Guns Actually Deter Crime!

Gee, it’s a wonder it’s taken this long to figure this out. We learned it in Texas pretty quick. The best way to keep gunman from going nuts on college campuses is allow others to have guns as well. Arm a teacher, or have security details with actual guns. But to ban guns for honest people leaves guns in the hands of the dishonest. This story shows that crime is deterred where guns are allowed!

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled “reasonable” is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

Read the rest here.

Never mind, here is the rest of the story. Emphasis added!

Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the Second Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled on March 18, and the LEAA brief is just one of 46 that have been filed on the side of seeking affirmation that the Second Amendment does, indeed, document a right for individuals to own guns in the United States.

The brief notes when the Georgia town of Kennesaw decided to require all residents, with exceptions for conscientious objectors, to keep a firearm at home, home burglaries fell from 66 to 26 to 11 in consecutive years.

In Orlando, the deterrence to criminals who simply knew that their victims may have a gun and may know how to use it and may be willing to do just that had a significant impact, because while Orlando’s rapes were plummeting, assaults were up 5 percent across the state and 7 percent nationally.

The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

“Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that ‘One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'” the study said. (Again, imagine that!)

The brief suggested the nation’s crime rate could rocket should more restrictions be placed on guns.

“Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence.”

“Guns save lives,” the brief said. “In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense.”

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so “the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent.”

Deeds said it’s always hard to predict the U.S. Supreme Court, but ideally the ruling would clarify the Second Amendment means exactly what its words say: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

He compared it to the discussion of freedom of religion, should the Bible be banned. “For Christians there’s no effective freedom of religion if they didn’t have a Bible,” he said.

“To have the Second Amendment right on paper, but to be denied the effective means of exercising that right at a moment of truth, when you’re trying to defend yourself or your loved one from an aggressor, [is wrong,]” he said. “The gun is the only answer.”

Where the rubber meets the road, he said, is when a good guy needs to survive an encounter with a bad guy, he said. There are two possible results: Police arrive on the scene later to have the innocent victim hurt or killed, or they arrive on the scene to “find the victim hearty and the offender on the floor.”

“Every cop in American is going to pick the second closing of the story,” Deeds said.

He said gun control originally was sold to Americans as a way to lower crime, but he disagreed. “People who sell this idea that bad guys are going to stop because of one more law are just full of it,” he said.

“That’s a lie. That’s a fraud,” he said. He also said it’s a terribly slippery slope to say that under the Second Amendment, some gun restrictions are good because they are “reasonable.”

“We are hoping that they [the Supreme Court] make a very clear, very unambiguous decision in favor of the Second Amendment,” Deeds told WND.

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. already resolved any dispute about the meaning of the Second Amendment when it defined in Montana’s compact under which it became a state that “any person” has the right to bear arms.

And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has led a congressional delegation in asking President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the Second Amendment.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned: “If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General’s line of argument, D.C.’s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. …”

The government’s position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since “unrestricted” private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

OK, I guess you could say I believe in the Second Amendment!

Global Warming Hoax!

I got this from Rivka, and even used her title. So the kudos goes to her. I wanted to share it with you.

Crib Time

Last night we struggled to get Andy in bed. It was midnight before he finally fell asleep. In the process, Joey stood up in his crib and gave us a big smile. He was standing there with his pajama bottoms half off and a big grin. It really helped us at the moment because we needed a laugh in the midst of the battle with Andy.

Why I Don’t Argue with Atheist

After being hit by an atheist over the past several days, I thought it appropriate to say why I don’t want to bother with them. That may seem cold and hard, but given that I know my calling, I know that I’m not the man to mess with them. Nor do I want them to mess with me, which is why I enabled comment moderation again. I don’t want to encourage them in any regard.

First, the reason I don’t waste my time with atheists is that I really don’t feel that is my calling. I am a pastor and my calling is to build up those in the body of Christ.

Ephesians 4:11-15 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ.

My goal is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. This doesn’t mean that I won’t share the gospel or evangelize when given the opportunity. I do believe in that. But when I come across hard-core atheists, who have more of an ax to grind than anything, I really don’t want to waste my time with them.

Secondly, the reason I don’t waste my time with atheist is because the Scriptures describe them as fools.

Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

That being the case, I don’t like to enter into an argument a fool, for fear that before long, it will be difficult to determine who the fool is. The reality of it is that anyone who claims there is no God, is truly corrupt in their being. They are denying the very Being that gave them their carnal lives. Romans 1-2 shows that all men have knowledge of God, but suppress that truth in unrighteousness. That being the case, they have traveled so far down the road of sinful behavior that they have become fools. They are denying the reality that God has given them knowledge of His existence. If they are not willing to accept that there is a God, again, I find it a waste of time to dialog with them.

Third, the reason I don’t waste my time with atheists is that they deny Scripture and the very power that exists to change them. They have been blinded to that truth, and without Scripture, there is really nothing we can say. I feel like, in a sense, they have ended the conversation before it has begun. If their hearts are so cold that they refuse even the possibility for the truth, then it’s a waste of time for me. (Remember, there are some who are called to try and reach the atheist, but it is not me).

2 Corinthians 4:3-6 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

They are blinded to the truth of Scripture, and it’s pointless to enter into a dialog with them.

I know that this may seem cold coming from a pastor. But I know my limitations and my gifts. I want to use them to the best of my ability. If you feel like God is leading you to battle with atheists, go for it. It’s just not my calling. I don’t have the time nor the inclination. There is too many other things I can do to be useful for Our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.

First Haircut!

Joey got his first haircut this past Monday. He really did well and didn’t seem to mind at all, once we gave him a Tootsie Pop to chew on while Mrs. C did her work. It was a fun event, and a photo opportunity! Take a look.

Global Warming Hysteria!

Just an update on some of the stupidity brought about by the global warming hysteria. First up is the problem of the new light bulbs mandated by Congress. These bulbs are supposed to last longer, thereby help reduce the potential for global warming. Never mind the fact that if you accidentally break one, your home needs to be evacuated by a Hazmet Team. Here is the story from WND.

WASHINGTON – Despite a congressional mandate banning the sale of common incandescent light bulbs by 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is warning that their compact fluorescent replacements are not safe to use everywhere.

The EPA says breakage of the energy-saving, mercury-containing CFLs can cause health hazards, especially for children and pregnant women, suggesting use of the bulbs over carpeted areas should be avoided. If bulbs break over carpeted areas, the cleanup may require cutting out pieces of the carpet to avoid toxic exposures.

Mercury is needed for the lamps to produce light, and there are currently no known substitutes. Small amounts of the toxic substance is vaporized when they break, which can happen if people screw them in holding the glass instead of the base or just drop them.

Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that accumulates in the body and can harm the nervous system of a fetus or young child if ingested in sufficient quantity.

For the Maine study, researchers shattered 65 compact fluorescents to test air quality and cleanup methods. They found that, in many cases, immediately after the bulb was broken – and sometimes even after a cleanup was attempted – levels of mercury vapor exceeded federal guidelines for chronic exposure by as much as 100 times.

Read the rest of the article here.

And then there is this absurdity. Apparently a bunch of Eskimos are suing the oil companies because of global warming. They claim that since it has been warmer than usual, there have been more storms along the coast, which has led to more erosion, and the destruction of their town. Instead of moving, their solution is to sue Big Oil. The problem with this is that global warming has not been proven to be man-made. Secondly, there is now evidence that the globe is actually cooling. See Rivka’s site for this info. She has an data that shows the globe is beginning to cool.

Here is part of the article about the Eskimos, (or as one man I know calls them, Snow Mexicans!)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A tiny Alaska village eroding into the Chukchi Sea sued oil, power and coal companies Tuesday, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming that threatens the community’s existence.

The city of Kivalina and a federally recognized tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, sued Exxon Mobil Corp. and eight other oil companies, plus 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village of 391 about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage. It’s built on an 8-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River.

Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities.

“We are seeing accelerated erosion because of the loss of sea ice,” City Administrator Janet Mitchell said in a statement. “We normally have ice starting in October, but now we have open water even into December so our island is not protected from the storms.”

Read the rest of it here.

The New Atheism and the End Game of Secularism

I found this via Gunny’s site, watched it and was truly given a lesson about the current atheistic movement in America today. The speaker is Albert Mohler, the current president of Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. He does a great job of showing how atheism started only a few hundred years ago (use of the term several hundred years ago. It has always been with us, but there wasn’t a term for it), how it was first scorned, then accepted, and now seeks to scorn anyone who holds to faith at all. The goal of many atheists is to drive Christianity off the map, and one of their solutions is to present the idea that Christians raising their children in a Christian home is paramount to child abuse. This is the first of four lectures. I plan on posting the rest here throughout the week.

While it is 41 minutes long, it is well worth watching. Sit back, and learn what the atheists are up to. in doing so, remember, that HE will never leave us nor forsake us, and the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, even in this new form of attack on the church.


I found this video clip at Neil’s Site, Eternity Matters. It’s from a recent episode of ER. I haven’t watched it in years. But the scene is of a man who is facing death, and he wants real answers, not the “one size fits all crap” that is given about God today. The sad reality is that the woman that is trying to help him, has no answers. My hope is that those of us who do, will be able to answer them.

There is hope for this man and so many others. That hope, (real substantial hope, not the hope that Rush Limbaugh bashes), is found in Jesus Christ. That is where forgiveness is found. It comes in the person of Christ and His work of atonement for those who believe in Him for salvation. It’s a shame that ER could not have continued on in this direction. Hell is real. But so is forgiveness.

Standing Against Multiculturalism

Since Archbishop Rowan Williams argued the case for incorporating Sharia Law into English Law, there has been quite a bit of backlash. Here is an article where the former Archbishop and a Roman Catholic Bishop point out the stupidity of multiculturalism. There is more information here.

(Also, new post below this one!)

Senior religious leaders attack multiculturalism and sharia law today, warning that they are “disastrous”, socially divisive and are destroying Britain’s culture and values.

Lord Carey and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor rebut the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, said: “His acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for the nation. He has overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.

“His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of sharia is a view I cannot share.

“There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights.”

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, said that the Government’s promotion of multiculturalism had destroyed the unity that used to hold society together. Immigrants must “obey the laws of this country”.

Writing in this newspaper, Lord Carey condemns multiculturalism as “disastrous”, blames it for creating Islamic ghettos and says that Dr Williams’s support for sharia law will “inevitably lead to further demands from the Muslim community”.

He suggests that such a move could embolden some Muslims to try to turn Britain into a country ruled by Islamic law which, he says, contradicts principles of human rights and allows the persecution of Christians.

Their comments will come as a blow to the embattled archbishop, who is experiencing the darkest days of his six years as leader of the Anglican Church, following his claim that the adoption of certain aspects of sharia law is “unavoidable”.

It also marks a deepening of the rift between Dr Williams and leading church figures over his support for Islamic law. The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said that it would be “simply impossible” to have two different legal systems.

Dr Williams sought to defend his comments yesterday, but is fighting to survive calls from politicians and members of his church demanding his resignation. The vast majority of the Church’s ruling body believe he was wrong, a Sunday Telegraph poll shows.

  • Your View: Is Sharia law in Britain unavoidable?
  • Sharia in Britain: Unease in Oxford
  • Matthew d’Ancona: Britain must reject craven counsel of despair
  • The survey of the General Synod found that only three per cent agreed that aspects of Islamic law should be adopted. Four per cent said he should resign, but two thirds rejected claims that he had lost credibility. A number of bishops have spoken out against the attacks on the archbishop, but a far greater number, including the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have chosen to distance themselves from the issue.

    Dr Williams argued that Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”. However, Lord Carey says the potential damage of Dr Williams’s idea of incorporating sharia courts into civil law “does not bear thinking about”. He says that it would be dangerous and would encourage some Muslims to try to turn Britain into an Islamic state.

    The former archbishop says that accommodating sharia law would lead to further demands. “This is absolutely inevitable, since questions to do with the separation of ‘church and state’ are largely new to Islam. Sharia law trumps civil law every time.”

    He adds: “Many Muslim interpreters of sharia believe that it supersedes secular law and assume that its ‘God-given’ status would lead to the point of eventually replacing civil law.”

    Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor sharia law may result in 'legal apartheid'
    Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor doesn’t
    agree with accomodating sharia law

    According to Lord Carey, sharia law disadvantages women and minorities, contradicts principles of human rights and has led to the persecution of Christians in countries such as Nigeria, where churches have been burned down.

    Dr Williams’s endorsement of “a legal marketplace in which people opt in and out based on religious affiliation opens the door to a parallel system of justice”, he writes. “The question which must be asked is whether the separate systems promote harmony or continue the creation of ghettos for Muslim communities — the result of disastrous policies of multiculturalism.”

    The archbishop had argued that the introduction of parts of Islamic law would help improve social cohesion, but Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor joined Lord Carey in attacking this idea and urged Muslims to do more to integrate.

    “The extent to which multiculturalism has been encouraged recently has meant a lessening of the kind of unity that a country needs,” he told this newspaper. “There are common values which are part of the heritage of this country which should be embraced by everybody.

    “I don’t believe in a multi-cultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land.” He says that sharia law clashes with British culture and stresses that the Government must act to stop the acceptance of foreign practices. Last week, this newspaper revealed that men with multiple wives had been given the go-ahead by ministers to claim extra welfare benefits.

    “The laws of this country don’t allow forced marriages or polygamy,” Lord Carey writes. “A government and a country has a right to make sure those laws are kept.”

    Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the shadow minister for community cohesion, said that setting up rival systems of law would alienate sections of society and may lead to legal apartheid.

    Lunar Eclipse!

    This is fascinating. Christopher Columbus used a lunar eclipse to trick the natives into giving him more food for his crew. It helps to have knowledge. Columbus was a true explorer and hero. Here is the article:

    The Moon will turn an eerie shade of red for people in the western hemisphere late Wednesday and early Thursday, recreating the eclipse that saved Christopher Columbus more than five centuries ago.

    In a lunar eclipse, the Sun, Earth and Moon are directly aligned and the Moon swings into the cone of shadow cast by the Earth.

    But the Moon does not become invisible, as there is still residual light that is deflected towards it by our atmosphere. Most of this refracted light is in the red part of the spectrum and as a result the Moon, seen from Earth, turns a coppery, orange or even brownish hue.

    Lunar eclipses have long been associated with superstitions and signs of ill omen, especially in battle.

    The defeat of the Persian king Darius III by Alexander the Great in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC was foretold by soothsayers when the Moon turned blood-red a few days earlier.

    And an eclipse is credited with saving the life of Christopher Columbus and his crew in 1504.

    Stranded on the coast of Jamaica, the explorers were running out of food and faced with increasingly hostile local inhabitants who were refusing to provide them with any more supplies.

    Columbus, looking at an astronomical almanac compiled by a German mathematician, realised that a total eclipse of the Moon would occur on February 29, 1504.

    He called the native leaders and warned them if they did not cooperate, he would make the Moon disappear from the sky the following night.

    The warning, of course, came true, prompting the terrified people to beg Columbus to restore the Moon — which he did, in return for as much food as his men needed. He and the crew were rescued on June 29, 1504.

    The Moon will be in total eclipse from 0301 GMT to 0351 GMT. This will be visible east of the Rocky Mountains in North America, as well as in all of Central and South America, West Africa and Western Europe. The zenith of totality is close to French Guiana.

    Read the rest of the article here.

    Starship Valdez

    If this proves to be true, it won’t be long before Exxon finds a way to send a crew to Titan in order to capitalize on this discovery. Apparently, Saturn’s moon, Titan, has large reserves of oil and methane. On one level, this points to the reality that oil is probably not derived from fossils, as so many believe. And on another level that oil occurs naturally in our solar system. Can’t be all that bad.

    Here is part of the story from WND:

    Saturn’s moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to a team of Johns Hopkins University scientists, adding to evidence that oil is not biological in origin.

    The scientists at the Laurel, Md., institution were reporting this week on data collected from NASA’s Cassini probe.

    “Several hundred lakes or seas have been discovered, of which dozens are estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than the entire known oil and gas reserves on Earth,” wrote lead scientist Ralph Lorenz of the university’s Applied Physics Laboratory in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters.

    Lorenz also reported dark dunes running along the equator cover 20 percent of Titan’s surface, comprising a volume of hydrocarbon material several hundred times larger than Earth’s coal reserves.

    I find this extremely fascinating. Read the rest of the article here.

    "Daddy, a toy!"

    I never realized going to work would be so difficult. But it is. Not that I don’t enjoy my calling. But leaving the house has become difficult because both my boys want me to stay with them. For Joey, that just means holding him. Andy wants more than that. He wants to come to work with me. It has gotten to the point that drama has entered the picture. He starts crying when he realizes I won’t take him to work.

    There is also a bit of humor in it. Here recently, he has started saying, “Daddy, a toy!” At which point he runs, finds me one of his toys and hands it to me. I guess he doesn’t think I can get through the day without any toys. Earlier this week, he gave me one of his trains, with the track. This morning, it was three wooden blocks. I also have some Hot Wheels and toy trucks in my car from times that he felt I needed a toy. I do take them back when I remember to grab them out of the car. Otherwise, when he does ride with me in my car, I have plenty of his toys. “Daddy, a toy!” has become part of the morning ritual. Hopefully he sees that I’m grateful for it. Not that I need the toy, but it’s great that he is willing to share with me.

    Valentine’s Day Advice

    The following was sent to me from Lance H. of Louisville, KY. He was reminding me, and all other men, of the necessity of being able to communicate with our lovely brides… After all, it is Valentine’s Day. A day created for chocolate, cards, flowers, more chocolate, lots of “I love you’s,” and an over all excuse to send most men into a panic about how to treat this day. I think it is safe to say, even when you are struggling with finances, that when she says, “Hey, let’s not bother with Valentine’s Day,” that what she means is: “Honey, I’m not going to get you anything, but you better not think that is reciprocal. You better spends some money on me!”

    Here is what Lance sent me.

    Nine words women use…

    1.) Fine : This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

    2.) Five Minutes : If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more
    minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

    3.) Nothing : This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing
    usually end in fine.
    4.) Go Ahead : This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

    5.) Loud Sigh : This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an
    idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to 3 for the meaning of nothing.)

    6.) That’s Okay : This is one of the most dangerous statements a woman can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

    7.) Thanks : A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome.

    8.) Whatever : Is a women’s way of saying @#&*! YOU!

    9.) Don’t worry about it, I got it : Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking ‘What’s wrong?’ For the woman’s response refer to 3.

    Send this to the men you know, to warn them about arguments they can avoid if they remember the terminology.

    Send this to all the women you know to give them a good laugh, cause they know it’s true.

    Van Til Quote

    From Cornelius Van Til:

    If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology.”

    Expressions of Excitement

    Yesterday morning, I made my way in to get Joey up before the rest of the family. Right now, he and I are the early risers. That may change when he gets older. I know it did for Andrew. But for now, I enjoy getting him up early because it’s “our time.”

    The difference yesterday, is that the moment he saw me, he was filled with joy and hunkered down with a big smile. I grabbed him up and went on about the morning, enjoying the moment.

    The next moment of joy came after I put him into his high chair. I walked over to the pantry and called his name to show that I was getting his “stars” out. Stars are finger foods for infant. The moment he saw the starts, he got all excited again. You know how some children rub their hands together when they get excited? Well, Joey did the same thing, only with his feet. It was the funniest thing as he made his exclamation of joy. He likes his stars.

    Concerning the LAW

    The following is from Sunday’s sermon on the Law of God. I hope that you will be blessed by reading it. Remember, it’s not perfectly written… but you should be able to get through it nonetheless.

    I like the way my former pastor, Grover Gunn, said it concerning the truth. He writes concerning the heresy in Galatia:

    “The truth is like a road with a ditch on either side. Paul was writing to the new Christians in the Roman province of Galatia because some false teachers were leading them into a ditch on one side of the road. Now the trick is to warn people against the ditch on one side of the road without leading them into the ditch on the other side of the road. That’s often not as easy as it sounds. You see, what often happens is that when people realize they are in the ditch of error on one side of the road of truth, they think that they cannot get too far away from that error. They think that the farther they go in the opposite direction, the better. Well, that simply is not the case. If we go as far away from the ditch on one side of the road as we can, we end up not on the road but in the ditch on the other side of the road.”

    That reality can be applied to most of the truths we know from Scripture. We need not run into the ditch on one side in order to get away from the ditch of heresy on the other side. This reality can most certainly be applied to the Law and the Christian’s life.

    Two mistakes made when it comes to God’s Law

    First, there are those who take it and use it to place us back under the covenant of works. In other words, they use the Law in such a way that it becomes the burden that kills all over again, instead of the means that it is supposed to be used for, a means of how we are to live. They say that we must live the Law in order to earn any level of righteousness. This again, is not true.

    The other extreme is that many totally ignore the law. They see Romans 6:14 in an improper way. Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under laws but under grace.

    As we begin this study of the Ten Words of God, I want us to do so under the proper context. That means we must address some of these issues in the abuses of the Law.

    When studying the Law in the Christian life, we must not ever do so without the lens of Christ or Grace. The moment we do so is the moment that we enter into the realm of legalism.

    Yes, the covenant of works does contain the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness. But we are no longer under the Law. We are under grace.

    Several areas we must understand about the Law before we actually study the Law.

    Law is Perpetual

    First we need to realize that the Law has always been with man, it is perpetual. According to our Confession: God gave to Adam, under a covenant of works, bound him and all his posterity… to personal, entire, exact and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with the power and ability to keep it.

    In other words, Adam was given the same moral law that is now before us. It was not externally written, but given in his and our conscience. We know this from Paul’s letters to the Romans. Romans 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).

    The reality of this is seen in Cain and Abel. When Cain murders Abel, he knows what he did was wrong. We can hear it in his reply to God, when God asks Cain where Abel is.

    “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    His lie shows that he is guilty. He was trying to hide the fact that he murdered Abel. He knows he was wrong. Cultures that are not given the law, still have a form of that Law, because it is written on their hearts.

    All mankind has the Law on their hearts and this began with Adam. The law is a part of who we are. Where the problem enters the picture is where Adam first transgresses against the Law itself, bringing himself into a fall into sin, along with the rest of humanity.

    What changed at that moment, was not just that we entered into sin, but our relationship to the Law of God changed.

    Before the fall, for Adam, it was “a positive power which incited love of God and of good.”[1] Adam had a full desire to keep the Law, because it aided in his relationship with God.

    After the fall, the negative power of the Law brought death. Instead of living by it, we live against it. It causes us to be at enmity against God.

    But we are obligated to keep the law of God and this is testified in two ways. First, all men exercise moral judgment. No matter how sinful they are, we still judge the sins of others.

    Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. A liar still condemns lying, etc.

    Secondly, all men possess a conscience. We see this reality in the number of religions that are available. Man has a sense of right and wrong that comes from the fact that we cannot escape the law of God. It is there.

    Romans 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.

    Because of this consciousness, man comes up with ways to make himself righteous so that he can please the God who is. Of course, we know the problem with this approach is that God has already given us a standard of righteousness, it’s the LAW. That cannot be changed. Before mankind even begins with their own standards, they have already failed because they have assumed that we can come up with our way in which to approach God.

    Since we have a conscience, we must find a way to sooth it for our breach in the contract known as the covenant of works. This is where religion comes into play. Mankind will set out to devise religions that they think will satisfy the wounded conscience. They seek inner peace via means that lead to destruction. The destruction isn’t obvious to them because they don’t understand the requirement that is necessary.

    IF you are going to appease God via that covenant of works, you must do so with complete perfection. You cannot have a momentary lapse in your endeavors, and you must keep all the laws perfectly from birth until death. Any lapse in thought, word or deed, brings failure and condemnation.

    When we come to the Law, we must never view it as a means to righteousness. It is not our means to righteousness.

    Well then, should we just not ignore the Law? On the one hand, we have those who are trying to live the Law or their own form of it for righteousness, and on the other hand, we have those who are trying to ignore it, especially those who are Christians.

    The answer there is no, we should not ignore it. The Christian that ignores it often does so based on Romans 6:14.

    We must also recognize that the Law is for those even under the New Covenant. Many will deny this by quoting Romans 6:14, We are not under law but under grace. But the Christian is under the obligation of the law even more so.

    What does Christ say concerning this issue:

    Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    We also know that for Christians to deny that we are obligated to keep the law of God is to deny that we love God and our neighbor.

    Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

    The entire law of God hangs on these commands. So to forego them is to not love God or your neighbor.

    Many use Romans 6:14 supposing “the grace delivers one from all guilt and punishment of sin without concern for deliverance from the practice of sin. Yet this very text appears in a passage dealing with deliverance from the practice of sin.”[2]

    The key isn’t being freed from the law to the point that we live as libertines, or those who live as if there is not law, abusing grace. The key is to understand what it means to be under the law, and under grace.

    By that we know that we are under the terms of the particular covenant. No, we are no longer under the terms of the particular covenant of the law, but we are under the terms of the covenant of grace.

    So to be under the law means we are under those terms for conditions of life, which means we must live perfectly obedient lives in order to obtain eternal life. This was the condition for Adam, and his entire progeny, i.e., those who have yet come under grace.

    Remember Martin Luther hated God because he felt the condemning nature of the law. It wasn’t until he understood grace that he finally realized the beauty of Christ.

    This is how it for many of us who come to know Him. We see the condemning nature of the law and hate Christianity and God. But then the Lord opens our eyes to see Jesus and the reality of grace comes into our lives.

    At this point we are no longer under the law, but under grace. This means two things:

    First, “the grace that is given to the sinner has a legal basis. Jesus Christ rendered perfect and perpetual obedience to the law and received the penalty required for the sinner. There is no grace without the fulfilling of the law.

    Second, the grace that is given leads to greater righteousness than is the case without it. Because grace is a renewing work of God in the hear of a sinner, bring new power and desire for righteousness, the result is the keeping of the law to a greater degree by far than is the case with the unconverted.[3]

    Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

    We are free to live the Law, not that we remove any of the debt that we owe, but by living the Law, we are living according to God’s revealed will for our lives. Keeping the commandments doesn’t earn us any righteousness, but please the Father when we do.

    Many ask how it is that we should live life? What way can we please God? It’s simple, live according to His Law. Not that we earn merit, but so that we are pleasing to Him. The more we live in accordance with God’s Law, the more our hearts grow and we become less rebellious towards Him, and more inclined to please Him.

    The problem for many is that we never even take the necessary steps to start living a pleasing life for God. We know our own depravity so well, that we feel like it is hopeless to even try. This is a lie of the devil. He wants nothing more that for us to give the Ten Commandments lip service, in hopes that we don’t realize we have been freed from the curse of the Law, and brought into liberty to live it as we are called to live it.

    We must resist this temptation because the Law is of “great importance to believers. It is(as a summary of God’s complete will) the only infallible rule of practice.”[4]

    We are given the Law as a guide to help us see how we are doing. It exposes our carnal nature to us and sends us back to our Savior for repentance and a greater reliance on the Holy Spirit. It truly is our guide, and our hearts should delight in it.

    [1] G.I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes, P&R Publishing, p. 137.

    [2] Williamson, p. 144.

    [3] Ibid, 145.

    [4] Ibid.

    What Was He Thinking?

    Well, most of us will say that he wasn’t thinking at all. Who? Archbishop of Canterbury said recently that England should adopt Sharia Law, or the Law of Islam. The story was reported at WorldnetDaily and you can read the rest of it here. But here is a snippet.

    A senior clergyman in the Church of England is calling for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, because of his comments promoting Islamic sharia law in Britain.

    The comments were reported by the Times Online, which said the reaction from the “long-standing member of the church’s governing body, the General Synod,” was just a part of the backlash against Williams over his comments.

    WND has reported that Williams, chief of the 70-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, has advocated for establishment of Islamic law, drawing a rebuke from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, among others.

    The Times Online reported the Synod member, who insisted on anonymity, reported, “A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Quran is.”

    Is this the same guy that accepts homosexuals into the clergy? Because if it is, then he just doomed those homosexuals to death, since this is what Sharia Law deems should happen. The guy is really coming across as an utter fool, without a lick of wisdom.