SO YOU THINK YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN

Most of Americans call themselves Christians because they claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and is the Redeemer of mankind, If they choose to accept Him as their Savior. But there is a problem with this sort of "Christianity". I know of some 7th Day Adventists and some Mormons and some Catholics that call themselves Christians, but they are not. Why? Because even "the Devil believes"....(a quote from scripture) and we can guess that he is not a Christian. So, what is it that makes someone a Christian, according to the Bible and what is it that differentiates the "professing" Christians from the real Christians?

The following is an excerpt, a good representation of the defining difference, from a magazine. Please read it and determine whether or not you can actually call yourself a Christian.

 "Abstract thought is a thought process where ideas are separated from real objects.  If we said, "George Washington was a patriot," we tie the term patriot to the life and service of the first president.  If, however, we say, "A patriot is one who..." we sever the term patriot from a real person and make it an abstraction which demands definition.  Abstract thought simplifies communication because it leaves concrete details ambiguous, vague, or undefined.  ...

The more general the collective term, the more vague it becomes.  A case in point would be the commonly used term "nature."  Nature is often credited (thanks to evolutionary thought) with oversight, wisdom, design, and governance.  These are all part of man's definition of his own abstract which he has called "nature."  The problem with abstract thought for the Christian, however, is when it is applied to theology or to God himself.

The rationalist sees truth as an abstraction which man must decipher and define.  This means the human idea of "truth" is over everything.  Even if truth is used in reference to God, truth as an abstract principle is put over God.  Men can then shamelessly ask, in so many words or not, "Is God's Word true?" ...  In reality, they are not holding up truth, but their own abstract definition of what they have declared truth to be.

Creating abstract ideas to which we hold God is common to modern thought.  One of the reasons men of all religions and ideologies can refer to "god" is that all they have in common is the term "god."  Each may be defining "god" in his own way by his own criteria.  The evangelical churches are also very prone to speaking of God in terms of attributes they have defined.  For example: 

1) "God is good." ... If, however, we have any human-conceived standard of goodness to which we hold God we have subsumed God to our abstract notion of goodness. ...

2) "God gives all men an equal chance at salvation. ...  Scripture, of course, teaches no such thing.  God is not democratic; He is the "Lord," or "Master" of man.

3) "God is love, so He would not send anyone to hell." ... Learning love from God and His revelation of Himself is far different than creating an abstract concept of what love means, then holding God to that concept and dictation what He would or would not do based upon this humanly defined paradigm called "love." ...

4) "The God I believe in would not predestinate people to hell." ... The God of Scripture does predestinate; if you believe in a god that does not predestinate, you believe in another god, one of your own imagination.  You have created an abstract god, one divorced from the Sovereign Creator Who revealed Himself in Scripture and in Jesus Christ.  This abstract god, as your creation, is now held accountable to your standards. 

5) "Our God is an awesome God." ... Are you defining awesomeness as God's love, mercy, grace, and promises and then saying, "This is why God is awesome"?  If so you have created a limited definition of God, an abstract concept and used it to describe Him as awesome.  On the other hand, when you say those words, are you proclaiming that God is awesome for all that He is"  Are you saying God is great and good in everything He does, even in His justice, His law, and His judgment? ...  We cannot pick and choose the aspects of God we prefer; God is real and we must praise Him for all that He is.  ...

God is not an idea; He is a  person, He identified Himself to Moses as "I am that I Am" (Exod. 3:14), that is the self-defining One Who is not limited by human description. ...

All thinking about God based on abstract ideas of God is idolatrous.  They violate the first and second commandments because they first create (even if only conceptually) a false, fictitious deity, one separated from the self-defining God of Scripture.  Such false gods are then worshipped as the true God.  When we call these false gods by the name of God, we violate the third commandment and we use His name in vain.

Some of the popular televangelists of recent years are obvious examples of such worship of false gods.  ... They speak of positive thinking, joy and blessing, but some have freely admitted they do not preach sin, obedience, or judgment lest they turn people away.  God for these men is an idol they have defined, one who serves man's purpose.  Such men quote the Bible often, as many evil men have over the years, but they do not believe or teach the every Word of God.  Their abstract ideas of God make Him and all His Word dependent on man's thinking; man's word then becomes the authoritative word."

From the magazine "Faith for all of Life" and authored by Mark Rushdoony.
.



Now then, what kind of Christian are you? Have you subordinated God to you own idea of whom God is and how He should act and treat mankind?
Then, what is your world view? What is it based on?  Are you residing in idolatry? Are you the authority over God?

REPUB INFIGHTING AGAIN ... GOOD!

The last time the Republican party had some good infighting, was when Dubya tried to nominate Meirs to the bench. Today, it's over the Afghanistan war. Michael Steele made the salient point that this is Obamas war, but he did it inappropriately, and the talking heads demanded his resignation. So Ann Coulter has to pick up the baton. She has a lot more credibility than Michael, who is wishy-washy on things like Pork Barrel spending, and she will not defer nor be deflected by the "establishment".

Try to remember the reason why we are in that particular region: Muslims attacked America and killed over 3,000 people. The real problem is not where is the fight, but HOW we are fighting.

Recently McChrystal tied the hands of the very soldiers he was leading into battle by not allowing them to defend themselves or to fight the enemy as if that is why we were there.

After the election and all the clamor from the "News Media" that Bush was fighting in the wrong country, Obama changed strategies and escalated the war in Afghanistan. There is no denying that. All of the Democratic pundits said that Afghanistan is where the Taliban are hiding, so Afghanistan is where we have to fight.

Well, doesn't that mean Obama made a conscious decision to enlarge Americas footprint in that country? Then, logically, it can be said THIS IS OBAMA'S WAR. We are there at his discretion; at his urging; at his desire. Dubya had troops fighting in Iraq, Obama has them in Afghanistan. It isn't that hard to understand.

Republicans still have that aw-gosh feeling and want to be liked, so politicians choose their words. Well, we are fed up with those kinds of representatives. We want our representatives to stand for something, it doesn't even matter what ...just stand for something.

Ann Coulter does stand for something and for someone. She is our best representative. For those of us who cannot get our politicians to listen to us, Ann can and she is being heard.

Bill Krystal is a talking head; he doesn't speak for us. He speaks for the "establishment". WE are not the establishment, WE ARE THE PEOPLE! Bill is just a commentator, he doesn't guide the voters or speak on our behalf. And he isn't alone, perhaps except for Krauthammer, those TV personalities do not speak for the voters.

I say Take it to 'em, Ann. Make them defend their positions and their attempts to please the "news media". Make them explain why they want to be liked by the Dems instead of establishing the differences between them and the American people.

BYE BYE BYRD .IE

First it was "Ted" now it's Byrd; This idea of eulogizing the sponges that have robbed taxpayers, and removed our freedoms one at a time,  is incredible. The Constitution intended that citizens would offer to serve the nation for a short period of time, to administer the country's business, then go back home to their lives. Instead, we have politicians who have never held a job or owned a business, and have stayed in office for over 40 years. As they die, one after the other, they continue to use taxpayers money to give these old sponges a funeral that should be reserved for dignitaries, or Presidents, while in office.

What is wrong with Americans, who cry at the funeral of a man they are not even related to? A man they don't even know or have a relationship with. He's just a tired old politician that used to hate the black people, and voted against civil rights for the black people. Are the sobbers bigots, themselves?

I don't get it. Are Senators worthy of such an honor? What are these men, gods? What the heck is wrong with America?