UN To Officially Welcome Extraterrestrial Aliens!

The United Nations has appointed a Malaysian astrophysicist to act as Earth’s representative to any extraterrestrial visitors who may land on our planet in the future. Dr. Mazlan Othman is the head of the UN’s Office for Outer Space Affairs and will be responsible for coordinating humanity’s response to a close encounter of the third kind.

In the unlikely event that aliens should arrive on our planet, I ask you: Do we really want to be represented by the UN? After all, the UN is one of the most corrupt, ineffective, and inefficient organizations on the planet. If ET did come to visit Earth, would you trust the UN to negotiate with a civilization that would be technologically superior to our own? We have only to look at the history of man to discover how often contact with advanced technological civilizations has ended poorly for the less advanced culture. Would Dr. Othman be meeting with a peaceful, benevolent Vulcan or would she end up as a trophy on the Predator’s wall? Professor Stephen Hawking suggests that first contact with alien visitors would more likely resemble the script of the movie Independence Day.

In any case, this is simply the typical political bureaucracy of the UN supplying Dr. Othman with a title for which she will receive a very large salary (subsidized mostly by the US) to provide an occasional useless report on what an impotent UN should do if confronted with an invasion from Mars. I think this would be an excellent job for Nancy Pelosi who seems to be from another world most of the time anyway.

“Welcome Our New Pastor” And Be Comfortable!

Imagine: Your church has selected or been assigned a new pastor. As part of your church’s community outreach, you want people living in the area to know that you have a new pastor. After all, they may have visited your church before and did not like your old pastor.

As one way to communicate with the local community, you decide to put a message on the marquee in front of the church so that people driving by will read about your new pastor. Now, one very important question is going to be: “What do you say about your new pastor in such a limited space?”

Would you describe him as – “a mighty man of God?” How about describing him as “a man of God”, or “a biblical preacher”, perhaps even “a man who loves God”, or “a man who demonstrates God’s love for His people”? Of course, your imagination is the limit – as long as you are truthful and concise.

If you were called to be the pastor, what would you want the few words on the sign to say about you? If I were called to be a pastor, I would be greatly honored to be called “God’s man” or “a man who has experienced the grace of God.” Whatever is said, I would hope that the words would convey that this church and this minister are all about God, Jesus Christ, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and God’s mercy and grace toward us who are sinners.

While driving home during the past couple of weeks I have noticed a marquee announcing a new pastor at a neighborhood church. The sign reads:

WELCOME OUR NEW PASTOR!

DR. JOHN SMITH (name changed)

“HE’S A CASUAL DRESSER!”

What would you assume is important to this church?

Liberal Logic And Fascism

Well Worth The Time To Read

Most Americans have not read Jonah Goldberg‘s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. It’s a well researched and very important book that will help you to understand the connections linking communism, fascism, Nazism, and liberalism. I highly recommend that you read it. According to Goldberg:

(Liberal) logic seems to be that multiculturalism, the Peace Corps, and such are good things — things that liberals approve of — and good things can’t be fascist by simple virtue of the fact that liberals approve of them. . . .

The major flaw in all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact — an inconvenient truth if there ever was one — is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents. . . .

Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States. . . .

Indeed, it is my argument that during World War I, America became a fascist country, albeit temporarily. The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn’t in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America. How else would you describe a country where the world’s first modern propaganda ministry was established; political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners or immigrants of injecting treasonous “poison into the American bloodstream;” newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government; nearly a hundred thousand government propaganda agents were sent out among the people to whip up support for the regime and its war; college professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues; nearly a quarter-million goons were given legal authority to intimidate and beat “slackers” and dissenters; and leading artists and writers dedicated their crafts to proselytizing for the government? (pp. 7 – 12)

Resting In Assurance

Quoting Arthur W. Pink:

It is only in proportion as the Christian manifests the fruit of a genuine conversion that he is entitled to regard himself and be regarded by others as one of the called and elect of God. It is just in proportion as we add to our faith the other Christian graces that we have solid ground on which to rest in the assurance we belong to the family of Christ. It is not those who are governed by self-will, but “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

Jefferson On Immigrants

Thomas Jefferson

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:

“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”

The Responsibility Of The Man Of God

This phrase “man of God,” is used in the Old Testament to describe Moses who spoke for God. The phrase was also used of the angelic messenger sent

John MacArthur

by God to announce Sampson’s birth. Man of God is used to describe Samuel, who spoke the divine Word of God. It is used of Elijah, and Elisha, and David. It always refers to an anointed spokesman for God. It was the title for the messenger who proclaimed the Word of God. John MacArthur writes of this as he discusses 1 Timothy 6:11-14:

11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . (1 Timothy 6)

This is a very definitive text, and if I were to draw your attention to any one part of it as an introduction, I would draw your attention to verse 11 and a phrase, actually the second phrase in the verse, “O man of God”. . . .

When I was a young boy and first felt the call to preach, my dad encouraged me to be a man of God. That was a great phrase and left an indelible impression upon my mind. Be a man of God. And that desire that my dad had for me has really been my desire through all the years of my ministry. . . .

I am God’s man, and anyone who’s called to this ministry is God’s man. The man who personally belongs to God. That is a really interesting term, man of God. It may, at first, seem as something of a generic term. But, in fact, it is not. There’s only one person in the New Testament who is called man of God, and that is Timothy. And he is called that here. But it is extended a little beyond Timothy, because, later on in Paul’s writing to Timothy, 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 16, he says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

And there’s the phrase “man of God” again. Paul says, “Timothy, you are God’s man.” And then later, he says, “God’s man is made complete by his knowledge and faithfulness to Scripture.” It is the Scripture that is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training, and righteousness. And since that is the man of God’s responsibility, he cannot be complete…he cannot be equipped without the Word of God. So if you want to ask, “What is the primary responsibility of the man of God?” It is to proclaim the Word of God. And the better the man of God understands the Word of God, the better able he is to reprove, rebuke, exhort, train. The better he is able to fulfill his calling and be adequate for every good work. (“Identifying a Man of God”)

Courts Continue Their Attack On Christianity

In the words of columnist David Limbaugh:

“Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions — even incidental expressions? … One very recent example is the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional. In case you are wondering how highway crosses could remotely be considered to have violated any constitutional provision, the court tells us: ‘We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion.’ So here we go again. Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity. To fully appreciate the outrageousness of the court’s decision, you must understand that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private — not public — organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which also maintains the crosses. The egregious constitutional infraction here is not that the government put up the signs, which it didn’t, but that the memorials were placed along public roads. Thus, ‘reasonable’ passing motorists — as opposed, I guess, to those afflicted with anti-Christian road rage — might well assume that the government is endorsing the Christian religion. Horror of horrors.”

Continue reading. . . .

Life’s Problems

John Bunyan

Quoting John Bunyan:

Do not even such things as are most bitter to the flesh, tend to awaken Christians to faith and prayer, to a sight of the emptiness of this world, and the fadingness of the best it yield? Doth not God by these things (ofttimes) call our sins to remembrance, and provoke us to amendment of life? How then can we be offended at things by which we reap so much good?…. Therefore if mine enemy hunger, let me feed him; if he thirst, let me give him drink. Now in order to do this, (1) We must see good in that, in which other men can see none. (2) We must pass by those injuries that other men would revenge. (2) We must show we have grace, and that we are made to bear what other men are not acquainted with. (4) Many of our graces are kept alive, by those very things that are the death of other men’s souls…. The devil, (they say) is good when he is pleased; but Christ and His saints, when displeased.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press – not freedom of flag burning or freedom of pornography.

The Pastor’s Duty To Preach The Seriousness Of Hell

Fallen Angels In Hell

Hell is not a usual topic of friendly discussion; even in church. There are many people who say they are Christians and read their Bibles, but do not think the Scriptures teach a literal hell. When was the last time you heard a sermon on hell? Too many pulpits in our day are filled with men who won’t preach hell seriously because they don’t take sin seriously. Salvation by death may be a pleasant myth, but in reality all of us will one day stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Sinclair Ferguson writes:

To speak of hell is to speak of things so overwhelming that it cannot be done with ease.

Yet hell exists; this is the testimony of the Scriptures, of the apostles, and of the Lord Jesus himself. The emotionally intolerable is also the truth—and therein lies its awfulness.

It is incumbent on the Christian pastor to be familiar with it, to feel the weight of it, to preach it, and to counsel his flock in connection with its meaning and personal implications.

The preacher speaks as one who is conscious that he himself must stand before the judgment seat of Christ: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). Perhaps more than anything else, this must become the atmosphere from which God’s servants approach their tasks as preachers and pastors. We must appear there. Only those who are consciously aware that they will come before the judgment seat can speak with any sense of the weightiness of the issues of life and death, heaven and hell. . . .

Every member of fallen humanity needs to have thrust in front of him the radical and total inexcusability of sin and the absolute justice of God’s condemnation. Only then will he, can he, take hell seriously. The preaching of these truths is intended to tear away the blindness, to arouse and pierce the slumbering conscience. Otherwise, we persist in our assumption that whatever fate befalls others (a Nero, a Hitler, an Idi Amin), we ourselves are safe from divine condemnation.

Continue reading. . . .

Samuel Adams On Voting

Samuel Adams

Quoting Samuel Adams:

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

Poisoned Bread

Charles H. Spurgeon

Quoting Charles H. Spurgeon:

“Some excellent brethren seem to think more of the life than of the truth; for when I warn them that the enemy has poisoned the children’s bread, they answer ‘Dear brother, we are sorry to hear it; and, to counteract the evil, we will open the window, and give the children fresh air.’ Yes, open the window, and give them fresh air, by all means … But, at the same time, this ought you to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Arrest the poisoners, and open the windows, too. While men go on preaching false doctrine, you may talk as much as you will about deepening their spiritual life, but you will fail in it.”

All Must Submit To Islam

9/11

It is well documented that Iran was founded on the principles of Islamic Totalitarianism and is a full-fledged militant Islamic theocracy. Iran is also a leading supporter of the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. The next leading state supporter of Islamic Totalitarianism is Saudi Arabia. It has spent more than seventy-five billion dollars to promote the Wahhabi sect of Islam. The Wahhabi sect inspires legions of Islamic Totalitarians, including Osama Bin Laden. What is the purpose of these disciples of Islamic Totalitarians? Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein write:

To conjure up the emotions we felt on 9/11, many intellectuals claim, is dangerous, because it promotes the “simplistic” desire for revenge and casts aside the “complexity” of the factors that led to the 9/11 attacks. But, in fact, the desire for overwhelming retaliation most Americans felt after 9/11—and feel rarely, if ever, now—was the result of an objective conviction: that a truly monstrous evil had been perpetrated, and that if the enemies responsible for the 9/11 attacks were not dealt with decisively, we would suffer the same fate (or worse) again.

After 9/11, our leaders—seemingly sharing our conviction in the necessity of decisive retaliation—promised to do everything possible to make America safe from terrorist attack. . . .

To fulfill the promise to defeat the terrorist enemy that struck on 9/11, our leaders would first have to identify who exactly that enemy is and then be willing to do whatever is necessary to defeat him. . . .

Who is the enemy that attacked on 9/11? It is not “terrorism”—just as our enemy in World War II was not kamikaze strikes or U-boat attacks. Terrorism is a tactic employed by a certain group for a certain cause. That group and, above all, the cause they fight for are our enemy.

The group that threatens us with terrorism—the group of which Al Qaeda is but one terrorist faction—is a militant, religious, ideological movement best designated as “Islamic Totalitarianism.” The Islamic Totalitarian movement, which enjoys widespread and growing support throughout the Arab–Islamic world, encompasses those who believe that all must live in total subjugation to the dogmas of Islam and who conclude that jihad (“holy war”) must be waged against those who refuse to do so. Islamic Totalitarians regard the freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly happiness animating the West (and especially America and Israel) as the height of depravity. They seek to eradicate Western Culture, first in the Middle East and then in the West itself, with the ultimate aim of bringing about the worldwide triumph of Islam. This goal is achievable, adherents of the movement believe, because the West is a “paper tiger” that can be brought to its knees by sufficiently devoted Islamic warriors.

Read more here. . . .

We Need A Revival Of Old-Fashioned Doctrine

Charles H. Spurgeon

From a sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon:

We want a revival of old-fashioned doctrine. I know not a single doctrine which is not at this hour studiously undermined by those who ought to be its defenders. There is not a truth that is precious to the soul which is not now denied by those whose profession it is to proclaim it. To me it is clear that we need a revival of old-fashioned gospel preaching like that of Whitefield and Wesley.

The Scriptures must be made the infallible foundation of all teaching; the ruin, redemption and regeneration of mankind must be set forth in unmistakable terms.

Urgently do we need a revival of personal godliness. This is, indeed, the secret of church prosperity. When individuals fall from their steadfastness, the church is tossed to and fro; when personal faith is steadfast, the church abides true to her Lord.

It is upon the truly godly and spiritual that the future of religion depends in the hand of God. Oh, for more truly holy men, quickened and filled with the Holy Spirit, consecrated to the Lord and sanctified by His truth.

Brethren, we must each one live if the church is to be alive; we must live unto God if we expect to see the pleasure of the Lord prospering in our hands. Sanctified men are the salt of society and the saviors of the race. (“The Kind of Revival We Need”)

What Happens When The Constitution Does Not Mean What It Says?

Thomas Sowell

Who has the power to define what a word means? He who has the power decides the meaning of words. This is what is happening in our court system today. Too many judges are expanding or altering the meaning of words and phrases in our laws and our Constitution. When a judge does this, he is assuming the power to legislate law which is the responsibility of Congress. The duty of judges is to interpret the words of the law and Constitution based on the grammatical-historical meaning of the words when they were first used in the particular document. Economist Thomas Sowell writes on this topic:

“It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call ‘the needs of the times.’ Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed. The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting ‘the needs of the times’ — as they choose to define those needs. The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but ‘interpret’ it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet ‘the needs of the times,’ were made by Woodrow Wilson. It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people? To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America.”

Continue reading. . . .