Thursday, July 3, 2014

WORD OF FAITH

The Word of Faith movement has been under constant attack from those people who claim to be Christians but do not believe in what its proponents say is true. 

The Word of Faith advocates believe that if you have sufficient faith, what you say will come to pass. Those people who do not believe that it is possible to have sufficient faith to have every prayer answered, or to obtain what you confess, criticize those that say you can. The reason they criticize the people who claim it is possible to have such faith, providing you believe, and do not doubt, is these doubters do not believe it is possible to have such faith.

The other problem for many is they have tried to believe and in fact thought that they believed sufficiently to achieve their aspiration in having sufficient faith to obtain their requests from God, or obtain what they confess, only the results were not forthcoming. This has led them to become disillusioned.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in respect to these matters. 

1.   If you do not doubt, you can have whatever you ask.
2.  Those who preach this message live off those who want to believe the message.
3.  Those who listen to the message become disillusioned when they fail to obtain what they believe they were to obtain by practicing what they thought was the message.

If you do not doubt, you can have whatever you ask.

Doubt once, just once, and that is the end to that. It is like trying to win a 100m race with a broken leg or trying to fly without wings.

Those who preach this message live off those who want to believe the message

Those who preach the message believe that there will be sufficient people who want to get rich quick or have some need that they will be prepared to pay for the privilege of hearing how they can have their need met.

There who listen to the message become disillusioned when they fail to obtain what they believe they were  hoping to obtain by practicing what they thought was the message.

As is often the case, the disillusioned blame others because they themselves failed to obtain what they wanted. Yet if they were seeking the truth, this would not have happened. Only the truth will set you free.

Yes, the reality is the truth will set us free. Unfortunately, too many people go from one deception to another and do not realize that when they point the finger at another person there are three more fingers pointing back at them saying, "You are not being totally honest about this. You are failing to consider the truth about yourself. Get the log out of your own eye, then you will start to see the truth."


. If you want to learn more about the finger that accuses us all, why not begin with the Only Words Written By The Finger Of God. You can obtain your own copy by clicking HERE

The following people have read The Only Words Written By The Finger Of God and this is what they have to say:

Rhonda, a 58 yr old Christian pastor's mother:  "This is the most biblical book I have read."

Vicki, a 54 yr year old woman, who gave her heart to Jesus twenty years ago: "I don't know if I should say this, but this book is like reading the Bible."

William, a 63 yr old pastor, writer of six unpublished books, Master of Theology candidate: "This is the book I always wanted to write but did not know how."

Andrew, a 29 yr old male who read the book after being a Christian for 15 yrs: "It is as if God speaks to me as I read this book. Every Christian needs to read this book."

Christine, a 60 yr old Buddhist woman: "Every word in that book is true."

Jason, a 23 yr old who gave his life to Christ at the age of 10 yrs but was going nowhere: "This book has changed my life, I only want to do the will of God."


Julie, a 30 yr old pastor's daughter: "I have just finished reading your book. Wow! It's amazing. I  just want to read it again and again. Now I want to do the task God wants me to do."

Are you a fence sitter, or do you really want to know the truth?

You can obtain your own copy by clicking HERE











Wednesday, January 8, 2014

One Man Jailed, Seven Dead, The Ninth Man Was In The Passenger Seat, And I Was Driving


Julian Knight shot dead seven people in a forty-five minute shooting spree at the Clifton Hill end of Hoddle Street, Melbourne, Victoria, on Sunday, the 9th of August, 1987, between 9.30pm and 10.15pm. This was not a disaster that just happened to occur because it was isolated from any other contributing factor. As is portrayed in the TV documentary series Seconds from Disaster, disasters do not just happen; a chain of critical events that lead up to that fatal moment triggers them.

Knight spent over three hours from around 5.30pm to nearly 9.00pm drinking in a local hotel before going to his mother’s house and loading up his weaponry: a .22 calibre Ruger semi-automatic rifle, a twelve-gauge Mossberg pump-action shotgun, and an M14 rifle. He then headed to nearby Hoddle Street, where he shot dead seven people and wounded some twenty people, including a police officer in the helicopter that was searching for him.

Official investigations into what may have caused Knight to snap that day have pieced together critical events leading up to his actions. Julian Knight was an adopted child. His father was a military man. Knight attempted to follow in his father’s footsteps. He had performed poorly academically and had been failing his courses at military school, from which he had been dishonorably discharged for assaulting an army officer. He was estranged from his father. His stepmother had rented out his bedroom and he was now camping out on the balcony of her Victorian two-storey terrace house. He had not heard from his birth mother, whom he had recently sent a letter. He had a busted relationship with his girlfriend. He was out of work. He was behind on the repayments of his Defence Force loan for his car and credit card.  His car broke down on the very day he killed his victims. He had been drinking heavily. That Sunday night he went to the hotel bar where he often drank, but not one of his friends was there. Isolated, he drank alone for three and a half hours before having visions of killing people and getting some justice for the bastardization[i] [i]and bullying he had experienced when at military school.

When people make decisions to do something that causes them to rise out of their normal behavioral mode and take actions that will change their lives, there is usually more involved than a spur of the moment decision. For instance, it is rare for people suddenly to become a hero in a situation without them having the inner fortitude to produce the courage required for the circumstances at hand.

 For instance, Bill was walking down the street and he saw two large men over six foot beat up a man much smaller than themselves. He ran towards them with his arms flying about, yelling and screaming as if he was a madman who had just escaped from the lockup. The two men ran away.

Bill is six-foot himself and has arms on him that are huge. He reminds one of the cartoon character Popeye, who has massive forearms.  He also has a voice that booms like a jet engine preparing for takeoff. Furthermore, he is a person who has a strong belief in upholding justice and gets incensed at wrongdoing. If you were to ask him why he did decide to rescue the victim, he would claim that it was just a decision made on the spur of the moment. Whereas, a five-foot man, slightly built, who possesses a squeaky voice, probably would be laughed at by the men who bashed up the victim, and he would be threatened himself, if not bashed and bruised for sticking his nose into other people’s affairs. By the same token, even taller men, would have not had second thoughts about keeping their noses clean by saying nothing. If they had no sense of justice, they would walk on by.

The statement, “As a man thinketh, so he is,” is a quotation taken out of the book of Proverbs from the King James Bible. We are what we think. What we think leads us towards holding a particular view, which transforms into how we start to see the world around us. This is our worldview, which becomes the basis upon which our interpretation of events sculpture our attitude towards what happens in life and people in general. Attitudes create behavioral responses to situations that, when reinforced, start to mold our personality. Character is formed in us from enduring circumstances that require us to hold fast to our determination to survive, in order for us to outlast any suffering inflicted upon us against our will. However, there are varying degrees of character, as well as that which is referred to as weak or strong, or good or evil. Some people develop strong character in some areas of life, but crumble in others. For instance, a man or woman can show integrity when it comes to being an excellent employee or employer, but fall down when it comes to alcohol.

A person of weak character is somebody who is not prepared to suffer any pain or loss, and someone who is not willing to assume responsibility. Instead of being disciplined by events, the person will cave in and look for easier ways out, or simply rebel against the force that is causing the pain. In other words, if a person is being bullied in the armed forces: usually, he will resign. On the other hand, if a recruit’s underlying desire to succeed in accomplishing his goal is truly a wholehearted determination, he will persevere and survive, and develop strong character.

However, sometimes a person is subjected to regulations and requirements that he does not like, because it is contrary to his upbringing. It is very difficult for a person to comply with orders when they are used to doing their own thing and not used to meeting other people’s expectations, or being told what to do. If a person grows up without parental discipline, then that child will react negatively to restrictions being imposed on him, or being ordered around.

Parental discipline is evidenced when a parent or parents place expectations upon a child and ensure that those expectations are met. There are three ways that people do this, with a combination of the three methods often utilized; the third method being adopted the least.

The classical conditioning method occurs when punishment or fear is used as a means of controlling children so they will do as they are told. This is often done by telling children that if they do not do as shown or asked, they will be punished by being hit with a stick or  locked in a room or, when very young, the parent will buy a wolf to eat them up,  after reading the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf. Often loud noises and other abusive means are used to terrify the child if they do not comply with their parents’ dictates. The children learn to comply and, except in abusive cases, discover that enduring a little suffering is a part of life.

The operant conditioning method is more along the lines of reward and punishment for achievements gained or expectations met. The child is told that upon doing the required task they shall get a reward. If they do not do the task they shall not be rewarded, instead they will miss out on some treat. This is evidenced when a child is told they will get sweets if they are quiet at the table and eat all their greens. The child does not eat greens but has to endure watching other siblings or visitors or mom and dad eating what they would like to eat. Eventually, the child eats the greens, since it is sweeter to comply than suffer when denied.

The ethical conditioning method is where children are taught to reason out the benefits of making decisions. This requires more effort than the previous two behavioral compliance strategies. Here the child is informed about the value of making right decisions and the disappointments and harmful consequences that occur from making wrong choices. Initially, elements of classical and operant conditioning may be used but they are not necessary, as by using information to instruct the child to make right choices develops a higher sense of self-esteem. Once the child is free to exercise their own volition and make right choices, the parents involve themselves with the child to encourage him to achieve whichever option chosen. This way, the child learns that perseverance brings results when the desired goal has been achieved.

The evidence appears to be Julian Knight grew up being undisciplined and was not subject to having been bullied at school, or if he was, he had not learnt how to deal with it and overcome the problem. When he went to military school, discipline and bullying (especially in the form of bastardization) were features of life that he could not endure. His failing academic marks were also another cause of disappointment and possible ridicule. Feeling hard done by, Julian Knight felt that the world owed him, but injustices were not being addressed. He had been served with a summons to appear in court for assaulting army personnel, and he was thinking how he would like to make amends himself. Only what tipped him over the edge?

In 1994, I was driving a Melbourne taxi. When driving taxis, I would often find people engaging in deep and meaningful conversations with me.  I picked up a passenger one day in his mid-fifties in Punt Street Melbourne and dropped him off in a suburb a little out from Clifton Hill, where the shootings took place. The trip took about twenty minutes. Punt Street becomes Hoddle St and the traffic was heavy. This passenger told me that he had been drinking at the same bar that Julian Knight was drinking. He was there when Knight left. Actually, he had been talking to Julian Knight for about thirty minutes prior to Knight’s departure. He confessed that he felt guilty for what happened that night because he could have prevented Knight from doing what he did. I suggested that there was no need to feel guilty about another man’s actions. My passenger said that Julian Knight told him what he was going to do when they were drinking together at the bar. He said that Knight was drunk but he thought what he was saying was mere pub talk, that is, the bull and bravado of a drunken man. Anyhow, I dropped the passenger off and reassured him that there was no need to feel guilty. He was not the one who killed the people.

The year 2014 is now upon me, and about twenty years have transpired since that conversation in the taxicab. I was talking to a person about how people make decisions, and for some reason I brought up the conversation I had had with the man in the front passenger’s seat when driving my taxi back in 1994. Afterwards I was talking to another person about the reasons people do things. During that conversation, we discussed what people do when they are drinking beer sitting on a stool at a bar. It dawned on me that the reason why the passenger I had in the taxi might have been feeling guilty was he could well have reinforced Julian Knight’s thinking that he ought to kill some people and show them what it is like to be bastardized.  The young man I was talking to confirmed my thinking as we further discussed various scenarios of typical bar behavior.

Later on, when I was on the computer, I did a search on the internet to see what I could find out about Julian Knight. I was interested to find out whether Julian Knight had been in the hotel prior to the shootings taking place, to see if there was any merit to the story I was told by the man in 1994. The truth is what my taxi passenger told me could very well be true. He may have been in the hotel talking to Julian Knight and, as he claimed, probably could have prevented a young man from killing seven people by discouraging him rather than encouraging him. Now this could be the reason the man in my taxi had a guilty conscience: in talking beer bravado, he probably said that he would shoot the bastards, too.






[i] Bastardization is the practice of physical assault and sexual abuse with varying levels of severity including rape by older members of the Australian Defence Force on new recruits.




Thursday, August 22, 2013

President Obama Defends Black Racist Shooting Of White Australian

Why Doesn't President Obama claim these two black teenagers could be his son like Trayvon Martin

Remember how the media, celebrities, politicians and black activists falsely portrayed the shooting in self defence of Trayvon Martin by Latino George Zimmerman as a white-on-black hate crime?




CRIPS AND BLOOD

Tim Blair – Thursday, August 22, 2013 (3:11am)

Gang signals from Chancey Luna and James Edwards, the two tough guys who are alleged to have killed Australian Christopher Lane by shooting him in the back while he was jogging: 

image 

Luna, alleged to be the trigger man, is a black power enthusiast. Luna, Edwards and co-accused Michael Jones are shown here and here in various pathetic poses, including this Facebook image of Edwards: 

image 

His future hopefully involves potassium chloride. Jim Treacher observes: 
It’s being treated as national news in Australia, but of course it’s being framed as a gun control issue. What are the odds that these, ahem, children used a legally obtained and licensed firearm? Any chance they’re members of the NRA? 


UPDATE. Iowahawk: 
I’m guessing the president won’t be commenting on their hypothetical resemblance to his hypothetical sons. 
UPDATE II. Jennifer Luna, mother of the accused killer, says that she ”wouldn’t be a good parent” if she didn’t worry about her son being executed or sent to jail for murder. Parenting is hard.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Capitalism: The Cure, Not The Problem

Capitalism: The Cure, Not The Problem

Image source
James McKibbin
Activist Post

The political climate of this country is full of tension and anger. Whether one considers themselves to be on the left, right, or something else altogether, they are undoubtedly fed up with this current system. There is no better display of these emotions than the current Occupy movement, now spreading across the country and the whole world. This Saturday was the kickoff of Occupy Pittsburgh.

Being that I count myself among the fed up, I wanted to attend. The political ideologies represented at the Pittsburgh rallies and marches on Saturday were varied. Most people participating no longer trust either political party to represent them anymore. There was popular sentiment that corporations have now bought the vast majority of politicians and that corporate money needs to be barred from flowing into the campaign coffers of these politicians.

The above message I can agree with, but it is the other solutions that many Occupiers advocate that I strongly disagree with. It was my impression that a good majority of the protesters wanted higher taxes for the “rich”, more regulation of the economy with special emphasis on the banking sector, and more socialized programs like universal healthcare.

“The rich are hoarding all the wealth and must be forced to give it up and pay their fair share.” “Government needs to crack down on the banks and regulate them more because they are now allowed to gamble away peoples’ savings in the derivatives market with impunity.” “The greedy healthcare companies are raising the cost of healthcare and forcing the poor to go without, therefore they must be restrained or the government should provide all medical care.” Many of these same people were calling for an end to capitalism altogether.

But how do these individuals define capitalism? Most point to the current form of a state-regulated market economy and say that it does not work. They say capitalism has failed the average person and enriched the top 1%. Millions are unemployed, millions are on government assistance programs, and banks get bailed out while the people are sold out. Those that do have work are paid scraps while the “capitalist class” siphons off the surplus value they create for themselves.

If this is one’s view of capitalism then I cannot blame them for hating it. I hate it as well. But I would not call our current system capitalism. Quite the contrary; what we have now is a situation where the corporate and political power structures are so intertwined that they cannot survive without each other. However, this system is more accurately termed corporatism, mercantilism, or fascism.

In this system, the corporations get the regulations they want by buying off politicians with what are essentially bribes in the form of campaign contributions. Bureaucrats and politicians alike are given high paying jobs as rewards with the same corporations that they pushed the regulations through for.

A great example of this is Michael Taylor, the current Food Safety Czar under the Obama Administration. In the 1980s-90s, Taylor was a corporate lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto, the notorious bio-tech giant responsible for Agent Orange, Roundup, most of the questionable genetically modified crops (GMO) in America, as well as the dangerous rBGH growth hormone given to cows to increase their milk output. He moved in and out of the FDA every few years pushing through necessary regulations to allow GMOs onto the market without any safety standards at all. He then became Monsanto’s vice president on public policy in 1998. Now he heads up food “safety.”

This guy epitomizes the revolving door of government and industry, which is the same no matter the department. The people in the regulatory agencies today are the executives of the corporations tomorrow. The Occupiers who naively want to give more power to these regulatory agencies are asking for the top 1% to further press the boot down on their necks.

Real capitalism would free the 99% from the authoritarian controls of the top 1%. In a free market, big companies would not give millions of dollars to politicians because there would be no benefit. The no-bid contracts, favorable regulations, tax loopholes, and subsidies that give big business the advantage over competitors would all disappear. There would finally be a level playing field so that small and medium sized businesses could compete more effectively, thus bringing better services overall to us, the consumers.

In the market, profits come from providing high quality goods and services at low prices, not from bribing the controllers of the public trough. The consumer is king and decides where their voting dollars will go. Reputation matters and companies will do what they can to keep them spotless. Innovation and creativity are unleashed for the benefit of all.

Capitalism is responsible for the relatively easy lifestyles we live today. Corporations, government, and the Federal Reserve have been ruining capitalism for generations and things have finally come to their inevitable destructive end. The choice now is not to overthrow “capitalism” and embrace socialism. The choice is to overthrow the corporatist/mercantilist/fascist system and embrace true free market capitalism where people are free to pursue prosperity and happiness in peaceful competition and cooperation.

This article first appeared at the Publius Foundation for 'Young People Advancing Individual Liberty.'

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

The Age Of Global Warming: A History

Review by Martin Hutchinson from Good Reads

Errors have been key to global warming’s trajectory. Rupert Darwall’s book “The Age of Global Warming” shows how politicians locked us into global warming belief before scientists had credible evidence for it. Then a self-perpetuating U.N. bureaucracy and conflicted scientists manufactured evidence to order. The result has been toxic both for the modestly warming globe and for its economy.

The first study explaining how carbon dioxide emissions might produce global warming was published by the British meteorologist Guy Callendar in 1938, following a temperature upswing in the first third of the century. The unfortunate Callendar spent the rest of his life losing confidence in his theory as global temperatures declined, his last years coinciding with the sharp British winters of 1961-63.

Warming temperatures in the 1970s and 1980s gave new credibility to the Callendar Effect, but the breakthrough for atmospheric environmentalism was the three treaties on chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) agreed between 1987 and 1990. All production was eliminated by 2000 at a moderate cost on the global economy.

The political success of this effort helped launch global warming as a political issue. The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, after the topic been discussed earlier in the year at a G7 meeting, presented to the U.S. Senate by James Hansen, a leading scientist, and promoted by Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister. The 1992 Rio Declaration included a commitment by governments to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, although no legally binding targets were set.

Once governments were committed and a U.N. bureaucracy was bent on self-perpetuation, production of the necessary evidence by the scientific community was all but inevitable. Although Darwall does not draw the analogy, financially aware readers will think of banks’ Value at Risk models, which were designed to minimize apparent risk to top management and regulators. Global warming computer models were likewise custom-built for their purpose. Most notorious was Michael Mann’s 1998 Hockey Stick graph, purporting to show that the 20th century’s rise in global temperature was far in excess of fluctuations of the preceding millennium.

Darwall goes painstakingly through the conceptual errors of this paper, notably the use of an algorithm that would produce a hockey-stick shape from almost anything. He tells of its rapturous acceptance by the Third IPCC Report in 2001 and its gradual debunking, against fierce opposition from the scientific establishment, in subsequent years. Even the IPCC was compelled to largely disown it in its 2007 Fourth Report.

Darwall shows how the traditional scientific method was abandoned by scientists who were rewarded for the promotion of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. He criticizes the confident promotion as undoubted fact a thesis which cannot be falsified for a century. He also makes good points about the failings of a peer-review system in which the peers’ livelihood depends on the scientific points being asserted.

His description of the politics of climate change is compelling, from the 1998 Kyoto conference to the abject failure at Copenhagen in 2009. The lesson is that after Copenhagen, both a global agreement on hard targets for emissions’ reduction and a watertight permit trading system to achieve such a reduction were chimeras.

Darwall rejects the more extreme claims of the global warming scientists, but appears agnostic as to whether human activity is actually warming the atmosphere. That is probably enough doubt to cause climate change believers to reject the book out of hand. To a less biased reader, it appears well-written, fair and even-toned.


After reading “The Age of Global Warming”, this reviewer would favor a modest carbon tax, adopted country by country, to encourage research and investment in lower-carbon technologies. The more urgent lesson, however, is the need to dismantle the birds’ nest of trading schemes, subsidies, crony capitalist contracts and regulations which have slowed global economic growth without doing much to slow whatever global warming actually exists.