sin of mankind.  Jesus is the only gateway to God. There is no other name whereby we must be saved. The Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God.  Men wrote both the Old Testament and the New Testament as they were directed by the Spirit of God.  The Church is the Body of Believers who have repented of their sin and accepted the gift of God, our salvation.  Jesus Christ is going to return to take the Church, both dead and living, to be with Him in a place that He is preparing for that purpose.

There are other articles of faith that bind us together as Christian Believers. I have attempted to hit some of the high points.  We need to be hearing these articles of faith being presented to our congregations by our pastors.  If we are not hearing these things on a regular basis as well as invitations to repent and accept Christ, then we need to be asking why.

Arguing With Liberals

As an older person living in today's society I am very upset about the drift toward Socialism, Social Engineering, Post-Modern thought and the turmoil into which our country is sliding.  I recently had a Facebook discussion with a good friend, the young-adult son of folks from our former church.  He is a real intelligent young man, doing very well in the real estate business and someone any parent would be proud of.

But he apparently has bought into the ideas of the Left.  He is a product of our modern education system and a fan of National Public Radio and other liberal media outlets. 

The following is the chain of a recent dialog between Buddy and Da Kona Guy:

From him: Make government smaller, reduce spending, cut programs,...just make sure it doesn't effect me, my family or my special interest group.

From Me: If we are going to survive as a country, we are going to have to "bite the bullet" and take more responsibility for our own welfare. We can not keep expecting the government to continue to increase programs. And Buddy, EVERYONE is part of a "special interest group". Some of us belong to several special interest groups, some of which have contrasting objectives. We MUST reverse the trend that we are following.

From Buddy;    This is what sparked my thoughts. It was sent from an organization, of which I'm a member, a very strong movement to make sure congress doesn't get rid of the Mortgage Interest Deduction. Getting rid of this has a direct effect on my business. I *should* support NOT getting rid of it...

But then it just struck me...cuts need to be made - no question. And sometimes it's going to impact us personally. We need to be okay with that. Adjust...and move on. I think we need to think as a "whole" rather than just as individuals.

If we say "no" to everything that effects me and "yes" that effects other people...then just the loudest voices or voices with the most money win.

From me:  Hey Buddy, timing is the issue here. Since everyone lives in a home of some sort, the mortgage deduction affects the greatest number of people and the housing industry in general. To remove it would be a tax increase. At what time do you want to impact the country by doing that?
So lets THINK for a minute here.

1. The mortgage deduction encourages people to buy houses and condos.
Since everyone has to live somewhere, it is a good thing to stimulate home ownership.

2. Your home is your largest investment. When many people retire the real savings they have is in their home. When they want or need to move to an apartment or assisted living, the house can be sold for a
significant amount of money.

3. The housing industry provides jobs for thousands, probably millions of people. I believe it would be safe to say that the housing industry is the country's largest industry.

Now I have given you three points as to why eliminating the mortgage deduction is a bad idea, at least at this time in this economy.
Now it is your turn. Give me your reasons why you think it is a good idea.

From him : Okay...here goes Guy:
(Numbers corresponding with your item numbers)

1. "Since everyone has to live somewhere..." Exactly. People want and need to buy homes. You don't need a "tax ...deduction" to incentivize people to buy homes. Owning a home is better than renting. No tax benefit needed. I talk with people every day - every single day...very, very few of them buy because of the tax credit. It's an afterthought. It's a bonus, but not commonly a driving factor. Maybe more so at higher income brackets, but not middle America for whom the deduction is said to benefit most.

2. I don't disagree with you here. But again, the benefit from the retiree is the equity that is built in their house over 30+ years - that is the benefit. A retiree would gain from this without a tax deduction. I would add however, nobody should ever rely on their home equity as their retirement plans. That's poor planning. A lot of people in the past 40 years got lucky. Not smart to count on luck for retirement.

3. The housing industry is very significant to our economy - I agree with you. And many analysts say the housing market will be the driver that gets us out of our current crisis. But again, me being in the business, I don't think it’s needed. It's not going to be a make or break in the industry.

And here are a couple bonus ideas:

4. We need tax credits/deductions and incentives to encourage behavior. Behavior changes with times as we evolve as a culture. We need to change tax credits and deductions based on the changing of times. Giving incentives to encourage behavior that is good for us as a whole, community, planet, culture, etc. My point is, a mortgage interest credit was necessary at one time. It's no longer relevant.
5. Flat out, cuts need to be made and revenue need to increase. We can't balance the US budget without doing both. We need to choose ways to increase revenue, I would choose this one. At worse case, this would allow us to give deductions elsewhere that might benefit the whole more - mostly surround sustainable practices.
I'm open to challenges and thoughts here.

 

From me: I can see we have a fundamental difference of opinion, probably based on our political leanings, as to whether or not tax increases are necessary. In my humble opinion the problem with our ecconomy in not that taxes are not high enough, but that market conditions regarding banking practices and inflated housing prices caught the country with its pants down. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge in the real estate business. I was also in the housing business, owned and operated a construction company and concrete company for 35 years. And during that time we endured several recessions, and various govenmental policies that attempted to deal with the economy. I have seen some things work and some other things fail.
You say that tax incentives do not encourage people to buy houses. If that is the case, why do you think tax incentives will work to encourage people to pratice better behavior? And whose definition should we use to determine good behavior? Should we use my definition, your definition, the churchs'?
While I agree that our society is evolving, it needs to evolve within a constitutional framework. And I am not sure everyone would agree that it is evolving in a positive direction.   Buddy, I have come to realize that the only thing that can effectively change human behavior is a change of heart. While I hate to play the "Religion Card" when dealing with political issues, I know that when people get right with God, they get right with other people and their environment. They also make better senators, representatives, voters, etc. There are good people on all sides of the issues. But apparently many others are motivated by greed, fear, self-interest and hate.
I think we would both agree on this. So I will stop here.;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is painfully obvious in Buddy's thoughts above is that the whole Liberal Agenda centers around changing our behavior  or Social Engineering through government legislation and regulation.  They cannot do this within the constraints of the Constitution.  So they choose to whether ingnore our founding documents, or attempt to redefine them to fit their "politically correct" Post-Modern agenda.  These concepts are a poison to our way of life.  Too often we are tempted to try "just a little bit" of the poison to appease the Left and feel that we are working together for the betterment of our country.  But how much toxic legislation can our body tolerate? At what point do we become "sick unto death"?  We can only hope and pray that we have not gone too far for the attidote of common sense to be effective.