Thursday, May 9, 2013

Red China Power China expanding submarine, missile forces with advanced systems, Pentagon annual report says

Red China Power

China expanding submarine, missile forces with advanced systems, Pentagon annual report says
China is building two new classes of missile submarines in addition to the eight nuclear missile submarines and six attack submarines being deployed as part of an arms buildup that analysts say appears to put Beijing on a war footing.
“In terms of China’s submarines, they’re investing heavily in a robust program for undersea warfare, developing submarines that are both conventional, diesel-electric powered, air- independent propulsion and nuclear-powered attack submarines,” David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters at a briefing on release of the Pentagon’s annual assessment of Chinese military power.
China has yet to conduct an underwater test firing of its submarine-launched missiles but is deploying new missile submarines and planning advanced versions.
“We see China investing considerably in capabilities for operations in this area,” he said.
The Pentagon’s latest annual report to Congress also includes new details of China’s deployment of an aircraft carrier-killing ballistic missile, two new stealth jet fighters, and a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile in addition to three other new ICBMs.
The Chinese military is also developing cyber warfare capabilities that can be used in preemptive attacks, the 92-page report states.
Chinese missile forces, known as the Second Artillery Corps, are “developing and testing several new classes and variants of offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, upgrading older missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses,” the report said.
Of particular concern to the Pentagon is the deployment near Taiwan of a precision-guided DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, according to the report.
“We’re concerned about the ability of China to develop missiles that can project its military power with precision at great distances from China—obviously something that can hold at risk large surface ships, including aircraft carriers, is something that we pay attention to, but we put it in the context of a number of China’s military developments, again, that we characterize as anti-access and area denial,” Helvey said.
However, Helvey noted that no single weapons system is the problem. Instead, he said, “it’s the integration and overlapping nature of these weapons system into a regime that can potentially impede or restrict free military operations in the Western Pacific.”
“So that’s something that we monitor and are concerned about.”
“The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean,” the report said, noting that its range is greater than 932 miles and that it is armed with a high-technology maneuvering warhead.
Additionally, the report confirms, China is building a new road-mobile ICBM that is likely capable of being armed with a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV).
The Free Beacon first reported Aug. 15 that the new missile, described by defense officials as the DF-41, was flight-tested and is expected to be equipped with MIRVs.
“The Second Artillery continues to modernize its nuclear forces by enhancing its silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and adding more survivable mobile delivery systems,” the report said.
New road mobile missiles deployed in recent years include DF-31 and DF-31A mobile ICBMs and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-31A has a range of about 7,000 miles.
“This administration is reluctant to just come out and say it, but this report makes clear that China is preparing for small-scale and then large-scale wars against the United States and its friends and allies,” said Richard Fisher, a China miltiary analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
“It is time to start signalling to China’s leadership the broader economic, political, as well as military costs of its current course before it believes it can confidently embark on surprise military campaigns.”
Beijing is also rapidly building new radar-evading stealth fighter-bombers known as the J-20 and J-31.
“Within two years of the January 2011 flight test of China’s first stealth fighter, which we call the J-20, China tested a second prototype, which is referred to as the J-31,” Helvey said. “The first J-31 flight test, in October 2012, highlights China’s continued ambition to produce advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft.”
Helvey said the Pentagon does not expect either the J-20 or the J-31 “to achieve an effective operational capability before 2018.”
U.S. intelligence assessments from five years ago said China would not field a jet comparable to the U.S. Air Force F-22 stealth fighter before 2018. As a result, the Pentagon canceled production of the F-22 at 187 jets.
The first test flight of the J-20 took place two years ago and surprised the U.S. military. It was tested during the visit of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was criticized for canceling F-22 production.
China’s surface naval forces are also expanding rapidly with deployment of several new types of warships, including the first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.
Helvey said the carrier conducted its first aircraft  launch and recovery operations in November with J-15 fighters.
“We anticipate that China will spend the next three to four years on training and integration before achieving an operationally effective aircraft carrier capability,” he said. “China will likely build several indigenous aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.”
Chinese cyber and space weapons capabilities continued to be developed. Helvey said those warfare capabilities are being closely watched.
For the first time, the report linked large-scale cyber attacks and intrusions of computer networks to the Chinese government and military.
“In addition, in 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the United States government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to [People’s Republic of China] government and military organizations,” Helvey said.
Asked about Chinese economic espionage, Helvey declined to provide details but said, “We’re always mindful of the potential threats to the security of our defense technology and defense systems.”
The report also discusses China’s assertions of territorial and maritime claims that are upsetting stability in the region.
“In this report, we do highlight China’s increased assertiveness with respect to its maritime territorial claim,” Helvey said.
China is claiming most of the South China Sea as its territory and is disputing Japan’s claims to the Senkaku Islands. Both areas are said to have large deposits of undersea gas and oil to which energy-hungry states in the region seek access.
China’s government routinely protests the annual report, claiming it is part of a Pentagon campaign to hype the threat from China.
Helvey said the Chinese are aware of the report and were not consulted prior to its release on Monday.
“China’s leaders continue to see the modernization of its military as a central component of their strategy to advance China’s national development goals in the first two decades of the 21st century,” he said.
Fisher, the IASC military analyst, said the latest report is far more useful than the truncated 43-page report from 2012.
“The first ever report disclosure of development of the Type 096 SSBN raises the prospect of a new submarine launched missile that also may be multiple warhead capable,” Fisher said. “As the Administration presses for additional reductions in U.S. nuclear warhead levels and shows reluctance to fund U.S. nuclear arsenal modernization, it is doubly important that Congress be informed about the size and growth of China’s nuclear forces.”
Fisher said the report failed to address China’s transfer of strategic missile technology to North Korea, specifically the transporter-erector launchers for Pyongyang’s new KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile disclosed for the first time during a military parade in April 2012.
“A failure to chastise and sanction China’s action will only serve to undermine confidence in American security guarantees and increase interest by our allies in their own nuclear deterrents,” he said.
Former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik said the report’s most important revelations are on the Chinese navy and especially its submarine forces.
“Last year’s report disclosed that two Jin-class ballistic missile submarines were already operational, and now the 2013 report counts three, so I take the DIA bean-counters’ word for it, China is launching one new boomer each year,” Tkacik said.
Each of the missile submarines will be equipped with 12 JL-2 missile that likely will have multiple warheads. The new submarines mean the Chinese are adding at least 180 new nuclear warheads to their arsenal, a sharp increase from the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240 warheads, Tkacik said.
In addition to the new missile submarine planned as a following on to the Jin submarines, China is planning at least one more advanced Typ 096 missile submarine a year indefiniately, Tkacik added.
“The real news is the construction of a new special-purpose class of guided-missile submarine, the Type-095 SSGN,” he said. “A Chinese SSGN [cruise missile-firing submarine] is not only a new threat for the U.S. Navy to worry about, but it will deeply unsettle China’s neighbors in East and Southeast Asia.”
http://freebeacon.com/red-china-power/
 

Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso

Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso

A fully fledged federal Europe may seem like "political science fiction" today but will soon become reality for all European Union countries whether inside or outside the euro, Jose Manuel Barroso has said. 

The president of the European Commission has fanned the flames of British debate over EU membership by insisting that fiscal union in the eurozone will lead to "intensified political union" for all 27 member states.
"This is about the economic and monetary union but for the EU as a whole," he said.
"The commission will, therefore, set out its views and explicit ideas for treaty change in order for them to be debated before the European elections."
"We want to put all the elements on the table, in a clear and consistent way, even if some of them may sound like political science fiction today. They will be reality in a few years' time."
Mr Barroso's announcement that he will set out plans for a European federation next spring, before elections to the European Parliament in May 2014, will further deepen Conservative divisions over the EU.The intervention will add weight to the argument made by Lord Lawson, and other anti-EU Tories, that it is pointless to try and improve Britain's membership terms when the dynamic, set by the eurozone, is towards a fully-fledged federal Europe.
The commission president's argument is that as the eurozone adopts federalist structures on fiscal and economic policy, supported by Britain as necessary for financial stability, there will also be a need for political structures that will fundamentally change the way the EU works.
"Further economic integration would transcend the limits of the intergovernmental method of running the EU and the eurozone in particular," Mr Barroso said.

Writing in The Times today, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, has reignited the Tory debate on Europe by calling for exit from the EU because developments in the eurozone have changed Europe's politifal structures, an argument that mirrors Mr Barroso's case for a new federal or constitutional treaty.
"The heart of the matter is that the very nature of the EU, and of this country's relationship with it, has fundamentally changed after the coming into being of the European monetary union and the creation of the eurozone, of which - quite rightly - we are not a part," Lord Lawson wrote.
Proposals for an EU "political union", with budget policies set in Brussels and an elected president of Europe, will derail David Cameron's attempts to negotiate a new settlement for Britain, culminating in an "in or out" referendum in 2017.
In stark contrast to the Prime Minister's call for Britain to regain sovereignty from Brussels, Mr Barroso has called on all European leaders to accept that political union is inevitable in order to confront outright opposition to the EU, such as that from the UK Independence Party.
"This is why I believe the mainstream forces in European politics must seize the initiative, should leave their comfort zone to welcome and embrace this debate, rather than relinquish the momentum to eurosceptic or europhobic forces," he said.
"If you believe in the democratic resilience of Europe, if you take Europe's citizens seriously, you have to fight with rational arguments and unwavering convictions - and be convinced, as I am personally, that these will win the debate for us in the end."

Bible belief down, despite hit History Channel miniseries

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23173820/bible-belief-down-despite-hit-history-channel-miniseries


When Zack Domangue talks about world views with folks, the topic of the Bible typically inspires a host of questions.
"I think when you get to questions about the Bible, the biggest questions are can I trust it is legit?" said Domangue, president of Cal State Long Beach's Cru Club, formerly known as Crusade for Christ. "Is it the inspired word of God? Is it sacred and does it matter anymore? The values learned in the stories written down, can they be applied today? Is the Bible historically accurate? "
The 22-year-old business management major would answer yes to those questions. But an increasing number people aren't so sure.
Though the most popular book in the history of mankind recently got free advertising from a wildly popular cable miniseries, a new report shows rising antagonism toward the Bible.
A survey by the Barna Group and the American Bible Society shows 17 percent of adults in the U.S. have a negative attitude toward the Bible. That's up from 10 percent just two years ago, even as the History Channel miniseries "The Bible" drew 13.1 million viewers for its first episode in March, making it the most-watched entertainment cable telecast of the year.
The report defines antagonism as viewing the Bible only as a collection of stories and advice from men - and rarely or never reading it.
An upswing in negative views about the Scriptures may have less to do with its message

Advertisement

and more with who is delivering it, according to Clint Jenkin, vice president of research for the Barna Group. "What the Bible has become attached to is unpopular in society and politics," Jenkin said.
That could mean that Americans are associating the Bible with right-wing views on hot-button issues like gay marriage. Jenkin said the Scriptures are becoming more polarizing.
"Politically conservative Christians have not done themselves a favor by saying 'This is what the Bible says and why we stand against a certain issue,'" Jenkin said.
The Barna survey shows 88 percent of Americans own a Bible, down from 92 percent in 1993. Bible owners have an average of 3.5 copies of the Scriptures in their home, and 24 percent have six or more.
But while reverence for the Bible remains strong, with eight out of 10 adults seeing it as a sacred text, Americans are less apt to believe the Scriptures are relevant to their lives. The report found that 47 percent of American adults believe the Bible "contains everything a person needs to live a meaningful life." That number is down from 53 percent in 2011.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Barna Group found young people have a relatively high interest in the Bible's teachings on some aspects of life when compared with other age groups. Forty percent of those between the ages of 18 and 28 said they were interested in what the Bible teaches about dealing with illness and death, compared to 28 percent of all adults.
Domangue believes the Bible is still very relevant. He has read through the Scriptures and believes that the large amount of ancient biblical manuscripts supports the idea that the Bible gives an accurate historical account.
One of his favorite verses is Romans 1:16, which says "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. "
Jenkin said that even though interest in the Bible is relatively strong among young adults, their knowledge of it is the poorest.
"It's not an easy book to pick up and read and (understand)," Jenkin said.
Robert K. Johnston, professor of theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, said the study reinforced a several-decadeslong direction of people expressing their interest in spirituality but shying away from institutional commitments to anything, including the Bible. And church.
"What it said to me was Americans continue to be a spiritual (and) religious people, (and) that the specific brand of spirituality continues to be overwhelmingly Jewish-Christian," Johnston said. "We are becoming increasingly anti-institutional in our expression of that spirituality. And that as younger people realize that the stability of life is becoming more fragile, they are desirous of spiritual resources. "
But as they look into the Bible, they will find difficult teachings they may not want to hear, Jenkin said.
"That cultural appreciation for the Bible may actually start to fade away because if millennials are really interested in the Bible, some may really like it (but) others may not, because once they know what's in there, it's harder to (accept)," Jenkin said.
As for the impact of the miniseries "The Bible," the Barna survey found that seven out of 10 viewers said it gave them a "surprise or new discovery" about the Scriptures that they weren't aware of before watching.
Christians across the country praised the miniseries for staying true to the biblical narrative. Johnston believes the success of the miniseries bodes well for future creative endeavors based on the Bible.
"When given an opportunity to learn something in a format or venue where they're comfortable, people watch," he said.
The Barna Survey also found 59 percent of Americans who identify as atheists own a Bible. Among them is Lee Parks, an active member of the Inland Empire Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics Meetup Group.
He considers himself an evangelical atheist. Parks believes the Bible should be studied as literature that influenced both good and evil in the world.
To him, the Bible has a lot of good teachings that are overshadowed by atrocities and violence.
"God is the worst character of them all," Parks said.
"Accounts of a virgin giving birth and a messiah rising from the dead are just some in a series written to rule over folks who are easily led.
"I think it's a collection of stories that have stood the test of time," Parks said. "It doesn't mean they're true. It doesn't mean it isn't true. It's just what has stood the test of time throughout the 2,000 year history of the Telephone Game. "

Walk both Torah and Grace. UPDATE 11/8/2012

I must write this. It is  coming from my heart. I want people to know  and understand because a few are totally missing the picture.  The OT and NT are mirror reflections of each other.  The  Word of G-d must be taken as a "WHOLE BOOK" to  understand the complete Mystery of the Messiah and  who He really is.
I am updating this article I wrote a while back because there are a few things I want to make clearer.  And it is is important we understand

We are going to look at words and how they are defined. What does the Hebrew verb "gā’al" (English "redeem") mean? The Hebrew verb "gā’al" has a central meaning in "to regain possession of by payment" or "buy back something that was lost." In the Old Testament, the verb "gā’al" has been translated as "to redeem", "ransom", and "do the part of a kinsman".  It also has another meaning. The Hebrew verb "gā’al" can also mean "to avenge bloodshed" or "to require blood", and has been translated as "avenge" or "revenge".Numbers 35:19~ The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. According to Clarke's commentary~ The revenger of blood - גאל הדם goel haddam, the redeemer of blood; the next in blood to him who was slain. See on Numbers 35:12.

Now lets study Ruth 1:1-22. What is the background to Naomi

Naomi was married to Elimelech who left Bethlehem during the famine and resettled in Moab, which was about 50 miles east. However, he died and his two sons married Moabite women. After ten years, the sons died, leaving Naomi and her two daughters-in-law destitute and without hope and an heir. When Naomi hears that the famine has ended in Bethlehem, she sets for a return to her homeland. She urges her two daughters-in-law to stay in Moab, and asks God to bless them with new husbands and peace. While Orpah reluctantly stays in Moab, Ruth chose to follow Naomi back to Bethlehem despite the unlikelihood of finding a new husband or ever having children.
Naomi Returns with Ruth
6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had visited His people by giving them bread. 7 Therefore she went out from the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah. 8 And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each to her mother’s house. The Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. 9 The Lord grant that you may find rest, each in the house of her husband.”
So she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. 10 And they said to her, “Surely we will return with you to your people.”
11 But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? 12 Turn back, my daughters, go—for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, if I should have a husband tonight and should also bear sons, 13 would you wait for them till they were grown? Would you restrain yourselves from having husbands? No, my daughters; for it grieves me very much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me!” 14 Then they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

Who is Ruth and what makes her distinctive to the Jewish community in Bethlehem? In leaving Moab, Ruth turned her back on her own people and their idolatry and chose to make the Jews and their God as her own; she was a Gentile who became a Believer. While in Bethlehem, Ruth, who must have known how Moabites were treated, knew that she was there by grace. Against this background, Ruth’s humble loving care and kindness towards her mother-in-law was notable and probably unusual for this period of Judges.

Ruth 2:22~ So Ruth stayed close to the servant girls of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

The narrative touches upon three Jewish laws that originated from the Mosaic Law: The Law of Sowing and Reaping (Lev 23:22; Deut 24:19-22), Redemption of Land (Lev 25:23-28), and Levirate Marriage (Deut 25:5-10). What are these laws?

Let's look at some of those verses...

Leviticus 23:22~ "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'"
Deuteronomy 24:19-22~ 19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

The Law of Sowing and Reaping (Lev 23:22; Deut 24:19-22)

As a reminder of their former status as a slave in Egypt, Mosaic legislation required that landowners reap their land with only one pass. What remained was to be made available for widows and destitute to glean. While Moses spoke the words in Leviticus during the wanderings of the Israelites, God intended the nation of Israel to understand that the Promised Land was the property of God’s. God’s gift of the use of the Land was established by the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15:7; 17:8; 24:7; Ex 6:4). The land granted to the various tribes was intended to remain under their stewardship; thus, genealogies were essential for maintaining their property rights. If a Hebrew sold his land, he was merely selling a lease and intended to eventually get the land back. Mosaic legislation established the process by which a male Hebrew can get the land back: 1) the male Hebrew can redeem the land and determine its cost according to the prescribed formula, 2) the nearest male relative (kinsman) could redeem the land or 3) the Hebrew could wait until the Year of Jubilee when the ownership rights are restored.


Redemption of Property
23 ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for ythe land is Mine; for you are zstrangers and sojourners with Me. 24 And in all the land of your possession you shall grant redemption of the land. 25 a‘If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if bhis redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. 26 Or if the man has no one to redeem it, but he himself becomes able to redeem it, 27 then clet him count the years since its sale, and restore the remainder to the man to whom he sold it, that he may return to his possession. 28 But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; dand in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.

Levirate Marriage
Deuteronomy 25:5-10~ 5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
The Law of Levirate (Latin for "brother-in-law") Marriage (Deut 25:5-10) Under certain circumstances, a brother-in-law marriage to a widowed or divorced sister-in-law is allowed. The fulfillment of this law was initiated by the widowed sister-in-law and intended to provide a male heir for the deceased’s family property and care for the mother in her old age.

How did Ruth make her marriage proposal? Study Ruth 3:1-18.4

Instructed by her mother-in-law, Ruth meets with Boaz privately as he is sleeping and guarding his grain at the threshing floor. She comes upon him secretly (to protect Boaz’s reputation if he declines to fulfill the Law of Levirate) and uncovers his feet which was an act of submission.
Ruth asks Boaz to fulfill the Law of Levirate, "I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." With figurative speech, Ruth asked Boaz for protection and security in the similar manner that Boaz wished God would protect Ruth (Ruth 2:12).
Hebrews understood the hem of a garment to be an extension of a wearer’s person and status. The hem, at one time, represented the person’s identity and its impression into a clay tablet was as good as a signature on a contract and was legally binding. This perspective provides a better appreciation for the instances the Bible speaks of hem of clothing (1 Sam 24:11; Matt 9:20-22; 23:5)

There were two objects that required redeeming: 1) Naomi’s land (Law of Redemption of Land) and 2) taking Naomi’s daughter-in-law Ruth as a wife (Law of Levirate). Why was Boaz considered the kinsman redeemer? What was the monetary price paid by Boaz? Read Ruth 4:1-12.

The noun form of the verb "gā’al" (redeem) is "gō’ěl" (redeemer). The "gō’ěl" (kinsman redeemer) must meet four conditions to fulfill his obligations:

1. He must be a blood relative. Boaz was related to Naomi’s deceased husband Elimelech.
2. He must be capable of redeeming. In this case, Boaz must have the financial means to redeem the land and must be able to marry Ruth.
3. He had to be willing. Boaz was very glad that Ruth asked him to be the kinsman redeemer "gō’ěl".
4. He must complete the transaction and process. Boaz redeemed the land, married Ruth and provided an heir.

There was another kinsman who was closer than Boaz; however, while the nearer kinsman was capable of redeeming the land, he was not willing to marry Ruth. In front of the community’s elders, the nearer kinsman forfeited his right to fulfill his obligations.
It is important to note that this story does not mention the monetary cost or price of redemption. It is all about the redemption of Naomi and Ruth from the bondage of widowhood and poverty.

Occurring during the period of Judges, the Book of Ruth is significant within the context of its neighboring books Judges and 1 Samuel. What do you observe of its significance?

The book of Judges depicts the nation of Israel as having several cyclical periods of spiritual decline with occasional revival. At its end, the nation is corrupt and is in moral and social anarchy. "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). Sounds like today doesn't it???

In stark contrast, the book of Ruth was the highest example of responsible living: faithful obedience to God and gracious acts towards others. In establishing that Ruth was the great grandmother of David, the book of Ruth serves as a prologue into 1 Samuel by affirming King David’s rights to the throne of Israel.

The story of Ruth is seen as an OT illustration of Yeshua HaMashiach's work of atonement. However a distinction should be made; the story of Ruth illustrates a subjective aspect of atonement, because it is directed towards Believers and how they are redeemed or freed from slavery.
The Moabite Ruth is seen as the mirror reflection (NT) Gentile. The nearer kinsman is seen as the Mosaic Law, because the Law could not redeem the penalty for the sins of human beings. And Boaz is seen as Yeshua the kinsman redeemer "gō’ěl" who frees sinners from the bondage of sin.
1. Because He was born a human being, Yeshau was a blood relative.
2. Because of His sinless state, Yeshua was capable of purchasing and redeeming the penalty for the sins of man.
3. Because of His obedience, Yeshua came willing to be the "gō’ěl".
4. Because of His crucifixion, Yeshua completed the atonement and provided the means for the salvation of Believers.

Listen up  people, the  Bible is a  HEBREW book telling a st ory of  the HEBREW  people!! YESHUA was and is a HEBREW Lord!  I was raised in a Christian family.   My maternal grandmother Jewish believer and grandfather a pastor. If the Bible is to be understood in our days we must develop "HEBREW EYES" and "HEBREW attitudes  toward life.

Rabbi Stuart Rosenberg said, "The stronger a man's Christian faith, the more Jewish he will regard himself." Believe it or  not the Bible is not composed of two different covenants but one.  Let's  examine Matthew  26; 28

כי זה הוא דמי דם הברית החדשה הנשפך בעד רבים לסליחת חטאים

τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

This is the blood of me, of the covenant, that for many is poured out, for forgiveness of sins.

New covenant means "fresh"   Yes it is better, but it is not different.  The first covenant was given to Moses and written on stone.

The Lord said to Moses,  "Come up to Me on the mountain and there I will give to you tablets of stone, and the law  and commandments  which I have written, that you may teach them. Exodus  24:12

The NT was a new covenant a fresh covenant written on our hearts because of Yeshua.  IT WAS NOT DIFFERENT BUT DEFINITELY  BETTER.

Hebrews 10:16
μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους

Thisº is theº Couenantº thatº I wil makeºº withº themº afterº thoseº dayes,º saithºº the Lord:º I will putºº myº Lawesº intoº theirº hearts,º andº inº theirº mindesº will I writeºº them:º

This is a promise to the Jews in last days/ end times.

Listen up people..... One of the most debated and confusing concepts in Christianity centers around the issue of G-d's grace and His precepts  what we call "the law"  At first glance, even Scripture seems to have a hard time wrestling with  this issue. For instance, the apostle Paul made the law seem pretty grim:

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe.  Romans 3:19-22

According to Paul our righteousness is apart from the law.  Then only a few verses later  verse 31:

Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! On the contrary we establish the law.

Thus, we are righteous apart from the law, but we are also to "establish the law"   Paul was asking a question " Is the law  now obsolete because we are saved by grace?"   Rhetorically, he answered his own question: "Certainly not!! On the contrary......"

Later in Romans, Paul discussed how we are to deal with temptation and whether we are to answer to the law:

Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey in your lusts.  And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness  to sin, but present yourself to G-d as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to G-d. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace.  What then?  Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?  Certainly not!!!
Romans 6:12-15

Once again Paul answered his own question. First he urged readers not to let sin rule over their bodies but to present themselves as instruments of righteousness.  He went on to say that sin has no power over us as believers for we are "not under the law but under grace". Then Paul addressed  "the elephant in the room"  by asking a crucial question: "Is sin permissible since we are "not under the law but under grace?"  After all, if we are saved by grace and not by works, doesn't that grace give us the liberty  to live without boundaries-  without obligation to G-d and His law??????

"CERTAINLY NOT!!'  Paul concluded.

This may seem like going around in circles to you (especially some of my friends here).  IF anything has made clear, it is that we are under grace BUT we still must deal with G-d's law!!!  Let us therefore , begin to get a handle on a healthy relationship between grace and the law.  IT IS ONE WHOLE BOOK!

G-d sent forth His Son born of a woman born under the Law to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the ADOPTION as sons.  Galatians 4;4-5

Paul said YESHUA was to redeem those who were - there is is again- "under the law". Why?  He redeemed them so they might be grafted in as sons of G-d.

Paul says in Romans
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.  Romans 7:12

On one hand we are saved by grace, and we are not under the curse of the law, on the other had the law is "holy and just and good."   Was Paul Schizophrenic?  Not at all!!

Paul was the only one in the Bible to us the term "under the law".  He was also the only one to refer to the law as a curse.   These statements  are IDIOMS.  Does anyone remember their grammar and know what Idioms are?
An Idiom doesn't usually mean exactly what it says on the surface.  A couple of examples of Idioms would be  "He has a chip on his shoulder," or  "That man kicked the bucket."  These are expressions.  In reality, there is no chip or bucket.

Obviously, not everyone who obeyed the commandments of G-d was "under the curse of the law"  Jesus obeyed G-d's Law.   Paul followed the law.  Certainly they were not cursed.  IN Hebrew, the word for law is Torah, meaning to teach denoting a pathway to learning.   In this context, "the law" was not so much about rules and behavior but more about a mentoring relationship as children of G-d.  IN Greek, the word for law is nomos.  IN the Greek context, the law is more about legalism the dos and don'ts to achieve favor or disfavor.

There are no list of behaviors- nomos- by which we can overcome our own sins and make ourselves acceptable before a Holy G-d.   We are saved only by faith in Yeshua HaMashiac. That said, it doesn't mean we can't be taught by G-d's law- Torah!!  Now that I am forgiven, washed in His blood shed for me, grafted into His family, and made an heir to his covenant is it ok for me to steal????  Can I begin to worship and Idol?  Paul's answer in effect , G-d Forbid !!!

Why then, did he refer to the law as "the curse"?   The answer: It's not G-d's teachings that are cursed ; It is what man does with them!!! Get it? Let's look at it further.....
IT'S BEEN RIGHTLY SAID THAT God doesn't have any grandchildren in heaven, only children: He is not your "heavenly grandfather" but your heavenly Father (אֲבִיכֶם בַּשָּׁמַיִם). And just as a good father disciplines his children for their own good, so does your Father in heaven (Prov. 3:11, Heb. 12:5-7). The discipline of God leads you to do teshuvah for your ultimate good (Rom. 2:4). As C.S. Lewis once remarked, God doesn't love you because you are good, but He will make you good because He loves you.

The Hebrew word derekh (דֶּרֶךְ), often translated as "way," metaphorically refers to the journey, manner, or course of your life. Because God is tov v'yashar (good and upright), he teaches his children to be yesharim (יְשָׁרִים), i.e., those who walk uprightly. Indeed, the way of the LORD (דֶּרֶךְ יהוה) is "to do acts of charity and justice" (לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט) (Gen. 18:19). This is the "straight way" (derekh ha-yashar), or the "narrow path" that leads to life (Matt. 7:14). The yesharim are known by the good fruit of their lives (Matt. 7:15-23).  Narrow is the path... many will not find it.

Note that the verb used in this verse (יוֹרֶה) comes from the root yarah (ירה) -- the same root used in the word Torah (תּוֹרָה). Because the LORD is good and upright, He gives us Torah for our lives. God educates us for eternity by imparting to us moral and spiritual truth. As King David taught, "Happy is the man who delights in the Torah of the LORD and meditates upon it day and night" (Psalm 1:1-2).

Yeshua is called derekh ha-chayim (דֶּרֶךְ הַחַיִּים), the way of life (John 14:6). He is the Wonder of the Torah, its living expression and goal. With the psalmist, therefore, we earnestly pray: גַּל־עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה נִפְלָאוֹת מִתּוֹרָתֶךָ / gal einai v'abitah nifla'ot mi-Toratekha: "Uncover my eyes and I will behold wonders from your Torah" (Psalm 119:18).

Through history unification of believers has been difficult to maintain. Unification of believers has been difficult to maintain because of the enmity that exists between Torah observant believers and believers who believe that grace has replaced the Torah. During the time of the apostles this enmity did not exist!!  Did you hear me?  During the time of the apostles this enmity did not exist!!!!  First century believers believed that Torah observance was compatible with grace. As a result, first century believers were unified in one belief. When the early messianic community grew to a larger number of non-Jews than Jews the division between Torah observant believers and non-Torah observant believers also grew. Pagan influences began infiltrating congregations and diminishing the value of the Torah. What had started as unity between Torah observance and grace became disunited. In 321 CE, Constantine realized that a religion that is disunited does not function effectively. Therefore, Constantine decided to unify Christianity under his authority. Constantine did not return to the teachings of the apostles. Instead, Constantine decided to create a new religion that did not appear to have any link to the Torah In 325 CE Constantine's next action was to assemble The Nicaean Council. The Nicaean Council's mission was to formulated standard practices for Christians.  It was never meant to be this way.  The Torah is an extension of HaShem's grace because it demonstrates HaShem's love for humanity. The deliverance from Egypt is an extension of His  grace. Because deliverance from Egypt is an extension of grace HaShem expects His people to be grateful. The best way to show this gratitude is through obedience. Devarim 7:9-11 states, "The LORD did not set his love on you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations". Yeshua also expects His followers to demonstrate their love for Him through obedience. John 14:21 states "He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
 It is evident that Torah and grace belong together, it is all a part of 1 story (not two separate books) 1 book reflecting the other.  It is one woven tapestry. The Torah was never done away with.  He just knew we could not follow it because of our sinful nature. So He gave us grace through the cross.

Character matters in Leadership

Rush Limbaugh said "Character matters; Leadership descends from character!"   I remember hearing him say this and it stuck with me.  He hit the nail on the head with this quote.  What disturbs me most is that it isn't being taught much.  This should be engrained in our children to and from school.

We need to examine ourselves and who we are being when it comes to character/integrity.

In the dictionary, the word integrity means 1) an unimpaired condition, i.e., soundness, wholeness 2) firm adherence to a code of moral values, i.e., incorruptible, honor, 3) the quality or state of being complete or undivided, i.e., completeness. Synonyms of integrity are honesty and unity.

What does the Bible have to say about integrity?
  1. Integrity means treating people fairly and honestly. (Leviticus 19:35-36, Deut 25:15, Proverbs 16:11-13)
  2. Integrity is giving your word and keeping it. (Exodus 8:28-32)
  3. Integrity will protect you. In Psalm 25, David prays that integrity and uprightness will protect him. How can it? (Psalm 25:21, Proverbs 2:7-8, 10:9, 11:3, 13:6)
  4. Integrity is more valuable than riches. (Proverbs 28:6)
  5. The Lord will test and judge your integrity. (1 Chronicles 29:17, Psalm 7:8)
  6. The Lord hates lies and lack of integrity. (Zechariah 8:16-17)
  7. It may be difficult to maintain your integrity. (Job 2:3, 2:9, Proverbs 29:10)
  8. Your character can be corrupted by bad company. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
  9. Integrity will be rewarded. (1 Kings 9:4-5, Nehemiah 7:2, Psalm 41:11-12)
  10. Your integrity should set an example. (Titus 2:7)
I particularly want to address voters.  Obama has none of these characteristics which lead to being a good leader. Let's just take one example  Obama's associations;  Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Odinga ... What happens when we associate ourselves with bad company?  My grandmother, use to say, " You are judged by the company you keep."   She is correct for what does the Bible say?
"Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character'" (1 Corinthians 15:33, New International Version).

Many people regard character and integrity as synonymous. Integrity does not represent the totality of character; it is one of its essential elements though.

I define character as the cluster of personal attributes that are unshakeable. They determine the actions we take and the behavior we demonstrate when confronted with seemingly irresistible temptation, overwhelming odds or insurmountable challenges no matter what they are. They represent who we are and what we do when no one is looking. Some of the most predominant attributes of character are courage, endurance, persistence, perseverance, hopefulness, faith, trust, gratitude, honesty, integrity, tolerance, enthusiasm and loyalty but not limited to.  Can you think of more?

Character is influenced and developed by our choices in life. Daniel “resolved not to defile himself” in Babylon (Daniel 1:8), and that godly choice was an important step in formulating an unassailable integrity in the young man’s life. Character, in turn, influences our choices. “The integrity of the upright guides them” (Proverbs 11:3a). Character will help us weather the storms of life and keep us from sin (Proverbs 10:9a).

In 1 Samuel 25, there is a story of a little known OT personality with great character; a woman named Abigail. This was during the time that David was running from Saul. Passionate jealousy and paranoia drove Saul to pursue and kill David, while popularity and integrity followed David who, although he had many opportunities to kill Saul, chose out of character and respect to let him go. Saul lived in a palace of stone and pride, and David in a cave of dampness and humility, hanging out with the outcasts of the land and his mighty men. During this time, David and his men were doing a security service to the sheep ranchers, saving others sheep from poachers and rustlers. David fulfilled way beyond his duty by protecting what was not his. Then, one of the ranchers who was very rich and had power and authority over the others convinced the ranchers not to pay David and his men. His name was Nabal, which means “a fool!”

What parent would give their child such a name? It probably did not mean that then, but over the years, the meaning changed due to Nabal’s actions. What a legacy to leave behind to be so self-willed and prideful that the meaning of your name changes to describe whom you are--in this case, a fool. How sad and ironic that he came from the house of Caleb who was one of the great men of integrity of the Bible, one of two people to survive the Exodus and venture into the Promise land due to his honor and trustworthiness. Nabal came from this house and family lineage, which was founded upon this great integrity and character, faith and strength, which somehow escaped Nabal.

When Nabal decided to cheat David, he ventured upon a dark path of greed that he thought could be lit from his pride. He thought, what could David do, and then decided to cheat him. David, who had just about had it with Nabal’s deceit, saddled up his men and all drew their swords to kill him. Maybe David was not being what he should be, but Nabal “dug his own grave.” David was consumed with anger and was about to kill him (and justly so in the eyes of his culture and times,) when Abigail intervened. She was a woman who had great character and discernment. She was the wife of Nabal, who owed David financial compensation for saving his sheep and servants from harm. She was able to turn the payback of the evil of her husband into good. Abigail was the complete opposite of her husband!

David was going to repay Nabal’s evil for more evil, even though David let Saul go in the previous chapter for a much more grievous sin. Yet, Nabal, for some reason, really pushed David’s buttons and exasperated his anger. Abigail’s intervention soothed that anger. Thus, David was able to grow stronger in his character development by doing good, even in his anger, and even though he was wronged and cheated. David could have murdered Nabal, suffered consequence for it, and perhaps even forsaking his future kingship. The levelheaded action of Abigail saved the day for him and provided a prime example for David, as well as for us today.

We have a choice to act in evil or goodness; to act with our sinful motives or with what God calls us to, which is far better that we can see in the moment. Let us choose being even better. Who we are will determine what we do. The result will be character. Our growth in Him will make us who we are, which will be the character we present to God and others.

My next question to you is  if character matters why would anyone vote for Obama?  We need to examine each candidate carefully and vet them. It means taking a serious look at the "character" of the candidate before choosing to vote for that individual. Character is at the heart of who that individual is, what he or she has done in the past, and what he or she is likely to do in the future.

I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. Psalm 40:8 " Moral Absolutes vs Moral Relativism."

I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. ~Psalm 40:8

There is nothing more polarizing than that of Judea-Christian values from those of secular humanists.  And there is nothing more polarizing than those values of "conservationism" in faith from those who are classified as "liberal" in faith.  Let us remember what Yeshua (Jesus) stated about the end days of the Church of Laodicea. Let us look at the history of this area:

Laodicea
The city is located in the Lycus River Valley together with Hierapolis and Colossae.  This valley is a natural route of travel from east to west. The city was founded by the Seleucid king Antiochus II and named for his wife Laodice about 260 B.C. Laodicea was an important city, built where three main trading highways across what is now Turkey, met. Its strategic position made it an excellent place for trade and banking and it became famous, notorious even, for its wealth and self-sufficiency. It was a famous banking center, and is mentioned by the Roman writer Cicero as a good place to change money. When it was hit by an earthquake Laodicea refused the offer of funds from Rome and set about rebuilding the city using its own resources. Unfortunately, though it was near the cross roads, it was not close to a good water source, but there was an aqueduct which brought water from the city. If any of you have read Robert Harris' wonderful novel, Pompeii you will know all about Roman aqueducts. Unfortunately, Laodicea's aqueduct seems not to have been very good, and the water delivered to the city was often tepid and dirty. Hierapolis, nearby was famous for its hot springs, and neighboring Colosse had a cool clear stream of excellent drinking water, but Laodicea just had a tepid dirty flow from the aqueduct. Eventually, Laodicea was abandoned and the city relocated nearer to the springs. Laodicea was also famed for its medical school which produced an excellent eye ointment, and for its woolen and clothing trade, based around the black wool of the local sheep breed.
Lukewarm in Laodicea
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth" (Rev 3:14-16)

The water supply in Laodicea was tepid and disgusting, and Jesus picks up on that image and says the same thing about the church. There is no beating about the bush here, Jesus finds the church unpleasant and He is about to spit it out, to reject it. Obviously, given their water supply situation the Laodiceans would understand this image perfectly - they knew all about spitting out unpleasant things. The threat to spit the church out reminds us of Jesus' words to the church in Ephesus in the first letter to a church. These words are pretty chilling when you remember that there is no church to speak of in Ephesus and Laodicea nowadays...

As you go on in the scripture ...You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Verse 17

This description would obviously come as a surprise to the people of Laodicea, because they had a pretty high opinion of their church. They thought they were rich. They thought their church was doing fine - just like their city at the time of the earthquake, they thought they were self-sufficient. But Jesus's diagnosis is very different: he says the church is wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

Getting to the point of this article..... In the truest sense of Judea-Christian values system G-d/ Hashem is the source of moral values.  With this belief / value system and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion.

When we have a Godless society then that society makes up its own moral standards.  When societies or people become their "own source" of what is "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" then they are merely adjectives describing ones preferences.  G-d is totally left out of the picture!!   It then becomes the same lie that was sold in the garden to Eve.  This is what is known as moral relativism .  Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." It is a godless system of beliefs.

While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for "civil law", most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual.

Moral relativism means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong – you may feel it’s wrong, but it is no more objectively wrong than your feeling that some music is awful renders that music objectively awful. It’s all a matter of personal feeling. That is why in secular society people are far more prone to regard moral judgments as merely feelings. Children are increasingly raised to ask the question, “How do you feel about it?” rather than, “Is it right or wrong?”

Homosexuality is not objectively wrong.But it is all a matter of personal "Feeling".  According to G-d's word it is wrong.

Moral absolutism—the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged—suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences.  G-d gave us the 10 commandments which by the civil laws are created.

That is why our culture has so venerated the Ten Commandments – it is a fixed set of God-given moral laws and principles. But that is also why opponents of America remaining a Judeo-Christian country – people who advocate moral relativism – want the Ten Commandments removed from all public buildings. The Ten Commandments represents objective, i.e., God-based morality.

There is a problem though.  Many confuse or assume that situational ethics is the same thing as moral relativism and therefore regard situational ethics as incompatible with Judea-Christian  morality.They mistakenly argue that just as allowing individuals to determine what is right and wrong negates moral absolutes, allowing situations to determine what is right and wrong also negates moral absolutes.

This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of moral absolutes. It means that if an act is good or bad, it is good or bad for everyone in the identical situation (“universal morality”).

But hardly everyone is the same as every situation. An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Understand?  Let me explain, Sexual intercourse is good within the context of marriage. It is sacred. However, when violently coerced, it is rape!! Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil.

So, too, it is the situation that determines when killing is wrong. That is why the Ten Commandments says “Do not murder,” not “Do not kill.” Murder is immoral killing, and it is the situation that determines when killing is immoral and therefore murder. Pacifism, the belief that it is wrong to take a life in every situation, is based on the mistaken belief that absolute morality means “in every situation” rather than “for everyone in the same situation.” For this reason, it has no basis in Judeo-Christian values, which holds that there is moral killing (self-defense, defending other innocents, taking the life of a murderer) and immoral killing (intentional murder of an innocent individual, wars of aggression, terrorism, etc.).

By accepting the doctrine of moral relativism, those who could obtain power could justify state-sponsored murder and plunder by pointing out that since morals don't really exist and are merely a product of one's class or upbringing, there is no moral argument against the state version of murder and plunder.

This is the dangerous ground that the United States and churches are walking in.  2 Timothy 4:3 tells us For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  Are we becoming that church of Laodicea?

Tolerance the new BUZZ word for Moral Relativists


I wanted to take some thought in writing this note because this scripture also fits in
I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. Psalm 40:8
However, I want you to read the first note that is a puzzle piece to this note:

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150671912099245

I believe without a doubt in my mind this is the devils way to mold the minds of our youth and what has contributed to the moral breakdown of our country. If we do not see the problem, or the forest through the trees we will not be able to repent and turn our hearts back to the Lord. I am pleading with parents and our youth to seriously think on these notes.  If you hear any of this being taught from our pulpits RUN AWAY as fast as you can.
There is a clear falling away from truth not only in our families but schools, communities and churches.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Let's begin with Moral Relativism.....
People who subscribe to moral relativism will tell you that all beliefs are equal.  Have any of you seen the page on COEXIST?  Or heard of Chrislam?  Please look them up.  They will tell you that we should  be accepting of other beliefs; and that if we aren't it is a sign that, at best we aren't very bright, and at worst are "intolerant" or even a bigot. To people who believe this way, the worst sin in the world is to be intolerant and exclusive, and the enlightened way is to be accepting. Yet, tolerance pushers refuse to tolerate Jews or Christians. Why is that? Because most Jews and Christians are not moral relativists. We do not believe that all beliefs are equal. We believe that there is only one right way to see the world, and that is God's way. The hypocrisy of this crooked and perverse generation which claims that all beliefs should be equally tolerated, is that it cannot tolerate any belief system except its own. 

Now I am going to reach out further into our community because of moral relativism  we justify all sin.. from murdering our children for expediency and justifying homosexuality.

Moral relativists cannot "tolerate"  anyone except moral relativists.

They are as exclusive as the Christians that they hate!  Mind you, I know that there are a great many moral relativists who say they have no ill will against Jews and Christians. “Why I know some very enlightened Christians,” they may say. What they mean is that they know of some very tolerant, very accepting people who go to church; people who invite Muslims to give sermon addresses; people who say that God is too big to fit into just one religion; people who say that Christians have no business trying to convert Muslims here in America. Or those who say why Homosexual marriages are alright. They say it is a woman's choice. Choice? What about the babies choice?  Yes, moral relativists like this kind of Christian; for this kind of Christian is just as they are.

How are Christians to interact in a secular society?  Daily we confront issues where Christianity seems to be on the fringe. Gay rights are now being equated civil rights; those proclaiming Homosexuality is a sin are called homophobic.  Has Christianity become outdated in its views?  At one time, homosexuality was immoral.  Now it is a badge of tolerance to accept this as an alternative lifestyle.  Those say it is a sin are intolerant.  What is a Christian to do?

Moral relativity is the cancer that is seeping through schools, homes, churches, govt and "tolerance" is the buzz word that is used for those who accept this cancer. Every one else is "intolerant" .

I ask  you to please provide me a scripture in the Word of G-d where we are to be "TOLERANT" of sin?


Self Contradictory and Self-Refuting:

"There are no absolute truths." (Is that absolutely true?)
"All truth is relative." (Does that include the statement that you just made: “All truth is relative?”)
"No one can know anything for sure." (Are you sure about that?)
"We all perceive what we want." (Okay, I'll give you that much; you are living proof...)
Just like the old contradiction : “This statement is false.” (if it is false, then it is true; and if it is true, then it is false! Self-refuting)

Let's examine homosexuality... I am all for bringing and welcoming homosexuals to church.  It is where the truth should be shared.  It is our responsibility to preach /share His word and truth and a call to repentance at the foot of the Cross.

His truth is in His Word... What does it say about Homosexuality?It is an abomination to G-d.  From the Torah we read in Leviticus 18:19 God saying ... And you shall not  put your member into  your fellow man's wife (speaking of adultery)  to spill seed, to be defiled through her. And you shall not dedicate any of your seed to pass over to Molech
(sacrificing your children ie Abortion) and you shall  not profane the name of your G-d.  I am the Lord.  And with male you shall not lie as one lies with a woman. It is an abhorrence!  And you shall not put your member into any beast to be defiled through it. And woman shall not present herself to a beast to couple with it. It is a perversion!  Do not be defiled through all these, for through all these were the nations I am about to send away before you defiled. Anyone recall Sodom and Gomorrah?

Let's look at Romans 1~
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four  footed beasts, and creeping things.
 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
 31Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And the truth.... 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

I didn't say it but G-d's Word states that they will not go to heaven.

Moral relativists want to believe that we can all get along; they want to believe that we can all agree to disagree. But the basic fact of this world is that it is at war, not at peace, and that no belief system tolerates any other belief system except itself, including moral relativism. For instance, Moral Relativism is opposed to anything except moral relativism. It also tries to impose itself upon “unbelievers,” and objects if “unbelievers” resist, as when Christians resist accepting that all beliefs are equal. Moral Relativism is just as much at war with other belief systems (most notably, Christianity) as any other belief system.

All religions are NOT fundamentally the same.  At best they are superficially the same, and fundamentally different.  If you look at the moral code of most religions, maybe you find similarities.  But you shouldn’t be looking at the moral code of a religion, you should be looking at the more deep rooted doctrine.  Here, you find, they are fundamentally opposed.

All religions, or belief systems, are not ALL correct.  Since they are all doctrinally different, they all claim different truth’s.  For example, Islam states that Yeshua (Jesus) never actually died… it only looked like He did.  Christianity, obviously, claims Yeshua did die on a Cross  and did Rise again.

Again: All belief systems are at war with all other belief systems, including moral relativism. Satan is at war with God and God is at war with Satan. Lies are at war with Truth, and Truth is at war with lies. That is the nature of this world; and that is the nature of truth itself:

Jesus said, (Mat 10:34-36) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."


Examples:
Communism/Socialism: makes promises of tolerance, until it gets into power, then, violently intolerant of all others. I worked in the healthcare system to examine socialistic medicine early 80's in the USSR  while under Brezhnev.... Islam: peaceful and tolerant when powerless, violently exclusive, violently invasive when in power. All belief systems try to invade all others, including Moral relativism. Moral relativism  assaults Judaism and Christianity , imposes and foists itself on Judaism and Christianity, and claims that Jews and Christians must not resist, and must agree with moral relativism.
Unkind: condemns everyone to hell. (Christians who fall to moral relativism become ashamed of Christ. )
it is not "progressive" to let Muslims go to hell;
it is not "progressive' to deny the truth that there is only One God;
it is not upright and upstanding  to tolerate things which hurt people; things like Islam,  Buddhism; things like evolutionism.
It is not "progressive" to hide from the basic facts of life.
And it is infinitely cruel to the souls who right now know, in hell, that Yeshua meant what He said when He said:
(John 14:6) "Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.'"
(John 18:38) "Pilate saith unto him, 'What is truth?'"
(John 8:32) "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

So, someone got to thinking… “COEXIST… no… there must be something better… Ah, I know… we’ll call it TOLERANCE. Rick Warren is one of the founders of this false religion and has been working with the EU and UN to organize a global one world religion.  However...in the American post-modern culture today, it is completely arrogant, and disgraceful, rude and disrespectful to say anyone is wrong… it is, in fact, ‘intolerant’ to say that I’m right and someone else is wrong in their worldview.”  Are you listening to my sarcasm here?

For me to say that I believe that my Jewish believing (I believe in Yeshua/ Jesus as the Moshiach) worldview is right, (thus implying that all other worldviews are wrong), I am viewed by the post-modernist, contemporary, tolerant American, as intolerant. Yes, I am one of those intolerant right wing Constitutional believing, Jewish believer, gun toting, pro life pro family women.

But those who accuse me as being intolerant for saying they are wrong, are in fact saying that I am wrong for believing what I believe… thus, they are intolerant as well.  Do you see the problem here?  Let me restate that; I am considered intolerant for saying I am right and someone else is wrong… but those who accuse me of being intolerant are saying that I am wrong and they are right… Does this not make them intolerant as well?

Truth by definition is exclusive.  In in other words, if something is truth, it excludes what isn't true.  For me to say that I am a Jewish believer and believe that Yeshua Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being the Messiah and came to die for the entire world, then Islam cannot be true neither can Hinduism.  These disagree with the fundamental belief systems doctrines at the very core.

Tolerance is a red herring/ fallacy of sorts totally missing the point of truth. Human beings want to know what is true, not how to believe in a falsity.  Therefore, to get caught up in a debate about tolerance can be a complete and ineffective waste of time.  Truth is the issue.  Truth is what is at stake.  G-d is the truth....

We are in the world, the one who owns the world has the right to determine what the rules are in the property that is His (Hashem) .  The owner of the house/ this world can tear down walls, break his windows, smash the furniture, but the guest (we) do not have the same privilege.  G-d has the right to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable.  God has revealed what is acceptable through individuals, recorded in His word the Bible.

The question of what is Truth? Who is God? Why the Bible? Are separate issues.  But we must agree that “If there is a God and He did make the World, then He has the right to establish what is right and wrong”, and if there is no God, then we are free to do what we want. We are nothing more then accidents and we are on an equal footing with animals and insects. One day we will cease to exist, like a leaf that falls from the tree and decays in the earth.               
Scripture:  The Ten Commandments are an example of God telling his guests what is acceptable.

1And God spoke all these words, saying:
2     “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3     “You shall have no other gods before Me.
4     “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7     “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8     “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12    “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
13    “You shall not murder.
14    “You shall not commit adultery.
15    “You shall not steal.
16    “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Exodus 20:1-17

All else fails.  

Above I mentioned there is a falling away from "truth".  We are living in those times and those who are claiming moral relativity are falling to the world.  It is going to take walking in the truth  He told us in Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Isaiah 35:8 And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it.  He gave us the way...  the journey to follow. It is the only truth.