FYI, I don't believe in Islamic terrorism

Muslims don't hate us. They are just people. Most of them living in the third world just trying to get some food on the table. They want to kill us in about the same proportion as anyone else on earth does. The idea that the world is being held hostage by Islamic terrorist is absurd. It is an idea that is put forth in order to divide people and to keep us fearful so that we will continue to accept a perpetual state of war and so that we will not attempt to create meaningful relationships with those who come from the Muslim culture.

Satan is at work in the world, seeking to divide and destroy people how ever he can. In a mockery of God's love for "honest scales" Satan has worked to create a global economy in which money has no real value and is based upon an ever growing need for debt. This is a great plan for Satan, because best way to ensure that there is a constantly increasing supply of legally enforceable debt is to ensure that there are nations willing to indenture their citizenry through taxation and inflation used to finance both the military infrastructure needed to wage war and the rebuilding that comes after the damage is done. The fancifully promoted myth of Islamic terrorism has provided a cover for the invasion and occupation of several sovereign countries expressly for the purposes of expanding this corrupt global monetary policy. The retaliation of the citizenry in those invaded countries is then used to support the myth of terrorism and continue the process. The combined death toll of these invasions and retaliations has sent untold millions of people straight to hell.

In order to break the cycle of violence it is necessary for us to consider the premise that has kept us living in fear. If you will consider the instances of violence committed against western nations that are carried out solely by Islamic fundamentalists for the express purpose of demonstrating their hatred toward our culture you will find that Islamic terrorism does not exist to a degree that it should be considered a threat to our way of life. As Christians if we approach the Islamic culture with a prejudice colored by the lens of the myth of Islamic terrorism we will find ourselves unable to create meaningful relationships that can lead to Gospel transformation (that's because we can't share Jesus with dead Muslims).

The true threat of Islam is that the more we fear it, the more that fear creates a chasm between us as human beings. As Christians desiring to love people and share the good news of Christ, we must not approach the Muslim culture as if it is to be feared, but to instead place all of our fear upon the Lord and approach Muslims simply as people, people who need Jesus Christ just like everyone else. Loving Muslims in this way not only removes a barrier to sharing our faith, but it also removes the motivation being used to cause us to support an evil monetary and warfare system that is the base of power for those promoting a Satanic one world government.

Check out this link for some good reading on this subject, or if you agree, join my facebook group.

More about two realities:

OK first things first, since we have to deal in scripture let me address that. As for an explicit teaching I can show a few things that I think support my theory but mostly only implicitly. I think this is acceptable however, because if we are to require explicit teaching for every doctrine then we may have to ditch the Trinity along with my two realities theory.

So I guess my question is, if I can show that scripture implicitly supports my theory and that my theory is not explicitly negated in scripture, if it aids in my ability to reach and love the lost, then shouldn't I feel free to adopt and even promote this position? I'm not asking this question as a challenge, but really as just a question.

So for some inferences on the two realities consider Genesis. When Adam and Eve sinned God banished them from the Garden of Eden, out of His Holy Presence. "He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. Gen 3:24" Now I believe that the purpose of Creation was to reveal the Glory of Christ. So it was by God's will that Adam and Eve sinned, God created them in a reality where this was possible, and he knew and even foreknew that it would happen. When the sin happened God banished them from his presence and from the direction of His will (they knew good and evil for themselves Gen 3:22), this banishment was a severe separation hence the cherubim and flaming sword. So God banished them into a reality where they would be left to decide good and evil for themselves. God created this reality for the express purpose of destroying it (Romans 9), but not until His redemptive purposes were accomplished. So God created this reality where we are allowed to decide what is good and evil on our own, the purpose he created this reality for was to enable us to marvel in the Glory of Christ as he saves us from the planned destruction. Is he still not completely sovereign over this reality? If I blow up a balloon for the express purpose of popping it to bring joy to my son, am I not still sovereign over the balloon and the air in it even if I allow the molecules inside to go where they will?

Next consider salvation: Can a sinner come into the presence of God? Can a former sinner come into the presence of God? No. (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, easy ones!) It would not be just for God to allow this to happen because of who He is. So if I live in a reality in which I am a sinner that is destined for destruction and I come to faith in Christ, the only way I can come into the presence of God is if my faith in Christ makes me absolutely new from the beginning of time. What about my past? Well at the revealing of Christ is when it will be destroyed along with the rest of the reality that was prepared for destruction. My new past is that I was unconditionally elected from before time began (because there would be no other way that I could enter into God's presence). So the blood of Christ literally makes us a new creation, not a renovated creation, a new one. So with two realities I can uphold unconditional election, and man's free will at the same time. I can read Romans 9 and go right on to Romans 10 and not see any kind of inconsistency or confusion. I guess that makes me a Calvinian, or an Arminivist.

I put some other verses on my blog post that I really think could be used to infer support of my two realities theory. Any reference to a new birth, new heavens, new earth, old passing away, kingdoms coming to nothing, etc. One interesting one is in Daniel 2:36-45. Daniel is interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar dream. In it he sees a kingdom coming: "41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay.42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle." Prior to Christ the Holy Spirit was not sent to us. God interacted with his people directly where he needed and through the priests and prophets in order to separate himself from the sins of the people. After Christ the Holy Spirit is among us. So we have the Kingdom of God among each one of us. And we each as individuals are experiencing the reality of Adam's banishment, and through the new Adam, the reality of God's Kingdom, at the same time. One of these kingdoms is strong and one is brittle, just like the interpretation of the dream in Daniel.

Now, let's talk about the will of God. Who can resist God's will? Nobody right? If someone could then they could dethrone him or otherwise thwart his purposes. So the logical conclusion of this from our perspective is that reality IS the revealed will of God, because it wouldn't have happened if it weren't. However I think I've shown how it could be possible for God to will a reality for the purposes of destroying it, and then allow for individuals within that reality to be "given over to their lusts" (Rom 1:24), with out those sins being against the will of God (because his will is that they are going to be destroyed with the reality anyway).

Two wills or two realities, which one makes for a bigger God? My argument is that saying God has two wills, one of which is constantly frustrated by our inability to live up to it, puts God into the same constraint of space and time that we exist in. If we say there are two wills and one reality then we have to do mental gymnastics to say that God willed the evil but is not responsible or accountable for it. We'll even go so far as to say that the evil is good because it accomplished God's purpose, but we should be careful because "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20" Clearly there is good and there is evil, clearly we sin, and clearly it is not God causing us to sin (James 1:13). So something has to give here. Either God wills that I sin and James is wrong, or I am free to sin against the will of God and Paul is wrong (Romans 9:6-18 ). I'm not willing to accept either one of those solutions.

However, if we say there is one will and two realities then it all makes sense. How can something be real and be against the will of God? It can't, but God could will a reality where man could live for a time outside of his will. So I'm not going against Romans 9, everything in that reality was "endured with much patience" and "prepared for destruction", for the purpose making "known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory". I see two realities here, one prepared for destruction, one prepared for glory. We are saved from the one into the other. When we enter His Kingdom we are made new creations, not refurbished creations, new creations. Something that is new does not have a history, it is new. So how can I be new if I am old unless my history is changed due to a change of reality? That's what I am saying. I think my theory sees a bigger God with a single will, instead of a God constantly frustrated by our disobedience to one of His 2 wills. I think my theory also affirms scripture more literally than I did prior to this theory (understanding kingdoms, rebirth, new heavens, etc much more clearly), and I think it solves some apparent paradoxes in scripture (which for obvious reasons can't be paradoxes).

So how do we apply this to real life? Well the story of Joseph is a perfect example. To do the will of God in the reality of Adam's banishment so that people will be saved from the coming destruction. Christ not only made it possible but also taught us how to live in two realities, to be "in the world but not of the world" (which isn't scripture but is also inferred from places like John 11:17, 1 John 2:15-17 etc).

Predestination, free will, 6000, 14 billion, or all of the above?

I was reading about the theory that the large hadron collider may be sabotaging itself from the future, which is an interesting thing. Also this week I had a conversation with a guy who has a kind of deliverance/prayer ministry. This person prays with people about their past, and invites Jesus into the memories, he believes that since Jesus is Lord over time he not only can heal the memory but also can actually change the past. This is also an interesting thought. Lately I have also been struggling with what I believe in regards to the age of the universe and how to see the Bible as infallible while also not neglecting the realities of creation. Don't ask me why, but these questions have been troubling me.

It may seem unrelated but I'll try later to explain why its not. I've also always been struggling and praying for God to reveal to me more clearly the relationship between how the Bible clearly teaches that while God has predestined before time began those who would be saved, it is also clear that each person make a choice to repent and come to him in faith through the hearing of the Gospel (which is also an act of will on the part of those who bring the word). How can this obvious act of choice and free will also be an act of sovereign predestination? Clearly both principles are taught in scripture, scripture cannot be in conflict with itself, so the only logical conclusion is that both things are true, and I don't understand it, and I want to. Anyway this conflict is similar to the conflict I feel regarding the seeming paradox between the scriptural and scientific accounts of the age of the universe.

It is hard to read the Biblical creation account, the work done on Biblical Geneology, and not come to the conclusion that the earth and universe are not more than 6000-8000 years old. However, when confronted with God's creation I am presented with scientific evidence (laws of physics that God has also ordained) that the universe is upwards of 14 billion years old. It would seem that there is a great conflict here between the Biblical and scientific record. Why would God say one thing in scripture and present another in reality? He cannot be trying to deceive us, because He is God, so clearly I lack wisdom in how to understand this apparent paradox.

In my struggle with this I've been flip-flopping between being and old earth creationist, to a young earth creationist, to considering what is real and not about evolution, and really I've just been praying that God would give me wisdom, because I've not been able to hang onto a firm belief. I've really been double minded on this issue like the guy in James 1, and I'm praying and believing that God will reveal to me the wisdom to understand these questions. It's important to me for a couple of reasons: One, I don't want to be double minded and inconsistent on an issue of scripture, and two, because I want to know how to direct my family in our homeschooling especially when it comes to this subject. It seems you can go one of three ways with the material that is out there, old earth creationism, young earth creationism, and synchronistic evolution (ie God used evolution to create). What should I teach my children?

The story of the Large Hadron collider got me to thinking about time travel, and the nature of time. The guy with the deliverance ministry got me to thinking about the ramifications of Jesus actually being Lord over ALL, the ALPHA and OMEGA, the beginning and the end, and what that really meant in terms of forgiveness and healing. My struggle with reconciling predestination with free will helped me to accept (albeit without understanding) that Biblical contradictions do not exist and that if two opposing ideas are presented as truth in scripture then somehow they both must be true, and this idea then lead me to apply this way of thinking to the paradox presented in the age of the universe. The answer suddenly hit me that the universe is both 14 billion years old and 6000 years old at the same time.

Some ideas floating around in quantum physics and string theory are that there are multiple or parallel universes all happening simultaneously. Take in to consideration the ramifications of this statement: Romans 1:24 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves," It says that "God gave them up", this was an action taken upon people by the creator of the universe who, when He spoke, all that we know was created. Something big happened here. How can God maintain His perfect will while people are simultaneously living in direct opposition to it? I'm proposing that when "God gave them up" it created an alternate reality such as what is described in string theory. A reality that is no less real than the reality which is in God's will, but at the same time in direct opposition to God's will. For God to be able to allow for his creation to rebel against His will He would need to create a reality in which His will was not, however He would still have to remain ultimately sovereign over that reality.

To me this explains A LOT! This means that faith does more than move mountains. It actually causes you to exist in a new reality where even history is and always has been according to the will of God. So after our rebellion in Eden God created a schism in time. In one fork of that schism there exists a universe where the reality of God being absent is present, in that reality the lusts of man are what define truth (Because God has given us up in our lusts) and as of now the truth is that the universe is 14 billion years old. And in the other fork of the schism the universe is 6000 years old, God is the sole standard for truth, and people find their joy living within His will. The forks of the schism don't diverge from one another, but by God's grace they overlap, so that both are clearly evident, giving the people lost in the Godless schism an opportunity to make the transition to the "Kingdom of God" which is the domain of reality in which God has established His will. It is a matter of faith which determines which reality you exist in. Both are real, both are true, we can experience the consequences of each one, however one reality is going to last for all of eternity, and one reality will "pass away" (read Rev 21:1)

Think about this, when you repent, God says he remembers your sin no more, puts them as far as the east is from the west, etc. How can God do this? Because our sin occurred outside his will, when we repent we move inside His will. What is outside the will of God is not even in the same universe as what is inside his will! When you are saved you clearly make a choice to live in the reality inside of God's will. In that reality you were always saved, however, in the reality outside of God's will you were always damned. So see how it can be both? One thing happens in one reality, one happens in the other, they both happen to you, both are real and both are true.

When God "gave us up" to our lust, when he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden, it was not just a change in Geography and Relationship, it was a change in REALITY. We went from living in a reality that was within the will of God to living in a reality that was outside the will of God. Each one as real as the other, but the reality outside the will of God only being perpetuated in existence by the Grace of God (or by the Word of His power, Hebrews 1:3), for the purpose of saving those who He loved that still exist in that reality (John 3:16). At some point the reality outside the will of God will pass away only leaving the reality that is within God's will.

Here are some quick verses to think about along these lines:

1 Cor 13:9, For we know in part and we prophesy in part,10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. (The reality outside of Gods will will pass away, and we will be left only with the perfect)

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (Moving from one reality to the other)

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (I'm saying that the old heaven and earth are passing away while the new heaven and earth are appearing, and they overlap in a time of Grace)

Mathew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (possibly talking about how consequences from the sinful reality rippling through to the redeemed reality, such as a marriage to an unbeliever, a child born out of wedlock).

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, (Kingdoms being rebellious realities that are in opposition to Gods will, God's will being all that will last)

Mathew 3:2 Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Right now we can repent and have the ability to move in to God's will, this will not always be the case, the kingdom of heaven will not always be accessible or knowable by those living outside the will of God).

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world. (Hmm, the king of the universe is saying that he is not in his kingdom? This really leans toward a dual reality in my mind.)

Romans 14:23b ...For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (it is by faith we live in God's kingdom, and it is by will that we live in opposition to His, these are the 2 realities.)

[UPDATE]I was sent this article by John Piper (who I am a great fan of) about the "two wills of God".


Just reading through the Piper article (and I've read this line of thinking of the two wills before) and still it sits wrong with me. God has one will but allows things that are against his will to come to pass? The reason it sounds like double talk is because it is. The Bible clearly teaches that God's will is never frustrated. So we are left with a problem. That there is evil in the world that some how we must not attribute to God, while maintaining that it was not against his will that it happened. That's because we are obsessed with trying to discover what is "true" and what is "false", when it is possible that we should also be seeking what is "sin" and what is "righteousness". And in doing so we may find that there are cases where 2 mutually exclusive facts are in fact "true" however one is sin and one is not.

We are faced with paradoxes of free will vs sovereignty, 6000 vs 14 billion, is God a watchmaker or is he totally sovereign, could it be all of the above? The only way to reconcile these things is if we are currently experiencing more than one reality (ie the two wills of God). I don't think this violates scripture at all, in fact I believe it affirms scripture all the more, taking many of the verses we take as metaphorical and making them very literal (for instance, "new heavens and new earth", "this age is coming to nothing", "being born again", "behold I make all things new", etc). If there are (at least) two realities, then stuff starts making sense for me.

In one reality man is given into his own will, this happened at the fall of man in Genesis. This new reality HAD to happen because "God's will is never frustrated", so it would be impossible for man to have fallen and then continue to live in a reality where God will is not frustrated. Impossible unless it was God's will for there to be a time and place where we were allowed to live in opposition to God's will, a reality that God willed to be directed by man's will. Everything about the reality of man's will is sin. God is still sovereign over it because he created it, allowed for it, and in the end he will destroy it. However, during his time of grace (being allowed to live while in opposition to his will), he reveals Christ to us. While he allows man to live in opposition to his will, He still obviously intercedes where he sees fit in what we would call "miracles" and "providence". Simultaneously there is the reality that is the will of God. It will last for eternity, and it's most commonly referred to as "the Kingdom of Heaven". There are no miracles in the kingdom of Heaven, or you could as easily say that there are ONLY miracles in the kingdom of Heaven, miracles being defined as the physical manifestation of God's will.

Since God is who He is, it would be unfathomable to consider that a sinner could enter into his glory. Not even a former sinner, because any sin (even past sin) against an infinitely righteous being would be worthy of infinite punishment in order for God to be called just. Hence our desperate need for the work of Christ, in that he entered into the reality of man's will for the purpose of creating a way for sinful men to enter into the reality of God's will. When we claim the blood of Christ we are "born again" into the new reality. Since no sinner can ever live in the presence of God the history of God's reality is that we never sinned, we were elect from before time began, and God alone is the author of our salvation, so now, by the blood of Christ (who, don't forget is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end) we are made a new creation, literally, new from the beginning of time. While the physical consequences of our sin may continue after our rebirth (for instance damage to the body from abuse of drugs or alcohol), at death, or upon the return of Christ, we will diverge from the reality of man's will and we will be left only with what God wills for our bodies, our lives and this earth to be.

For those that reject Christ there cannot be any evil attributed to God. He allowed them to live in a reality where they were free to live by their own will. This in and of it self is an act of Grace that is beyond comprehension, a travesty of Justice that demands the work of the Cross in order to be reconciled. The fact that people rejected God is on them, no blame can be placed upon God because his Kingdom was evident, even to those living by their own will instead of by faith. They chose to stay in the reality where man's will determined truth. They were, as scripture teaches, created from the beginning of time for destruction, just as the elect were created from the beginning of time for God's Glory. Why? Because it would be an equally outrageous travesty of justice to allow a sinner into God's Glory, as it would be to allow a saint to be destroyed in hell. The logical conclusion of a reality where man's will is the ultimate standard for truth is death, because even though God gave us over to our own lusts (rom 1:24) he did not give our lusts power over death. So from the sinners perspective, the choice is theirs now to decide whether or not they are elect from the beginning of time, or similarly damned. But from God's perspective, and because of Christ, he only sees in what reality we exist in now, and when the two realities diverge, either by death or by Christ's return, then our course is set (and will have always been set) for all of eternity. This gives a new meaning to the phrase "once saved always saved", meaning you were always saved, from the beginning of time, not just from the beginning of repentance.

I like this idea of two realities. I'll leave it, if I can see in scripture where it cannot be true, but I think this idea neatly affirms scripture (using scripture as the standard), while also explaining the apparent paradoxes we are so often confronted with. It also helps to explain election to me, and makes it clear that while sin and evil are never God's will, it is by God's will that they are allowed to happen so that man can be saved. So we can very clearly see that no evil comes from God, but instead, even the evil that does come, comes because of God's goodness and because of His love for us (the alternative being that he could have just wiped us out instead of allowing us to live in sin for any amount of time at all).

German, Google, and Jesus

German praises, Google translator, and Jesus:

Jesus is my joy,
My heart's comfort, the source of it's beat.
He sustains and keeps me,
He is my life force,
My eye's pleasure and light,
He's the treasure of my soul and gladness;
So I will not let Jesus from my heart and face.
It is well for me that I have Jesus,
oh, how strong I hold to him.
He gave me my heart,when I had fallen.
Now I will never relent to keep by his side.
It was Jesus who first loved me,
and He who gave me all that I am,
oh if not for Jesus,
I would not be but a dead and broken heart.

Health Insurance

Here's my question, does your auto insurance cover oil changes? No? Do you know why? Because there is a 100% chance that you will get an oil change, there is no way to insure against it.

Insurance by it's nature is a transference of risk from you to another party. That party accepts payment of a premium calculated based on the likelihood of the incident being insured against actually taking place and the cost and frequency of the incident. If the likelihood of the incident is 100% then the premium would just cost the amount of the incident times the frequency of the incident over the time period being covered by the policy (plus overhead to operate the insurance company).

Most of us think that our insurance plans should cover everything, office visits, prescriptions, etc. well this is stupid. What you are doing in actuality is simply paying an insurance company to pay your doctor bill. just pay it yourself? Weird idea I know. Real insurance would only cover those events with a statistical likelihood of occurrence of less than one, all other expenses would come out of your pocket and be negotiated directly between you and your provider.

When you involve a 3rd party payor, you have paid to extricate yourself from the process of negotiating your healthcare costs. When you do this you have basically given the healthcare and insurance industries the permission to spend your money how THEY see fit. So prices get disjointed from reality, and it naturally creates a kind of "ponzi scheme" where as long as more people are paying in than are taking out then the system continues to work. Add onto this government manipulation of healthcare prices and procedures via the printing of fiat currency to pay for programs such as medicare and medicade (this causes price increases simply due to the effects of inflation), and government regulations such as those regarding emergency room treatment, and you have the perfect storm for an out of control fake economy and you and I the consumer get caught in the middle with no power no control it. And that's the idea, because then we turn to congress to fix the problem. More stupidity on our part.

The insidious thing is that the way the law currently exists just ENCOURAGES this to happen. Why? Because "they" want single payer healthcare. The same "they" that gave us the IRS. In order for our consumer based economy to work as many people as possible have to waste thier lives away toiling in some beurocracy so that they can earn fake money to purchase cheap junk made by slaves in third world countries. Naturally, as people who wish to be seen as moral, we would resist such an idea, but along comes our favorite government programs (most of which are only necessary because government intervention has priced the average consumer out of the market for whatever the government program is providing), the fear of going to jail for not giving the government YOUR money (the illegal and unconstitutional IRS), and the fear of getting sick and not being able to pay for it, add all this together and whammo, they've got you convinced to commit a excruciatingly long and drawn out form of suicide called the "American Dream".

The best thing to do about all this is to WAKE UP!

How to destroy a nation.

(A thought inspired from this article.)

The destruction of the family is key to creating a population of adult children who are incapable of reasoning for themselves. These people must look toward "big brother" (if you will) to make decisions for them. Strong families raise children who are capable of entering the world as individuals, responsible for their own actions, and most importantly equipped with the mental and intestinal attributes that are required to take any independent action at all.

I believe we are preparing to enter a time of American history that has never before been seen. A time when most of the adults in society will have been raised in single parent homes, or otherwise in homes where the traditional family is non existent. Some exceptions aside, most of these people will be incapable of reasoning and will have a profound dependence upon the state for survival.

The tools used to destroy families, are:

• materialism, a constant barrage of newly created needs and wants that drives the individual to consume meaninglessly;

• debt, the method used to achieve the materialism, this includes fiat debt based currency;

• an unnatural/unsatisfying work environment, meaningless bureaucratic positions that pay just enough to expand the personal debt but never enough to pay it off, this work environment provides little real satisfaction (satisifaction is a marketed good used to sell a variety of products, if the work place were to provide that it would be defeating its own purpose), most of these work environments will look very similar to high school in their social interactions and politics;

• compulsory state education, both parents being occupied in their work environments in order to keep up with the demands of college, mortgage, and consumer debt, children will be educated by the state and taught how to accept the unnatural as normal (and this is also why the work environment so closely resembles the adolescent drama of high school, the purpose of the education system is to ensure that adult thought processes are inhibited prior to the person being released into society).

• continuing education, "Education" (meaning the certifications provided by the state), will be believed to be the key to progressing in life. This will keep the public constantly and willingly indoctrinated, while at the same time burdening themselves with debt that not only has no asset but also is not subject to discharge due to bankruptcy, thereby requiring the debtor to use their "education" to enter into the bureaucracy and continue the cycle. Education is not inherently evil of course, however just like a hammer, you can use it to build something, but it's easier to use it to kill something.

• television/entertainment media, any time that a family may spend alone where individual conversations may take place will be controlled by television or other media. In this way the nature of any conversation will be controlled by the subject matter of the tv program, video game, music, etc. Education, Television programs, and other entertainment will promote the unnatural idea that children are to rebel against their parents, and that strong family relationships are unnatural, this will be seen as normal. Children will be taught via television that parents are unreliable sources of wisdom, and that wisdom should be sought from education, and that education is always provided by the state. Then when the kids go off to "college" to be further educated to receive a beurocratic position to pay off debt and aquire more things in order to purchase satisfaction, the adults, who at this point may or may not be the biological parents of the child, will be relieved to see them go.


• love = romance, television and media will be used to teach that love equals romance and that conflict is a sign of hatred. This, along with easy divorce laws, are important because if people were to realize that conflict is to be dealt with by remaining in relationships they would accidentally stumble upon a profound source of satisfaction in relationships that costs no money. This idea will be expanded to include churches, political parties, as well as families. Ideally no relationship will ever survive any conflict, the only relationship that will remain conflict free will be the individuals relationship with the state, that will be easily accomplished through marketing campaigns via the internet, television and other entertainment media. Any conflict that may occur with the state will be easily resolved by allowing the person to simply change political parties, the conflict being attributed not to the state but to the political party being left.

The ideal lifecycle for a modern slave would be this: Born, as soon as possible placed into daycare so mom can go back to work, watches television most waking hours, put in school as soon as possible (we don't want the kid to "fall behind" do we?), any time the kid is not at school he is either with peers or with parents, but only with parents or other adults under the supervision of the television to control the possible subject matter of the conversation, graduates high school, gets student loan, further rebels against any remaining moral standards while in college, graduates college, school debt is now due, gets a corporate or bureaucratic gig, goes to work 8 hours a day, goes home watches television at night, mows the lawn on Saturday, watches football on Sunday, repeats. Retires from job, becomes ward of the state (because kids are busy working to care for him, nor is their relationship sufficient to really care anyway), goes to adult version of daycare (nursing home), watches television most waking hours, dies.

Randy Brogdan For Oklahoma Governor

Maniac Muslim Suicide Terrorists

Where do they really happen? Maybe I'm not well informed, but it just struck me that I can't recall there being really a significant number suicide or terrorist attacks in the US or in Western Europe carried out by Muslim extremists. The only attacks I can think of are 9/11 and 7/7, the motives of both of which are seriously in question to say the least. Then there is the Madrid bombing, and I'm not to up on the legitimacy on that story. And the 1993 WTC bombing, which was probably the closest to being a real terrorist attack, and it was pretty much a complete failure in terms of what it intended. I can't really think of a whole lot more.

I mean, I can think of hundreds of scenarios that have been imprinted in my mind from shows like "24" and from movies, but I can't really recall actual factual attacks.

Seems like the main place that suicide and terrorist attacks take place are in places where we have occupying forces. Outside of that it seems to me like they are very very very rare, despite the fact that we're all expected to believe that at any moment some crazy jihadist is going to jump out of the bushes and blow us all up.

I just watched the movie "Traitor" with Don Cheadle, it's not bad, but it's premise is these Muslims blowing up crap all over the world. It actually has a nice balance of pointing out bad US policy and showing that Islam isn't just a seething cauldron of evil, but it still had this premise that there are these bad Muslims that are going to bomb the US and kill a lot of Americans at any moment.

The problem is that it never happens. 9/11 is the sole precedent of evil on the scale that would even come close to justifying the terror threat level, the Dept of Homeland Security, the war against terror, etc. And personally I'm pretty much convinced that Muslims in the caves of Afghanistan had almost nothing to do with 9/11, and I'm for sure that Muslims in Iraq had nothing to do with it. If you're not convinced you might want to do some googling on it and take a look at http://www.ae911truth.org/ and watch the documentary "Loose Change". I know, I know, it's a lot of reading, and the idea that 9/11 went down in any way contrary to the "official" story is an idea that you've been conditioned to respond to in a certain way. But it might do you some good to see what someone besides Fox News has to say on the subject.

We keep getting told that there is this enemy out there that hates us and wants to kill us. But really, unless I'm just mind blocked or ignorant of hundreds of acts of real terrorism, it seems like almost all suicide "terror" attacks are directed at getting foreign troops out of an occupied land, and almost none of these attacks are directed at killing evil, bacon-eating Americans.

It took me a while to come around, but Ron Paul finally convinced me how stupid our current foreign policies are even if we were under attack by terrorists. I guess it never occurred to me until now the extent to which we really just aren't.

It's actually an uplifting and relieving thought to realize that our supposed enemies are either totally incompetent, or really not all that motivated to attack us. Even better to think that maybe they don't even exist at all. I've had the privilege of traveling to several places on earth that are very poor by American standards. The people I met there didn't seem like they were sitting around plotting America's demise. In many cases the people I met led lives that were full of rich relationships and meaningful work, and were devoid of addictions to cheap materialism.

On that note here's another lie I just realized. That the rest of the world hates us for our wealth. I really think many of them are laughing at us, or maybe crying for us to change because they see that we've missed the whole point of life. Most of them don't even give us a thought, they're busy tending to their families, their farms, their God, and the few things they treasure.

The ones that hate us have a right. When we send our soldiers to contain and/or kill them, or when we send our corporations to enslave them. I don't like that about us either.

Suppose a foreign army came in an occupied your town. Supposed in their search for the "bad guys" they killed your wife and children. Suppose they wouldn't leave and treated you like the enemy and took away your liberties. How would you respond? I think I'd do what I could to get them to leave. Someone pointed me to the book "Dying to Win" which seems to support the hunch I'm having with actual facts and research, I'll have to check it out. When it comes to gauging how much the average Muslim hates me, I've come to the conclusion I can almost completely dismiss terrorist attacks in countries where there is an occupying foreign army, and that's pretty much the ONLY place where this kind of terrorism happens. With this aside, it seems now our differences are cultural and theological, things we can work through and discuss.

This realization is uplifting to me. I can now much more clearly focus on "sticking to the man", and not worry so much about the Muslim, except in gaining his friendship and assistance. It sure seems like it would make it easier for me to tell him about Jesus if I saw him as a human being and a friend, instead of a suicidal maniac.

My Recipe...for DISASTER!

I was making a peach cobbler the other day with fresh peaches. So I was boiling the peaches and was left with this pink peachy liquid, and I thought to myself, mmm, this might make a good soda. So I filtered it, added some sugar, put it in a 2 liter pop bottle and added some yeast...then I forgot about it.

The next day I received a frantic call at work from one of my kids, there had been an explosion in the kitchen...I remembered.

Yes, the yeast consumed the sugar producing carbon dioxide (as it is supposed to), however I may have put to much yeast in and I might have let it go a little long. The results were spectacularly disastrous:

The explosion literally blew the cabinet doors in half, not just open, the wood splintered down the middle, both doors:

The bread machine was sitting in front of the cabinet on top of the fridge prior to the explosion:

Here is what is left of the bottle, the lid stayed on, that probably helped:

Well by God's grace no one was near the explosion, Julie and the kids were in the other room, studying the sun, right when they read about solar flares they heard a big boom!

I'm sure there is some deep lesson for me in here somewhere, but I'm still just reveling in the awesomeness of it all!

I will have to modify my recipe and fermenting procedures moving forward. I thought it was pretty cool. Julie, well, not so much...:)

My personal Revolution Flag

I was having a conversation about the symbols of a revolution. It got me to thinking. When I talk about the Fed, about the NWO, heck even if I talk about the constitution I'm often accused of being a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. So I thought it would be fun and appropriate to take the object of my ridicule and transform it into the symbol of my individual liberty. Much like what Christians do with the cross of Christ. It was the object of our ridicule, a symbol of torture and death, of the power of the state and culture over us, after the resurrection it became the symbol of victory.

The tin foil hat is a moniker for a person who thinks outside the box and isn't afraid to discuss his or her thoughts, sometimes referred to as a "conspiracy theorist". The trend for labeling free thinkers as conspiracy theorists prompted me to put a twist on an old saying:

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, those who do are doomed to be called conspiracy theorists."

However, this is neither something to be ashamed of nor to ridicule. Our free thinking minds are the most dangerous threats to all forms of tyranny, and if they want mine, well they can just try to come and take it.

So here's my flag:



It's loosely based on the 1835 come and take it flag:



When we win the fight for our individual liberties, I'm going to put on the most elaborate tin foil hat I can come up with to celebrate. I'm going to stand on the steps in front of the federal reserve and scream at the top of my lungs, "My tin foil hat is worth more than all the money you can print, it's not for sale!"

:)

If God is dead, then long live the Fed.

God is dead. Moral absolutes have been wistfully done away with and replaced with the flexibility and convenience of a relativism that can change as we need it. Human intellect, our superior ability to interpret and define reality, has become the standard for truth.

God (may he rest in peace) had demands of righteousness, the chains of liberty, but these have finally been broken, we are now truly free. Our science, our industry, our technology are free to explore the vast expanse of our intellectual and creative prowess. However, even in this new found freedom we have found ourselves limited by nothing more than that which we use to symbolize our own wealth. Our money, restricted by an outside standard, gold.

Why should we allow our own wealth to be limited by a lifeless mineral over which we have very little control? We cannot create it, and the limited supply of it still requires that we exert mindless physical labor to acquire it. In many ways the supply and availability of this mere metal actually controls us! It limits our progress. It demands we modify our behavior, even against our own will. It violates our most basic doctrine, that we set the rules. How dare it! It is trying to be a God over us! We must kill it! It's really no big deal. We control TRUTH, money is trivial in comparison.

We know that any culture can choose whatever it wills as money, there is no law limiting us to gold, and if there was, we could simply change it. Our money should be a symbol of what is truly and most valuable to us. Obviously in a highly evolved culture such as ours the most valuable thing is our own brilliance. It would only be natural then, that the money with which we trade be symbolic of that which we value and esteem. A money system that will obey our every brilliant suggestion, in fact the very value of it will be derived from our genius in creating it. We'll be as rich as we are intelligent. No longer will our dreams be squashed simply because we lack money. NO! Now our dreams will be our money, our every wish will bear interest on our every increasing wealth! Even our dreams will be boundless, those chains of liberty no longer restricting us to that standard set forth by the late I am.

Resurrected?! Jesus, NO! We will it not

The humanist's dilemma

God is dead and we are all just animals. There is no right or wrong, only what is necessary for me to survive. If I persuade, deceive, or force you into giving up your resources for my well being, then the only standard you have against me is to appeal to the herd and stampede me into submission, punishment, or death.

If the herd has been convinced that you no longer are of any value, then what right do you have to disagree? None. You can scream and struggle, wiggle and skwirm, but in the end you are just an animal backed into a corner. Your life and death are meaningless, unless your death frees up some resources for the herd to sustain itself, then your death is preferred. However you'll be forgotten as soon as you are consumed. Well maybe not that soon. Surely they'll be a post consumption conversation about how inadequately you served your final purpose.

Does this not seem fair? What about your rights? They can be found in the same sewer where ran the blood of your murdered God. You no longer have a higher standard to appeal to. The will of the masses is the standard, and today you have been measured against it and you've been found wanting. You eat to much, breath to much, breed to much, work to much, talk to much, care to much, love to much. You must be killed so that the resources you are wasting become available to those who are behaving. Submit yourself therefore to those to whom the herd have ordained, and marvel at least at the brilliance of the propaganda justifying your fate.

Your final breath screams for liberty and freedom, but your voice is lost amongst the monolithic braying of the highest power in a godless existence. Your liberty is a threat to the peaceful predictability of the system, your speech is an unintelligible annoyance distracting from the popular entertaining melodies, the property you claim is better disposed of placating the obedient.

This is the conclusion. We have killed God and in doing so we have slit the throat of our own liberty. Our only hope is in a resurrection.

A little Poem

Came up with this in response to an argument. Thought I would share.

Our founding families explained
that our rights from God were ordained.
But Darwin came in
and got rid of sin
and freed us from liberty's chains.

catchy isn't it?

Here's another one:

I have a great problem with God's Holy law
in doing what's right and what's legal
but if God did not make me then I am not wrong
God Bless the HMS Beagle.

The Church Murdered Dr. Tiller

You may have heard about the murder of Dr. Tiller (the killer). The Dr who performed the late term murders on children who could have as easily been delivered and lived. He was interestingly enough murdered while serving as usher at his church. Apparently Tiller was a professing Christian who even went so far as to baptize the corpses of his victims in the name of Jesus. There is a very sad commentary here about the state of the church in America where this kind of behaviour would be tolerated by a professing Christian. Doug Phillips has a good article about this tragedy called George Tiller is Dead, for whom shall we mourn?, I would only add to Phillips article by saying that we SHOULD mourn for Tiller, and also recognise the sin of Tiller's church in an effort to keep from this sin in our own churches.

In fact I'm sure in the twisted mind of Tiller's killer the hypocrisy of his being a welcome and professing participant in a Christian church only added fuel to the hatred that led to his murder. The Bible is clear that in our fellowships we must admonish one another in order to keep each other from sin. The bible even outlines specific steps to take to confront a fellow believer who is sinning.

Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

So here is a clear command of Christ of how to handle a brother who has sinned against us, here is the way by which we reconcile ourselves to each other. The wisdom in this passage is profound. But Dr. Tiller was overtly engaged in a horrendous sin, countless people had obviously shared with him that what he was doing was wrong, yet he continued, even to the point of using his "Christianity" to somehow purify his evil deeds.

Paul says:

1 Corinthians5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Paul pleads with the church not to overlook overtly practiced sin and be arrogant about it. This man's eternity is at stake. Expel him! Do not allow him to somehow justify his behaviour by allowing him to remain in your fellowship while he persists in his sin unrepentant. This is for HIS good, so that his sin will work out it's course in him, so that his Spirit might be saved. He is to be delivered to Satan so that he may carry out his sin to it's logical conclusion, the destruction of the flesh. I believe that in this process the man may not die, but as he sows the seed of sin in his life, he will begin to reap the fruits of it, and see that it can only lead to death, and therefore repent and turn to Christ and be welcomed back into the fellowship.

Let's be clear, these actions are toward the professing Christians of your congregation. Not toward unbelievers. Unbelievers have NO POWER to overcome sin, they must hear and receive the Gospel so that they can repent. But once someone has proclaimed Christ and attests to being a Christian, then it is the loving duty of his brothers and sisters in Christ to hold him to that standard in love and out of fearful concern for his eternity.

If only Dr. Tiller's church would have done this. If only they would have, in love, said to him, "No sir, you are not welcome in our fellowship so long as you perform your sin, you proclaim Christ, therefore until you turn from your sin ,we must cast you out to be consumed by it." If they would have taken this stand Dr. Tiller may still be alive today, but because they didn't, the likelihood is that Dr. Tiller's eternity in Hell will be on the hands of the Reformation Lutheran Church and it's elders and teachers.

So do I feel sad for Tiller? Of course. He is most likely in Hell, unless somehow at this particular church service or sometime before then, he had repented and turned to Christ. He reaped what he sowed, and that is sad. He was a doctor, a bright man, possibly even a man with a misguided heart to help people. But he did not seek the council of God and was led away by Satan, with the blessing of the church, to his death. The church could have saved his live, and possibly his soul. We created a martyr for the cause of abortionists, when we could have created a repentant man who would have been powerful in putting an end to the wicked craft that he practiced.

Jesus or monkey bones?

Well the athiest have picked their idol. Here is a picture:



Their saviour has finally been unearthed. Athiest all over the world are rejoicing, the triumphant entry of their monkey king proves that there is no God to judge them. Praise be to the primate prince, who died and was buried and 1,716,675,000,000 days later was found still dead hanging on the wall of an art collector, all to prove that there is no such thing as sin. Now when anyone tries to hold you to a higher standard just point to the proof (with your middle finger), there is no standard for truth (other than this monkey which serves as the sole standard that there is no standard).

Do you not understand? Are you intellectually unable to see the significance of this monumental monkey? That's ok, just submit your will and the lapses in your intellegence to those elite minds among us who will give you constant assurances that this monkey is infact as magnificant as they claim. Surely submitting to the sovereignty of an intellectual elite is preferable to the personal auto-determinination practiced in centuries past. Look at the monkey and marvel, hear the words of the PHD's and know with joy that there is no God.

"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller

Do you believe in God?

The thing is, if you believe there is a God and if you believe that He is Good, then you have a great problem. By admitting His existence and his goodness you must condemn yourself. If God's goodness is not totally and infinitely good, then he is really just another being, higher on the food chain than us. Like a space alien or something. In His goodness are the ideals of all that man aspires for and at the same time readily admits he is unable to achieve. If God is good then He is also desirable above any other thing, and desiring anything other than Him would be a travesty of great ignorance. If God is good, then we MUST fall short of deserving Him, so the thing that is most desirable is also something that is not attainable by us, simply because He is God. If He is Good, then He MUST be just, and if He is just then we MUST be required to be worthy of deserving His goodness in order to fullfill our desire for Him. If God is not totally just or not totally good, then he must cease to be God and that which has the justice or goodness he falls short of must take his place as God.

This is why Christ is so important. Since we admit that we are not God, and He is desireable above all things, then we also must admit that any requirement laid upon us to make us worthy of His Goodness would be impossible for us to achieve simply because we are finite and He is infinite, it would never add up. And in His Justice we must demand that He require this of us, or we must abandon that He exists as God at all. We must either deny that He is God and work to ignore, manipulate, or destroy him, or we must accept who He is and realize that we can never be worthy of Him. Only something that could pay an infinite price could redeem a finite being to infinite goodness. Jesus is God, His punishment was able to pay the price of our shortcomings to His infinite goodness. God says that our simple belief in this fact is credited to us as HIS righteousness. So now our greatest desire can be fullfilled, not by our own works of righteousness, but by the righteous work of the very object of our desire, God Himself! Of course He alone could pay this price, because if the price could be paid apart from God, then, you guessed it, He would cease to be God and must submit to the being that could pay the price.

If there is no God who sets a standard for how we should live we all are forced to subject ourselves to the tyranny of the most persuasive or powerful amongst us. The existance of a God who is good is the existance of an objective moral standard. Without an objective standard, morality can only be defined subjectively. What this ultimately means is that the most persuasive group of intellectuals end up setting the moral compass for the masses. Truth, without an objective standard, can only be defined according to our own ability to rationally interpret reality. Since there are groups of individuals who are more able to convince people that they understand the complicated issues of economics, science, ethics, and other subdivisions of truth, those who are intellectually challeged in these areas must look to these groups for guidance. In the absence of a God who reveals truth to the individual, individuals must turn to the elite amongt themselves to find out how to live.

The simple fact is that there is a God, and He is Good. He created us and knows each one of us personally. He is so good that we cannot in any way earn him, however in His goodness he was able to be both just and the justifier of those of us who long to have our desire for Him fullfilled. Because of His work on the cross He is able to forever be with us and councils us, each and individually, daily on how to live so that we could live in this world the way in which He created it to be lived in. We can truly be dependent on no other human, as the source of all wisdom personally teaches us.

There can be no in-between. A god who is lacking in anyway is nothing more than another being in the universe, and he can be manipulated and possibly even destroyed. A god who did not create the world has no authority over it other than by force. And there cannot be a god who is evil, because evil can only be defined in light of good.

We can't say that there is no God and then demand that people live moral lives, nor can we say that there is a God and not come to terms with the desparity between His goodness and our lack of it.

My letter to Senator Coburn regarding the confirmation of David Ogden as deputy attorney general

Honorable Senator Coburn,

Please vote against the confirmation of David Ogden to the position of deputy attorney general. His stance as to how UN treaties affect states rights is a threat to our national sovereignty. Most case law that I have read about has upheld that the intent of the constitution in regards to treaties is limited to trade, however there are many progressive who are pushing for the idea that by adopting treaties they can effect create law that is binding over every state. Putting our country under the thumb of an international court system that we as a people have no control over.

One treaty that Ogden supports is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a direct assault on parental rights. The treaty basically puts the choices a parent would typically make for thier child in the hands of the child or the state, and takes the will of the parents out of the picture. This is immoral, unacceptable, un American, and people in support of such ideas must not be allowed positions of power within our governement.

Sadly, since our country has drifted so far from it's founding, the only real solution is to create a constitutional ammendment providing for the rights of parents. Our forefathers found this unecessary since it was obvious to them, however as a society we have drifted to the absurd and now must meticulously spell out even those rights our founders believed were so apparent they need not even be named.

Please use your power on the judiciary to protect the rights of parents and our national soveriegnty by rejecting Mr Ogden from this post.

Sincerely,

Dax Ewbank

This is why socialism leads to genocide:

"Family planning services reduce cost [for the state]" -Nancy Pelosi.

Since socialists believe it is the role of the state to provide a persons basic needs, when the state's resources are limited the only logical conclusion is to begin limiting the amount of people in order to control costs. In a socialist and planned economy the state is the source of revenue, in a capitalist economy the people are the source of wealth. In a socialist economy with a fiat currency that is using that currency to pay for social welfare programs, when the currency inflation causes price increases the answer has to be to reduce the number of people, not the level of services.

Genesis1:28

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

SOCIALIST VERSION:

And the elite ruling class placated them and said to them "Have only one or two children so we don't fill up the earth, if you become to numerous we will have to kill some of you in order to be able to continue to feed you. Be sure not to infringe upon the fish of the sea or the birds of the heavens or upon any living thing that moves on the earth, as you are subject to the earth and you are to submit to it because it has dominion over you." And they also said "Behold, we have printed up some money and given you a small amount of it, you can use it to purchase food manufactured in factories that use industrialized and engineered crops grown by farms that we also subsidize and regulate with the money we printed. Oh and make sure you don't cut down any trees or make any attempts at forms of agriculture that are outside our regulatory mandates. Remember, food cost money, and it's not like it just grows on trees. If you have some cows don't feed them too much, or you will have to pay a carbon tax because the gasses they emit are harmful to the earth." And the elite saw everything and behold, it was managed and controlled. And there was evening and there was morning, and it was all the same the next day.

Liberia, Hope for the Ideals of Liberty

There are some great things happening in Liberia, and I believe that are our founders principles of liberty at work as God begins to move through the nation. I am volunteering with a group that is working to change the nation of Liberia by bringing the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the message that God demands responsibility for liberty, and the message of love for your neighbors and community. Not only are we bringing a message, but there has grown a network of pastors and churches ready to put those words into action in thier own families and communities. I think God is ready to make a significant change in Liberia and possibly the world!

Here's a video to explain it more:

Many of you know I've been spending some time in Liberia, West Africa working with my church Fresh Start Fellowship and the West African Children's Support Network (WACSN) to try to help cause some positive change in that country. Truthfully we are simply trying to keep up with God as He moves to heal a nation, we want to be there to see it happen! For a small group of people I think we have been a part of some pretty big things up to now, we have delivered a container of food to help feed people, we have purchased a new generator to help power the compound where WACSN keeps it's base of operations, we have purchased a van that WACSN uses to help get people around town as well as provide a source of income for the facility, we're implementing an Internet connectivity plan to help aid communications and opportunities for business ventures, and most importantly we've been dedicated to helping the orphans in Liberia, by ensuring they are being fed and well kept, and by helping with the adoption expenses of some of our friends who have opened their homes and families to Liberian children. Our small church currently has 16 Liberian children as important members of our fellowship.

These are all great things. The people of Liberia need our support, their country is in ruins from years of war. If you think the American economy is bad, a look at the city of Monrovia will have you counting your blessings, they need our help, our money, and our time just to stay alive. However, I truly believe that the answer to the problems in Liberia lies within Liberians. This is why I am very excited about the "How Big Is God?" Crusade that we are planning March 27,28 & 29 at the soccer stadium in Monrovia, Liberia. This event will draw over 50,000 people per night to hear the Gospel, and the good plans God has for their nation if they will turn to Him and love each other.

I know, I know, you're thinking, "Great, ANOTHER big event to make people feel good, and then leave them holding their hats while the Americans fly home to the abundance that is their everyday life." And you'd be justified in thinking that way, we've all seen these kind of events come and go. I'm sure many Africans and Americans for that matter have come to a crusade or event and heard the word of God and maybe they even responded to it, only to go right back to the life they lived before once the crusade packed up and left town. But let me tell you, I think God has different plans for this crusade, I really believe in my heart that he is going to heal the nation of Liberia. It's not going to be through fantastic presentations of the Gospel, or the great music, or even the personal testimonies that will be given on that stage during the nights of the crusade. I think the difference here is that the Liberian Church is mobilized and excited about taking the opportunity of this event to reach out to and love the people in their communities.

When we went to Monrovia in August of 2008 we had the privilege of leading a pastors conference. To our amazement almost 200 pastors showed up for the 3 day event and listened to some no name Americans (Kris Ewbank and Bryan Bishop) tell them about their role as pastors. How they had to flee from the prosperity teaching that is so prevalent in Liberia and cling to the sufficiency of the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. They talked at length about how the pastors had to reach out and know and love their people, going to their homes, knowing their problems, and encouraging and admonishing them to live a life pleasing to God. The response to this simple message was incredible. At the conference the pastors were very enthused, but it wasn't until after we had come home and received calls from Liberia a couple of weeks later did we hear that the Liberian pastors had organized themselves into a network that has grown to over 1000 pastors representing 800 Churches of every Christian denomination. They are excited about loving their people, and teaching them to love God and their neighbors. They are breaking down denominational barriers in order to pursue a vision of reaching their city for God's Glory and I think this will be the key part to the healing of the nation of Liberia.

The How Big Is God crusade is being completely organized by these pastors, they are meeting together, planning, even going door to door to promote the event. The vision is to come together as a unified church and worship God, and in doing so, connect the people of Monrovia with churches and pastors ready to receive, Love, and encourage them. Basically we will be jump starting a grassroots effort that will reach deep into every community in the largest city in Liberia. The message will be that each and every Liberian is empowered and responsible to change their city, by establishing themselves as Godly households led by men and women in Love with Jesus, by accepting the burden and responsibility of feeding and caring for their own families and their own communities, and by reaching out in love to the people in their communities, not because of their religion or lack of it, but simply because they see them as image bearers of their Creator and desire to love them as Christ who, while we were still sinners, died to save us.

The motto of the country of Liberia is "The Love of Liberty Brought us Here". It was founded by freed American slaves who had a vision to take the ideals of liberty to Africa. Many may believe that that dream was shattered long ago. I tend to think that the principles of liberty are always true and will always work, and to struggle for those principles will always be a worthwhile effort. Looking to America, or the UN, or even their own government to fix Liberia is a time proven exercise in futility. When Liberians look toward the One who gave them their Liberty in the first place and when they willingly take on the burden that God requires for that Liberty, then as God heals their land we will see a nation transformed. And that will be something to see, especially from the front row!

So here's the skinny. It's a known fact that America is inflating it's currency and the value is continuously dropping, However, the fact of the matter is that it still buys stuff. And for this crusade to be a success we need to buy some stuff. Sound equipment, bus rental, printing, advertising, training of staff, all kinds of things. The Liberians are doing great putting the plan together, in fact they have done most of the work and they have also provided the cost estimates for the things we're raising money for. At Fresh Start Fellowship we're all excited about giving because we've caught the vision of what God is doing is Liberia. I hope you have too in a small way. What we're doing is this, you simply buy one or more $10 tickets on ebay to help support the crusade, or you can go to the crusade website to learn more and be a part in other ways.

Even if your not a Christian, I'm sure you can see that what we're doing here is at least worth $10.00. I mean what could be wrong with people coming together in unity and taking personal responsibility to love ALL their neighbors and fix their communities? So dig deep, well not that deep, dig as deep as you would to go see the latest Hollywood mind drain, I'm sure this will be more interesting in the end than anything corporate America could throw at you anyway!

-Dax

http://www.howbigisgod.org/

PS: All donations go toward crusade expenses and to assist ministries in Liberia. Donations go to WACSN, Inc, a 501.3c non-profit and are tax deductible as no goods or services will be rendered to you for the donation. WACSN is also verified by Missionfish.org.