Idolatry

It's pretty easy to spot idolatry today. Our flesh is drawn to worship, whether it is a rock star, a movie star, or an amulet that you believe will bring you some kind of luck, we all have that desire to look to something to worship, to adore, to be uplifted by....but when it comes to idolizing a pastor or Bible teacher, such idolatry is much harder to spot. I'll confess that I am in that same boat. My desire is to find "that pastor" or "that teacher" that will bring the truth so sweetly and wonderfully that I won't need to go anywhere else for clear teaching.I can just go to Pastor Knowsperfectdoctrine for correct teaching every time. Is there such a pastor?

There's a pastor I really enjoy listening to that is almost that for me. This pastor has just the right balance; giving lots of scripture verses to just the right amount of doctrinally sound exposition, and he is humble, and gracious, and refreshing (not boring) with anecdotal stories at just the right places in his sermon to keep your interest in what he is talking about. Then he stated something that caught my ear. He said "I hate it when some pastors give their opinions while giving a sermon. I NEVER give my opinion, and you will be hard-pressed to know my opinion on most anything because I never give it." REALLY?? Actually I was listening to lots of his opinion up to that point in his sermon on what the passages he was reading in the Bible meant to him. Never mind that I do agree with most of his stated opinions, but they were still opinions. Everything that was said by him that came after the Bible readings were his stated opinions. I still enjoy his sermons, don't get me wrong, I just wanted to make the point that it would be wrong of me to simply believe every word this man (he is a human being after all) says simply because I agree with it and want to believe it.

It is so easy to point out the  bad teachings out there, and the ones giving the bad teachings. Every day I see pastors like John MacArthur pointing to the Benny Hinns and T.D. Jakes and Rick Joyners, and shout "False!! False!!" and yet there is a falseness in themselves that they need to be sensitive to and be kept humble by the truth of it, and also beware that the disciples that they have made are not following after themselves  but only following after Jesus.

A recent situation with a fellow blogger made me extremely sensitive to the reality of such idolatry. How easy it is for her to point to someone like Beth Moore (I can't stand Beth Moore either btw) and the following someone like Beth has, and whose following won't tolerate anyone pointing out Beth's errors to them...and yet people like this blogger hold in too high respect some of her own favorite teachers and preachers that are also human beings who can be prone to error.

Something Jacob Prasch has said (and I do not agree with him on everything either) about the coming antichrist;  the number one objective will be to deceive Christians. The devil doesn't need to fool nonChristians, he's already got them. His hatred is against the Church and against the Jews, God's elect. Pastor Prasch made an observation that I thought an important one. He stated that the book/letter of 1 John points out that the antichrists in the world come from amongst us. He also shared from scripture that Judas Iscariot, who is a type of antichrist, was so close to Jesus, so religious and pious, so "correct" in his beliefs that he even had all the other apostles bamboozled. Judas wasn't a "name it and claim it" type of imposter who was so way out there in left field in his crazy religion that most anyone with a half a brain would be able to see his falseness. No, instead  Judas was an angel (messenger) of darkness disguised as an angel (messenger) of light. He had his stuff seemingly together. The only one who wasn't fooled was Jesus.

In Matthew chapter 24 Jesus' first admonition is to "take heed that no man deceive you", and the ones that are most crafty at deceiving are those who seem to have the most correct doctrine, selling lots of books and tapes, able to point out the many deceivers OUT THERE, while they themselves are so crafty at deception that perhaps they even deceive themselves with their self-righteousness.

Let us TAKE HEED that we worship only Jesus, not a man, not even a very "good" pastor. When someone said to Jesus "Good Rabbi...." Jesus answered "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." He didn't say to the man "Don't call me good" but rather He asked him "why do you call ME good?". Our mindset needs to be to look to God alone, not a man, as Jesus also warned us. Beware because the days of deception are growing worse and worse, and angels (messengers) of darkness know how to disguise themselves as angels (messengers) of light, and are VERY convincing, and only by  the Holy Spirit can we discern the difference. Be on your guard and be clothed with the armour that is of God (Ephesians chapter 6).

image link

The Rest of the Facts Regarding Government Surveillance

Really good video which explains the history of government intrusion into private affairs and the need of personal protection rights as provided in the U.S. Constitution...and the truth about what really goes on while you weren't looking. Anyway, Stefan Molyneux is a secularist, so his conclusions about all of this is different from my own, however the historical facts regarding all of this is good to know.

This video is slightly dated, 2013 and focuses on what was going on with "whistleblower/leaker" Edward Snowden, however the facts are still relevant to what is happening today. I might add that I do not see this, or anything else that the government does wrong, as a reason to plot a mass revolution. I just see this as a thing we need to keep in mind when we want to believe that the government has our best interests in mind. It doesn't. Therefore wanting to put our faith in government... that of our U.S. government, or any other world government, is never wise. I am thankful I have a much better place to put my trust.

Why Isn't This Brought Up On Nightly News Etc??

This just bears repeating:

False "Men of God"

 image link (great article here btw)

There are many false teachers these days, I've been posting about the obvious ones on my other blog under "The Gifts of the Spirit" series...but there are those who are just as false, but more stealthy and snakelike...I've always enjoyed John MacArthur, however someone (thanks Lyn) gave me a heads up about him and his ties to the Rockefeller Foundation. You can read about it here.

I found his pre-trib position difficult to bear with, but I didn't find it something that I would dismiss a pastor for...but now this goes a bit deeper...because it looks as though soon people will be required to be chipped (as in verichip aka MARK OF THE BEAST), and these "ministers" (read it as "of Satan") are saying it is not THAT MARK because we who are saved will have been raptured before the MARK makes it's appearance. Sigh. Wow.

In past conversations on Christian forums I've had quite a few people dismiss the chip saying "it isn't the MARK, and even if it were, God knows we have to eat, work, etc, so He is forgiving and will forgive us..." then the martyrs of previous times had it all wrong and died for nothing??? No, dear friends. Be assured that the Bible says that all who take the MARK will go with the false Christ and the false prophet to hell. Too strong for you? Read the book of Revelation for yourself and ask the Lord for wisdom, truly.

Charlotte Iserbyt

Yesterday I spent a little time going over some things, a review of what has happened to this world over the last hundred years, and revisited Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. What a wonderful lady, stands strong by her principles no matter what the personal cost to herself. Charlotte worked as secretary of education under Ronald Reagan.

Whistleblowers today (well I guess they always have ) put themselves in extreme danger. Charlotte does, but doesn't care about her personal safety as she does about telling the truth about what goes on "behind closed doors". I know that things will grow worse and worse, and this world is not our home. We are just passin' through. It is good to know what is happening, to keep our eyes wide open to what is happening all around us, and to be faithful to tell the truth about the corruptions of this world, and the goodness of our Lord Jesus and what He has done to redeem us (chosen) out of it.

Edward Snowden

Ron Paul sounds out about Edward Snowden. I am just an observer. I look on what is happening to this country and ask the Lord for wisdom and prudence and to be an observer of the times, understanding the times in which we live:

The Role of Women

image link

Interesting that on February 20th of this month two posts that touched on this topic came to me in my bloggy world travels. DebbieLynne's thoughts on the subject are closer to my own, however Stoned-Campbell Disciple (which I just completed reading this morning) challenged me and made me have to think and pray a little harder on this topic.


 http://debsheadstick.blogspot.com/2013/02/initial-ruminations-on-women-pastors.html

http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/2013/02/first-timothy-28-15-silencing-of-women.html

Let's not just sit smugly in our own "enlightened" thoughts on any subject, but let's allow ourselves to be challenged, and through the challenge become stronger in the correct convictions (even if perhaps we then need to correct and/or change them, with the correction coming from the Lord and the scriptures). In the second example, the "8 fears" mentioned, are ones that I also have in regards to the trend of how women have taken over the world. But I didn't stop reading there and think to myself "Aha, yes, just as "I" thought. I agree with this so why go any further. I don't need justifications from this blog which will support any views to the contrary." Instead, I wanted to hear this bloggers justifications for why he feels the "8 fears position" is faulty in it's reasoning. Although I must say I didn't change the position I hold to ( of not accepting women in the role of pastor ) it did cause me to think and dig deeper, and to acknowledge the main point this blogger makes (that Paul counsels both men and women to learn in humbleness of mind and heart and that the domineering spirit is equally bad in women and in chauvenistic men---> in THAT I wholeheartedly agree!)

In the end, let us not be too comfortable in our "theological prejudices", but acknowledge that we all need to be submitted to the truth, whether we are male or female, in a quiet and peaceable state of teachableness, all the while sensitive to the discerning guidance of the Holy Spirit who will never forsake us who are His.

<3

The Truth about Gaddafi?

Something else to think and pray about....

The Creature from Jekyll Island

Really great lecture by G. Edward Griffin, explaining the Federal Reserve in simplistic terms, how it works, how it was originally set up, all the sneaky details that are the types of machinations (deceit) that still go on today.

What to do? Know the truth, the whole truth, and pray....Good to know! :)

The Quigley Formula

I recently resumed reading Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope (available in pdf online). I began it a couple of years ago, but got sidetracked, sigh. So about three weeks ago I've been having that book crop up in my thinking a few times, gentle nudges....ok, yes, I do need to read it. So about a week ago I began at the beginning, reading a few pages here and there, now and then....and today I stumbled onto this video:

The lecture is based around the following quote from his book Tragedy & Hope, pp. 1247-1248:

"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)....The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

***************

G. Edward Griffin also goes into the CFR, roundtable groups, and names many names (I was surprised, and then not so, that Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Cokie Roberts and  Barbara Walters all belong to the CFR. He also names corporations, former presidents, etc, etc, many, many tentacles. But he is also careful to explain that many of these people do not know the origins of the CFR, they have been groomed by this system, and do not realize much of how it works, just as I working for the company that I work for do not know everything they are involved in, and if they are involved in nefarious schemes, I do not know about them, although my working for the company assists them in their diabolical endeavors. So it is with these people. They have been chosen by these groups because they hold to ideals that work well with the goals of the group. He also talks a little about the Federal Reserve. It's a little over an hour long, and very interesting.

Ecummenicalism

I've been listening to Phil Johnson online lately, and LOVE him. ( I still LOVE Kent Clark too, don't get me wrong, will be visiting his congregation this weekend, Lord willing). In the audio that I'm listening to this morning, Pastor Johnson speaks on what is wrong with the modern trend of evangelicals wanting to merge and embrace the Roman Catholic Church. He concisely lays out what is happening right now, and the reasons the supporters give for why they believe Jesus wants us all to embrace each other, in Jesus. After he gives their reasons, point by point using the scriptures that they stress, he then explains exactly what is wrong with this "unholy union". Great topic, great speaker, and I hope time is made to listen, pray, and pay attention to what is happening all around us. This one is on SermonAudio.  It is 1hr 15min in duration.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=926101731329

Yes we are to get along with all people as much as possible, but our doctrine IS important, and to remain doctrinally pure requires that we do NOT link arm in arm with the world and it's religions. We are "in the world but not of the world". The differences between the true life found in Christ, and what is found in today's churches, particularly the ecumenical ones, is vast. We can reach out with the truth of the gospel, however, walking in lockstep with them and smiling and nodding when others "make shipwreck of the faith" is not loving. Yes, we need to love them, but love does not always agree (and I hate the term "agree to disagree" because usually both end up smugly thinking they are so holy in doing so). We need to stand strong for the truth. That doesn't mean we need to argue something to death either. I won't "agree" to disagree, or agree on ANYTHING with error. I will put forth prayerfully what is true, and pray that the Lord will bring them (and He will if they are truly His) to the full knowledge and acceptance of truth. Not "my" truth, but something much higher and better and holier than that. It needs to be "THE Truth" not "yours" vs. "mine". Doctrinal distinctives are being blurred and brushed aside. Doctrine does matter. Seducing spirits will tell you and I that it is not important.

Let us be loving and patient and kind....AND let us remain vigilant, I pray. It is from Jesus that this strength (and thereby perseverance) must and can only come from.

End Times Religion

For whatever reason my youtube videos won't go full screen, therefore if you'd like to view it that way, watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBoBhIqfwQ&feature=related

I need to keep reminding myself of the devil's subtlety and craft. He's been doing this a long time, he knows how to keep us distracted, and how to dilute the truth. The last two minutes of the clip are especially good at giving a visual of "taking pieces of the truth to form the lie" ... it seems so harmless... don't we WANT everyone to get along? Yes, on the TRUE foundation, not on the shifting sand, not singing and holding hands while we watch people dance through the wide gate. Sobering thoughts.

One of the pastors mentions that we need to stay on Israel's side and to do everything possible to protect her, and pray for her. I agree that we are to pray for her, but only God can, and will, protect her. We are not to meddle in that with guns and bombs. God will perform such a miracle that there will be no denying of His love for her. It is not by our might, but through His will.

I also posted this two hour film on the emergent movement:

http://susanflutterbys.blogspot.com/2012/03/real-roots-of-emergent-church.html

see the two hour youtube video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UfLjAh-mWso

Stepping Up "Security"

 image link
The picture above is obviously staged....
whenever I go to the airport they always make everyone take off their belt.

When I fly I avoid xray scanners, and take the groping instead. I work as a radiographer so I do not want to be exposed to extra radiation, thank you very much anyway.

image link

Well, I thought it would come to this, it looks like soon we won't have a choice anymore:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/07/TSA-warns-airlines-of-explosive-implants/49154470/1

So how safe are these scanners anyway? I keep hearing that these use such long waves at such low doses that they are "completely safe". Really? And consider the fact that when you go into the higher atmosphere during a flight, the amount of radiation people are exposed to is much higher than on the ground.

Here's an article that questions the "safety" of TSA scanner radiation exposure:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars

They play it off as so necessary for our protection and safety, really? They are humiliating us and saying they are "protecting our privacy"(link). Is that a joke? I'm not laughing.

 image link

Ok that just makes me less comfortable about using my cellphone. Sigh.

British Humor

Here's a bit of British sarcasm on Kony 2012. I have to warn you that there's a bit of potty mouthedness going on in this one, however tongue in cheek, he is spot on about the hypocrisy and the lemminglike quality of most human beings.

The Real Roots of the Emergent Church

Found this through Sola Sisters...it's 2 hours long so it's something that has to be scheduled into your day, but hopefully many will make time to watch this:

Related link on Bible Treasures: Escape out of Hinduism

Do Dreams Mean Anything? Part 3

 Pro 18:11  The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit.

Pro 18:12  Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.

Yesterday morning I wrestled in a dream that when I awoke had me thinking about a girl at work that had "visited" me in my dream. Let's call her Sarah....a bit of background info on Sarah: she is a young lady of about 21 years of age. She is a smart, and pretty little red head. The expression on her face is usually blank, but with her mouth turned downward giving her an angry expression. When she does laugh, it is a bitter sort, haughty and cynical, and soon after that moment passes, she reverts back to the blank and angry stare. Her attitude and actions say "I really don't give a $#I+ about you, or about anything, so let's just get on with it".

The dream:

Sarah smirked about my faith in Jesus and made snide remarks about my age affecting my ability to reason. I said "I can hardly wait to see YOU when you are 60 (I'm not 60, but getting close), and see how you handle it" to which she coldly and calmly countered "And YOU won't be around to see it"....I then grabbed her by the shoulders and drew her right up to my face and said: "Jesus REALLY IS true and real, there IS a God, and that is the TRUTH!"  She didn't budge, and while my face was in hers says coldly "You are not getting through to my heart". I let her go but while doing so said haughtily "That's too bad, I feel SORRY for you". In the dream I caught a glimpse of a coworker (who says he's an atheist, but I do not get that "vibe" from him at all) and he's trying to get my attention with a look of sad disapproval in how I'm behaving.

When I awoke I kept thinking about my reaction (which is pretty accurate of how I am, unfortunately) and about Sarah, about how she is at work, and about what took place in my dream.

In part, this is what I've come up with so far (it needs alot of unpacking):

1. Sarah has a huge guard up. She's a tiny thing barely 5 feet (I think... if that) and has a huge wall that says "You cannot hurt me because I'm inside my huge fortress". Her attitude, ideas, frame of reference, etc, all are part of the fortress that "protects" her, giving her an appearance of strength and invulnerability.

2. Sarah is young, and has a cockiness toward everyone that says "I'm better than you are...get used to it" and I have a problem with that kind of attitude, always have...especially with someone as young and impertinent as that. Now they call that sort of thing "precocious". I just think it's terribly bad manners.

3. My approach (exaggerated, however right on target in this dream) is to drill the truth into people. "Jesus is Lord, like it or lump it!!! Too bad for you if you are so retarded you can't accept the fact" Yeah, that's how I think, even if I don't express it in words to people, it's there just under the surface. :-(

4. Sarah is somewhere inside there, and I think she's hurting and afraid to let it show, and actions and attitudes such as mine drive her deeper and make her more sure that keeping that guard way high is the right thing to do especially around Christian fanatics.

5. Yes, God does not like haughtiness, therefore for me to counter what I perceive as haughtiness with haughtiness of my own is doubly wrong. Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. :-(

There's alot more there, but that is the main thrust of it.

When I was a newborn Christian, I had a dream that went like this:

image link

I saw a parade of men in business suits and ties, dress shoes polished, and brief cases in their right hand, jogging in formation, all looking straight ahead with no expression, like robots. I wondered about them...and then saw a beautiful young woman who looked wise beyond her seemingly young appearance...so I asked her "Who are they, and what are they about?" She pointed in the direction they were running and said "Look and see" so I walked a few steps their direction and saw up ahead beautiful suburbs and quiet streets and homes, all identical, row after row. Their whole purpose and goal was that life here that lay in front of them.... and I called out to them "but there's so much more!!!" but they didn't hear me, they continued stone-faced in lock step "trudge-trudging" ahead in their lock step jog.  I looked at the young woman and asked "how do I get through?" and she pointed at me...but it wasn't at me, she was pointing to someone behind me. There was a girl that was crying, deeply hurt. I asked her what was wrong and how I could help her. She immediately stopped crying and told me she wanted a sandwich.

At the time I had that dream, I was unsure about evangelism and what my role needed to be in it. This dream helped me to understand what part of the problem (for me, anyway) is. People have their hearts and minds set to the things of this world, not realizing that this world is passing away...and that our lives are very short when compared to eternity. Getting people to think about it is.....hard, if not impossible, if they don't want to. The young and hurting girl in the dream seemed to be telling me that I stand a better chance at reaching the hurting, and yet still they will try to make their hunger only about immediate gratification, when of course, the hunger goes much deeper than the immediate.

Both of these dreams have a common thread. They both are about reaching others, and about my natural inclinations of how to do it, and how off the mark my natural reactions and inclinations are, even when it is well intentioned (most often my ways don't even reach that high...but even that "well meaning" high reach isn't high enough).

This world is lost. The people are blind, deaf and dumb, like the jogging businessmen. My noise of "clanging cymbals" will only make them want to run away from me. It doesn't work. What did the Apostle Paul say about how to reach others?

Col 4:3  Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

Col 4:4  That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.

Col 4:5  Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

Col 4:6  Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

In all things, seeking the Lord in prayer for openings (for God to soften their heart and make them open and receptive), for wisdom, for endurance through adversity when we are met with ridicule and hostility, and in everything, with grace and love, giving thanks to our Heavenly Father who supplies us with the gifts that are truly appropriate to each moment, and not dependent on our fleshy ways to achieve anything for Him.

The area of God's sovereignty comes into this in a way that is beyond my limitations of how to understand it. He has provided a means to alter what "is", by using us to reach others, when we get ourselves out of His way to do it through us. I've seen the sovereignty issue ignored and/or abused, because it causes Christians to think they don't need to do anything, God is doing it and what I do won't change what He has purposed...yes, AND no. There is an interactive element to His dealings with us, one that causes us to submit to His sovereign will because of His doing, not ours, and yet WE CAN get in the way and impede progress, hardening ourselves, like young Sarah has hardened herself. What I see in Sarah, is also true about myself.

image link

CIA Whistleblower

This is very interesting for those who have been following the 911 Truth Movement stuff...Susan Lindauer is a former CIA asset who speaks out about what the CIA and the president knew about 911 hijackers, and the fact that Iraq was completely cooperative with the U.S. wanting peace more than anything in the world. Listen to what she knew of what was going on at that time...she admits there are things that she does not know, and that you may or may not agree with what she concludes from the actual facts that she was privy to, because there are other people that may have known other facts, and some of this comes out during the question and answer period that she admits there were "many strange things going on":

Wars of Religion Part 2: It's a Matter of Opinion

After our last written assignment, my professor knocked off points (got 70% on the assignment, that is below a "C") and told me my opinion was wrong. Here are his comments and an email exchange that followed:

Prof's comments on my assignment:

You overlook the fact that the Scots actually start the fighting, and do so over a prayerbook. You also overlook the Irish flat out revolting over religion. Charles claims that all his actions are divinely ordained, clear religious activity, and the Parliament opposed these claims. How again is this not a war of religion? All the countries that had these official wars also had people using religion to settle old grudges. The fact that there were old grudges (decades of arguing about the place of King and Parliament) does not mean that religion was not the cause. If anything the fact that religion is where they finally spilled over from arguing to killing indicates that it was religiously motivated.

My 1st email response:

The fact that these people were all very religious in their own ways, I agree with. The fact that there were small skirmishes with the Irish and the Scotts and the fact that the king along with being power-hungry, attributed that to God's will, I also agree with. However, the book states:

"By 1642, the king (supported by many of the nobility, great landowners, and conservatives and moderate Anglicans) was at war with many of the parliamentarians (supported by lesser gentry and yeomen, the merchant classes, the large cities, and the Puritan) The English Civil War (1642-1648) consequently broke out. "
According to the textbook, it makes it look like it is upper classes (with the King)against lower classes (with Parliament) and some of those groups happened to fall within Anglicans (upper with king) and Puritans (lower class with Parliament).
This is the third (fourth?) time you have said to give our opinion, and then state my opinion is wrong. Did you want me to discover your opinion and state it? I'm just wondering. Great class, though, I've learned alot, and enjoyed it...and I think I've learned a little about your opinions ;-)

****(This is directly from what he asked of us for this assignment: After reading the article on the various wars of Religion. There is one famous war from that age not included - The English Civil War. Determine whether or not the English Civil War of the 1640's was a "War of Religion"? Be sure to include historical facts to support your opinion. )****

Prof's reply to my 1st email response:

In the online environment almost anything the professor says is immediately latched onto and repeated by students. This leads to a very poor form of education. Any time I state an opinion before an assignment is due all I get back is my opinion. All assignments in this class are left open to allow students the freedom to try their 'wings'. For the first few weeks there are no repercussions for being wrong to encourage students to be themselves. This does not mean that there are not right and wrong answers. Throughout the course most of the assignments do not have a "wrong" answer and whatever choice is made will result in full credit so long as historical support and explanation is included. If a student does the basics of supporting their thoughts with explanation and historical facts they still receive a passing grade, just not an "excellent" grade, or an "above Average" grade. Failure to appreciate the historical facts is a problem, but not the end of the world. By the way there were eight of these assignments during the semester. If you only went astray three times, you got it "right" more times than not, and better than most.
As to your specific questions for this assignment, The Parliament at this time was at the very least extremely rich, and almost all either Nobles, or about to be nobles. Thus when King and Nobles fights Parliament, it is King and Nobles fighting Nobles. Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places). When the people are in revolt in three of four of the main places it is rather poor form to ignore two of those three.
Does all this make sense?

My 2nd email response:

You do make me think alot deeper than what is given in the textbook, and I enjoy that very much...
Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places).
I understand, and also agree with you, that a person (or persons) who puts together a textbook will have their own opinions and own priorities on the things that they think are more important (leaving out what they think might not have influenced a situation as much as what they think were the main reasons, etc) because you do have to draw lines somewhere, not every issue and jot and tittle can be brought up, and different people will have different opinions on where the cut off points need to be. I often find myself in disagreement with authors of books, or professors on a certain point on a topic, and even so I learn through the experience. :)
Also, I go onto Christian message forums, and have disagreed with the majority on issues like whether Christians should kill Muslims in wars, whether that is being a good Christian. Most American Christians think in order to be a good Christian, one must support Israel, which to them means to kill Arabs. In my OPINION, being a good Christian means to "PRAY FOR YOUR ENEMIES" even while they are killing me, as Jesus did. I've been kicked off Christian message forums for saying this....(!!!???!!!) sheesh....
I understand that you want us to think about things "from our opinion" before giving us yours, and the reasons for your opinions which do make sense even when I still hold to my own (I can understand the logic although I come to a different conclusion), instead of giving us your opinions right off the bat, and what the textbook says as gospel truth. I agree that I, for one anyway, am learning alot this way, and do enjoy this teaching style better than the other way.

Not that I think it will change anyone's opinions (lol) but this web article also seems to say that although there were religiously motivated people involved in conflicting situations in England during this time, it was the problem of politics, money and power, that was the cause of the English Civil War:
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Civil_War/charlesi.htm

New Breedism

 On Herescope (excerpt):

The whole NEW BREED concept is totally unscriptural. The only way they can attempt to prove their false doctrine is to twist, misquote or allegorize the Scriptures. According to the "prophets" all believers are not a part of the NEW BREED because it is reserved for a special quality of Christian in the last days. But Praise God, the Bible refutes this fallacy. On the contrary, it gives all believers the following assurance:

1. All believers are equal in Christ. Galatians 3:28.
2. All believers are new creatures. II Corinthians 5:17.
3. All believers are made righteous by faith, that is of grace. Romans 4:16.
4. All believers are of the seed of Abraham. Romans 4:16.
5. All believers were baptized into one body. I Corinthians 12:13.
6. All believers are members of the body of Christ. I Corinthians 12:14.
7. All believers are part of the ELECT. I Peter 1:2.
8. All believers are a CHOSEN GENERATION. I Peter 2:1, 2.
9. All believers are "born again." John 3:3, 15.
10. All believers are lively stones and a holy priesthood. I Peter 2:5.

The word BREED is not found once in Scripture, much less the term A NEW BREED.[17]

************************************************************************

That second picture with the knight holding the child reminds me of Arthurian legends....

 When King Arthur was born, Merlin took him away and raised him in secret...

http://mortimerjordan.com/T4/Language%20Arts/kingarthur/legend.html 

The Bible tells us that our hope is not in this world, yet the "new Christianity" will have it's adherents believing that Jesus is going to set up His kingdom on this earth, but as Herescopes blog also shows, the way they reshape what the Bible says, has some strange connections with Hitler's philosophies and the New Age doctrines as well. 

We must be wise as serpents while gentle as doves.

Final Thoughts....

Last week was the last week of my summer online classes. My last assignment for my sociology class asked for my thoughts on the political issues and healthcare issues that were discussed in our textbook. These are some of my thoughts as given in my last sociology assignment:

This week has been a difficult one for me because many things occurred this week that were turning points in my life, and they seemed to pivot on the lessons that touched on things with relevance to what I was going through... studying things like healthcare and politics and world situations with these heavy things on my heart really made me focus on these things with the temporariness of life in mind.

Although I am a conservative (probably closest to the Libertarian Party) I find that the textbook is slanted very much in the liberal leftist direction, so it made me a little testy to have to suffer through that bias. However, what I have concluded through all of this is that what it really comes down to is “Who is running this show anyway?” If the “powers that be” people are good and trustworthy, no matter what form of government we have would be good, if the leaders are good. The rest really is all a bunch of hoopla, just a sideshow to keep us all distracted. But if the leaders are bad and untrustworthy, no matter what kind of government we have in place, it still will be rotten.

And as far as healthcare goes, people want something for nothing, and truly there is no such thing. All the people with their hands out wanting freebees without wanting to pay for it will be in for a shock when we get the bill and see the kind of poor service we will endure for a hefty price tag. The saying goes “You get what you pay for”, and that is exactly what the government is going to give, close to nothing, because their story is that it's going to cost next to nothing because it is our money, not theirs, that will be footing the bill.

In their minds we are getting off cheap, so what we will get will be cheap. Thinking about the health problems that my family is going through right now, and the temporariness of life.... makes these thoughts hit me very close to home.

Thank you, Professor B., for this class. Although much of it ran against my ethics and values, I still came away with a richer and deeper perspective on these things, and what it really all boils down to for me is that if the “powers that be” and the general population are good and moral and ethical, all of these things will work together for a good outcome no matter how they decide to structure it. Time will tell how truly good our leaders and their followers really are.

************************************************* 

And, truly as an addendum to the above, I want to also state that in the final end, we do have Someone that is over all the powers of this world, so no matter how good (well, they are "only human" after all) or bad, God has promised us Romans 8:28, that is my anchor, and after all the hurricanes and disasters of this world pass away, it is God who will have sustained those who are His, through it all. 

:)