This is the Christian testimony of Ron Lindner a member of the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame.
Lost
All posts tagged Lost
“The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.” (John 9:30)
‘A “marvelous thing” in the Bible is something that generates awe or wonder. Sometimes it refers to a miracle but more often to something very unexpected and remarkable.
But the most marvelous thing of all is that unbelievers still persist in their unbelief. In our text passage the Lord Jesus Christ had just performed one of His most amazing miracles of creation—making perfect eyes for a man blind from birth. As the man testified to the frustrated Pharisees: “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind” (John 9:32). Yet, these religious intellectuals, so opinionated in their prejudices, refused to believe what they saw and heard. Similarly, “when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things [i.e., ‘marvelous things’] that he did…they were sore displeased” (Matthew 21:15).
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. One of the saddest verses in the Bible is John 1:10: “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” And, “he came unto his own, and his own received him not” (v. 11). Even when He raised Lazarus from the dead, “the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” (John 12:10-11).
Modern “intellectuals” are still the same, rejecting the overwhelming testimony of the created complexity in the cosmos to the fact of a personal Creator in favor of an impossible scenario of chance origin. “Herein is a marvelous thing!” Such people “willingly are ignorant” and “without excuse” (2 Peter 3:5; Romans 1:20).’https://www.icr.org/article/12451/?utm_source=phplist9151&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=November+21+-+A+Marvelous+Thing
The Nazi’s at Facebook are not going to be satisfied until all conservatives either get off Facebook or surrender to their demands. As you probably already know ‘In a post-election move, Facebook has started putting “problematic” groups in a form of “probation” where admins are required to manually approve posts by members.
The move is yet another attempt by the social media company to censor what it perceives to be misleading information related to the presidential election.
The probation will apply to groups that supposedly allow too many posts that violate Facebook’s strict rules.
This is a rather impractical requirement, especially for large groups, as the probation period will last for 60 days, meaning that every post will have to be manually approved. Once implemented, probation cannot be appealed.
Groups put on probation will be closely monitored. Depending on how they handle the self-censorship, they will permanently be banned or the “probation” lifted after the lapse of the 60 days.
“We are temporarily requiring admins and moderators of some political and social groups in the U.S. to approve all posts if their group has a number of Community Standards violations from members,” said Facebook spokesperson Leonard Lam.
Admins of a popular group in Aberdeen City, Washington, were surprised with a notification telling them all posts would require their approval until January 4. The group has over 7k members who mostly discuss local events. It also has a policy prohibiting arguing over politics.
“At this point, we are wondering if we might close the group. The extra work and frustration is weighing heavy on us,” said one of the group’s admins.
While the measure makes admins responsible for the content shared on their groups, it is impractical for large groups. Some groups have hundreds of thousands of members with hundreds of posts daily.
This measure is one of the latest actions the social media company has taken in the past few days to curb the spread of accusations of election fraud. Others include banning hashtags related to accusations of election fraud and removing a group called “Stop the Steal” that had more than 360k members.’https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-to-start-putting-users-on-probation/
The woke Left is not afraid to lie if they think it will help their agenda. Well, all I can say is that in spite of their climate change lies God’s Word tells us in the very first Book that While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease Genesis 8:22. Now consider ‘Why is Greenland called Greenland?
Most people are familiar with the reasons for the name. During the Medieval period, there is a lot of historical evidence to show that global temperatures were higher than they are today. Therefore, Greenland had quite a lot of green during the time when Vikings were colonizing it. As the Medieval period ended, however, the planet became a lot colder, sinking into the famous “little ice age”, which was at its depth during Victorian times, when it was common for the Thames River in London, England, to freeze over, and for annual ice fairs to be accommodated by London Bridge. From Victorian times onward, average world temperatures have been on the rise again.
But this dome-and dip-shaped graph did not fit with the upcoming paradigm of the 1990s onward which suggested that the Earth’s average temperature must be getting warmer due to industrial emission of so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
So researchers produced the infamous hockey stick graph. The right hand side of this 
temperature-time graph showed a sharp rise in temperature from about 1910 onward. The “handle” of this hockey stick shape was flat, not showing a Medieval warm period; the warmth of northern climes, like Greenland, or even England being attributed to a misleading local effect.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/hockey-sticks-and-tricks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hockey-sticks-and-tricks&mc_cid=f8043c3e75&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Being an independent Bible believing Baptist I certainly do not agree with most of what is taught by the Roman Catholic institution. However, I do agree with former Australian Senator Cory Bernardi when he wrote that ‘In an ocean of madness there has been an island of reason this week.
The decision of the High Court to overturn the conviction of Cardinal George Pell is a victory for the rule of law over media led mob rule.
That’s not to say the law can’t be an ass; as it has through much of this case; but the right decision was reached.
Unfortunately, the price of truth can’t be called justice.
An innocent man has been imprisoned for over a year. His reputation has been trashed and his life will never be the same again.
Pell has been a victim of a modern day version of the Salem witch hunt which forever characterises mass hysteria.
In Pell’s case, the hysteria emanated from the progressive media who saw him as the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the Catholic Church. They were prepared to suspend reason, logic and the rule of law in a rush to judgement and woe betide anyone that questioned their intentions.
Opinion leaders like Sky News host Andrew Bolt demonstrated the almost impossible sequence of claims that led to Pell’s indictment. Legal experts highlighted the evidentiary failings behind his conviction.
Today, those courageous people have been vindicated and deserve an apology from the baying mob who also called for their scalp. I have no illusions that it won’t be forthcoming.
That mob is the same crowd who claim to be progressive and compassionate. Instead they are haters and liars. They are the ones who are prepared to suspend due process, honesty and integrity whenever it suits their ’collective’ agenda.
It’s no coincidence that many of them reside in the behemoth of socialist propaganda known as the ABC
Their cause is to dismantle our enduring institutions, crush their opposition and destroy the proven in favour of a grand experiment.
Unfortunately that experiment is being conducted on the rest of us and it reduces us to mere vassals of the omnipotent state apparatus.
Pell was a target of that agenda by virtue of his steadfast defence of the traditional tenets of the Church he vowed to represent. Damaging him damaged the church and that makes government agencies even more powerful.
Why do you think Communist states throughout history have sought to diminish the role of faith in their societies? It’s because it competes with the state for authority.
This judgement has been a damning indictment of the bias and compromised agenda of the taxpayer funded ABC – Pell’s primary accuser. So blinkered is their world view that they cannot contemplate their agenda could be flawed or misdirected.
Today we can take some comfort that the legal system survived the media lynch mob but it is very hard to say that justice has been done.
A man’s life has been changed forever as a result of systemic abuse by elements of the media, the Victorian police, the Victorian judiciary and the Victorian state government.
Too many others cheered them on. If you were one of them, contemplate how you would feel if they turned their negative intentions in your direction.
Today, let us give thanks for the High Court – who resisted the mob.
Let us also remember that history records last Sunday the mob laid down palms for a leader, less than a week later they called for his death.
May you and your family have a blessed, safe, happy and healthy Easter .
Until next week
P.S – I know the subject matter of this trial is a grotesque and emotional issue. It stirs strong feelings among most of us. However heinous the offence or one’s personal thoughts of the accused or the institution he represents, the most important principle is that we are all equal before the law and deserve a fair trial. That isn’t decided by the mob and judges are not infallible. Our process has worked although it has come at a great cost. Most notably to Pell himself but also to the confidence we can have in some of our most important institutions.’ https://corybernardi.com/
Luke 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Well, in the Big Apple ‘Samaritan’s Purse, are stepping up on a large scale. This Christian nonprofit has built a field hospital in the epicenter of America’s COVID-19 outbreak. While others are fleeing the New York Metro area because it is a coronavirus hot spot, Samaritan’s Purse is running toward the need. The organization sent a rapid response team of chaplains to serve the city and even built a 68-bed field hospital near the Mt. Sinai hospital to help with overflow of patients.
Samaritan’s Purse has no ulterior motive. Rather, the ministry aims to serve those who are vulnerable, and ultimately, as a Christian organization, to serve God.
It’s a good thing they are not looking for the praise of men, because that is in short supply. Indeed, Samaritan’s Purse has found itself in the middle of a storm of controversy because of a tweet from its president, Franklin Graham.
The tweet links to the Samaritan’s Purse website where they ask for volunteers to help serve the vulnerable and who agree with the mission statement of the organization. One of the 11 points in the mission statement is at the root of this controversy:
We believe God’s plan for human sexuality is to be expressed only within the context of marriage, that God created man and woman as unique biological persons made to complete each other. God instituted monogamous marriage between male and female as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.
This statement is nothing radical; it just espouses what the Bible teaches and what Christians have always believed about marriage and sexuality.
For this, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio attacked Samaritan’s Purse as “biased” and accused the charity of discrimination. But Samaritan’s Purse has never discriminated against its patients. It has always served everyone who needs care. But it does ask that those who represent the organization agree with the organization’s beliefs. That shouldn’t be too much to ask.
But the ideological opponents of Samaritan’s Purse are using this as an opportunity to score partisan points.
Mayor de Blasio expressed outrage at Samaritan’s Purse and promised action: “I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening…Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values [of] New York City.”
New York State Senator Brad Hoylman piled on by suggesting that Graham has something to learn from the coronavirus: “COVID-19 doesn’t discriminate, and neither should Franklin Graham.”
Ross Murray, the Senior Director of the GLAAD Media Institute went even further and claimed that “Graham is capitalizing upon a crisis to inflict more pain and suffering on an already marginalized population.”
Each of these statements overlook a simple fact: Samaritan’s Purse gladly serves everyone. As Kaitlyn Lahm, a spokesperson for Samaritan’s Purse explained: “Our doors at the Emergency Field Hospital in the East Meadow are going to be open to all New Yorkers who need our help. We are here to save life, which is precious in God’s sight — and we do it all in Jesus’ Name.”
Facing a health crisis, New York officials allowed Samaritan’s Purse to stay. But de Blasio promised “to send people over from [his] office to monitor” Samaritan’s Purse’s field hospital. Hoylman stuck a similar note, claiming “homophobic pastor Franklin Graham and his field hospital operation in Central Park must guarantee all LGBTQ patients with COVID-19 are treated with dignity and respect. We’ll be watching.”
The message was clear, the insinuation ugly: While we need you now, Christian beliefs are intolerable, and we have our eye on you.’ https://mychristiandaily.com/why-is-new-york-targeting-samaritans-purse-for-serving-them/
I have dealt with the murder (abortion) of the unborn many times on this blog so you know where I am on the issue. Is it not not sad that here in Australia the murder of the unborn is an everyday occurrence raising hardly if any opposition?! However, in the USA it is different! There more people are speaking out and with President Trump being the most pro-life President the USA has ever had the misnomer known as Planned Parenthood has been closing many of their murder factories.
Here is a video of David Benham being arrest for protesting outside a murder factory.
‘Conservative, pro-life activist David Benham was arrested outside an abortion clinic over the weekend for allegedly violating state and federal coronavirus guidelines.
Prior to his arrest, Benham, who gained notoriety when he and his brother were slated to host an HGTV show that was ultimately cancelled due to their Christian faith, was praying and offering sidewalk counseling outside a North Carolina facility, according to the Daily Caller.
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) issued a stay-at-home order on March 27 until April 29, barring gatherings of more than 10 people and ordering state residents to stay at home except for essential businesses or outings, like to get groceries, seek medical care, or exercise.
Benham claimed he and four others were at the clinic representing his Cities4Life nonprofit. He also had with him a mobile ultrasound unit attended by two people.
“The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said there was a cluster, that there were 50 protesters,” he recalled. “And of course, none of that is true.”
In a video he posted online, Benham told police officers he and his fellow volunteers “are within our rights to be here,” noting there were more than 10 people working inside the clinic at the time they were arrested.
“We are practicing social distancing, we have cleaned our hands,” he told the cop. “We are offering help to these mothers, and if you’re saying we don’t have the right to be here, then go into the abortion clinic and make the arrests there.”
The police officer told Benham he doesn’t “have the authority” to go into the abortion clinic. In response, the pro-life activist asked him why, then, he has the authority to “bully” peaceful demonstrators.
As he was being handcuffed, Benham said: “You know I am well within my constitutional authority to be here. You know that we’re doing the right thing.”
Ultimately, Benham was booked and released later Saturday.
In a tweet posted Monday, Benham called out the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, claiming all eight arrests officers have made were of pro-life demonstrators.’ https://www.faithwire.com/2020/04/07/christian-activist-david-benham-arrested-outside-abortion-clinic-for-violating-coronavirus-orders/?utm_source=FWNL
I had never heard of Rhett & link until now. On their YouTube channel they say they are ‘…two guys who are only getting older, trying our best to maintain our childhood friendship via filming each other on various adventures.’
Well, I guess Rhett and Link also professed to be Christians and were active in many Christian ministries but have now renounced their faith and say they are now agnostics. Therefore, Dr Robert Carter and Paul Price of Creation Ministries International are in this video discussing several issues in all this.
1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils
1Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
I had never heard of KrisAnne Hall before but a little search showed a lot of information on her which includes her own web site (https://krisannehall.com/index.php) and YouTube channell. This is her autobiography as given there.
‘KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today.’
Here is the entire article. 
‘Coronavirus Or No Coronavirus, Feds Cannot Shut Down Churches
‘A bloody path was trod to bring religious freedom to modern America. Christian martyrs and patriots secured our God-given right to freedom of religion with their suffering and even with their lives.
Religious freedom in America is not simply a fundamental right, but a foundational one. The settlements of the first American colonies were established in the flight from oppressive religious persecution and the struggle continued even on these shores. From the beating of Obadiah Holmes, the lynching of Quakers and the imprisonment of 50 Baptist preachers who were defended by a fiery attorney named Patrick Henry, religious liberty has been something American Christians have always been willing to stand for or even to die for.
This history and more gave us our First Amendment to the Constitution and its underlying principle of religious conscience, which has been part of the bedrock of our republic for more than two centuries.
The “Father of the Constitution” and fourth President James Madison wrote in 1792, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property … the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle.”
Indeed prohibitions upon the government’s authority to infringe, limit or dictate the operation of the church had been codified in western law long before the settlement of American colonies.
Many American Christians have heard of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them that America would never return to a time where the government sought to dictate the operations of the church. But long before 1802, Jefferson’s “wall of separation of church and state” that kept government outside the sacred walls of the church was one alluded to by King Henry I in the 1100 Charter of Liberties.
Henry declared the body of the church to be free from government intrusions. Two centuries later, one of the tipping points in the fight that brought us Magna Carta was the crown’s attempt to interfere in the free operation of the church. This charter history of our founding documents continued its development through the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 under which our founders arrived in this New World.
Each of these installments, which would later culminate in our founding documents; all happened amid the fight for religious liberty.
However, even with the clear language of our First Amendment and the history that should inform our actions, the struggle to maintain this essential right from the control of government continues to this day. Modern lawmakers like to carve out excuses and causes for government intrusions into our inherent rights when some imagined need arises.
William Pitt, The Younger, warned in 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
Necessity seems to always be the most powerful tool to persuade the masses into accepting these infringements. Today, because of the coronavirus scare, religious liberty is facing a huge “necessity plea” in the form of limits upon assembly. At least one church has been descended upon by police and threatened with the National Guard for having more than 250 people attend.
According to the courts, a law that infringes upon a fundamental right like freedom of religion must overcome certain challenges: The law must not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable. The law must be equally applied to secular businesses and it must satisfy a qualification of being the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish a compelling governmental interest.
The restrictions imposed by governors and municipalities upon the number of people who can assemble in a private church gathering appears to fail these tests.
First, these numerical restrictions are completely arbitrary in nature. There has been no tested nor proven scientific or medical data to show us what “number” of people that congregate together are a danger to society. The number has varied from place to place and moment by moment. Somewhere it’s 50, other places its 10 and there are still other variations.
When politicians assign an “acceptable” number of people allowed in a private church, they are reducing our right to freedom of religion to a first come, first served privilege. Our first foundational document reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The government deciding who can attend a service by way of a numerical limit does not demonstrate an equality of rights and ought to be seen as a per se violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
Secondly, these laws are not being applied equally upon secular businesses and other institutions. When arbitrary number limits are applied to a church and not to a library, post office, grocery store or hotel gym, there is not equal application.
These laws try to justify unequal application based upon the definition of essential services. By what authority does the government declare the church nonessential? The Church is a place where people turn for help and for comfort in a climate of fear and uncertainty. In a time of crisis, people are fearful and in need of comfort and community, more than ever before. Even people who do not attend church regularly, or perhaps never go to church, need to know that there is somewhere for them to go when they need help.
Throughout history, the church has been viewed as an essential part of society, a refuge in time of trouble or need, a place of peace and a sanctuary for the weary, even a place of healing and provision. More salient for believers is that the Bible pointedly addresses the issue of assembling during troubled times: “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Heb. 10:25) Many in the church take this as a solemn command.
To deny a Christian his obligation to gather with his local body is to put him at odds with a fundamental tenet of the faith. For a believer in Christ there are few things as essential as the gathering of the body of Christ in the study of God’s Word and worship of His Glory. As a matter of fact, the Bible teaches that since we are eternal beings in this temporary world, God’s word is more essential than food: “But he answered, ‘It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”‘” (Mt. 4:4, ESV)
When those in government can assign a label of nonessential to the practice of religion, then government is taking a very serious and dangerous role of defining religion, which is expressly forbidden in our Bill of Rights and in a majority of our state constitutions.
Finally, these restrictions are not reasonable and not the least restrictive means necessary. The case law used to define reasonableness in these laws are easily distinguishable. In Moore v. Draper, the court held that Moore could be quarantined and prevented from attending church because he had Tuberculosis. The court also said that once he was healthy he could no longer be reasonably or legally quarantined and prevented from attending church.
The current laws restricting the number of attendees of a church are not restrictions on one unhealthy individual. They are restrictions upon a group of healthy people, which the court said would be unreasonable.
Additionally, the court did not order the entire church to be shut down to keep Moore healthy, which is exactly what these laws are trying to suggest is a reasonable and constitutional solution.
Limiting an entire congregation of people for the safety of those who may be at risk of infection does not meet the standard of Moore, nor can it be seen as the least restrictive means necessary. The case of Varholy v. Sweat can be distinguishable for the same reasons as Moore.
Finally, in Employment Division vs. Smith, the court held that the outlawed use of peyote is not an unreasonable interference upon freedom of religion as it was a “neutral, generally applicable law.” Because the current restrictions upon church assemblies are not generally applicable to every place where people will congregate, this case is not controlling.
Although it is argued the “protection of the public health is one of the prime duties resting upon the State” we cannot escape the reality that the first prime duty of every state is codified in the Declaration of Independence: “… that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
There is nothing in the law or precedent to establish a blanket and arbitrary assertion of “state of emergency” as an unquestionable authority.
There is also nothing in the law or precedent to support a restriction on the number of people who can assemble in a church, for health reasons or otherwise, as a criterion for denying the essential right of freedom of religion.
There is, however, everything in history and experience that says such actions by government are unreasonable and oppressive restrictions upon the essential and inherent right of freedom of religion.
Rev. Jonathan Witherspoon, founder of Princeton University gave this warning: “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.”
Indeed, when Peter and the apostles were told by law not to gather, preach or lay hands on the sick for God to grant them healing on threat of prison, they chose to continue to practice their faith. After they escaped from prison and were told by God to go back and assemble with the people and preach and heal, they did exactly that.
And when they were questioned by the government as to why they continued to break this law, the apostles did not hesitate or make excuse, they simply said, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
True to the history that makes America great, our pastors and church members should not so easily surrender a fundamental rights so faithfully contended for by those who have gone before.
Who will stand and not let the landmarks be moved?’ https://www.westernjournal.com/krisanne-hall-coronavirus-no-coronavirus-feds-cannot-shut-churches/
This is the story of the man who met the Lord Jesus on his last day alive.
