Saturday, April 30, 2011

Is 'Heaven Is for Real' for Real?: An Exercise in Discernment

T. A. McMahonBy T. A. McMahon
The Berean Call

RSS Contact YouTube Amazon

There have been quite a number of books written by or about people who claim to have personally visited Heaven. Some of these authors profess to be Christians while others do not. The descriptions of their experiences vary regarding such things as entering into a dazzling white light at the end of a dark tunnel and being greeted by deceased loved ones, or being in the presence of God and seeing the shed feathers of angels dotting the grand floor of His throne room. Many of their stories contain information that would seem to be beyond their ability to know at the time - or at all.

Although these individuals supply much information, the content raises many questions. Obviously, everything they say can't be true because some of the content in one book contradicts what's written in others. How do we know who is giving us an accurate and truthful account?

A biblical Christian might say that he would compare what they say with what is presented in the Scriptures about Heaven. If it rings true to the Word of God, then it must be true. Well, yes and no. Yes, it must be true to Scripture. What is presented certainly cannot be at odds with what the Bible teaches about Heaven; nevertheless, just because it conforms to Scripture doesn't prove that the person's declaration or experience of being in Heaven actually took place.

I know a good deal about Heaven from my study of the Bible. If I told you that I had recently visited there and only communicated what I knew was recorded in the Bible about it, you couldn't object to what I said on the basis of my being biblically inaccurate. Accuracy, however, is not the only criterion for biblical discernment. There are many other instructions and examples that we must take into consideration. For example, the Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12 of a "man in Christ" (no doubt Paul himself) who was caught up to Heaven. He didn't know at the time whether it was an experience in which his spirit had left his body, or a vision while his spirit remained in his body. Nevertheless, he states that what he saw and heard in paradise was not lawful for a man to utter. Paul's experience was followed by a humbling infirmity, which he states that God allowed him to suffer "lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations..." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7). That isn't always the case in Scripture. The Apostle John obviously was given permission to declare what he witnessed in Heaven in the Book of Revelation. This would seemingly apply as well to the writer of the Book of Job.

But can we be sure that the visions and personal experiences of these writers are true? Absolutely - because their words are found in the Scriptures. Of the Word of God, the psalmist writes, "Thy word is true from the beginning...," and Jesus said, "Thy word is truth" (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). That is the ultimate verification that the experiences of those men of God indeed took place as they described. Furthermore, since the canon of Scripture was closed in the first century A.D., no one since that time can have his vision of - or his alleged visit to - Heaven validated in the same way.

Jesus gave us another insight to help our discernment when He told of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man, who had died, was in a place where he was tormented and suffering remorse. Yet he begged Abraham to send someone to warn his brothers so that they would not end up with him in "this place of torment." Abraham's response was: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." And again, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:19-31).

Armed with the above scriptural teachings for the purposes of discernment, let's apply these and other biblical admonitions and critical questions to a book that is having an impact on Christendom and the American public. Heaven Is for Real was published in 2010 and made the New York Times Best-Sellers list. It has also been the cause of controversy in some fellowships, as believers have been divided in their support of and disputation over the book's veracity.

Heaven Is for Real is a nonfiction account that documents the experience of a three-year-old boy who believes that he visited Heaven. The story is told by the boy's father, an evangelical pastor. He and his wife initially seem to be rather startled by their son's revelations, which he shares over a period of about three years. There is nothing not to like about this Christian family, and much that is quite admirable. The little boy is a typical three- or four-year-old - hardly precocious, but simply matter of fact in relating what he seems to have experienced.

That experience took place when three-year-old Colton was undergoing emergency surgery for a ruptured appendix. Not too long afterward, he told his parents that he saw them praying for him outside the operating room. When they asked how he knew what they had been doing he said, "Cause I could see you....I went up out of my body and I was looking down and I could see the doctor working on my body. [Scripture tells us that death takes place when the spirit vacates the body. Yet there was no medical report of a clinical death during Colton's surgery.] And I saw you and Mommy. You were in a little room by yourself, praying; and Mommy was in a different room, and she was praying and talking on the phone" (pp. xx-xxi). The accuracy of Colton's disclosure rocked his parents to the core. But that was just the beginning of revelations that far and away defy natural explanations.

Colton's other revelations included: angels singing "Jesus Loves Me" to him; his sitting on Jesus' lap; meeting John the Baptist and the angel Gabriel; petting Jesus' rainbow-colored horse; his descriptions of Jesus' wounds and attire, including a crown with a pink diamond that Jesus wore; the prevalence of kids in Heaven; his description of everyone there having wings like the angels - all except Jesus, that is; his being recognized by his great grandfather, who died decades before Colton was born; and the description of God as "really, really big."

Although most of Colton's observations in Heaven are not outside the realm of possibility of what could take place there, they are nevertheless extra-biblical insights and information, some being more problematic than others. For example, Colton explains that "Everyone kind of looks like angels in heaven," sporting wings (the size of which are dependent on the individual's size) and a halo. Since the resurrection of believers' transformed physical bodies has yet to take place, their form now in Heaven must lack physical attributes. Hence the need for wings of whatever size makes no sense. Moreover, other than the descriptive visions of the heavenly creatures known as cherubim and seraphim and the decorative designs in the Temple and upon the Mercy Seat, angels that appear to humanity are never described as having wings.

Many supporters of the book claim that any and all objections pale in the face of the supernatural knowledge that Colton reveals - things that were humanly impossible for him to know. For example, he said that he had met his other sister in Heaven. When told by his mother that Cassie was his only sister, his shocking response was, "No....I have two sisters. You had a baby die in your tummy, didn't you?" (p. 94). Colton had never been told of the "painful episode" of the miscarriage, and his parents never knew the gender of the fetus. Colton added, "In heaven, this little girl ran up to me, and she wouldn't stop hugging me....She said she just can't wait for you and Daddy to get to heaven" (p. 96). That revelation seemed to be the most convincing for Colton's parents that their son had indeed visited Heaven: "We had wanted to believe that our unborn child had gone to heaven. Even though the Bible is largely silent on this point, we had accepted it on faith. But now, we had an eyewitness: a daughter we had never met was waiting eagerly for us in eternity" (p. 97).

Was Colton truly an eyewitness in Heaven to everything he described? Much of it is quite mindboggling, notwithstanding the fact that all of it is extra-biblical. Yet it provides alleged insights about Heaven; e.g., a girl dies as a fetus, grows into a little girl in heaven, and then is eagerly awaiting her parents' arrival. What if one or both parents reject the gospel? Would there then be disappointment in a place of perfect bliss?

Consider how Colton's father mentioned that "the Bible is largely silent" on a certain issue. It is also completely silent on the specific things that Colton has revealed. This raises the question as to why God would leave out something of value for us in His inerrant Word, which was given through His prophets "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) - only to reveal it later through a little boy (as well as many others who make similar claims). On the back cover of the book we read, "Heaven Is for Real will forever change the way you think of eternity, offering the chance to see, and believe, like a child."

The Bible is God's precise, absolute, and eternal communication to mankind (Luke 21:33; Hebrews 4:12). It did not come by nor was it left up to the will or imagination of man (2 Peter 1:20). Paul writes, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Our faith can be childlike, but it is faith placed in God's Word, not in anyone's alleged "eyewitness" account, be they a child or an adult. Peter was an eyewitness to an incredible event. He saw Jesus supernaturally transfigured before his very eyes and heard the voice of God. We can be sure that the personal experience he had was true because it's reported in Scripture. Nevertheless, he tells us that his personal experience (or anyone else's) is not as trustworthy as the Word of God:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed" (2 Peter 1:19).
At the time and in the years following Colton's experience, his dad was very interested in having him describe Jesus. He wrote that "as a pastor, I wound up spending a lot of time at hospitals, in Christian bookstores, and at other churches - all places where there are lots of drawings and paintings of Christ....When we came across a picture of Jesus we'd ask Colton, 'What about this one? Is that what Jesus looks like?'" (p. 93). Time after time, Colton would reject the dozens of misrepresentations. Then, nearly three years after Colton's surgery, he was shown a portrait of Jesus painted by a young girl named Akiane, who also claims to have have visited Heaven beginning at the age of four. Colton's reaction was, "Dad, that one's right." His confirmation convinced his father: "Knowing how many pictures Colton had rejected, Sonja [his mother] and I finally felt that in Akiane's portrait, we'd seen the face of Jesus. Or at least a startling likeness" (p. 145).

In Exodus, we find a definitive statement against anyone attempting to make an image of God (Exodus 20:4-5). That applies to images of Jesus, whether of statues or great religious paintings or on the silver screen. One of the many problems is that they inevitably lead to idolatry, which in turn breeds superstition and occultism. Another related problem is that they must all be false representations because they have no basis in Scripture - other than being condemned. Jesus therefore could not encourage a young girl to paint His portrait.

Those who believe that He did encourage Akiane (because she could then point people to Him through her amazing art skills and her testimony concerning Him) need to compare with Scripture what she, at age 16, says about Jesus:
"Jesus shared with us: 'I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to my Father, but through me.' I feel that he invited us to participate in the divinity. Each of us is one of kind [sic] original path to the way of truth and light, and without our individual love and effort we cannot understand and reach God" (http://akiane.com/blog/?tag=akiane).
Her interpretation rejects Jesus as being the only way for mankind to be reconciled to God. It opposes what Jesus taught in favor of Satan's promise of divinity to Eve (Genesis 3:5). Akiane's paintings and words clearly reflect "another Jesus."

What puzzles many people is how Colton, as a three-year-old at the time of his experience, could attain information, most of which was completely foreign to him at his young age. His parents don't know for sure but believe their son received the visit to Heaven as a gift from God. Their "faith," however sincere and biased toward their little boy, does not have the support of Scripture. How, then, was he able to describe what he did without the input gained from actually being in Heaven? No one can say for sure - not even little Colton. He was in an operating room, surrounded by attending medical personnel, and under the influence of an anesthesia-produced altered state of consciousness.

What we do know about that and other types of drug-induced conditions of mind (even dream states, meditation, and an overworked imagination) is that multitudes of people have reported experiences that seem to validate everything from clinical or near-death events to past-lives journeys to abductions on UFOs. They also reveal information for which they had no basis of knowledge prior to their experiences. It may be that an altered state of consciousness creates a condition in which the mind is like a blank screen, open to outside input. Spirit entities, whose goal it is to undermine the Word of God and deceive the world, might have that ability to program the blank screen and could therefore take advantage of anyone in such a highly susceptible condition (see Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion, pp. 187-90). But again, no one knows for sure how such things take place.

The critical issue for discernment is not "how it works" but "what is being communicated." All that a Bible-believing Christian can do in ascertaining the truth of a matter is to be vigilant by "searching the Scriptures" to see if what is being presented is true to the full counsel of God's Word (Acts 17:11). If we don't do that, whether we are young believers or mature in the faith, we are just as vulnerable to false teachings as those whose circumstances have directly opened them to deceptive experiences.

A believer's life in Christ is shaped by a great many experiences that the Lord allows for our growth in Him. It begins with one's believing the gospel, to which sound doctrine is added. As we abide in Christ's teachings, our discernment will increase, thus protecting us from "being carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14). Let us therefore take to heart Paul's warning:
"I have laid the foundation [of the gospel], and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon" (1 Corinthians 3:10).


Related Links
Questions and Answers Related to Near-Death Experiences - Eternal Perspective Ministries (Randy Alcorn)
Question: What About People Who Say They’ve Gone To Heaven? - SeriousFaith.com (Brent Riggs)
What does the Bible say about an out of body experience / astral projection? - GotQuestions.org
Visiting Heaven and Hell: Why the Claims of Afterlife Experiences are not Reliable - Critical Issues Commentary (Bob DeWaay)
The Sufficiency of Scripture, Pt. 1 - Grace to You (John MacArthur)

Friday, April 29, 2011

Global Warming Deception – The Hidden Agenda

Grant JeffreyBy Grant R. Jeffrey
Grant Jeffrey Ministries

Amazon

Humanity faces an unprecedented danger – the global warming crisis. Our social, economic, and political freedoms now face the greatest threat in our generation.

The danger is the massive “global warming alarmist” campaign that attempts to impose socialistic globalist control over nations, businesses, and your lifestyle.

Globalists and socialists present their progressive agenda as the answer to the perceived threat of manmade global warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmists claim that increasing global temperatures are caused primarily by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

The former Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who grew up under communism, warned that the environmental movement has been hijacked by socialist-communists who see this “green movement” to save earth as the perfect way to disguise their real agenda: to enslave their fellow citizens through environmental laws and regulations that will control every aspect of your life, work, and your freedom.

He wrote:

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
The globalist think tank, the Club of Rome, published in 1993 “The First Global Revolution” that clearly outlined the global elite’s plans to use the invented crisis of “global warming” to stampede humanity toward their hidden goal – global socialist government. The chilling language reveals the cynical propaganda plans of those who seek to impose global socialist government on everyone.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together…”
Global warming policies will inevitably reduce our standard of living while creating massive new regulatory powers over our private lives and business.

Will the UN IPCC’s proposed solution to decrease CO2 significantly reduce the global temperature by 2100? The answer is NO!

Scientists who support the Kyoto climate policies admit the proposed reduction of CO2 over 90 years will reduce expected temperatures by only 1/3 of 1 Degree F by 2100 after a century of massive economic deprivation and the lowering of American’s standards of living.

The release of thousands of computer data files and emails from the UK’s prestigious Climate Research Unit revealed exaggeration, data manipulation, and deletion of files that has caused many to question AGW alarmism.

What is the motivation to embrace radical policies of energy reduction, huge carbon taxes, and severe limitations of the economic freedom of governments, companies, and individual citizens? Peter Foster wrote in Canada’s National Post:
“Leftists are inclined to believe in climate change because its ‘solutions’ — central control and wealth redistribution — are things they already desire”
The UN’s IPCC predictions of manmade global warming depend entirely on computer climate models that are unable to accurately predict future climate change. General Circulation Models (GCM) being run at climate study centers are the best tools available to calculate primarily how increases in carbon dioxide might impact future temperature levels between now and 2100.

Although the sun is the major energy engine of our solar system, the computer climate models cannot yet account for solar radiation. However, attempting to accurately predict the earth’s future climate in 2100 without accounting for the influence of clouds, volcanos, El Nino, and solar radiation is virtually impossible.

Humans produce only 3% of the carbon dioxide annually. Even the UN IPCC admits that if humanity were to totally cease burning fossil fuels the reduction of C02 would not significantly lower temperatures.

The EPA’s false declaration that CO2 is a pollutant allows the government to regulate, tax, and control every aspect of your life.

Humanity’s contribution of carbon dioxide is so small that it is virtually impossible that our use of fossil fuels is the major cause of the perceived growth of global temperature by 1 Degree F from 1860 till 1997.

Since 1998 the global temperature has continued to cool every year!! Professor Phil Jones, head of the UK’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, was quoted in the Daily Mail, Feb. 14, 2010:
“…in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”
Remarkably, the continued cooling was not predicted by any of the UN’s IPCC computer climate models and has virtually erased the entire global warming that occurred during the last century returning global temperatures to the 1900 level.

It is certainly time to pause and re-evaluate our climate science assumptions and proposed energy policies.


Related Links
Brian Williams Wonders If Tornadoes Caused by 'Something We Have Done?' - FOX News
Tornadoes spinning global warming - Washington Times
UN Coverup of "Climate Refugees" Scandal Fails - New American
The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's Getting Cooler - American Thinker
I hug trees - WorldNetDaily (Victoria Jackson)

Netanyahu's Time to Choose

Caroline GlickBy Caroline B. Glick
CarolineGlick.com

RSS Contact YouTube Amazon

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's response to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority's peace deal with Hamas would be funny if it weren't tragic. Immediately after the news broke of the deal Netanyahu announced, "The PA must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both."

Netanyahu's statement is funny because it is completely absurd. The PA has chosen.

The PA made the choice in 2000 when it rejected Israel's offer of peace and Palestinian statehood and joined forces with Hamas to wage a terror war against Israel.

The PA made the choice in 2005 again when it responded to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with a tenfold increase in the number of rockets and missiles it fired on Israeli civilian targets in the Negev.

The Palestinians made the choice in 2006, when they elected Hamas to rule over them. They made the choice in March 2007 when Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal. The PA made the choice in 2008 when Abbas rejected then prime minister Ehud Olmert's offer of statehood and peace.

The PA made the choice in 2010 when it refused to reinstate peace negotiations with Netanyahu; began peace negotiations with Hamas and escalated its plan to establish an independent state without peace with Israel.

Now the PA has again made the choice by signing the newest peace deal with Hamas. In a real sense, Netanyahu's call for the PA to choose is the political equivalent a man telling his wife she must choose between him and her lover, after she has left home, shacked up and had 5 children with her new man.

It is a pathetic joke.

But worse than a pathetic joke, it is a national tragedy. It is a tragedy that after more than a decade of the PA choosing war with Israel and peace with Hamas, Israel's leaders are still incapable of accepting reality and walking away. It is a tragedy that Israel's leader cannot find the courage to say the joke of the peace process is really a deadly serious war process whose end is Israel's destruction, and that Israel is done with playing along.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18-year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise. One of the main reasons is that like his predecessors, Netanyahu has come to believe the myth that Israel's international standing is totally dependent on its being perceived as trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

According to this myth — which has been the central pillar of Israel's foreign policy and domestic politics since Yitzhak Rabin first accepted the PLO as a legitimate actor in 1993 - it doesn't matter how obvious it is that the Palestinians are uninterested in peaceful coexistence with Israel. It doesn't matter how openly they wage their war to destroy Israel. Irrespective of the nakedness of Palestinian bad faith, seven successive governments have adopted the view that the only thing that stands between Israel and international pariah status is its leaders' ability to persuade the so-called international community that Israel is serious about appeasing the Palestinians.

For the past several months, this profoundly neurotic perception of Israel's options has fed our leaders' hysterical response to the Palestinians' plan to unilaterally declare independence.

The Palestinian plan itself discredits the idea that they are interested in anything other than destroying Israel. The plan is to get the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel.

The PA will first attempt to get the Security Council to endorse an independent "Palestine." If the Obama administration vetoes the move, then the PA will ask the General Assembly to take action. Given the makeup of the General Assembly, it is all but certain that the Palestinians will get their resolution.

The question is, does this matter?

Everyone from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hard-left, post-Zionist retreads like Shulamit Aloni and Avrum Burg says it does. They tell us that if this passes, Israel will face international opprobrium if its citizens or military personnel so much as breathe in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without Palestinian permission.

These prophets of doom warn that Israel has but one hope for saving itself from diplomatic death: Netanyahu must stand before the world and pledge to give Israel's heartland and capital to the Palestinians.

And according to helpful Obama administration officials, everything revolves around Netanyahu's ability to convince the EU-3 — British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he is serious about appeasing the Palestinians. If he doesn't offer up Israel's crown jewels in his speech before the US Congress next month, administration officials warn that the EU powers will go with the Palestinians. And if they go with the Palestinians, well, things could get ugly for Israel.

Happily, these warnings are completely ridiculous. UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight. Even if every General Assembly member except Israel votes in favor of a resolution recognizing "Palestine," all the Palestinians will have achieved is another non-binding resolution, with no force of law, asserting the same thing that thousands of UN resolutions already assert. Namely, it will claim falsely that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Palestinian territory to which Israel has no right. Israel will be free to ignore this resolution, just as it has been free to ignore its predecessors.

The threat of international isolation is also wildly exaggerated. Today Israel is more diplomatically isolated than it has been at any time in its 63 year history. With the Obama administration treating the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem as a greater affront to the cause of world peace than the wholesale massacre of hundreds of Iranian and Syrian protesters by regime goons, Israel has never faced a more hostile international climate. And yet, despite its frosty reception from the White House to Whitehall, life in Israel has never been better.

According to the latest economic data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel's economy grew 7.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010. International trade is rising steeply. In the first quarter of 2011, exports rose 27.3%. They grew 19.9% in the final quarter of last year. Imports rose 34.7% between January and March, and 38.9% in the last quarter of 2010.

The Israel-bashing EU remains Israel's largest trading partner. And even as Turkey embraced Hamas and Iran as allies, its trade with Israel reached an all time high last year. These trade data expose a truth that the doom and gloomers are unwilling to notice: For the vast majority of Israelis the threat of international isolation is empty.

The same people telling us to commit suicide now lest we face the firing squad in September would also have us believe that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is the single greatest threat to the economy. But that lie was put paid this month with the demise of the Australian town of Marrickville's BDS-inspired boycott. Last December the anti-Israel coalition running the town council voted to institute a trade, sports and academic boycott against Israel. Two weeks ago the council was forced to cancel its decision after it learned that it would cost $3.4 million to institute it. Cheaper Israeli products and services would have to be replaced with more expensive non-Israeli ones.

Both Israel's booming foreign trade and the swift demise of the Marrickville boycott movement demonstrate that the specter of international isolation in the event that Israel extricates itself from the Palestinian peace process charade is nothing more than a bluff. The notion that Israel will be worse off if Netanyahu admits that Abbas has again chosen war against the Jews over peace with us has no credibility.

So what is preventing Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government from acknowledging this happy truth?

Two factors are at play here. The first is our inability to understand power politics. Our leaders believe that the likes of Sarkozy, Cameron, and Merkel are serious when tell us that Israel needs to prove it is serious about peace in order to enable them to vote against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN. But they are not serious. Nothing that Israel does will have any impact on their votes.

When the Europeans forge their policies towards Israel they are moved by one thing only: the US.

Since 1967, the Europeans have consistently been more pro-Palestinian than the US. Now, with the Obama administration demonstrating unprecedented hostility towards Israel, there is no way that the Europeans will suddenly shift to Israel's side. So when European leaders tell Israelis that we need to convince them we are serious about peace, they aren't being serious. They are looking for an excuse to be even more hostile. If Israel offers the store to Abbas, then the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy will not only recognize "Palestine" at the UN, (because after all, they cannot be expected to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli government that just surrendered), they will recognize Hamas.

Because that's the next step.

It would seem that Israel's leaders should have gotten wise to this game years ago. And the fact that they haven't can be blamed on the second factor keeping their sanity in check: the Israeli Left. The only group of Israelis directly impacted by the BDS movement is the Israeli Left. Its members — from university lecturers to anti-Zionist has-been politicians, artists, actors and hack writers — are the only members of Israeli society that have a personal stake in a decision by their leftist counterparts in the US or Europe or Australia or any other pretty vacation/sabbatical spots to boycott Israelis.

And because the movement threatens them, they have taken it upon themselves to scare the rest of us into taking this ridiculous charade seriously. So it was that last week a group of washed up radicals gathered in Tel Aviv outside the hall where David Ben Gurion proclaimed Israeli independence and declared the independence of "Palestine." They knew their followers in the media would make a big deal of their agitprop and use it as another means of demoralizing the public into believing we can do nothing but embrace our enemies' cause against our country.

The time has come for the vast majority of Israelis who aren't interested in the Nobel Prize for Literature or a sabbatical at Berkeley or University of Trondheim to call a spade a spade. The BDS haters have no leverage. A degree from Bar Ilan is more valuable than a degree from Oxford. And no matter how much these people hate Israel, they will continue to buy our technologies and contract our researchers because Cambridge is no longer capable of producing the same quality of scholarship as the Technion.

And it is well past time for our leaders to stop playing this fool's game. We don't need anyone's favors. Abbas has made his choice. Now it is time for Netanyahu to choose.


Related Links


Cairo Invites Fatah, Hamas For Signing Ceremony - Arutz Sheva
Lieberman to Ashton: Hamas-Fatah reconciliation opening for Hamas West Bank takeover - Ha'aretz
Hamas to PLO: Rescind recognition of Israel - Ynetnews
Palestinian diplomats await EU backing for unity government - EUobserver.com
Israel braces for 'large-scale' unrest in West Bank following Hamas-Fatah agreement - World Tribune

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Christian Palestinianism

Jim FletcherBy Jim Fletcher
Prophecy Matters

RSS Contact Amazon

For some time, I have been raising the alarm that evangelical Christianity has been infiltrated by theological leftists. Among other things, this impacts our nation’s view of Israel.

Recently, I was made aware of a movement of young evangelicals who are embracing what the British lecturer Paul Wilkinson calls “Christian Palestinianism.” Loosely, this means a Christian who supports the Palestinian Arabs, and dismisses Jewish claims to the land. Obviously, these “Millennial Generation” Christians (18-34) do not embrace Bible prophecy. Their worldview is different.

A battle for Israel is being fought in the United States right now. Traditionally, Americans have supported the Jewish state, and the U.S. has always been one of the few friendly havens for Jews. I believe that is changing.

Chris LaTondresse, CEO of Recovering Evangelical (recoveringevangelical.com) is such a leader. By embracing new media and technologies, they are reaching vast numbers of young people. To be perfectly frank, while many of us in the Bible prophecy community cling to old models in presenting our worldview, young people aren’t paying attention at all. They are running to the “recovering evangelicals.” Listen to what LaTondresse posted on his website:

“Our generation’s tutors are child-soldiers in Uganda, girls rescued from sex-slavery in Thailand and homeless youth living in the crumbling remains of America’s inner-cities. Our primary classrooms are Brazilian favelas, rural villages in Kenya and bombed-out neighborhoods in Gaza. These people aren’t our causes. They’re our friends.

“For these reasons and more, we’re turned-off when faith becomes a bludgeon used to condemn those outside of our tribe. We think the world needs fewer culture warriors and more peacemakers, reconcilers and bridge builders.”
Of course, he is interested in building bridges with those of like-mind. I seriously doubt the young evangelicals who consider themselves centrists or left-leaning are interested in building bridges with what I’d call Bible-believing Christians. And, it is perfectly acceptable for them and Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo — mentors of a sort — to use their faith as a bludgeon against those with whom they disagree. Amazingly, McLaren is considered to be a voice of reason and a compassionate voice, at the same time he lambasts Bible-believing Christians.

LaTondresse has been impacted by the teachings of Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Catholic from the Galilee who promotes the “Palestinian narrative” which essentially blames the Arab refugee problem on Israel. As LaTondresse claims, Chacour “loves Jesus,” but one isn’t clear if these men acknowledge that Jesus is a Jew. Certainly, the godfather of modern terrorism, the self-proclaimed leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat, absurdly identified Jesus as a Palestinian. This lie has also been peddled by such “evangelical icons” as Phillip Yancey.

The leadership team of Recovering Evangelical, seven-strong, is comprised of college graduates — including one from Princeton Theological Seminary. One hundred years ago, Princeton was in the midst of a transformation from being a bastion of conservative scholarship, to a liberal school. That is why such wonderful teachers as Robert Dick Wilson departed Princeton. The spirit of the age was against them, and it is against us.

Interestingly, one of Recovering Evangelical’s senior contributors, Brian Kammerzelt, currently serves on the faculty at Moody! He also taught at Wheaton, which many Christians do not realize is more liberal than conservative. He also attended Willow Creek, the seeker-friendly church in north Chicago started by Bill Hybels.

Hybels’ wife, Lynne, has become more and more vocal about supporting the Palestinians. On her blog (lynnehybels.blogspot.com), she recently posted some comments about a sermon her husband had delivered the month following the 9/11 attacks.

Predictably, Bill Hybels decried what he described as unfair characterizations of Muslims, by Americans. This after 19 Muslim terrorists had murdered more than 3,000 Americans. ABC’s Peter Jennings went down the same path, almost immediately holding a town-hall meeting to present Muslims as misunderstood peaceniks.

Lynne Hybels wrote this about her husband’s message:
“He talked about ‘hot reactors,’ people who ‘opinionate before they reflect, before they bow down and pray; who ventilate before they ask God for sober-mindedness and self-control; who indict whole races of people before they know the facts. Let’s call this what it is: not good. Not good behavior. Not good Christianity. This is Christianity gone awry.’”
Lynne Hybels also spoke at the “Christ at the Checkpoint” International Conference, organized by Palestinians and Christians who oppose Christian Zionists. On the website (christatthecheckpoint.com), we also learn that Tony Campolo characterizes Christian Zionism as “theology that legitimates oppression.”

Christian Zionism is a theology that legitimates oppression? That is a lie.

These kinds of potshots and smear tactics against Christians who support Israel are growing in number. Christian Zionists, in my view, must determine to do two things:
  1. Read, study, and educate. Learn the arguments. Study the issues related to Israel and the Jewish people. Then use your brain to articulate these things to your circle of contacts. A word of caution: the nastiness of the proponents of “Christian Palestinianism” will be a continual problem. Yet we must engage these attacks, which are ultimately attacks on the Jewish people.
  2. Embrace the new technologies. Use tools like social networking, PowerPoint presentations if you speak to groups, etc. If you think you’re too old for Facebook, think again. “Tweet” on Twitter. Realize that cell phones are the new delivery systems for young people. While we are fumbling with overheard projectors and slides, our opponents are laughing, while providing the content they want young people to digest via new technology.
Leftists will always present themselves as reasonable, compassionate, “careful thinkers.” They focus heavily on social justice issues, and love causes that would make the Pacifists’ Hall of Fame.

Yet there is a malevolence associated with their loathing of Christian Zionists. Check it out for yourselves.

We have work to do.


Related Links
Christian Palestinianism - Pre-Trib Research Center (Thomas Ice)
What is Zionism / Christian Zionism? - GotQuestions.org
Understanding the Geo-Politics of Palestinianism vs. Zionism - BPB (Bill Salus)
Romans 9-11 - SpiritandTruth.org (Tony Garland)
IDF waits to gauge impact of Palestinian 'unity' in W. Bank - Jerusalem Post

How the U.S. Can Cut, Not Gut, Defense

Bob MaginnisBy Bob Maginnis
BobMaginnis.com

Contact

Tough economic times mean we must be smart about cutting national defense without gutting our security. Fortunately, we have time-tested tools to help the President and Congress make smart reductions.

Last week President Barack Obama called for shaving another $400 billion from U.S. security-related spending. If all the cuts fall on the Defense Department, then this is the President’s third attack on Pentagon spending and likely not the last.

It is important to put defense spending in perspective, however. Our budget deficit is due primarily to entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare. By comparison, current defense expenses are not out of line with past spending. It remains below the 60-year trend as a percentage of our gross domestic product.

But there is a problem. The 2010 Defense Business Board states that U.S. defense spending is at its highest level since World War II, and the Pentagon consistently pays “more for less.” The “more for less” view is echoed by a 2010 Congressional Research Service report that indicates the Pentagon’s base budget has grown at the rate of 2% per year above inflation per troop since 1955, and operation and maintenance costs grew at 2.7% per year above base inflation since 1998.

Last month Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a memo attacking “more for less” inefficiencies, and since April 2009, Gates has scrapped or scaled down more than 20 troubled arms programs, saving an estimated $300 billion in long-term costs. But the President’s latest cutting proposal, if it is applied exclusively to defense, will lead to real reductions in “force structure and military capability,” warns Gates.

That’s why Gates intends to conduct a “comprehensive review” of his options, but the outcome of that review is predictable: He will meet the President’s budget-cutting target.

Congress doesn’t have to accept the President’s “review.” It ought to use three tried-and-true policy tools to improve efficiency while making smart cuts.

First, the Pentagon structure needs another transformation such as the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act, which will provide significant long-term savings.

Goldwater-Nichols made the most sweeping changes to the Defense Department since the National Security Act of 1947. It streamlined the military chain of command, changed the way the services interact, changed the personnel management of military officers, and created a shared procurement system.

Congress should pass a 21st century Military Transformation Act targeting service efficiency by collapsing functional capabilities to cut costs. Specifically, Congress should ask hard questions, such as, “Why do we need two ground forces (Army and Marines)?” “Why do we need four air forces (each service has an air force)?” “Why do we need three navies (Coast Guard, Navy, and Army’s fleet of tugs, barges, and boats)?” And “Why do we need eight Defense Department intelligence agencies?” Organizing functions under single headquarters can truly reduce bureaucracy, and create numerous efficiencies and produce long-term cost reductions.

Second, Congress should appoint three independent teams of national security experts to craft Pentagon policy plans similar to President Dwight Eisenhower’s competitive Solarium Project of 1953. That effort led to Eisenhower’s New Look Policy, which balanced military capabilities and the defense budget.

The three teams would define the threat, identify critical defense roles and missions, and recommend the forces and systems needed. Congress should take the best recommendations to form a plan to compare with the administration’s plan.

The administration’s plan will be the Pentagon’s congressionally mandated Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review (QRMR), which is due February 2012. That review is similar to the long-in-the-tooth Quadrennial Defense Review, which is corrupted by service rivalries and the administration's political priorities.

The plan that comes from the melding of the two must prioritize roles and missions, recommend the right force mix, and address cost savings from procurement, personnel, and posture recommendations.

Procurement plans must be suited to current and future military needs. That is why Secretary Gates pressed to end production of the costly Air Force F-22, Raptor. The stealth fighter failed the “needs” rationale. The same rationale should apply to the over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Marine Corps’ costly V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff aircraft, and the $15-billion-each aircraft carriers that are becoming vulnerable to China’s DF-21D missiles, which are specifically designed to sink carriers.

Recently, Secretary Gates told an Air Force audience that it needs to concentrate on mundane platforms such as unmanned aircraft, cargo airlift, and medical evacuation capabilities. Even the Congressional Budget Office (2009) plugged legacy platforms such as the F-15E fighter over gold-plated new systems such as the F-35s, which will save the taxpayers multiple billions and still be effective against future threats.

Military personnel cost $141 billion in 2010 and should be put under the cost-cutting microscope as well. The plan must protect the successful all-volunteer force while right-sizing the services and the civilian government workforce (650,000 strong). The military’s 20-years-and-out retirement system needs retooling to keep hard-learned skills longer, and health care premiums need a re-look to offset skyrocketing costs. Also, between 1998 and 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service, military personnel pay and benefits rose 45% above inflation, which makes it a fair target for cuts as well.

The plan must also address global posture and foreign partner obligations. We can save billions by withdrawing tens of thousands of U.S. troops from Europe and Asia. We should also look again at our treaty obligations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which receives 25% of its operating costs from America and heavily depends on our forces while European partners enjoy a defense-spending holiday.

Finally, the Pentagon has an oversized and too expensive infrastructure. The Congressionally mandated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process has closed more than 350 installations during five BRAC rounds: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. But the Defense Department still operates 539,000 facilities at nearly 5,000 sites covering more than 28 million acres. This includes very expensive foreign sites in Germany (281 sites), Japan (115 sites), and South Korea (86 sites).

Congress should launch the next BRAC round before the 2005 BRAC is completed this September. The 2005 BRAC closed 185 sites and realigned an additional 135 sites, which cost $35 billion but provides a recurring savings in the billions each year. The new BRAC must have a laser focus on reducing excess capacity and must save rather than cost money up front.

Tough economic times combined with serious security threats demands Congress make smart national security decisions. That would include passing a 21st century Defense Department Transformation Act that combines functional capabilities to improve efficiency and cuts costs. Congress should launch an independent review process that leads to a plan that cuts costs but not security. And Congress should create a new BRAC that cuts and realigns more properties, especially expensive foreign facilities.


Related Links


Obama Prepares to Announce New National Security Team - FOX News
U.S. economy slowed to 1.8% in winter quarter - Washington Times
Does Panetta nomination mean deeper defense cuts? - American Thinker (Rick Moran)
Defense Department Shakeup - FrontPage Magazine
Push for Pentagon cuts tops Panetta's agenda - KHOU

Terrorist Attack on Egyptian Pipeline Stops Supply to Israel

David HockingBy Dr. David Hocking
Hope for Today

RSS Contact Amazon

Terrorist Attack on Egypt Pipeline Stops Supply to Israel
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (Arutz Sheva News)

Terrorists, described in foreign media as “armed gangs,” attacked the Egyptian-Israeli gas pipeline early Wednesday, halting supplies to Israel.

It was at least the third attack on the pipeline this year. An attack on February 6 cut supplies to Jordan and Israel.

Wednesday morning’s blast, near El-Arish and approximately 30 miles south of the Israeli border, forced the evacuation of nearby residents from their homes.

The gas was shut off from Port Said to prevent continuing fires from the gas that had escaped from the pipeline after the attack. However, gas in the pipeline still is flowing to Israel for a limited amount of time.

Exactly a month ago, another attack on the pipeline near El Arish failed when the explosives did not detonate.

Egyptian officials have not identified the terrorists who struck Wednesday morning, but Bedouins have taken de facto control over large parts of the northern Sinai since the uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak as Egyptian President.

The latest attack comes on the heels of a new poll showing that a majority of Egyptians want to cancel the 1979 peace treaty that recognized Israel and initiated diplomatic relations with the Jewish State.

Egyptian officials earlier this week also announced that Mubarak and former aides are under investigation for alleged corruption concerning the 20-year agreement to export gas to Israel.


Related Links


Pipeline Blast in Sinai, Said to Be Sabotage, Cuts Gas Supply in Israel and Jordan - New York Times
Egypt cuts gas supplies to Israel, Jordan after bombing - All Headline News
Jordan adopts austerity measures after Egypt gas supply cut - Monsters and Critics
Noble Energy reports 61% rise in Israeli gas sales - Globes
Sinai gas explosion exposes Egypt-Israel rift - The Hindu

 




Get Our Latest Posts Via Email - It's Free!


Delivered By FeedBurner