Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not covered in articles published on the Black Bear Blog. Thank you.
Dumb fken liberals never think things through;
Inmates using newspaper’s gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says
It is truly sad that these ignorants do not have the ability to think more than one wrung up on the logic ladder.
One day their stupidity will be their own undoing.
Socially Engineered Civil War Chaos is coming, even the Main Stream lying press admits it;
We’re now one step closer to America’s coming civil war
Fiscal Cliff Over, Now the Attack on the People Begins
There’s an idea floating around today that has to sicken the heart of God. It’s this idea that true humility means you have to conjure up a kinder, gentler version of yourself so we can all just get along. It’s a humility that says you have to straddle the fence, not offend anyone, and “make nice” with everyone. What a phony-baloney load of crap that is! I’m searching the Scriptures, and I can’t find anyone like that, at least not anyone who was serving God. Am I to believe that John the Baptist was not humble because he confronted the Pharisees and called them a bunch of snakes? Did Paul lack humility because he appeared to be unkind when he sharply confronted the Judaizers in Galatia and hinted they should all do themselves bodily harm? And in the Old Testament the Prophets of God probably never understood the concept. Where was Elijah’s humility when he confronted Ahab and Jezebel, and slew the false prophets of Baal? Surely Elijah wasn’t putting forth his best efforts to get along.
Webster’s Dictionary is always an interesting place to start when you want to know what something means. I have a copy of Webster’s Compact School and Office Dictionary. I like it, the definitions are short and to the point.
“Humility n. the state or quality of being humble”
See what I mean? Short and to the point, just like I said.
“Humble adj. 1. Having or showing awareness of one’s defects; not proud; not self-assertive 2. Low in condition or rank; lowly”
Now I have a problem. Webster’s Dictionary gives me definitions that don’t seem to jive with the Biblical information I have. Should I assume that men in scripture who followed the Lord and served Him faithfully were used even though they seemed to lack this quality? I mean, here we have men questioning other men’s motives, resisting authority, being sarcastic and unkind, and even killing people!
Do we have a contradiction? Yes, we do! Where does it come from? I think from the fact that God did not write Webster’s Dictionary. Is the definition wrong? No, not technically. At least, not if you’re trying to define it from the context of morality or worldly reason.
Let me try to explain what I mean. The definitions above describe a quality that can easily be misunderstood. In our world, apply a little wrong thinking and humility becomes weakness, compromise, accommodation, or peace at any cost, something to be avoided, if you plan to get ahead in the world. The world-view is that humility is a sign of weakness. I suspect it’s just the opposite. That’s usually the case when you’re dealing with the world’s opinions.
In religious circles, humility is something the pious try to wear on their shirtsleeves where everyone can see it. They walk around saying things like, “I just want to love everyone”, “I just want to serve”, or “Let’s not be critical, we’re all brothers and sisters in the Lord”. They always have a kind word. They’d be mortified if they were ever accused of offending anyone. They’re usually “called” to promote unity in the church (talk about futile ambition). They also have a false sense of humility.
As is usually the case, we look to Jesus, “the Author and Finisher of our faith”. The definitive passage on humility has to be Philippians 2. The full passage runs from verse 1, all the way to verse 16. In the midst of Paul’s presentation, he offers Jesus as the supreme example. We’ll cut to the chase. This is verse 8:
“And after He had come to earth in human form (as if that weren’t enough), He humbled Himself in an even greater way, by carrying His obedience to the Father to the fullest extreme – through His willingness to die on the cross!”
What is Paul saying? And what are we missing? Let’s revisit Webster’s definition. Is humility the simple understanding that we’re not everything God wants us to be? Sure I have defects. Who doesn’t? I even know what a few of them are. But does that make me humble? O K, so I won’t be self-assertive. Does that make me humble? Some would say it only proves I’m lazy. Can I cultivate the attitude that everyone else is better than I am, or more important? Then will I be humble? I don’t think so. If I try to blend into the landscape, not give anyone a problem, not offend any brothers or sisters (even though with most I doubt they are brothers or sisters), and not hand out any grief, then will I be humble? If I quit using sarcasm every time I write one of these papers, will I be humble? I don’t think so.
You know what? Jesus proved His humility by the death He was willing to die. John the Baptist died because of his humility. Paul eventually died because of his humility. Scores of great men in the Bible, and countless others we’ve never heard about, have died because of their humility. Elijah was spared physical death (even though it’s clear he didn’t escape self-death), but not because he lacked humility – he had a boatload of the stuff! In the case of Elijah, you just have to accept the sovereignty of God. God does what He wants to do. Nothing is for sure. But, in this world, there’s a good chance this is true – Christ-like humility will get you in trouble, not keep you out of it.
So, what is it? How can we define humility? It is simply the willingness to be obedient to the will of the Father, regardless of personal cost. And understand this, your humility will never depend on what men think of you, or what they say about you. That is irrelevant. Your humility will always be founded on what God thinks of you. Period! Humility has nothing to do with men’s opinions. And it’s not based on their selfish sentiments. That’s why Webster’s definition is wrong.
Does God put a requirement on us that says if you’re going to be humble, you can never offend? John the Baptist lost his head, spoke the truth, offended a woman, and lost his head (no, that’s not a typo, you read it right). When the Pharisees heard about it, they probably had a drink to celebrate, because poor John had offended most of them too! But, in reality he was only standing for what was right. That’s what God called him to do. His obedience cost him everything, except early entrance into the presence of God (not a bad deal, when you think about it). When Paul met the Lord on the road to Damascus, he said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” This began Paul’s life of humility, suffering and personal deprivation. Did he make enemies? Did he offend? Did he see the need to confront? Yes, to all that and more. But, was he humble? Of course he was. It was his humility that caused all those things to happen!
Jesus must be our example. He was direct, confronting, divisive, sarcastic, evasive, critical, assertive, uncompromising, and bold. He was soft, loving, compassionate, merciful, and unassuming. He could be patient, then, seemingly impatient. At times He was relaxed, other times He was agitated. He sometimes marveled at the good qualities He saw in people, but mostly he was disappointed. He could accept people who were unacceptable, or go into an angry rage. He was the Son of Man and showed many sides of His humanness. From the world’s point of view, He could be very un-humble. But aside from all that, He was totally focused on the Will of the Father, fiercely loyal to the Him, and blindly obedient. And that was His humility!
Oh, that I could be that humble! Humility takes real courage. As I’ve already mentioned, it requires loyalty, perseverance, and blind obedience to God. Humility is not for wimps. The namby-pamby need not apply. Compromise is not a characteristic of the truly humble. If you castrate yourself straddling the fence, I doubt God will ever commend you for your humility, it would be a contrary to His Truth. Those who fear the opinions of men, instead of the opinion of God will never even come close to it. In fact, those who exhibit true humility towards God will always run afoul of men’s opinions. God will see to it. God has convinced me that He, in fact, uses true humility in His servants to upset and confound the world and bring glory to Himself. After all, the world is opposed to God. And when you put all religious pretense and deception aside, true humility becomes the dividing line that separates the servants of God and the enemies of the cross. There is a natural tension there, and true humility is what God uses to make the sparks fly.
Now, there will be those who think I’ve presented a somewhat unbalanced view of humility. And if you think that, you may very well be right (see, I’m trying to show my softer side). But I wanted to emphasize the point that humility, in fact, has two sides. And both are valid. Mr. Webster is, at least, partially correct. Humility can be defined as non-assertive, not proud, low in condition or rank. But humility can also be seen in acts of confrontation, defiance or even violence. What’s the difference? It’s simply this. We can easily see both sides in Jesus. There is no real contradiction. Jesus came to do the will of His Father. He had no agenda or ambitions of His own. On a personal level, Jesus was gentle, unassuming and compassionate. But, when He was engaged in carrying out the instructions of the Father, He could be as bold, unyielding and fierce, as He needed to be. Either way, His humility remained intact.
Do you see the difference? I’ll make the application. I have no right to confront, criticize or otherwise abuse people because of any personal opinion or agenda I may have. In fact, I have no right to any opinion or agenda of my own. I’ve been bought with a precious price. And if the cross has any reality at all in my life, I should have at least some understanding of that. I also know that there are those who oppose the purposes of God. And I know that God will, from time to time, use me and others like me, to stir them up. I’ve never enjoyed confrontation. Tension has never been one of my favorite feelings. But I know what it feels like when God puts that fire in my belly and I have to be obedient. It would be much easier to just avoid the situation, or just be nice.
Humility doesn’t come easy. You’ll never be truly humble if you think you are. You’ll never be humble because others say you are. I don’t know how long it takes to become humble. And I don’t know what God will require of us as He forms this humility in us. I can tell you where I believe the process starts. It starts in following the instructions of Jesus found in Mark 8:34. Here’s a paraphrase.
“Then Jesus turned to the crowd that had been following Him and said, If you intend to go the same way I’m going (the way to the Father), you’ll have let go of your own self-interests every day and submit your life completely to God. You’ll have to take up your cross every day as well, so you can die to self – your flesh has to go. And you’ll have to follow Me continually. I’ll have to show you the way, you’ll never find it on your own.”
True humility comes when you’re dead to self and alive to God. It manifests when your own self-interests are gone, and you’re focused only on the purposes of God. Like Jesus, we prove our humility through our willingness to die. Humility will probably take us places we don’t want to go, to do things we don’t want to do. But, we’ll go. And, we’ll be obedient. If we know in our heart and in our spirit that God has raised us up, trained us and hardened us, not for our purposes, but for His. And we won’t abuse people just because we want to or because we can. The very idea will be repugnant. And, we’ll be obedient to a Holy God, regardless of the cost.
There are people out there who are determined to do what they want to do with their lives, with their money, with their relationships, with everything that constitutes their existence. They give lip service to God, show some interest in the things of God, and fit Him in wherever it’s convenient. But, they betray God and themselves continually by their lukewarm lives. They have no intention of ever submitting to Him, no intention of forcing themselves to sacrifice their precious lifestyles to follow God, and no intention of dying to self. They want to believe that it’s OK.
I’m reminded of the verse in Revelation 20:12 that tells us that the day will come when the books are opened and we’ll be judged according to what has been recorded in the books. When my name comes up, I hope it says something about my willingness to be obedient.
WAS JESUS A LIBERAL?????
First did liberalism change? Let’s read what Professor and historian Carroll Quigley said;
“Because this is the tradition of the West, the West is liberal. Most historians see liberalism as a political outlook and practice founded in the nineteenth century. But nineteenth-century liberalism was simply a temporary organizational manifestation of what has always been the underlying Western outlook. That organizational manifestation is now largely dead, killed as much by twentieth-century liberals as by conservatives or reactionaries…The liberal of about 1880 was anticlerical, antimilitarist, and antistate because these were, to his immediate experience, authoritarian forces that sought to prevent the operation of the Western way. …But by 1900 or so, these dislikes and likes became ends in themselves. The liberal was prepared to force people to associate with those they could not bear, in the name of freedom of assembly, or he was, in the name of freedom of speech, prepared to force people to listen. His anticlericalism became an effort to prevent people from getting religion, and his antimilitarism took the form of opposing funds for legitimate defense. Most amazing, his earlier opposition to the use of private economic power to restrict individual freedoms took the form of an effort to increase the authority of the state against private economic power and wealth in themselves. Thus the liberal of 1880 and the liberal of 1940 had reversed themselves on the role and power of the state…” Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time”, Carroll Quigley, Page 1231
Now what does the U.S. Liberal/Conservative Marxist state say and do compared to what Jesus taught;
The U.S. Liberal/Conservative State enforces compliance to all of its legislated ideology. Jesus Christ teaches, and lets me, the individual make that choice for myself.
The sharing that took place in Jerusalem, as recorded in chapter four of Acts, was voluntary. This is confirmed by the Apostle Peter in verse four of the next chapter “While it (the land) remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it (the proceeds of the sale) not in your own control?”
The Apostle Paul also makes clear that giving is to be voluntary without pressure of compulsion, in II Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 7. By contrast, the redistribution of wealth under Communist ideologies is compulsory, not voluntary. There is no way the two can be compared!
Secondly, while there are many exhortations in the Bible to help the needy, there is no other example or exhortation to have “all things in common”. It must be therefore concluded that the arrangement in Jerusalem was a purely local initiative to deal with a temporary problem.
Finally, as should already be clear, the Lord Jesus gave no instructions for possessions to be held “in common”. He urged the rich young ruler to distribute his wealth among the poor, but took no action to force him to do His will (Mark, chapter 10, verses 21 and 22).
It is ludicrous for any Liberal to allege that our Lord Jesus Christ was a Liberal with marxist values. If Liberals really believed that Jesus was a liberal why have they gone to such extra ordinary, excessive lengths to outlaw the teachings of Jesus and Creation by intelligent design right beside evolution in our public schools?
This is the last country in the world that will soon resort to imprisoning Christians for pointing out Biblical facts versus Biblical myths pushed by the state through its 501C3 tax exempt Church. There is a world of difference between the love of Christ and the Marxist Liberal/Conservative pay your fair share or else mentality of this failing, and falling country. You cannot equate voluntary Christian sharing and generosity with compulsory communist confiscation and theft.
Although, I will readily admit, Jesus would say keep your word, thus once entering into contract, fulfill your contractual obligations. Although the U.S. state does not fully inform it’s citizenry of the legality’s surrounding the contracts the state has made “compulsory” if one desires participation of contractual benefits. You were told you have no choice, that my friends is a lie. You are also told there is no way out, no diplomatic immunity, another lie.
Should we help the needy? You bet. Should it be a choice based on sound Biblical principles? You bet.
The state is not god. I ask my Christian Brothers, which Babylonian would Yeshua Cristo vote for? None of them.
Are we to kill our neighbors and plunder they’re resources? NEVER!! Does the U.S. state do this? Yep, they’ve been murdering their neighbors for decades.
The Code of Hammurabi has come full circle. The truth of this worldly system is in the Babylonian Code being used as legislated legalese in this country. The Commercial Code. Being set in place as a global authoritarian power.
The truth of this worldly system is exposed in the Bible.
Thank YAHWEH it is almost complete. The time of Babylon is ending.
Special Sunday program: “Financial insider” going public
THE ROYAL DECLARATION: FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
(PAGE 213 VOL. 13)
This is the name most commonly given to the solemn repudiation of Catholicity which, in accordance with provisions of the “Bill of Rights” (1689) and of “the Act of Succession” (1700), every sovereign succeeding to the throne of Great Britain (was), until quite recently, required to make in the presence of the assembled Lords and Commons. This pronouncement has also often been called “the King’s Protestant Declaration” or “the Declaration against: Transubstantiation” and (but quite incorrectly) “the Coronation Oath”. With regard to this last term it is important to notice that the later coronation oath, which for two centuries has formed part of the coronation service and which still remains unchanged, consists only of certain promises to govern justly and to maintain “the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law”.
No serious exception has ever been taken by Catholics to this particular formula, but the Royal Declaration, on the other hand, was regarded for long years as a substantial grievance, constituting as it did an insult to the faith professed by many millions of loyal subjects of the British Crown. The terms of this Declaration, which from 1689 to 1910 was imposed upon the sovereign by statute, ran as follows:
“I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not “any” Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning”.
The terms of the document are important, for even the extravagant and involved wording of the “long rigmarole” at the end added much to the sense of studied insult conveyed by the whole formula. Not only is the “Mass” stigmatized as idolatrous, but a false statement of Catholic doctrine is implied in the reference to the “adoration” of the Virgin Mary and the saints “as now used in the Church of Rome”, while the existence of a supposed dispensing power is assumed which the Catholic Church has never asserted. What added still more to the just resentment of Catholics at the continued retention of the Declaration was the consciousness that, in the words of Lingard, it owed its origin “to the perjuries of an imposter and the delusion of a nation”. The formula was no one drafted by a Parliament in its sober senses. With the object of excluding Catholics from the throne, the Bill of Rights, after the deposition of James II in 1689, exacted of the monarch a profession of faith or “Test”.
The test selected was one which already stood in the statute book, and which was first placed there during the frenzy excited by the supposed Popish Plot of 1678. It was amid the panic created by the fabrications of Titus Oates, that this Test was drafted (not improbably by himself), and it was imposed upon all officials and public servants, thus effectually excluding Catholics from Parliament and positions of trust. By a curious inversion of history the declaration which was drawn up in 1678 to be taken by every official except the king, had come two hundred years later to be exacted of the king and of no one else. Although statements have been made contending that the substance of the Royal Declaration is older than Titus Oates’ time, an examination of these earlier formulæ shows little to support such a conclusion (see a full discussion in “The Tablet”, 13 Aug., 1910). A brief account of these formulæ, and of the attempts which were made in 1891 and subsequent years to abolish or modify the Royal Declaration, has already been given in the article OATHS. It will be sufficient to cite here the terms of the new Declaration which was formally carried by Mr. Asquith’s Government in August, 1910, in time to relieve King George V from the necessity of wounding the feelings of his Catholic subjects by a repetition of the old formula. In virtue of Mr. Asquith’s “Accession Declaration Act” the brief statement, which now replaces that quoted above, runs as follows:
“I, N., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power.”
Reminds me of a mouse trap;
This Map Shows Where Everyone Is Moving To And From In America
Remember this lie?
“I will emphasize here and in the future that ALL Idahoans are both welcome and desired to participate in the Wildlife Summit, which is only the first step in a long term dialog with Idaho wildlife stakeholders.” —Mark Gamblin- (IDFG)January 5, 2012
And convicted felon Rod Coronado is their latest Wolf patrol hero..
It is difficult to identify exactly when ALF first acted domestically; a very early incident in 1979 involved vandals breaking into the New York University Medical School and releasing five animals. From this modest start hundreds of so-called liberations followed throughout the country on a larger scale. In a 1993 report to congress from the Departments of Justice and Agriculture on the “effects of terrorism on enterprises which use animals,” investigators called ALF the most significant “radical fringe” animal rights group and reported more than 313 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts committed in the name of animal rights between 1979 and 1993.
Rod Coronado ALF’s crimes during that period included a 1987 arson at a University of California-Davis veterinary laboratory, causing damages of $3.5 million, and a 1992 firebombing at an animal research laboratory at Michigan State University. Rod Coronado, a veteran animal rights advocate, was convicted for his role in the firebombing and served a three and a half year prison sentence. Coronado was previously active in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a Vancouver-based group founded to protect marine mammals through various direct actions, including sinking whaling ships.
Coronado’s violent act and prison stint solidified his reputation within the movement as a hard-core activist, and after his release he became one of ALF’s public representatives. He has lectured dozens of times around the country on behalf of ALF and other radical animal rights and environmentalist groups. In an interview with a Michigan State University newspaper, Coronado defended his past activity. “I wish I could do it again,” he said. “I have absolutely no regrets, and I hope the same thing continues to happen at MSU and every other college campus that does animal research.”
Keep up with my blog. Just enter your email address to receive updates when new posts are published.
skinnymoose.com © 2017 Carbon Media Group Outdoors