#the essence of our national tv is getting lost because they want to do stuff that 'sells' except morangos never sold because it was trendy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

In 2020, 44% of users from Denmark used Tumblr daily.

#the essence of our national tv is getting lost because they want to do stuff that 'sells' except morangos never sold because it was trendy

whattaloser · 3 years

Text

Why I’m a Leftist

I know I’m probably just some dude who reblogs cool stuff to most of my followers but I’ve got a nice long story/rant about my political beliefs here that I’ve been wanting to write for awhile

I am a leftist first and foremost because I value human life. Everyone matters. No person is inherently more important than another person. Everyone has inherent rights that should not be infringed. People who infringe on other’s rights are morally wrong to do so. In essence my leftism is based on doing what is right. Obviously everyone has their own opinion on what is right but what is vitally important is knowing why your moral code is right. This is why so many people become liberals or conservatives or otherwise rather than leftists. They simply do not know enough about how the world works. There are a lot of reasons they don’t know, not the least of which is intentional covering up history and preventing education. I don’t believe people who aren’t leftists are stupid, but I do believe leftists know more. It’s kinda fucked up but it’s the only way you can explain inconsistencies in other’s values.

My path to leftism was full of cringe. When i was 7 years old Al Gore was running against George Bush for president. I did not know enough to have a real opinion on it but I am happy to say that I wanted Al Gore to win. This thought was based on very little if any logical reason. I basically flipped a coin in my head I think. Or maybe there was some outside influence that I wasn’t aware of, like my older sister who I looked up to might have said she liked Al gore. Either way, from then on I was in favor of democrats and did not like George Bush. When 9/11 happened I remembered thinking how dumb it was that people lined up around the block to get gas. Even as a child I knew that some buildings going down wasn’t going to end the great nation of the United States. In general I thought the United States was a great country. I knew from movies and tv as well as elementary school history that the United States was the most powerful country in the world.

I recall in Sixth grade my teacher mentioned she liked George Bush because he was against gay marriage. Somehow at the time my opinion was the opposite despite being raised Catholic. I believed in god until I graduated high school and suddenly my desire to be religious slipped away and so did my belief. I do not consider this a great loss.

Sometime in middle school or early high school I had solidified my opinion that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was pointless and George Bush was a bad president. I was heavily influenced by movies and somewhat by video games that had imparted plenty of anti-war messages. Talks with my dad about nuclear missiles, watching History channel shows about world war 2, and playing Metal Gear Solid which had explicit nuclear disarmament messages, all informed me on the horrors of war. This was not enough to make me totally anti-military. In high school I wanted to join the military because I thought it was an easy way to get life experience and eventually pay for college. I was attracted to the Marines because of how cool movies like The Rock and video games like Call of Duty made it seem to be a Marine. I thought they were the best of the best. I was simultaneously against war, against veteran worship, and very pro-military. I was indoctrinated by years of government propaganda but also disillusioned by all forms of media including the book All Quiet on the Western Front which was about a soldier becoming disillusioned by witnessing horrors of war and the negative impact it had on everyone in his country. I spoke with a recruiter during my senior year and expressed my desire to be a Marine but I told him I wanted to wait a year after high school so I could get physically fit enough. The recruiter did not care that I was underweight and out of shape. He didn’t even care that I was very enthusiastic about joining, he was still putting on his best salesman demeanor which made me incredibly uneasy. The experience is supposed to pressure people into signing up on the spot, I think they even had forms for me to sign (i can’t really remember though) but I was not ready and was aware enough how I was being manipulated although not entirely cognizant. After that I no longer wanted to be in the military.

I also have to point out that I grew up in an unstable household. My parents were both loving but they were flawed and made mistakes and had problems. My dad was a typical Gen x man’s man. A little bit too emotionally repressed, but actually really good with kids when it came to play time and still is. He worked a lot because my mother couldn’t. My mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as long as I can remember. Her medical bills related to her problems combined with other financially bad decisions by my parents caused my home life to be fraught. I lived in varying degrees of poverty until my parents separated and me and my siblings moved with my mother to her parents’ house away from my father. Prior to moving though, we endured great financial difficulty. We were unable to afford school lunches but could not apply for free or reduced lunches because technically my father made a lot of money, however it was all garnished for medical bills. My father always tells about how he bought a car that had hidden frame damage and when he attempted to sue the dealership for selling a bad car he lost and was garnished for that as well. Despite making over 25 dollars an hour in 1999, my father could not afford school lunches for three kids and couldn’t afford to pay the gas bill. Without going into too much more detail, life sucked and continued to suck until I graduated, at least financially. I still found plenty of joy and it wasn’t always that bad. We still found ways to have good things like video games and we could always rewatch old movies but there’s a lot of psychic weight that comes with being that poor as a child and I’m sure it affects me and my ability to empathize with others who in bad conditions.

So i watched a lot of movies and documentaries, read a lot of books growing up, discovered internet forums at the age of 11, played video games, moved to a town that had a very large Hispanic population, and I even grew up poor. All of this life experience turned me into a very average liberal upon graduating high school. I was a very optimistic 18 year old. I thought science could save the world. If I was 18 today I would be an average redditor stereotype probably. The point here though is I still wasn’t a leftist. Only vaguely progressive and full of optimism. This is when I got sucked into the anti-feminist pipeline.

I can’t remember what exactly what I had going on in my life but I remember it was around the time of Gamergate. Everyone on the internet, celebrities, and pop culture were saying “if you believe in equality between genders you’re a feminist” an did not like that. And there was a ton of people online to tell me I was right in not liking that. They all said feminism was not necessary anymore because legally you couldn’t discriminate against women and I agreed. Gamergate made it worse for reasons too complicated to get into in this already long post but suffice it say I was “pro Gamergate.” This put me at odds with my closes friends who thought feminism was great and had no qualms with it, and were already embracing the idea of being a “social justice warrior.” Despite reading all kinds of anti-feminist think pieces and reveling in the discourse, I was still very progressive and liberal minded person. Still thought the military was bad, that black people were discriminated against etc. But so many aspects of anti-feminism were appealing to me as a white guy who tried their hardest to do what they’re told is right, had low self esteem, undiagnosed adhd and depression, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism was. Two things got me out of anti-feminism though. The first and most important thing was having friends who were patient with me about it. I didn’t reveal how into anti-feminism I was because I was ashamed but they could sense it and pushed back when they could. The second thing that got me out of it was actually finding feminists online and reading what they had to say, staying away from poorly written clickbait articles that fueled misogynist tirades against feminism. After reading and learning from feminists it finally clicked. Our society is patriarchal and that affects how people interact with each other regardless of what is legal. Many of the complaints of anti-feminism talk about how men have it in society, so how can society be patriarchal. It’s because of patriarchy that men are put in bad positions. Some of the more self aware anti-feminists had retorts against these ideas but they were emotionally charged. There’s still some anti-feminists I have respect for because of how well prepared and logical they were when it came to disputing feminism. But when it came down to the fundamental tenants of feminsim all they could respond with was anger or outright denial of reality. (If you’re like I was and don’t understand how anyone can thing modern feminism is good please feel free to ask me more, I just can’t get into specifics in this long ass post) Anyways, once you understand patriarchy and how it affects an individuals actions then you can start seeing how other institutions and cultural norms can affect an individual. This is basically fundamentals of leftism. I’d say about 90% of my path to leftism was just naturally absorbing cultural and historical information through consumption of media. The most conservative people I know are people who haven’t read very many books or seen very many movies. I’m not saying watching Austin Powers at the age of 10 will make everyone a leftist but constantly recontextualizing the world by learning something new, even if you learned it from some dumb comedy movie, can give you better grounding in a shared reality. Don’t know how to end this but I want to say when I was a teenager I thought “communism is good in theory but it doesn’t work in practice” and I had almost no historical basis for it other than the vague notion that USSR = bad despite having consumed a massive amount of media. None of it taught me what communism actually was, I didn’t know who Karl Marx was, and I had no clue why communism in the USSR failed. You can know a lot without knowing the truth so if you’re struggling with a loved one who is mind poisoned by conservative keep in mind that they know a lot but they’re missing something important to give clarity.

This has been my Ted Talk

#rambling #rant #Leftism #Conservative #feminism #anti feminism #Communism #Media #I definitely did not accomplish what I wanted to with this lol #Someone please clap #uwu

2 notes · View notes

squadron-leader-farrier · 5 years

Note

Let's spice things up a bit; ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS

oh baby, you answered m prayers lol this is gonna be long so buckle up ?

1. favourite place in your country? my hill station, because of the weather, and because i haven’t been to many places, and the ones that i have been to were extremely hot and i never want to go there again,

2. do you prefer spending your holidays in your country or travel abroad? depends on the holidays tbh. what the festivals the holidays fall near and that. i’d stay here for some, but for the ones that we don’t celebrate in my country like Halloween, i’d like to go abroad.

3. does your country have access to sea? peninsula, babey!

4. favourite dish specific for your country? chicken biryani. boy, oh boy, just thinking about it makes my mouth water. it’s that good. gosh, the flavour, the spice. the way they cook it,,,, the colours ahhhh

5. favourite song in your native language? ones made before the 60s. and the patriotic songs. there are too many to name, but two (non patriotic) ones are this and this (because they’re sad love songs and give me flyboys feels ya kno?)

6. most hated song in your native language? like, as a nation? idk. but personally, i hate, absolutely loathe any songs made after the 60s. they lack originality and creativity. all they did was rip off popular english songs, and changed the lyrics. that’s literally all they did. and they are super proud of it. i hate it. the music industry had gone to complete shit. even today they don’t know what good music is and ow to make it. they’re remixing all the old ones because they lack creativity. i hate it.

7. three words from your native language that you like the most? i don’t like any three words, because they’re not that appealing on their own (not the ones i can think of right at this moment) but rather, phrases. when you string those words and make poetry or prose. it’s really beautiful, and really poetic. perhaps the best ones are in those two songs, and others like them.

8. do you get confused with other nationalities? if so, which ones and by whom? i haven’t been in a situation like that so i can’t say.

9. which of your neighbouring countries would you like to visit most/know best? probably Russia because the ones right next to me are exactly the same in topographical, cultural and architectural respects. there’s literally nothing new to see there, so i’d like to go to Russia.

10. most enjoyable swear word in your native language? so it’s basically three: bhenchod/madarchod/chutiya. all of them mean motherfucker in their basic essence, but are used to describe people, cuss out people, call your pal, so basically, the hindi equivalent of fuck. can be used as adjectives, prepositions, verbs, nouns, whatnot. can be used individually or all together. perhaps splash one of them in a conversation to make the group giggle a bit more while telling a funny story.

11. favourite native writer/poet? the ones who wrote nationalistic literature during the freedom struggle. so, to say, i like Sarojni Naidu, and Tagore. they’re perhaps the most famous ones of the time, and i like their work.

12. what do you think about English translations of your favourite native prose/poem? i don’t have any, because they’re already written in english by the authors. i read a poem or two lying around somewhere, but the thing about hindi is that the translations don’t bear the same feelings as the originals.

13. does your country (or family) have any specific superstitions or traditions that might seem strange to outsiders? oh there are too many. too many by far. most of them are the usual black cat and others, oh, one i heard when i was in like 4th grade was that you shouldn’t go out with open wet hair at night because a spirit can get caught in em and come home with you. so that was strange. my family doesn’t have any, we’re rather realistic.

14. do you enjoy your country’s cinema and/or TV? no not in the least. you know why? because of this. i swear to fuck, the person who uploaded this compilation didn’t edit a single thing in. how do i know? because i’ve watched these on actual television. when i was young. in my neighbour’s tv.

15. a saying, joke, or hermetic meme that only people from your country will get? remember when some of you motherfuckers got offended by bitch lasagna because you lack basic understanding what a fucking joke is? you don’t know what satire is? you are the reason why people think indians have no sense of humour because you DON’T it was a fucking JOKE holy shit i’m so triggered by this

16. which stereotype about your country you hate the most and which one you somewhat agree with? haven’t heard of many stereotypes about us, but the laziest one i can think of is that we can do math and are good at science. we’re not. i’m shit at all of that. so are my 34 other classmates.

17. are you interested in your country’s history? not really, tbh. maybe the period just before independence, and some post-independence stuff, because i got dirt on those politicians and i want more of that so that i have a reasonable justification for hating politicians.

18. do you speak with a dialect of your native language? i don’t know, maybe i’m so used to it i don’t even realise lol. but i guess so.

19. do you like your country’s flag and/or emblem? what about the national anthem? YES. YES. YES. i love them. i absolutely adore them. the flag is so symbolic and so beautiful i love her (orange on top for sacrifice, white in the middle for purity, green at the bottom for prosperity, the blue circle in the middle for resolution and justice, just ahhhh). the national anthem always gives me the chills. everytime i hear it playing somewhere, or when we sing it sometimes after assembly, or during days like today (independence day) or republic day, when we finish singing the last line it just always makes me a bit emotional and proud? yeah. today i almost started crying because i love it so much.

20. which sport is The Sport in your country? Cricket. even though the national sport is hockey. no one cares about hockey :(

21. if you could send two things from your country into space, what would they be? the memers who think they’re very funny, (which they are not in the least), and the anti nationalists and separatists. i do not want them here. get lost. fuck off. shooo.

22. what makes you proud about your country? what makes you ashamed? what makes me proud, is the freedom struggle of the revolutionaries, and the progress we’re making in every field, the hospitality of the people, and the unity in diversity. what makes me ashamed is that there’s still so much corruption in the government, can’t help it, the law’s delay, gosh the people who think they’’re better than everybody else, the entertainment industry, the music industry, some of the people, most of the politicians, etc.

23. which alcoholic beverage is the favoured one in your country? bold of you to assume we have a single favourite beverage for the entire country. i think it varies from state to state. for mine i think it may be something apple related, because we have lots of apples here. the season is also coming lol and also, it’s very confusing because some states have completely banned alcohol and in some the legal drinking age is 18.

24. what other nation is joked about most often in your country? canada and ‘murica mostly because so many people immigrate there

25. would you like to come from another place, be born in another country? i’d like to be British, because i like the aesthetic and weather.

26. does your nationality get portrayed in Hollywood/American media? what do you think about the portrayal? i don’t watch many movies, but i think it’s not much/a small amount and neither do i mind nor do i care.

27. favourite national celebrity? no one. i hate all of them.

28. does your country have a lot of lakes, mountains, rivers? do you have favourites? yep!! she’s not called a subcontinent for nothing, babey! i live near the Himalayas, so i like that.

29. does your region/city have a beef with another place in your country? oooooh yes. ooooooooooh boy. with Pakistan lol. mainly because of the union territory of jammu and kashmir. because pakistan wants it, we want it, and it legally also belongs to us. there’s separatists there, anti nationalists, and there’s poverty there, so it’s easy to instigate the people against the government. there were wars fought for it, most of them ended in our favour, but the other side is still making so many ceasefire violations, it is insane. it has been years, and every other day there’s a new violation. there’s lots of unrest in the valley, which is a shame, because it is a truly beautiful place.

30. do you have people of different nationalities in your family? my uncle is British, my cousin’s husband is also a Brit. a great-grand relative of mine was also British. there are none on my mother’s side.

1 note · View note

jorahssquire · 5 years

Photo

Cover of Moves Magazine 2013 / With accompanying Article -

Before we got started, Michael Shannon expressed some concern that he might not be very loquacious. “[These interviews are] not always easy. I’m not a very talkative person by nature. I’ll try to give more than one word answers.” So Moves made sure to ask the right questions.

When you think of Michael Shannon, you’ll think of his intensity. His performances in Revolutionary Road and Boardwalk Empire – indeed, in most of his repertoire – are intense. His characters are a cadre of grim-faced, borderline something-or-another dark-sided men. If you want to know what we mean, look up his recording of Deranged Sorority Girl’s viral email, and then tie yourself down to whatever chair you’re sitting in.

In point of fact, however, the first thing you notice when you speak to Shannon is that he’s a nice guy with a sense of humor. “I’m at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles. I’ve seen Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones and Gwyneth Paltrow and Paul McCartney. It’s like Mme Tussauds, but they’re actually alive.”

But when we caught up with him, the nation was reeling over the Boston Marathon bombings and gun violence. Shannon’s roles often call on him to step into the shoes of the men behind the madness, but the importance of treating those roles with respect isn’t lost on him. “It just reminds me to take it seriously, you know? There’s a tendency if you’re playing pretend to forget that these acts of violence are actually quite horrible and have huge repercussions. You have to be very vigilant to remind yourself that it’s not fun or cool to do these things. That it’s actually very terrible.” There’s an understanding, a character analysis, necessitated by taking on violent roles in TV and film. “And that’s the reason to tell these stories, I think, because violence does exist in the world. And hopefully telling stories that have violence in them help us understand why violence exists in the first place, and process our own feelings, so to speak.”

As such, gratuitous violence just isn’t his thing. “I try to stay away from projects where I feel like violence isn’t given its appropriate gravity, you know what I mean?” To which we think – Superman? But Shannon reassures us, while perhaps tipping the Man of Steel hand a bit: “There’s a lot of violence in it, and it’s geared toward a younger audience. You think about that in regards to: Am I glorifying this? But the thing I could tell about Man of Steel is that the gravity was there, the sense of consequences. That’s what I love about the Superman myth story in general. There are always consequences.”

Michael Shannon has a young daughter, Sylvia, and like any other parent facing the newspaper headlines every day, he worries about how the world’s violence will affect his child. “It’s something I think about a great deal. It’s the essence of a film I did, Take Shelter – the anxiety of being a father in this day and age, considering everything that’s going on.”

And there’s a lot. The world has changed, perhaps most notably in how we exchange information. “It used to be that you had to get a library card and go look in the – I can’t even remember the name of it – the card catalog, and the Dewey Decimal System. And you’d try to find a book on, you know, like, mosquitoes or something, and it would be a daylong project. Nowadays you just Google ‘mosquitoes’ and everything you need to know is right there.” So the violence is ever-present, even before we roll camera. “Now things are in your face all the time. The news coverage of Boston was pretty – I was about to say ‘bombastic’ but that may be an inappropriate pun. But I do worry about it.”

What you may not know about Shannon? He’s an environmentalist. “I’ve always been concerned about the environment and tried to do my part…. I think it’s the most important issue. ‘Cause I live in Red Hook and seeing first-hand the devastation that Sandy brought, I just can’t believe…. Anyone who’s not thinking about climate change is really pretty clueless in my mind’s eye.”

Shannon is a Brooklynite, by way of Kentucky and Chicago. (His favorite pizza? “It’s just different. Why can’t we all get along?”) When Sandy hit the east coast, Shannon and his partner Kate Arrington were performing in Grace on Broadway. They packed up Sylvia and headed to Kate’s mom’s house in Harlem to wait out the storm. But he’s shocked that, even today, people in his shorefront neighborhood are still struggling. “They’re not back in their homes. It’s unusual, because it’s been a long time.” Our sensationalist world loves a good story, a good disaster, a good drama. “They have these signs all over New York City that I find very disconcerting. The mayor is suggesting that, you know, everybody has a disaster plan. Posters of little children sitting in front of storm clouds and lightening bolts.” It calls to mind the bomb shelter signs of the ‘50s. “It just seems to be part of our culture. Every decade has it’s own worrisome subject.”

That’s why, even if we use our films to analyze and understand society, we also use them to escape reality a little bit. “Man of Steel is a miraculous film. I’m very proud to be a part of it. Zack Snyder, the director, he’s a real powerhouse and I feel like this is his finest work yet – a culmination of everything he’s been working on. It’s a stunning picture.” Shannon couldn’t share a lot of behind-the-scenes info – “I always get paranoid talking about Man of Steel, that I’m accidently going to say something I’m not supposed to say – it’s like walking through a minefield. You’re supposed to say: ‘Yeah. It’s great. Come check it out. It’s gonna rock your world.” But he did share a little insight into his other current film, The Iceman:

“We were shooting the big scene at the end where they arrest me and finally take me to jail. There were all these period cars – they weren’t driving hybrids back then. It was a huge set-up, you know, because there were like five or six cars coming one way and three or four coming the other way and undercover cars and skidding and sirens and all this. The first time we went to shoot it they said “action” and I’m backing out of my driveway and I’m looking around and I don’t see anything, and then I hear “cut” because all of the cars weren’t working. The cop cars weren’t working ‘cause they were so old and crappy. So we had to wait a couple hours to fix them. I think everyone was trying to fix the cars, even if they didn’t know anything about cars. ‘We’ve got to get this Kuklinski arrested!’”

But let us really introduce you to this issue’s Cover Man by telling you about his favorite haunts. What better way to learn about someone than to learn what they love? “The best restaurant I’ve been to recently is The Good Fork in Red Hook. The chef, Sohui, is Korean so there’s Korean influence but also a variety of other influences. And the food is delicious. It’s a beautiful little restaurant – intimate and warm and cozy. And they have a really good steak and eggs Korean style, with Kimchi rice. It’s really scrumptious.

“And then you could stop by afterward for a cocktail at Fort Defiance.” Apparently, Fort Defiance was a revolutionary war-era fortress in the Brooklyn borough area. “They have wonderful, very inventive cocktails. The proprietor – his name is St. John, but you pronounce it “Sinjin” – he’s been a bartender for years and years. And he’s invented one cocktail called the King Bee that I really like it, with the vodka that’s got the honeycomb in it. Again, it’s a smaller place, but I guess a lot of New York places are kind of small.”

Finally, a little night music. “Music. Oh, I love music. I like to go to the Village Vanguard for jazz in the village, but everyone knows the Village Vanguard. It’s legendary.” What kind of jazz? Like MMW? “I’m not a smooth jazz aficionado. I don’t like anything with drum machines or too many synthesizers in it. I love Medeski Martin and Wood a lot – but I also love the old stuff a lot. My favorite is Thelonious Monk. “ And here he shares something that tells you exactly what kind of man he is: “I like to go to Village Vanguard and think about the fact that Thelonious Monk sat at that piano, once upon a time, even though I wasn’t there to see it. It’s the same room, which is pretty thrilling. Pretty exciting.”

But where is Shannon really going for the best music experience? He doesn’t have to leave his house. “When you have a kid, you don’t go out as much as you used to. So I stay at home and make music with Sylvia. She’s very musical. She likes drums and the piano. She’s got a little pink ukulele she likes to play.”

See? He’s really just a big softie.

#Moves Magazine #Michael Shannon #cool #smart and introspective guy #great article

4 notes · View notes

cryptofmadness · 6 years

Text

Interview (excerpts): CRACKED magazine’s Dick Kulpa

Crypt of MADness interviews Dick Kulpa on his tenure at CRACKED magazine and more.

(Note: The following is excerpted from a much lengthier interview published in the print edition of Crypt of MADness magazine #5 (May 2018.) The full interview as printed is much longer and contains much more than published here.

(Interview conducted by Chet Reams for Crypt of MADness magazine

Reams: Tell us a bit about your background before taking over…

Kulpa: I could fill a book with all that. Suffice it to say, I worked in virtually every facet of publication: Editorial, art, production, printing, advertising, distribution, sales...even janitorial.

My original aspiration was to be a cartoonist, enjoying some degree of success in that as a "self-taught" illustrator in local and national levels. However, what could be termed as "real training" occurred during my 12-year (pre-CRACKED) tenure at the supermarket tabloid Weekly World News.

It was that tabloid editorial training which prepared me for CRACKED. After all, I had a big hand in the creation of a publication (Editor's note: the satirical/humorous print tabloid "Weekly World News.) that sold well over 200,000,000 copies during my time there.

Reams: How did you end up getting the CRACKED magazine brand from AMI?

Kulpa: I offered to buy it when it was folded. They accepted. That was "too easy,” I thought back then.

Reams: I read somewhere that there were plans for a CRACKED mag TV show/DVD around 2004.. .what happened to cause it to fall through?

Kulpa: It didn't have to fall through.

... Suffice it to say a semi-retired graphic artist with national aspirations (and no experience above a local level) declared my TV deal, which allowed the television people to market and profit from ancillary CRACKED merchandise for two years as “not good enough.” He blurted this out at the initial investor meeting held prior to my relocation to Rockford, Illinois.

... a national TV show would considerably enhance the CRACKED property, and I retain strong connections with key people who still see this as viable.

Also, past contributors would have seen residual payments for any work used.

Reams: What happened in Rockford, Illinois (where the last three issues were published) - with the investors there?

Kulpa: The amount “invested” in CRACKED was termed as “pocket change” by my main ombudsman there, and that money ran out by the third issue. The investors declined to recap it.

Oddly enough, that third issue bounced back in sales (which was usually the case during my tenure - I’d get three out then wait for money).

However...I don't fault the investors. As one advised me in a letter, they were "tickled pink" with my performance. However, they were unhappy with the performance of the company appointed to oversee the business end of it.

…

Reams: In Mark Arnold’s CRACKED book,(second volume, ) you are quoted as stating “in every case” the contracts you signed during “the CRACKED debacle” “..were breached…” Care to elaborate?

Kulpa: To my knowledge, nobody has ever challenged that statement.

We did not get all CRACKED documents as provided for in the original contract, as then-current distribution records were suddenly deleted from the seller’s company computers. I was advised of this minutes after that occurred by a major company insider (with a witness present.)

...

Reams: You also state “the CRACKED sale was never fully closed.” What exactly did you mean by that… were you not fully paid by the CRACKED dot com buyers, or more than that?

Kulpa: The principle attorney involved with the purchase (on the buyer's side) committed a "no-no", ethically. This prohibited me from fulfilling certain obligations. I did not receive the expected sum and was left holding the proverbial bag.

…

After that, my stored email evidence had suddenly disappeared back then (though I had saved THE one critically important email elsewhere) and at times it was exceedingly difficult to continue to “play dumb.” However, my prime goal was to unload what by then had become a debilitating albatross and return the investors’ money to them.

...

Reams: What would you do differently if you got CRACKED back today?

Kulpa: First off, I would not have lowered the bar. We had some great stuff in our first four AMI editions, but suddenly functioning on a zero editorial budget gave me little leverage in maintaining high standards on contributors. In short, I had to take what I could get…

2. Swing the axe. You cannot operate properly with loose lips — particularly whiners — who have no clue as to realities relative to your efforts. “Placating” doesn’t work. EXAMPLE: if a management staffer is delegated the task to make sure a price appears on the cover, that should be done. In one case, it wasn’t...and that cost an additional $10,000.

EXAMPLE 2: It takes sales to pay bills. One edition lost its scheduled racking because two knucklehead staffers charged with okaying the proofs buried them in an office desk drawer...costing CRACKED its proper rack placement. Most editions never left the trucks during distribution, and that edition subsequently bombed.

Given ongoing anomalous distribution issues, we just handed the bad guys a cracked CRACKED on a silver platter.

And freelancers wondered why it was tough to pay them.

3. Speaking editorially, my biggest mistake was in taking “me” out of “managing and creating editorial content” early on. I was too focused on distribution, dealings and ancillary issues. That, and I wound up as Weekly World News editor for a year, relinquishing basic editorial control of CRACKED. …

In terms of my own creative involvement, I pulled off some heavy stuff earlier in my career. That should have occurred here.

Reams: Why did you change CRACKED’s format?

Kulpa: I was appraised of CRACKED’s sales woes and presented a six-figure salary with a year to “turn things around.” At that time our in-house distribution people were “unenthused” (as seen in my first meeting with them.) I had to diminish the logo because my overseer wanted to change its name altogether, due to the drug connotation.

In publications, there is an established (but rarely used) concept of “throwing the current readership away” in order to expand, and Weekly World News did just that around 1984, dumping its 200,000 readership and growing it into over a million weekly sales. Egos had to be checked at the door. Sadly, they weren’t.

In closing: For a brief period in history, a major, iconic and classic entity was under the direct control of us “little guys”, and we so terribly muffed it. That’s why corporates will always control the action.

There are many people nostalgic for the CRACKED they grew up with, but the problem is, not enough.

And there’s a whole lot more to the CRACKED story...check out my Wordpress blog.

Reams: Looking back, would you say you made mistakes? You did say you believe your later lack of "managing and creating editorial content" was one, but were there others?

Kulpa: 2. My biggest mistake? As I debated whether to take the plunge - and sought direction, I failed to heed it when it came. One evening my girlfriend had me watch “Man of La Mancha,” and the scene featuring Don Quixote and his partner on a wooden horse - as entertainment for the aristocrat - struck me. “Look, that’s me and (Barry) Dutter” I exclaimed.

I should have listened to myself, because in essence, that’s what occurred.

…

On a practical front, I should not have delegated “important” functions to staff. As a result, a price was left off an edition cover, (costing $10,000 -CRACKED was shut down three weeks later by the previous owner), editions were sent to print a week late on several occasions, and freelancers “may” have gotten erroneous info.

Further, I regret not doing more editorially, as said before.

That, and bowing to staff pressure and trying to present new material. I should have gone to reprints for a time.

All that being said, I (and staff) functioned in unnatural and unprofessional conditions. We wanted CRACKED and instead, got “crazy.”

...

I should have never sounded off to a potential investor who finally emerged...as that killed the project. All in all, CRACKED Magazine boasts a proud legacy. Unknown to most were my efforts to maintain the magazine’s name, and at one point, stopping an AMI company official from selling its archives on eBay. A number of now-prominent artists got their springboard via my CRACKED, (because I saw things that MAD didn’t, perhaps?)

And the hope is that someday, someone will actually take the time to fully research this era. They will be in for some surprises. In my 1979 case, however, I knew who the culprit was.

In THIS case, it wasn’t me, but for some reason it’s convenient to maintain that fallacy.

…That being said, CRACKED (Editor's Note: CRACKED dot com, not the magazine) as been at the center of rather unusual financial activity for some time now, and I hope this gets thoroughly investigated.

Crypt of MADness magazine thanks Dick Kulpa for allowing us to interview him for Crypt of MADness issue #5!!

Excerpted from Crypt of MADness magazine #5, May 2018. There’s a lot more of this interview in the print zine - copies can be ordered from the Facebook page

#Interviews #articles #Crypt of MADness #August 2018 #Cracked #cracked magazine

1 note · View note

sacrificas-a-blog · 7 years

Text

PODCAST 002 // ELENA SANTIAGO

I remember the time where Lena disappeared quite clearly. There was a great spectacle of police, parents, neighbours, sensationalist reporters. They walked the desert trying to find her, the case got a lot of attention from the media though not necessarily the good kind. They scrutinized her life, her choices, every silly teenage mistake she ever made, if she drank if she didn't, if she had a sex life. I remember her mother crying on national television, calling them monsters, saying she just wanted to find her daughter.

You see, what I haven’t told you is that I went to school with Lena. She was two years my senior so I can’t say we were friends, but this is a small town, and I sometimes hanged out with the older kids. They let me stay because the liked my scary stories, it was my bribe to them to join their tight knit group. They weren’t typical jocks and cheerleaders type, not outcasts either. They always gave me the impression of being the greatest friends, I remember envying them and wanting to be part of their secretive world, their closeness, their inner jokes and games. Though thinking back it might have been simply a child’s fascination with who I considered the cool kids. I had my first beer with them, right about the time my parents decided I shouldn't hang out with them any more.

Lena was— special. She was beautiful that was undeniable. I remember she had this long dark hair curly hair and very intense dark eyes, she looked intimidating. But seeing her with her friends--- she was just a normal girl, restless perhaps, always trying to prove something, to get something out of life by continuously challenging herself to fulfil this or that dare. She was the kind of person who would do something just to prove she could. I don’t know what she was trying to accomplish, perhaps she was troubled,perhaps she was just a normal teenager. Weren't we all troubled in our own ways when we were 15?

At the time, with all the media attention and the theories about alien abductions ad serial killers, her figure seemed almost mythical. Now, looking at her picture it simply looks sad. She was just a girl who disappeared, leaving behind a town torn apart.

I tried to remember something to share with you about her as some kind of homage perhaps. I wanted something real, apart from all the conspiracy theories, but my mind tends to get hazy and I’m not good at remembering stuff. But perhaps it’s impossible to do so. Even before her death she always felt mythical to me, unreachable, fascinating? She was that first crush you had as a kid, that near obsessive, cherish-all, blurry amazement that comes with it.

I do remember something quite mundane. It was a sunny day and she and her friends were going on a "hike" near the canyon area ( which was code for drinking and swimming at the grotto ). It was a hot, unbearable summer day. She saw me and asked if she could borrow my cap for the day, and of course I gave it to her. It was my favourite black baseball cap that simply said Nirvana in yellow letters. She was actually kind enough to return it the next day, but I told her she could keep it, I knew she liked Nirvana too. I saw her wearing the cap a couple of other times that summer, though I eventually forgot I guess. I don’t remember what happened to it, she probably lost it like I lost so many caps. It was a nice feeling though, seeing her wearing that cap. It was as if we shared a secret. Though, in the end, she kept all the secrets for herself.

DIANA: Javi? Oh my goodness look at you.

JAVI: You--- remember me? Wow.

D: of course I remember you, don't be silly. Come on in sweetheart.

Lena mother has always been a very mom mom, kind of like my mother. The always worry to an extreme, always trying to feed you and insisting you take a sweater kind of mom. I had been to her house mostly for birthday parties, or pool parties. I was the awkward younger kid so, of course, the mom would take pity and ask me to help her with something. I didn't think she would remember me though.

She looked very much the same,always make-up and nice clothes even when she planned on staying at home. But she had a kind of lost look to her eyes now, it was subtle, but it was there.

D: So this is for the radio? Are you a journalist?

J: It's a podcast, kind of internet radio? I'm making a documentary on my dad's disappearance.

D: Of course, I'm so terribly sorry about that. Alejandro was a pillar for this community.

J: I guess? Thanks. I mean Thank you.

D: I'm afraid I don't know much about it though.

J: I was actually hoping to talk to you about Lena's disappearance if that's okay?

D: I--- I don't see how---

J: It's simply that my dad had her case--- reserved in a way. He was still looking into it by the time of his disappearance. He hadn't given up.

D: I didn't know. It's--- nice to hear it. He always did promise he would keep searching. You're a lot like him in a way.

J: Me?

D: I've kept track of your news on tv and the papers. And that story you wrote about the border? Absolutely heartbreaking.

J: I--- don't know what to say, thank you.

D: She always liked you, you know?

J: I’m sorry. Who?

D: Lena, she liked to hear your stories. She suffered from--- some issues. But I could always tell when she heard one of your stories, they seemed to soothe her, she had this--- fascinated look in her eyes. She never wanted to tell me the stories though, she said she wouldn't make them justice.

J: I--- really? They--- were just scary stories.

D: I'm not surprised, she liked the spooky things.

J: Yeah [laughs], me too

D: See?

J: Uhm--- when you said she had issues--- do you mind if I ask what kind of issues?

D: She was in treatment, psychiatrist, medicaments. There were a lot of night terrors and--- manic episodes. She felt as if there was something hunting her, sometimes she could barely sleep at night.

J: I had no idea.

D: None knew, my husband didn't want people to find out at first. And when she disappeared we didn't want people to stigmatize her any further. She was a sweet girl, but she was in a lot of pain.

J: You keep referring to her as was. Do you think she has---

D: I'm supposed to say I haven't given up hope. Right?. It's been twenty three years, I'm tired of waiting. We even had a funeral [emotionless laugh].

I showed Diana the names and pictures of the other missing persons but she didn't recognize any of them except from seeing some on the news. She offered then to show me Lena's room though I wasn't allowed to touch anything.

Diana might have said she was tired of waiting but Lena's room was untouched. I had never been there before but it looked as if it had been preserved the exact same way it looked when she stepped out of there in 1994. The teen magazines still on the desk, schoolbooks, the rock band posters, a museum to Elena Santiago. It was as if it were waiting for her to come back, a room stranded in time waiting for its girl with whom it probably shared the deepest secrets. It made me feel hollow, I remembered the deposit were we kept my dad's things, things we'll never use but we still pay rent for. It’s strange how we hold on to these objects, trying to capture whatever essence is left from another person. Whether its someone we lost, someone we miss, that childhood crush.

I was about to leave when I saw it, hanging from a chair. My old cap was there, a lot more worn out than I remembered it, but definitely the same Nirvana cap. I told Amanda what it was and she asked if I wanted it back. It didn't felt right, as if it was part of that shrine now. I told her she could keep it.

#>> LISTEN ↷ PODCAST.#I'm actually having so much fun writing these #let me be

3 notes · View notes

10oclockdot · 7 years

Video

youtube

10 New Interrogations

1. "Out West" and "Back East" are common enough phrases, but I rarely ever hear "Out East" and never "Back West." It's as if the spatial teleology of Manifest Destiny is still embedded in our language.

2. Already Google, Facebook, Netflix, and basically every other online platform tailor our user experience -- that is, what they show us when we do a search or look at our wall -- based on our past user experience. Which is to say that we don't really know what we like. We just know what we found acceptable from the limited options which the algorithm presents us based on what we found acceptable in the past. Log on to somebody else's Netflix and you'll see totally different streaming options -- probably stuff you didn't even know was on Netflix -- and you'll say, "Hey, I like Jurassic Park! Netflix, why didn't you ever tell me you had Jurassic Park??" or something similar. To be fair, when all we had was Blockbuster, we were still stuck with limited choices. Whereas Blockbuster limited their choices simply by what they thought the public would rent, Netflix limits their choices twice again: first by what they can purchase the rights to (and it seems like they're losing to Amazon and, dare I say it, Hulu big time these days), and then again but what they think YOU (personally) will stream. Simply put: you're only a couple ill-advised thumbs-ups away from thinking that there's nothing good to watch anymore, when in reality you just tricked Netflix into thinking that you have terrible taste. Same as it ever was -- with respect to the culture industry hemming us in and digital bubbles replacing shared reality -- it's just that nobody ultimately benefits here.

3. Thus, maxim: the new technology will not solve the problem you think it will solve.

4. Life is a pretty incredible meme. But even with its remarkable reach, variety, and durability on earth, still only a very tiny percentage of the earth's matter has been converted into life. I don't know what this "biomass" limit is, but it's clearly low. Is there another form of material organization which could yield a higher percentage of conversion into living matter? Would machine consciousness based on a silicon substrate be able to convert more matter into life? And if so, does that mean that it's destined to become ascendant in the future? Are there other systems of organization which can convert even more matter? What about capitalism? Is there a limit to the amount of matter that can be converted into capital? If so, what is it? Doesn't it, in fact, seem limitless? But if it is limited, by what is it limited?--- and, does that mean that there might be an ascendant system, capable of converting more matter into some other economic substance, which will one day overcome capitalism?

5a. Some time ago, I got into a debate about abortion with my former Baptist pastor. I pointed out to him the several documents from the early 70's in which the SBC or prominent Baptist writers came to the defense of abortion in certain instances or argued that it was not right for the church to oppose the Roe decision, since, after all, it did not compel anyone to get an abortion. He replied that church leaders must have been mistaken then because "God's Word is clear" that all abortion is wrong in all circumstances. Here I let the debate end, but now I wish that I had continued it at least a little bit longer. "Wait, so if you and the 1970's leaders of the Baptist Church are both taking inspiration from the same playbook [teh Bible], what made them wrong and you right? And if it was possible for the Church to get something wrong in the past -- as you just admitted -- then wouldn't it be horribly supercilious to claim that you've got everything right now? And if, as is overwhelmingly likely, you've got some things wrong in Church doctrine now, by what process are you going about finding them and trying to set them right? And how do you know that when you change something you're becoming more RIGHT rather than more WRONG? I mean, if God's Word is 'clear' and changeless, shouldn't you have gotten this right all along? And since you didn't, what changed? Did you find a new Bible verse or correct a botched translation... or did a concentrated national campaign create the pro-life movement as a means of making Christians the tools of conservative political power?" Anyway, that got a little off the rails, but the point is this: if you're going to say you were wrong in the past and right now, you need to A) admit that you're probably still wrong (about something, or maybe a lot of things), and B) examine the process by which you changed your mind and prove that it's actually moving you in the right direction.

5b. Because if that process of changing one's mind exists outside the text of the Bible -- that is, if perfecting Christianity is all a matter of hermeneutics, and much of it utterly eisegetical to fit a changing social context -- then why even have the text at all? If a historically-situated interpreter decides the ultimate meaning of the Bible, then Christianity isn't really based on the Bible. It's based on historical context, with the Bible in service to it. So why even have the Bible? Because if you can have pro-war and anti-war Christians, as well as pro-welfare and anti-welfare Christians, as well as pro-choice and anti-choice Christians, as well as pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage Christians (etc), then the Bible isn't really deciding any of these arguments.

6. The folks who want to do away with gender, right now, immediately, probably don't have a very good grasp of how the dialectic plays out historically. So many people think that Marx's point was revolution, but I think that Marx's elaboration of Hegel was, in essence, a pragmatic philosophy. He believed that certain cultures were ready for certain kinds of revolution, and others weren't. With that in mind, consider this: a person believes that there are only two genders. What's easier? To get them to believe that gender doesn't exist at all, or to get them to believe that there are MORE than two genders? I propose the latter, if only because it allows them to keep some aspect of their belief (that gender does exist, just a different number) and, moreover, it doesn't force them to forfeit their own experience of gender (even though it does force them to re-situate it somewhat). I say we multiply the number of boutique genders and micro-identities until there are as many non-binary appellations as there are people --- because when we've done that, the concept of gender will have merged with the concept of individuality, self-definition will have superseded the constraints of gender norms, and gender, the oppressive social tool, will have lost its utility to oppress, and it will just naturally fade away. By the way, look at how the same thing has happened, historically, with religion. Sure, there were atheists many centuries ago, at a time when most people only knew about one or two religions, but look at how much easier atheism is now. Not simply because we live in an age of science and evidence-based belief, but because we live in an age where you're only a click or two away from a list of every religion, every sect and denomination divided by some pointless hyper-specific quibble, and every deity that a culture once believed in but no more. Atheism does not flourish in an era of one religion and one god, but in an era, as we have now, of thousands of religions and thousands of gods. The more there are, and the more we make, the more constructed and fake they all seem, and the more useless they become.

7. Another paper I'll never write but wish I had time for: Gendering Deixis: 2nd-person narration in POV pornography and Choose-Your-Own-Adventure. Because the "you" of both genres is always a gendered "you." What effect does this have?

8. Evolution has designated childhood as a site of curiosity: a space where the mind orients itself to the world, discovers will, interest, and desire, and as such develops its sense of self even as it playfully learns how to learn. As long as this curiosity remains self-directed and volitional, the child will appear to be scatterbrained, flitting from one question to the next, from one object of attention to the next, from one subject to the next. Children appear utterly incapable of the comparatively simply adult task of sitting still and focusing attention on one thing. But they are perfectly capable of focusing their attention, perhaps with more acuity than some of us have as adults, on objects or events which have high interest to them. As a kid, I remember visiting the Indianapolis Children's Museum and being fascinated for literally hours with an interactive display that taught how erosion worked using sand and water. And this is very good for the mind as long as the child directs this process (with supervision, of course). What isn't good for the mind is when this line of interest and attention is dictated from some source other than the child. And that's why so much children's TV and internet content is absolutely ruining children. Ideal children's television might consist of a special TV with thousands of channels, all on different topics, with information presented slowly and methodically, and the child could change channels at will or decide not to watch at all. The more boring the programming, the more the child would be master of their own curiosity, and the more the child would direct learning and identity-formation (as it should be). Instead, what we have is television which puts children in a constant state of alarm, full of intense sound and visuals, bright colors, fast editing, and unpredictable shifts in content. The child is made to feel as though they can't look away, and thus, their innate sense of curiosity, a good thing when it is self-directed, is hijacked by a corporate product and directed from the outside, in service to a profit-model. Every time the child is about to volitionally change their attention, the program anticipates this and introduces some new surprising stimulus, grabbing their attention right back. Which is to say, the program thinks FOR them. This bombardment of images stops the process of identity-formation, probably in a similar way to how famine experienced in childhood changes health outcomes for the rest of life. This is very bad.

9. Boredom may in fact be the most crucial crossroads of childhood: a moment in which you must either find a way to engage yourself, and thus become a subject with interests and will, or resign/consign/abandon yourself to the status of an object, forever allowing other forces to choose your mind for you, forever allowing others to craft, cultivate, use, extract, and deplete you. And since, of course, capitalism wants people to function as commodity-objects -- reservoirs of exchangeable labor-power -- it serves capitalism perfectly well to inundate children with programming that subverts their acquisition of full selfhood.

10. And that's really what media studies is about: how do media use the user?

#10 new

4 notes · View notes

johnchiarello · 5 years

Text

Sunday sermon

[3-17-19]

SUNDAY SERMON [ verses from Church Unlimited- Mass- New Christian Harvest]

Isaiah 55:5

Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

https://youtu.be/WwK9H9cKnc0 Sunday sermon

http://ccoutreach87.com/9-24-17-sunday-sermon/

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/9-24-17-sunday-sermon.zip

ON VIDEO-

.My low rider

.The good seed

.Don’t wait for perfect environment- plant now

.Some seeds will fail- that’s part of the process

.Kerygma [Phil. 2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

.Oral tradition in the 1st century

.Martyrdom- the 1st century- and now

.Polycarp http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/martyrs/polycarp.html

.The mind of Christ- lay down your rights

.Guatemalans in North Bergen- they want to work

.Parable of the landowner

.Get to work!

.1st century context of the parables

.Lavish grace

.Genres of scripture [Historical narrative- poetry- prophecy- etc.]

.Cosmological constant

Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

[Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

NOTE- On these ‘Sunday sermons’ I simply teach on the verses from various Sunday church meetings- for the date that I make the post- I have covered most of the material before- and that’s what you see below [Past Posts section].

I really have no ‘new’ teaching for this post.

But just a reminder- I do try and post a video or 2 every night on my facebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

- and for those who want to download the teaching videos- you can get them from the zip links I add to each post. Everything is free- feel free to copy as much as you want- download as many teaching zips as you want- that’s what these sites are there for- Thanks

John

Other videos [ These are the videos I post nightly to my sites- you can see them every night on my main blog here- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com More teaching below]

3-11-19 Furman and teaching- https://youtu.be/DZO9J7E69Nc

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos/10205432097880089/

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMimJ4mxGt80shPw3f

Samuel 21 https://youtu.be/psCMQgX_7v4

10-7-18 Sunday sermon https://youtu.be/Nv_YM_FqL0Q

Samuel 29-30 https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhGX3_b5WXScuQPaq

9-3-17 Sunday sermon https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQ7iIr-4NlImny66Cr8-UnGGcd61oC5i/view?usp=sharing

Kings 2 https://mega.nz/#!6HA2WYJD!_XKhqoskUyreRovu3fMwomhDUU8lEzhbhzANItzKC_4

Galatians 1 https://icedrive.net/0/6b6rW5laIB

8-6-17 Sunday sermon https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/shares/hj50ig

Samuel 20 https://www.bitchute.com/video/HIU8MKHYsvIL/

Kings 21 https://dai.ly/x73z7tn

The flood https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QvAQu0eUWUgIiVK6qQ6-APJkxl4l1Xvj/view?usp=sharing

Remember the crumbs https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhGKS0h481i40x2qb

Lion of Judah https://flic.kr/p/2dAeHNp

Kings 1 https://mega.nz/#!CbZmkYJL!MuzJd4LpICqpyofyT72f9weSN1SsRDqZOb9tVSpCQPw

12-30-18 Sunday sermon https://dai.ly/x72sflh

Take- eat- this is my Body https://youtu.be/oOIo_TcNcp8

1-6-19 Sunday sermon https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMikMM-7-sYRUoGRBQ

Amos- 1-4 https://d.tube/v/ccoutreach/4j5lgp8i

Samuel 20 https://www.bitchute.com/video/HIU8MKHYsvIL/

2nd Samuel- homeless friends https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhFt8AcrC6MZCOsAR

Father Abraham https://drive.google.com/file/d/12JpB7jXBl578z5FfvVSCBJiGZS--Zu7O/view?usp=sharing

Acts 7 https://mega.nz/#!2PIEGSZY!1MEKMh9q4MVIZ-_Rcg4lVpHqqK-H3qaJ0pZ2b1XcY04

Acts 4 https://www.bitchute.com/video/aTSfU3Wql9NL/

11-25-18 Sunday sermon https://dai.ly/x72lstu

North Bergen https://www.instagram.com/tv/BuqwJmrHQ1s/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

The capstone https://dai.ly/x73m6cu

Hebrews 10-13 https://icedrive.net/0/ecvSOUU12e

Acts 6 https://mega.nz/#!3fZkkC5a!YcZhIMSARAuHYYK90tnxxA_oU6DoN5C4anxAIwXf4TA

Acts 4 https://www.bitchute.com/video/aTSfU3Wql9NL/

Hebrews 13 https://icedrive.net/0/93sdJD5pen

12-24-17 Sunday sermon https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhFZkWWvik6tihKw3

GW bridge [New York City] https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhFx6m87jYWymbPJw

Ephesians 6 https://www.dropbox.com/s/xecoai78k9ljdbx/2-15-18%20Ephesians%206.mp4?dl=0

Jesus Christ https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MrFj2irBpKjJ1HdjoGKHtFWMOlAqqOL/view?usp=sharing

John- Jonah https://youtu.be/KUzR8ng9Fjs

12-16-18 Sunday sermon https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMiAkAsMAcPR70AibE

Friday night- sleeping in the car https://www.instagram.com/tv/BuoJiYjHyYp/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Acts 4 https://mega.nz/#!fHAnHaTa!aVcox5vxAdFQZMlGmWr9VLtEC8bPo1Ba1mGNXOdxyLc

Ephesians 5 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1zau14j5ba1728k/2-1-18%20Ephesians%205.mp4?dl=0

6-3-18 Sunday sermon https://d.tube/v/ccoutreach/5hpfmrb3

Samuel 23-24 https://youtu.be/VKGWW7s6dk4

Hebrews 10 https://icedrive.net/0/9auDUh2LOi

2nd Coming- Rapture https://dai.ly/x71erdh

Local church https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMfYEi70Vwmf-Wl8M

Amos 1-4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-gd-KjZV4SYNsUM5Ss5QAFTfInScgYP7/view?usp=sharing

8-12-18 Sunday sermon https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hM9R-vjvCLbfqcpYgmelRN2fOks_B9xh/view?usp=sharing

Ephesians 5 https://www.bitchute.com/video/y0PMLbqLOOSt/

Homeless friend https://dai.ly/x72sflg

Alien life [North Bergen] https://ln.sync.com/dl/6f71d3b00/6fshpef6-crp9q5jr-xsvb67vq-cxjq5r3s

Hebrews 8-9 https://icedrive.net/0/17oHZdiBTQ

Woke up- https://www.instagram.com/tv/BugaD0SnWaq/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

In the image of God https://youtu.be/If5GrqzO3O4

Amos 5 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UyWtu9YfEQJt3CPtN8lbbXeS6V1mxa4Z/view?usp=sharing

Teaching in NYC https://ln.sync.com/dl/9201c1ab0/e4t4mzxn-37as8yfa-sc2dty67-mwva4xv8

2nd Samuel 1-2 https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhFe1VCkZQCp3v1b0

Hebrews 12 https://icedrive.net/0/093swN7b4h

Acts 5 https://mega.nz/#!LHI1nSBC!ObcbGHjXZWa6HClVjVtIslxAeipgdPYlT_8QUyL-f38

Ephesians 4 https://ccoutreach87.com/2019/03/14/ephesians-4-4/

12-23-18 Sunday sermon https://dai.ly/x72o1jm

2nd Samuel 6-7 https://www.bitchute.com/video/PHObSTfkGFBh/

PAST POSTS- These are my past teachings that relate in some way to today’s post- I either quoted from a bible book- and then added the links where I taught that whole book- or just pasted text from past teachings on something I taught on today’s video- Sunday Sermon]

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/07/07/acts-16/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/09/26/9-25-17-austin/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhhg5c3D6LY [I mentioned the Guatemalan immigrants in North Bergen- sure enough- I have a video of the brothers!]

https://ccoutreach87.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/

https://ccoutreach87.com/hebrews-updated-2015/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/09/29/9-24-17-sunday-sermon/

https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/

ACTS 16- Paul and Silas hit the road. They are being led by the Spirit and are evangelizing large regions without a lot of money, organization or ‘corporate help’. Now, these things are permitted, but we need to make sure we are seeing this story right! Jesus imbedded a mindset into the Apostles, he told them ‘don’t think you need a lot of extra equipment for this. You are the equipment! No special appeals for funds [ouch!], keep it simple’ [Message bible- Jesus instructions when he sent them out by two’s]. So here we actually see the Apostles living the vision. Paul by the way has a vision! He sees a vision of a man in Macedonia saying ‘come and help us’. Luke writes ‘we took this as a sure sign of God sending us’. Wow, what childlike simplicity. The great theologian Paul, the man who could argue orthodoxy all day [and win]. He has a vision and says ‘we took it as Gods will’. Don’t develop doctrines that cut you off from God’s supernatural guidance. Sure, people have gotten into trouble with visions. Cults have ‘prophets and apostles’. But the church also had these things and it helped on the journey. Now at Philippi they convert a woman down by the river. They cast out a demon from a fortune teller. The ‘masters’ see they lost their ‘money maker’ and stir up trouble in the city. Paul and Silas get thrown in jail. They praise God and sing, an earthquake happens. The doors swing open. The jailer thinks they all escaped and is going to kill himself. Paul and Silas preach the gospel and he asks ‘what must I do to be saved’ they say ‘believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, your family too!’ The whole house gets baptized and the city leaders send word ‘tell them to leave’. Now, Paul is a lot like me. He doesn’t let stuff slide. He says ‘they beat us unlawfully, we are Roman citizens! Now they want us to leave secretly. Let them come and tell us publicly’ the leaders hear they are Romans and are worried. Paul made them squirm! Let’s do a little overview. We are halfway thru the book of Acts and we see the ‘churches’ as these free flowing believers carrying out the gospel. Baptisms and healings and visions. We also see doctrinal growth. We challenge the mindset of many evangelicals, baptismal regeneration is not taught [at least I don’t see it] but baptism in water is the immediate outward identification of the believer. In essence it was the New Testament ‘altar call’. Our Catholic friends will eventually develop an idea of baptism as washing away original sin. But sometimes we miss the other idea of putting off adult baptism because of fear of future sins. Saint Augustine, the emperor Constantine and others delayed their baptism thinking they would use it to ‘clean them up’ after any future faults. The doctrine of baptism in Acts is seen as an immediate rite that does affect the believer [as do all outward acts of obedience! Even the Lords Supper strengthens the faith of the believer]. But justification and believing are prior to baptism. But not two weeks or two years prior! But a few minutes. I also forgot to mention that Paul has Timothy circumcised in this chapter. The great Apostle Paul, who will eventually pen the words ‘circumcision means nothing, but a circumcised heart is what matters’ here he gave in. Paul and Silas are fresh off the recent Jerusalem council. They have been accused of teaching Jews ‘abandon the law and circumcision’. The decree from Jerusalem said the gentiles don’t need to worry about these things. But they were still teaching Jewish converts to maintain Jewish law and custom. Timothy was not circumcised, and everyone knew it! His mother was Jewish but his father was Greek. So Paul realized that the judiazers would eventually say ‘see, Paul is even teaching Jews to break Moses law’ so Paul gives in and compromises here. Do the restrictions at the Jerusalem council still hold sway over Jewish believers today? No. Paul will eventually abandon all Jewish law and custom from his doctrine of justification by faith. But at this stage they are still learning and growing. The mindset of ‘God’ in this book is one of ‘less restrictions’ and more acceptance as time rolls on. We see enough stuff on baptism to not call the churches who emphasize baptism ‘Cambellites/heretics’ [the term Cambellite comes from the founder of the Church of Christ/ Disciples of Christ groups. Their founder was Alexander Campbell. He falls into the restorationist camp. He saw the emphasis on adult baptism in scripture and many of his followers see the act of water baptism as the moment of conversion]. But we also see the basic ‘ingredient’ for acceptance as faith. So God is not excluding those who focus on baptism [Peters initial converts] but showing us greater acceptance among ‘those who believe’ [Acts 10]. This is what I tried to say in our introduction to this study. As we read we shouldn’t be looking for formulas or hard and fast verses to simply justify our churches beliefs against the church down the block. But we need to see the heart and mind of God. We also shouldn’t trace our peculiar belief to this historic church and say ‘see, our group is the most accurate one’. Why? Don’t I believe my idea of simple church is closer to the historic church? Yes. But the ‘church’ will develop in good and bad ways as the centuries roll on. The fact that many Catholics and Orthodox and future Protestants will grow and fight and reform, means the church herself has within her the inherent ability to ‘get back to the Cross’ or the reality of all of these groups believing in Jesus causes there to be a fundamental unity that exists because we all possess Christ’s Spirit. So even though I personally see the organic church in Acts, this doesn’t mean that I see the other expressions of church as totally illegitimate or lost! So let’s end this chapter rejoicing with the jailer who heard the gospel and ‘believed with all his house’.

[parts]

(1148) THE TOWER OF BABEL- Today I finish the Genesis study that I started a few years ago. Sort of a milestone if you will. In chapter 11 we see the famous story of the Tower of Babel. Man united his efforts, learned how to build things contrary to God's initiative [brick and mortar versus stone] and gave his time and efforts willingly in order to make a name for himself [image building]. Over the years I have observed the church of God go thru various seasons, sometimes I cross paths with good men who are at different levels of the journey [like myself]. One of ‘the levels’ is the realization that ministers/pastors have often unconsciously built towers of Babel when they meant to build Gods church. Babel was an affront to what God wanted. Babel was an edifice that drew your attention to man and his ability to get things done, it shouted ‘look how much I have been able to accomplish, cant you see what I’ve done’! Contrary to mans building plan, God used stones that were honed and fashioned at the quarry before they were brought to the temple site. This represented the reality that though man is used in Gods building program, yet he is simply a stone carrier/placer. He doesn’t actually produce the building materials [brick and mortar]. The Lord stopped the tower of Babel by confusing the languages of men and scattering them throughout the land. The contrast to this chapter is Acts 2, where the Lord supernaturally allowed men of many different languages to once again come together and understand each other. Sort of like Gods divine imprimatur on the new building/tower that he was going to build [the church]. He would allow men once again to take part in this unified effort to build something. But it would be like the prophet said ‘not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord’ [stones versus brick]. On the journey most leaders will eventually see the common mistake that many Protestants have made in allowing the things we have built to bring honor and attention to who we are, what we have been able to do. This mindset of building is exactly what God rebuked at Babel, he did not want man to ‘build a tower unto heaven’ and believe in his own intellect and abilities. Jesus often challenged the mindset of the disciples on the nature of leadership, he built into them a new way of seeing leadership, it would not be a means to become the greatest, the most well known one among the group. It is common today for the leader/pastor of a congregation to unconsciously become the center of attention; this is a mistake that Christians have made by not seriously following the commands of Jesus about leadership in his kingdom. Most leaders will face a time where they will have to die to this addiction that is common among good men, men who mean well. When confronted with this challenge it is a conscious choice that leaders will make that is not easy, it truly will be a Cross to bear. But it’s better than God having to come down and personally stop the building program!

(1147) Lets do a brief overview. Those of you reading these last 10 or so entries from the Genesis Study will see that I taught the chapters 12-50 a few years ago. I had no real reason to have left out the first 11 chapters; it just worked out that way. It gave me some time to look at both sides of the creation debate [young versus old earth]. First, I want to say that I still lean towards old earth myself, but do not consider myself a Progressive Creationist. These brothers view the creation days as long ages, the problem I have with that view is it has God intervening directly and creating life at many different intervals over millions of years. I don’t hold to that. But I do believe it’s possible to have an old earth and a literal reading of the days [I already explained it in these last few posts]. Most of all I want to stress that the bible is not clear when it comes to the age of the earth. The young earth brothers have made a very noble effort from verses that connect the beginning of creation with man [Mark 10:6] or other verses speaking about things from the start [Mark 13:19-20, Luke 11: 50-51]. Too much to do now, but it is a long argument for a young earth. The other word that comes up often is Phenomenological, this word is used to explain the language of scripture that is used when speaking to the common man. Like when the bible speaks of the Sun set and Sun rise, most of us realize that the Sun is not the object that is moving! So to technically argue something that we know is ‘not true’ would be silly. Mark Noll wrote about stuff like this in the popular book ‘Scandal of the Evangelical mind’. So, how much science do we accept? Do we use these arguments to open the door to Evolution and everything else that comes down the pike? Of course not! But we try and stay open to science while at the same time staying true to Gods word. For many years science and philosophy believed in an eternal earth and universe. It wasn’t until the tremendous breakthroughs of the 20th century that the Big bang Theory became accepted science. If you listened to Einstein’s theories at the beginning, they seemed utterly ludicrous! His ideas about time not being fixed, and the relationship between time and space were way out there. Many Christians did not accept his ideas. But there were many atheistic scientists who were more troubled, if Hubble and Einstein were right [they were] that would mean the universe had a starting point [the so called point of singularity] the atheists knew that this would sound the death bell for their belief in atheism. If there was a starting point to time and matter, then there was no way to get around it, you would need an initial starter [Aristotle and Aquinas would be right- prime mover, though they both believed in an eternal universe]. So today the majority view of cosmology is the Big Bang theory, some scientists still argue for the eternal universe, but most believe in the Big Bang. In essence this is an example where science has handed to the theologian one of the greatest weapons to argue for the existence of God. But just like the age of the earth debate, you have believers who challenge Big Bang cosmology. Some are smart and have good reasons to challenge it. When I say I believe in the Big Bang, I am not saying I hold to the various views of evolutionary processes that come along with the theory; things like the stars producing the matter that swirled out over millions/billions of years and formed planets. There are obviously parts of the Big bang theory that are questionable. So scientists try and come up with ideas to make the questions go away. A major problem to the Big bang theory is how can the universe have such a stable balance of temperature all over the place. If everything expanded [that’s really a better word to explain it than explosion] at such a rapid rate, you would not have the stable atmosphere that science shows us. So a professor at M.I.T., Alan Guth, came up with an idea called ‘inflation’ he guessed that at the initial point of singularity, everything first expanded to the size of a basketball and all the matter of the universe was stabilized at this point. Then the massive expansion took place and that’s why you have a steady balance when there shouldn’t be one. To say the least these ideas are very questionable, that’s why some scientists don’t accept the whole theory. But for the most part the accepted truth that all matter did have a beginning point is one of the strongest apologetic arguments that science could have ever given to the church. The point being we as believers need to look at both sides of these issues, the debate between young and old earth creationism has at times lost the Christian mandate to deal charitably with each other. I realize the views held are sincere, and many believe the integrity of Gods word is at stake. But we need to present our views and let the chips fall where they may. I will probably finish this short excursion into Genesis tomorrow, but those of you reading these entries from other parts of the blog besides the ‘Evolution/Cosmology’ section, I would suggest reading the stuff I have written in that section along with these last 10 posts. It will help give you a better idea of where I am coming from.

(1146) SONS AFTER THE FLOOD- In Genesis 9 we read the account of Noah and his sons repopulating the planet. God promises Noah that he will never destroy the earth again [by way of water- what about fire? We’ll get to that in a minute] and we see the beginning of man eating animals for the first time, the institution of the death penalty and civil justice [Romans 13] and the famous promise of the rainbow ‘when ever it rains again you will see my bow in the clouds and know I will not flood the earth again’. Are there natural explanations to things that the bible ascribes to God? Yes. Does that mean the bible is a book of myths and fables that were fake and only meant to give us moral lessons? No [contrary to liberal theology]. The fact that we know every time there is a rainbow in the sky, that there is a natural explanation to it, this does not mean this story is fake. God obviously created a repeatable situation that never occurred before, and he told man it was for a sign. Just because science can ascribe a naturalistic explanation to a thing, this does not mean the thing has no supernatural elements to it. This is also where the theistic evolutionists/progressive creationists make parts of their case. Does the fact that God created something mean that there are no possible natural means for him to work by? They will show you that when David said God formed him in his mothers womb, that obviously ‘God formed’ David in a different way than Adam! When you look at ‘a test tube baby’ do you not see a creation of God? Yes, even though there are obvious natural explanations to the conception and birth [like the rainbow being explained by nature] yet the actual life itself is still a mystery that can only be attributed to God. Also God reassures man not to worry about a total future destruction of the planet, in the last verse of chapter 8 he says as long as the earth remains there will never be another worldwide ceasing of the created order [seedtime and harvest]. How do we square this with the Christian doctrine of ‘the end of the world’? Now, this can get complicated and take more time than I have right now, but lets try and take a quick ride. The famous New Testament verse on the future ‘destruction’ of the planet is found in 2nd Peter 3 [the same chapter that deals with the flood] Peter says the elements will melt with a fervent heat and we await a new heaven and earth. In the gospels Jesus also speaks about ‘the end of the world’ the word for world does not mean the planet, but the age. Just like when the bible says ‘satan is the god of this world’ it speaks of age, not earth. So a careful reading of the ‘end of the world’ verses show us that there will be a future time of cleansing ‘by fire’ that will usher in a new age/order. Preterists [those who believe the future judgment scenarios were speaking of a.d. 70 and the end of the old order of the law] take these verses to mean that God was ending ‘the old order/age of law and bringing in a new age of grace’ I see partial truth to this, but don’t fully accept that there is no future aspect to it. The futurists [dispensationalists] see a destruction of the world and sometimes allow this view to effect their responsibility to the planet and society at large ‘heck, why worry about the environment and future stuff, it’s all coming to an end soon’ type mentality. Some, not all, have this mindset. The Preterists think the Futurists have made a fatal mistake in misreading the verses that should say ‘age’ instead of ‘world’. There are very good points that the Preterists make, though I don’t fully embrace everything they have to say. Overall we see that God wanted to reassure man that he was not going to totally wipe the earth out again like he did in the past. Whether you see the future fire burning up the elements as some sort of nuclear thing [I don’t] or a reference to the glory of Jesus burning up the chaff at his return, the important thing to remember is God wanted man to know that the natural order of day and night would go on, and a new heaven and earth would continue to exist for all eternity. The mindset of ‘don’t give up on the mandate to have dominion and care for the planet’ was being instilled in Noah and his sons. I think it would do the evangelical church some good if we looked more seriously at some of these issues.

(1145) THE FLOOD- Okay, this is a hot topic. First, the flood really happened! Some old earth creationists insist on a local version of it, others say it was worldwide [I’m in the world wide camp]. God tells Noah to embark on a very long building program. He certainly looks like a nut to those around him. Eventually the Ark is finished and Noah and his family get in, they bring 7 of every clean animal and 2 of every ‘unclean’ type. It rains [some say 40 days and nights, others think it rained longer] and the ‘fountains of the deep are opened up’ obviously a reference to some type of Tectonic action. After everything dies, the Ark rests and Noah and his family repopulate the planet. The young earth creationists have good arguments from this story [real event!] some of the old earth brothers tend to trivialize it. Ever since the science of geology gained ground [19th-20th centuries] many have argued for a very old earth based on the geologic table. They look at the different strata of the earth [levels] and say ‘see, these levels took millions of years to develop, you have dinosaurs buried in the lower levels, then other types of animals, birds and then man is rarely found fossilized’ these brothers see a sort of scientific record that backs up the progressive creation view. They say the creation days are ages, and the science shows us deep time. Are there any other explanations for the various fossil levels? Yes. The young earth brothers will make a very good argument that the cataclysmic effect of the flood caused the levels. They say the reason you find dinosaurs and other land animals at lower levels is a result of natural panic and survival during the flood. The slower, heavier animals would die first and get buried first. The birds lasted longer of course; they kept flying to high land until they too died off. Man was the smartest of the bunch, he managed to survive longest, and that’s why you don’t find as many fossils of man as you do other creatures [those who die late would not get covered in sediment and would simply rot!] This argument isn’t that bad, to be honest. There are of course many other things besides this, the point I want to make is if you rule out the biblical record of a world wide flood, then you are leaving out other interpretations of the data. Most young and old earth brothers agree on the actual record [i.e.; we do see things buried at different levels] they simply disagree on the interpretation of the data. Lets do a few practical things here, God had Noah prepare things ahead of time. He also spent some down time in a huge boat with a ‘lot of dung’ [ouch!] Often times on the journey we hit spots that don’t look [or smell] that great. People might even mock us ‘look at that idiot Noah, he’s even got his family believing in this stuff!’ but when it was all said and done he was vindicated. Those who tend to spiritualize the stories of Genesis usually see the first 11 chapters as a mix of symbol and history. The genealogies of chapters 4, 5 and 11 are sometimes seen as not exact [by the way, in the last entry I used Enoch as an example of the ascension, the Enoch who was taken up was the Enoch of chapter 5]. The reasons are various [like the other ancient near east genealogies used 10 generation lists, both chapter 5 and 11 are 10 generation lists]. Some do this in order to fit more time into the biblical record. Jesus, Peter and the writer of Hebrews all speak of Noah and his flood as a real historic event! There should be no reason for believers to doubt or spiritualize these stories away. But we also want to be open to the reality that other cultures had their own tellings of these stories, and that the recording of genealogies does not mean there is no room for an older earth [the genealogies are accurate, but they don’t start right at the beginning of time!]. And let’s finish in a practical way, are you going thru a season of feeling stuck in a big box with a lot of dung? Sometimes the word of the Lord to us is ‘just survive at this time, when the storms over things will look better again’. The Lord used Noah to have an influence on the entire civilization that would re-populate the planet! God will increase your influence if you simply find a way to survive the flood.

(1144) CAIN AND ABEL- After the fall of man, God kicks him out of the garden and he loses intimacy with God. Eventually Eve has kids and Cain kills Abel his brother. In Hebrews 11 and 1st John we read the story. Abel brought an animal offering, Cain brought from the fruit of the ground. Some say this was a comparison between Jesus [typified in Abel's sacrificial animal] and the law [Cain’s work of his hands, the ground]. Maybe so? Hebrews says God accepted Abel’s offering because it was in faith and rejected Cain. Cain got jealous and killed his brother, the first recorded murder in the bible. Cain has a son named Enoch [which means teacher- rabbi] he builds a city and names it after his son [God is building us, the city of God- we are named after his son, the Body of Christ] and Enoch will eventually be caught up bodily into heaven [a type of the ascension]. The skeptics often ask ‘where did Cain get his wife’? The most likely answer would be from his extended family. There was no rule against marrying your kin back then, so this sounds reasonable to me. But wait! The skeptic says because we don’t know for sure where Cain got his wife, therefore atheism is true. They then will tell you where all people really came from. Around 15 billion years ago nothing existed [not even God] and from this point of nothing something exploded into existence [without an exploder!] eventually the earth showed up and it rained on the earth for millions of years. Somehow the rain on the rocks produced this soupy mixture [primordial soup] that all by itself produced the first living cell. After millions of more years man showed up. Yeah brother, that explanation sure puts to shame the Cain and his wife thing! The story of Cain warns us of the danger of jealousy, comparing ourselves with others. Putting pressure on people to make things happen so you look better. I recently read a story about a mega church [not in Corpus] and they went thru a few years of battles. They were building a new expensive building; the pastor put pressure on the people to give. Some of the people felt like they were always being challenged to give more money. Then word got out that the Pastor bought expensive gifts for his friends with church money, 3-4 thousand dollar suits and jewelry. He was flying all over the world at great expense, doing public speaking and stuff. It was a big mess, lawsuits entailed and relationships ruined. From what I read about it in the news paper stories that were on line, it seemed like there were mistakes on both sides, both the church leadership and those who wanted to expose it. The bigger problem is this basic style of church, the high powered world traveling leader, spending lots of money on seemingly okay things. The people being supporters of the gifts and persona of the charismatic personality [whether thru media or personal travel] this whole system is being rightfully challenged at the present time by a new generation of community minded believers who see that this high powered style of an individual leader is not the pattern of church found in the New Testament. Often time’s jealousy can be a factor on both sides of these issues, but we also need to understand that there are legitimate challenges against this whole expression of church. Most of all we want to avoid taking things into our own hands, trying to personally stop what we might perceive as wrong. Cain was jealous; he allowed his rage to lead him to the killing of his own brother. He might have gotten rid of the thing he felt was an obstacle, but he would live with the guilt for the rest of his life.

(1143) THE FALL- God puts man in the garden, he gives him only one restriction ‘don’t eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil’ sure enough, he does! The serpent [satan] tempts Eve in 3 areas, the tree is good for food [lust of the flesh] good to look at [eyes] and can make you wise [pride]. In 1st John 2 we see these three areas mentioned as the common categories of all other temptation. These were the same areas the devil used on Jesus in Matthew 4. The temptation to Eve essentially said ‘look at this God of yours! He wont give you the freedom to do anything you want, he is withholding such a good tree from you’ sounds like the philosopher Freud, he taught that the problem with man was Gods restrictions. That if man would cast off the limits that religion imposed upon them, then all would be well. But what man did not know was that these basic limits were for his own good. When man would choose to walk out from under Gods limits, he would suffer for it. In this chapter [Gen. 3] we also see the great prophecy of the child of the woman eventually crushing the serpents head [called the Protoevangelium- Latin] a prophecy about Christ’s future victory at the Cross. God also covers man with animal’s skins, a type of the future sacrifice of Christ on behalf of man. Man tried to cover up with leaves, God said it wont do, so he sacrificed the life of an animal and used the skins as a covering. The wages of sin is death, the price was paid. In Romans chapter 5 Paul will show us that death and sin passed upon all mankind from Adams sinful act, but thru the obedience of one man [Jesus dying on the Cross] righteousness comes to those who believe. This is the basic Christian doctrine of original sin. Some refer to this as the federal head theory of redemption. I believe it’s vital for Christians to have a grasp of this doctrine. In the 19th/20th centuries you had liberal theologians deny the doctrine of Jesus dying on behalf of man. Along with this they also denied that original sin existed. Most believers realized that this denial was heresy and avoided it, but some are playing with the idea again. The bible clearly teaches the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the behalf of man [Isaiah 53] and it is a foundational doctrine for all true believers. To some it seemed unfair to charge God with the doctrine of original sin, and along with it the doctrine of Penal substitution [Christ being punished for us] these are core Christian truths, if people want to deny them, that’s their choice. But to be a Christian in the biblical sense of the word, these truths are necessary, they are part of the foundation of all true Christian churches.

(1142) MAN, GODS UNIQUE CREATION- Okay, we already saw how God made the animals and fish and birds, but when he describes mans creation he shows us that it is unique. Out of all the other created things, man alone is in ‘Gods image’ and bears his likeness. Man is a moral being with a built in conscience, he has the capacity to know God and live with him forever. This is the basis of the Judeao Christian value on human life. Those religions who believe in the Genesis account of creation, see man as having special value. The Darwinian worldview [social Darwinism] sees man as a simple blob of meaningless flesh, no different than the other life forms along the line. I always found the atheists reasoning to be a little illogical; they will argue that they are the real intellectuals, the so called ‘brights’ [a recent term they have come up with to describe their group] they will then explain to you how their view of their mind and brain is purely naturalistic, their brains are simply these jumbled masses of cells that are the result of thousands of years of meaningless process. Their whole being started as an accident, they have no initial purpose or final end. They see themselves, and along with it, all their reasoning and education and knowledge as being the result of years and years of luck and chance, and then they want you to trust in their conclusions! Ah, the utter foolishness of mans wisdom. God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him his own breath and man became a living soul. Though the basic material of man is the same as the other material things God made, yet he only breathed his own image into man. The great 17th century philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal was reading the gospel of John one night, he was meditating on John 17 and had an awakening, he began to see that God was ‘the God of Jesus’ not the God of the philosophers. He saw that having a real relationship with God was different than simply knowing the things about him. God built into man the capacity to know him, while all other creatures are valuable and special to him [Jesus said not even a little sparrow dies without God caring about it!] yet man alone has the capacity to know and be in true communion with his creator, man was created in Gods image.

(1141) UNIFORM OR CATASTROPHE ? One of the key verses in the debate between young and old earth creationism is in 2nd Peter chapter 3. Peter says that in the last days scoffers will doubt two specific things; the second coming and the flood of Noah’s day. I find it interesting that some theories on the long age of the earth also incorporate a local flood for Noah’s day. The young earth guys will use the Peter verse to show that if you purposefully rule out a world wide flood from your theory, that you fall into the snare of viewing certain scientific data [geologic table] as being a result of millions/billions of years of gradual uniform time [uniformitarianism] as opposed to being a result of the flood. The young earth brothers point to the fact that much of the fossil evidence and geologic column [like the Grand Canyon] can be a result of the universal flood. These brothers see the catastrophe [catastrophism] of the flood as the cause for these things. Does Peter [or any other bible passage] shed light on this subject? Yes, even though the bible does not speak to us in scientific language, it is reliable on all the things it does speak about; history, events like a flood, the future judgment, the second coming, etc. So it is important to not rule out the effects that a worldwide flood might have had on the data. Do we have any examples of the bible referring to worldwide things, and not really meaning ‘the whole world’? Yes, in Acts 2 the bible says there were people gathered from ‘every nation under heaven’ at the time, but the chapter gives us the nations that were there, there were obviously no people from America! So does ‘every nation’ simply mean every nation from the known world of the time? Yes. So some local flood believers use this type of stuff to defend their view. We do need to be careful when doing theology like this. Does the biblical account give us other clues that the flood was worldwide? Sure, why in the world would God have Noah build a huge ark, gather all these animals, have them in it for a long time while the earth floods. If the flood was regional, just tell the guy to move! The biblical account says the waters covered the highest mountains of the day, this could not happen unless the flood was world wide. So even though the bible does say ‘world wide/all nations’ at times in a non literal way, this does not mean we can change all the events described as world wide into local events. Some who read the first few chapters of Genesis in a poetic language way, also have the problem of deciding when the poetry stops! Is the Genesis 6 account of a flood real? What about the tower of Babel in chapter 11? Once you start going down the road of over spiritualizing the bible, you can run into problems. Overall I believe we need to be open and willing to see both sides of this argument [young and old earth views] there is somewhat of a tendency to view opposing views as real heresy [I sense this mostly from some of the young earth writers]. But there is also a condescending attitude towards young earth believers that at times seems to say ‘how can you be so behind the times in your views’? This debate on the age of the earth and the various progressive stages of evolutionary progress [cosmological evolution- stars producing basic elements over billions of years and these things ‘birthing’ planets and so forth] these theories are in no way definite! There are a lot of things that we simply don’t know for sure. But at the same time there are and have been true scientific breakthroughs that have challenged the mindset of the church and have corrected the church’s view in certain areas. As believers we need to hear both sides, while avoiding the warning of Peter who did say that there would be scoffers who purposefully would overlook the historical event of the flood of Noah’s day, we must let scripture form our views, while at the same time understanding that the bible does not give us a scientific explanation for all things.

(1140) CREATION DAY 7- On the seventh day God rested and enjoyed what he had made. This does not mean he was tired, or that he ceased from activity. But is shows us the process and ways of God. When you read the parables of Jesus he often uses land and seed analogies to explain God’s kingdom ‘the kingdom is like planting a seed’ and stuff like that. God rested because it was his purpose to initiate the first 6 days of creation and for that creation to be self sustaining/propagating [under his sovereignty]. It’s important to see this aspect of creation. In chapter 1 God chose to use the words ‘let the waters bring forth’ and ‘let the ground bring forth’ when speaking of land and sea creatures. Why not simply ‘let there be animals, fish’? It seems as if God himself is leaving some room here for a reading of the text that has more to it than meets the eye. Does this mean the Progressive creationists are right? [or theistic evolutionists] not necessarily, but is shows us that there is some language in the text itself that shows a sort of ‘co-operative effort’ where God caused the initial base elements to ‘bring forth’ life. Some see this as God using simple language to describe deep scientific truths that would be found thru out the ages. Some equate this language with deep time ideas [old earth]. Also in chapter 2 we see the Lord describe the entire creation event as happening in ‘a day’ [singular]. This simply meaning ‘at the time period’ the young earth creationists are correct in pointing out that this does not mean the first 6 [or 7] days were not literal 24 hour periods. Scripture does use the word Day to speak figuratively at times; the ‘day of the Lord’ and stuff like that [meaning both a day and a time period]. But the point can be made that very early on [Gen 2] God chooses to use the word Day in the singular to describe the entire event. Also the writer of Hebrews will ‘spiritualize’ the phrase ‘and God rested on the seventh day’ to describe the age of grace, the new covenant ‘rest of God’ [read my Hebrews commentary, chapter 4- To be honest I don’t remember what I said at the time, but I’m sure I must have explained it!]. Once again, this would not necessarily leave the door open for a symbolic, non literal reading of day 7. But it shows us the various ways other new testament teachers used these scriptures, they were not afraid of applying them in theological ways. Of course we can get into trouble if we carry this too far. In the early days of the church you had the Alexandrian school, a great 3rd century Christian school, that adopted a highly symbolic way of reading scripture. The famous teacher Origen would head up the school at one point. He taught a type of spiritual interpretation of the bible that had 4 meanings to it, it was a little [or way] overboard to be honest about it, but the school was very influential. Eventually saint Augustine would embrace many of these ideas. Augustine was a titan in the early church and has been said to have had more influence in the later centuries of the church than any other teacher next to the apostle Paul! So we have had somewhat of a history at how far we should go when reading these texts. I would simply point out that there is some room here, early on in the bible, to see that even a straight forward reading of the text leaves room for some progressive ideas, some ‘spiritualizing’ of certain aspects, and a certain feel for the text that seems to say ‘there’s more going on here than initially meets the eye’. This does not mean we should abandon a literal view of the days, but shows us that God can use natural, normal days and extend his ideas to us in a manifold way [like Jesus use of the seed in his parables- real seeds, greater meaning]. Also the text shows us that God created the heavens and earth first and used language that said ‘let the waters/ground bring forth’ showing us that all other things were made from the basic stuff of the original heavens and earth. Does natural science go along with this? Yes, science shows us that all the base elements of all things come from the initial base elements that were used in the creation of the material world [The 90 or so elements found in the periodic table- hey, it’s been a long time since high school!] So even science itself would agree with the biblical record! How would the writer of Genesis have known this at such a pre scientific time? These things testify of the Divine nature of scripture itself. So we need not abandon a literal view, but we also see there is room for more than initially meets the eye.

(1139) CREATION DAYS 2-6 There are various views on these days; of course the literal view, each day is a 24 hour day that ends with the description of ‘evening and morning’. The symbolic view would argue that there was no ‘real’ evening and morning until day 4, because on day 4 God made the sun. So an ‘evening and morning’ that would be measured by the earth’s rotation as it relates to the sun [solar day] could not happen in a literal sense. These see certain poetic elements in these verses. A repetition of certain phrases- evening and morning, let there be, God said. These repetitive phrases show a stylized Hebrew narrative. It should be noted that this argument is true, whether you believe in the literal or figurative reading. It is still possible to have this type of stylized element, while at the same time speaking a real historic narrative. Another interesting view is called The Framework Theory. This view has been around since the early 20th century. It’s a topical view of the creation days. It sees the first 3 days and the 2nd set of three days as basically describing the same time frame. Basically this view says that God simply used the ‘framework’ of the 7 day week to give to man a real historic explanation of creation, but God used the framework of the 7 day week in a symbolic way for mans benefit. This view will compare day 1 [the first day of the first 3 day set] with day 4 [the first day of the second 3 day set]. Day one has God creating light, day 4 has the sun and stars. This view says these are 2 descriptions of the same creation act. The light from day one comes from the luminaries in day 4. Day 2 coincides with day 5. Day 2 has the heavens appear when God divides the waters [heaven and sea] day 5 [the second day of the second set] has the things that fill the heavens and seas- birds and sea creatures. Day 3 has land and vegetation, day 6 has land animals and man- things that eat the vegetation and walk the earth. It’s interesting, though not exact. You could see the seas as being part of day 3, and as you read both creation accounts [Genesis 1 and 2] there is a mixture of when things showed up. Are there other explanations for why the account in chapter 2 differs from chapter one? [chapter one has man being made after the animals, chapter 2 shows Adam before the animals, God brings the animals to show Adam, he sees nothing fitting for him and God then makes Eve]. Some see a purposeful inconsistency, put in the text by God himself, to show man that this was not to be taken in a literal, consecutive way. Sort of like the critics of the gospels, they will find various inconsistencies in the gospel narratives, like one gospel having two angels at the tomb, the other showing one. The critics say ‘see, inconsistent’ but the other argument can say if you had exact testimony from various eyewitness accounts in a courtroom, this would not convince the jury that their testimony was true, to the contrary it would indicate that the witnesses were coached. So the various different details might be actual clues to the validity of the gospel writers! So in Genesis, some feel there are purposeful poetic structures and differing accounts for the purpose of telling the reader ‘don’t take this too literal’. I don’t personally hold to this, but do see the point. It should be noted that in Exodus 20 and 31 Moses will speak about the creation days as historical narrative. No matter which view a person takes [literal or symbolic] the fact that creation itself happened by the hand of God is an undeniable fact of history and science. All things could not have come from nothing, there had to be an initial cause some where down the line. This initial cause himself had to have had no beginning [logic and science show this] and it just so happens that these attributes belong to the God of the bible, even before we knew that creation needed an initiator that possessed them!

(1138) CREATION DAY 1- In Genesis 1:1-5 we have the first recording of Gods creative acts, over the years Christians have struggled with this text. One of the main reasons believers ‘struggle’ with it is because modern scientific understanding [majority view- not all!] indicates that the earth is quite a lot older than 6 thousand years. Some scholars believe that the church has been duped into believing in old earth science and because of there acceptance of science, above Gods word, they have come to compromise Gods word. A simple reading of the first 5 verses of Genesis tell us that ‘in the beginning’ God made the heaven and the earth. At this point, God is not constrained to a time/space continuum of ‘day’ [the Hebrew word Yom]. The day itself will be created in this time period called ‘in the beginning’. God will create light and separate the light from the darkness and call this ‘day’. I see the possibility of there being a very long period of time having passed at this point, at least according to this text [we will look at Exodus 20:11 in a moment]. I do not see a need to create a ‘gap theory’ between verse one and verse two, some theorize that you had an entire pre adamic world, that God judged this world and this is how they explain the long age of the earth. I believe that a simple reading of the first five verses could go like this ‘at the start of all things, God made the heaven and the earth [no day constraint yet] and he also made light and dark [now we are getting into Gods cycle for man] and he saw that all these things were good. He made the day itself at this time, and the day became mans measurement of time’. Now, this is my paraphrase on how this text could be read. I do find it interesting that out of all the scholars I am presently reading on this subject, none of them are making this simple point; that the 24 hour day constraint was itself created ‘in the beginning’. Now, exodus 20:11 does say that God made all things in ‘6 days’, this verse seems to indicate that there was a time constraint to the actual making of the heaven and earth ‘in the beginning’ so to be fair to both sides [young and old earth creationists] I had to throw this in. Jesus also refers to the creation of man as an historical event [as opposed to a theistic evolutionary view] he says ‘in the beginning God made them male and female, and for this cause a man leaves his parents and is joined to his wife’ the young earth brothers will use this to show that Jesus believed that God created man ‘in the beginning’ as opposed to there being billions of years passing before man showed up [which is also a progressive view of creation- a sort of joining together the timeline of long age science with the Genesis account]. The point I would make is if God created time at ‘this point in time’ then the phrase ‘in the beginning’ could refer to thousands, or millions of years all being ‘at the start’ [compared to forever!]. I do not hold to a ‘progressive view’ myself, I simply believe that a plain reading of the first 5 verses of Genesis shows that the time constraint of day [Yom] was itself created at this time. The Exodus verse does seem to say that all the events of Gods creative acts did fit into the time/space of 6 days, but this first Genesis reading seems to leave room for a longer period of ‘one day’ when speaking of the creation of heaven and earth. While the young earth creationists do seem to fault the old earth creationists for trying to make scripture fit into current scientific theories of the earths age, I would like to point out the fact that both sides [young and old earth groups] see the first 3 days as distinct from all the other days that have occurred since that time. All agree that the sun was not the original light source for the first three days [well, some believe God was not giving us an exact consecutive recording of creation. So these see the sun as being the source of light for all the creation days] the charge could be made that even the young earth creationists are admitting that some of the creation days are not ‘days’ in the classical sense of the word. These first days were not solar days! The whole point is we do find some room for the interpretation of the creation days as having some areas that we don’t fully understand, or at least we don’t know all that was going on in a scientific sense [was the light for the first three days God himself? Possible. But then that would leave the door open that God created himself! A much greater theological heresy than the long earth view!]. I also believe that the fact that ‘the day’ itself was said to have been created by God ‘in the beginning’ leaves much room for a longer time period of the earths age. Out of all the other ancient near east [A.N.E] stories of creation, none of them have ‘a god’ who himself transcends time and space and actually created time itself. For thousands of years the common belief was that either matter itself always existed, or that time always existed. So the competing stories of creation found in other cultures have a god that was himself formed from matter, or creation itself was a process of these dependant gods fighting each other. No other view has a god that transcends time and space and actually creates time and space. It wasn’t until the 20th century that science itself proved this to be a fact, Einstein’s theories on time and space gave us proof that all things did have a starting point [big bang cosmology]. So anyway, in the coming weeks I might hit on these things a little more, but for today I wanted to emphasize that a simple, literal reading of Genesis 1:1-5 does show us that God created ‘the day’ [the actual time measurement that man goes by] during his initial act of creation. God himself was not ‘bound’ or constrained to the time/space continuum, he actually made the time/space continuum at ‘the time’.

[parts]

GENESIS 37- Chapter 36 has a lot of genealogies, so let’s skip it. In this chapter we see Joseph having the dreams that his brothers and father and mother will bow down to him. He makes the mistake of telling everyone about it! Rueben is already mad about the favoritism shown towards Rachel’s sons as opposed to him being the firstborn. The other brothers clearly see the favoritism too. Jacob made Joseph the coat of many colors. To me this represents the multi ethnic diversity of Christ’s church [body]. Skins represent ‘covering’ or flesh. All the animals sacrificed in the Old Covenant were a type of Christ. The tabernacle represented a living mobile dwelling place of God, the church. They used skins as a covering. So this coat of many colors is like the body of Christ. Joseph typifying Jesus as the favored son who will eventually bring together all tribes and nations into unity as Jesus ‘wears them like a robe’ [truly we are his dwelling place, covering of flesh if you will!] Jacob sends Joseph to ‘see how his brothers are doing and bring back the report’. Just like the parable Jesus gave about the king sending the servant to check up on the vineyard. Eventually the king says ‘I will send my son’. Jesus says they take the son and kill him. Joseph’s brothers see Joseph coming and say ‘here comes Mr. big shot, the dreamer’. Understand Josephs dreams were simply the destiny of God on his life. It is important to differentiate between ‘what I want out of life’ and Gods purpose. Joseph’s dreams did speak of exaltation and fame. But these were things he did not seek! Jesus gives instruction in the New Testament to actively pursue the lowest place. The teachings on taking the seat in the back of the room and not the front. The teaching against gentile ideas [Roman] of authority. So we must not read into Joseph’s story that God wants us to ‘be all we can be. Become great’. Greatness in Gods kingdom is backwards. You seek not to be exalted and exaltation comes! Now the brothers take him and throw him into a pit [grave] ‘without water in it’. A type of death. Water and spirit are interchangeable words. A pit without water is like the grave [body] without the spirit. James says this is what death is, separation of body and spirit. Now something is happening at this point. The brothers are falling into the trap of group think. Just going along with something because others are doing it. Rueben begins seeing this deception. He also despises Joseph, but begins realizing things are getting out of hand. He says ‘lets not kill the boy, just throw him in the pit’. Judah also speaks up on his brother’s behalf. So they take Josephs coat, put blood all over it. They sell Joseph into slavery and they bring the coat to Jacob. ‘Dad, we found Josephs coat with blood on it. I wonder what happened to him?’ Now, how many options do we have? Maybe the boy got into a scrap trying to save some sheep and that’s what happened, or maybe he hurt himself and used the coat as a tourniquet? Yeah, that’s possible! But Jacob is a pessimist ‘surely some wild animals got to him’ bad enough! But wait ‘and they tore him to pieces, devoured him and he’s gone’ Yikes! Then he says ‘I will be depressed about this for the rest of my life and go to the grave never getting over it!’ Boy, who would have thought the guy was gonna take it like this? We once again see the over reaction of Jacob. It’s so easy for leaders with destiny and purpose to think all is lost. Moses and others have thought the same. Elijah was ready for the Lord to take his life because some Jezebel was giving him a hard time! I want to encourage leadership, don’t make rash or major decisions when your emotions are out of whack. We have a tendency to take reproof or correction the wrong way. We want to quit and start all over. Find someone else to ‘take over the church’ so we can get out of dodge. Jacob thought the worst, but what was actually happening was Gods pre ordained plan that would actually be for his salvation down the road. Jesus is still thought to be dead by Jacobs descendants, they only see the ‘pit without water in it’. They don’t realize that Jesus [Joseph] is actually alive and waiting for them to come and bow the knee!

[parts]

(1010)CORINTHIANS 15:1-19 Paul will deal with the greatest threat yet to the Corinthian church, their doubt over the physical resurrection of the body. Various ‘Christian’ groups over the years have doubted the physical resurrection. Now, some have done this out of a sincere attempt at trying to defend the faith! [their view of it] In the 1900’s you had one of the most popular theologians by the name of Rudolf Bultman [most of his career was spent at the University of Marburg, Germany. Much of the higher criticism of the day originated from Germany] He wrote a book called ‘Kerygma and Myth’. What he tried to say was that any modern man living in the 20th century, with all the breakthroughs in science and knowledge, could not ‘literally’ believe the miraculous stories in scripture. Or even the way scripture spoke of heaven and hell and used limited terms to describe spiritual truths. He used the bibles terminology on Cosmology as an example. How could man believe in a Cosmos where ‘heaven is up there, with the stars and all’ and he felt that enlightened man needed to ‘re-tool’ the bible and cleanse it from all these mythical images, but yet keep the spiritual aspects of it. The moral teachings of Christ and stuff like that. So you have had sincere men doubt the truth claims of scripture. The problem with this attempt [higher criticism] is it throws out the baby with the bathwater. The resurrection of Jesus is presented by the apostles as a real event. The fact of this resurrection can also be attested to by examining the historical events of the day. Simply put, there is a ton of proof for the real resurrection of Christ. Bultman and others meant well, but some of the ‘facts’ that they were using were later proven to be false. Bultman used a model of cosmology that would later be rejected by science. Yet the testimony from scripture would remain sure. Paul told the Corinthian's that they needed to reject any attempts at spiritualizing the resurrection of Christ. Sometimes believers grasp hold of limited proof’s for certain doctrines. For instance, the New Testament does speak of a spiritual resurrection. In Ephesians Paul says we are presently raised with Christ. In Romans chapter 6 we have all ready been raised with Jesus. This reality does not mean there will be no future resurrection of the saints. In Johns gospel Jesus speaks of the resurrection as being a future real event, as well as a present reality. Those in the graves will hear his voice and be raised from the dead. And those who were presently ‘dead in sins’ would ‘come alive’ [spiritually] when they heard and believed the testimony of Jesus. It is important for the believer to be familiar with the various theories and ideas that theologians and believers have grasped over the years. It is a mistake to simply see all higher learning as ‘liberalism’. There are some very important things that we have learned thru the great intellectuals of the church. But we also need to stick with the ancient traditions as seen in the creeds, as well as the plain testimony of scripture. If Christ ‘be not raised from the dead, then we are of all men most miserable’.

[parts]

Now, as we go thru Acts, I want to stay as close as possible to both the doctrine and practices of the early church as seen in scripture. We are not the first [or last!] study that has attempted to do this. That is attempted to ‘get back to the original design’ as much as possible. Historically you have whole categories of believers who fit into this mindset. They are referred to as ‘Restorationist’ as opposed to Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. The Church of Christ, The Disciples of Christ, the Anabaptists and others fall into this class. I believe you find true believers in all of these groups.

As you read the history of Christianity as told by the other perspectives, you will find it interesting as to the way the institutional church describes these ‘out of church’ groups. Some are called heretics [Waldensians] others are simply seen as fringe groups. The strong institutional church has branded those who would reject her authority as schismatics and heretics on the grounds of their refusal to submit to the hierarchy of the institutional church.

As we go thru Acts, I want us to read carefully and see the story as told by Luke. We will not find ‘another more true group’ in the sense that I want to start some new denomination. I also don’t want to simply find proof texts to justify doctrine. Many well meaning believers can find the verses they like the most and use them to combat the other points of view. We will see verses emphasizing the importance of water baptism, or various truths on the outworkings of the Spirit. We will see prophets functioning and read texts that clearly teach Gods sovereignty [as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed]. Instead of getting lost on these side trails, I want us to read with an open mind and allow our beliefs to be shaped by ‘the story’.

I will spend time defending my own view of Local church. Not because I believe ‘my view’ is the only thing worth arguing about, but because I believe we see the intent of God for his people to be a living community of believers in this book. Right off the bat we will see giving taught in a radical way. The early church at Jerusalem will ‘continue in the Apostles doctrine and breaking of bread and prayers’. They then sell their goods and distribute to all who had need. Where in the world did they get this idea from? The Apostles doctrine obviously taught the plain teachings from Jesus on sharing what you have with others. So instead of seeing an early tithe concept, you see an early ‘give to those in need idea’ straight from the teachings of Jesus. We will see this early Jerusalem group meet daily, as opposed to seeing ‘Sunday worship’ as some sort of New Testament Sabbath. Of course this group will meet at the Temple [actually an out door courtyard called Solomon’s Porch] and from ‘house to house’. But the simple realty of Christ’s Spirit being poured out on them as a community of people will be the basic understanding of what ‘church’ is.

You will find citizens of many surrounding areas going back to the their home towns after Pentecost. These believers shared the gospel with those in their regions and this is how the early church would spread. Some commentaries will show you how when Paul will eventually show up in Rome there already was an established church there. They obviously heard the gospel from these early Roman Jews who were at Jerusalem during Pentecost. So we will see ‘church planting’ from the paradigm of simple believers going to areas with the message of Christ. Those who would believe in these locations would be described as ‘the church at Corinth’ or ‘the church at Ephesus’ and so on. So we see ‘local church’ as communities of believers living in different localities.

We will see the development of leadership along the lines of ‘appoint elders in every city’. Not a top heavy idea of ‘Bishop’ in the later sense of Catholic belief, but a simple ordaining [recognizing!] of those in the various cities who were stable enough in the basic truths of the gospel, that in Paul’s absence these elders were to be trusted as spiritual guides. Now, many of our brothers can trace the historic office of Bishop as a fairly early development in church history. Polycarp and others were considered direct disciples of the Apostles who would be seen as Bishops and even write of the importance of Bishops for the church ‘Where there is no Bishop there is no church’.

This will cause many well meaning believers to eventually become Catholic/Orthodox as they read the church fathers and see the very early development of Catholic Christianity. In many of the church fathers writings you will also see an early belief in the Eucharist as being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus.

To the consternation of many Protestants you even find Luther condemning fellow Protestants for not taking literally the words of Jesus ‘this IS my Body’. Now, I will not defend transubstantiation, but try to follow the trend lines in Acts as to the lack of this doctrine being a part of the early church. We will find Paul’s letter to the Corinthians addressing the Lords Supper, but for the most part we do not see a strong belief in the transmitting of divine grace to the soul thru the eating of Christ’s literal Body and Blood as they ‘broke bread’. We do see the sharing of the common meal and the ‘Eucharist’ as one meal called the ‘love feast’. Only later on in church history is there a division made between the full fellowship meal and the Eucharist.

So to be frank about it, I will challenge both our Catholic and Orthodox brothers on some very fundamental beliefs. Well I hope this brief introduction sets the proper tone for the rest of this study, God bless you guys and I hope you get something out of it. John.

[parts]

JOHN LOCKE-

Locke taught that each man has individual rights- and he empowers government- an elected designated body- to have rule-

Yet- that government exists solely for the benefit of the people- and when/if that government ‘forgets’ this- the people have a right/duty to revolt.

Locke’s ideas were formed at a time when his own government experienced a sort of revolution [1600’s- England].

The people revolted against monarchy- and replaced it with a sort of Democratic Parliament-

Referred to as the bloodless revolution or the glorious revolution.

The king [or today- queen] would still play a role- like a figurehead- but the power was in the people- willingly given over to a Parliament.

The political ideas of Locke influenced our founding fathers- and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are in parts almost word for word taken from the writings of Locke.

Locke believed in natural law- that morality was indeed a universal reality [some scholars/thinkers will say that Locke does not fully embrace the Christian concept of natural/moral law].

He taught that knowledge comes from man’s experience- the things he interacts with thru the 5 senses.

That man is not born with innate ideas [like the early Greek thinkers said] but his mind is a Tabula Rasa- or blank slate at birth.

This is an Empirical understanding of knowledge.

Locke also believed in the concept of the separation of church and state- this idea was not unique to our founding fathers- no- they got it right out of the writings of Locke [his parents were Puritans- and they obviously influenced their son].

Locke’s political views were-

Individualistic-

Egalitarian-

Contractual [social compact]-

These ideas differed from the early Greek thinkers [especially Aristotle] who held to a naturalistic view- meaning that nature itself ‘intended’ for certain individuals to have rule over others [the smarter should have rule over the ‘less smart’- and of course Aristotle saw himself in the more nobler crowd!]

Locke also believed in religious toleration- a view held by most in the Western world today.

He saw the Right to private property- as a natural right.

He believed that denial of the existence of God would lead to anarchy in the long run.

He believed that the cosmological argument for the existence of God was valid [called teleology].

DIOGENES-

I think I mentioned him on today’s video [I am writing this before I review the video and add the bullet points].

In the study of philosophy- he is not known for deep thought- or new ideas.

He lived in the 5th century B.C. - died in the 4th in the biblical city of Corinth.

Diogenes believed in ‘living with less’- he was known to have slept in a ceramic pot- he lived and ate on the streets- and was basically like many of my homeless friends.

Yet- he felt in doing this he was a sort of ‘prophetic’ sign to the world around him.

He is believed to be the first to refer to himself as a ‘cosmopolitan’- meaning a man of the world- and not identifying with any one city.

He was born at Sinope- [Modern day Turkey] traveled to Athens- the main center of wisdom/philosophy.

Attended the lectures of Plato- and interrupted them

He disputed Plato’s interpretation of his teacher- Socrates.

And had a memorable encounter with Alexander the Great.

The story goes [there are a few versions of it- maybe more along the line of myth] that Alexander wanted to meet with Diogenes- and he heard he was in town [Corinth] so Alexander went to meet him.

Upon arriving at the spot- he greeted Alexander and told him he would fulfill any request that the Cynic asked.

Diogenes replied ‘Move over- you’re standing in my sun light’.

It is said that as Alexander left- and made the statement ‘If I were not Alexander- I would be Diogenes’.

How true- well we will never know for sure.

He did live at a time- and in a place- where the famous philosophers would come from.

He believed rejecting wealth- and the comforts of life- were a statement against the society of his day.

He purposefully challenged the ‘normal’ way of life- by being different- and at times- vulgar.

It is said that he carried a cup- for drinking.

And he saw a young boy one day- drinking from the brook with his hands.

He then threw away the cup- realizing that ‘the god’s’ had given to men the basic things to survive- and he really did not need all the material things of life.

Like I said at the top - he is not known for his great thinking ability- but he was respected by the stoics-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

facebook.com/john.chiarello.5

ccoutreach87.wordpress.com

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John..#

[parts]

2065

The Iliad and Odyssey [Homer]

I want to cover some of the classics of Western Literature- when I do the philosophy and science stuff- the purpose is to show how God- and ‘religion’ are an inescapable thread that we see all thru out history- and in fact- the rise of what we call ‘intellectualism’ did indeed come from the Judaic/Christian tradition [for instance- the modern day university system did come from the Church].

Ok- lets start with what most believe to be the greatest work from antiquity- outside of the bible.

These are 2 poems by Homer- the Iliad and Odyssey.

These poems were written in the 8th century BCE- and cover the Trojan war- which most believe was a real war- that took place in the 12th-13th century BCE.

In Homers works we read about this epic battle.

The war starts with- once again- a ‘woman’ issue.

Prince Paris of Troy steals Helen of Greece- from her husband King Menelaus [king of Sparta].

The Greeks- led by Achilles- lay siege to Troy.

In Homers telling of the event- the Greeks are actually defending the honor of marriage- and are carrying out a just retribution against an unjust act.

Sort of the same themes we read in scripture- when the sons of Jacob defended the honor of their sister Dinah- when she was treated unjustly by the pagan nation that took her- forcefully- to be the wife of a kings son.

The brothers meted out justice- by tricking these pagans to get circumcised- then- while recovering ‘from surgery’- the sons went in and wiped out the city- to their fathers dismay!

In the story- Achilles is a warrior- who displays extreme violence- and also the human traits of a man who acts out of selfish motives.

At one point in the war- he removes himself from battle- because he feels his honor was betrayed.

The only thing that brings him back is the killing of his close friend Patroclus- by Hector.

Achilles leads the Greeks to victory- and reflects the struggle between living a long life- or dying young- yet dying for a just cause.

One of the more famous quotes form Homer’s Poems- attributed to Achilles- is ‘I carry 2 sorts of destiny to the day of my death. Either, if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting; but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers, the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life- left for me, and my end in death will not come to me quickly.’

There has been some debate over the historicity of the war itself.

Some scholars believe it was Myth [I’ll get to this in a moment].

That is- they believe the war itself was not true- but a sort of Oral Tradition- that encompasses the reality of the human condition- and that Homers Poems are simply mythological ways to reveal the true condition of man.

Yet- much like the debate that took place in the 19th century German universities- over the ‘Myth’ of the bible- later on- the rise of what we now call Archaeology [because of the Industrial revolution- a new field arose- men started digging up the ground- for the primary purpose of extracting materials from the earth- and at this time we also discovered ‘lost worlds’- that is we could actually trace cities and lands that were once deemed fake].

So- as with Homers Troy- and bible lands- these archaeologists did indeed find Cities that matched the stories.

In 1870 the German Archaeologist Schliemann discovered remains that seemed to find the city of Troy- the area is known today as modern day Turkey.

This same thing happened with the bible- we did indeed find historical evidence that seemed to back up the historicity of the stories we find in the bible.

As a matter of fact- a famous doubter of the bible embarked on a search- to prove the bible was ‘myth’ yet- after researching carefully the historical names and places we read about in the book of Acts- he came to believe that the book of Acts- written by both an historian and doctor [Luke] was the most historically accurate writing that came from the first century [Acts has lots of names of political figures- court proceedings- stuff like that- and when doing research like this- it is quite easy to debunk the historical reality of a fake work- but- when these names and places were researched- from actual historical records dating back to the first century- it was amazing how the pieces fit].

The Trojan War is found in many works of Greek literature- and art.

But the most comprehensive account comes from Homer’s 2 poems.

Now- in Homer’s poems there are obvious references to Mythology- Goddesses- Golden apples- the Greek gods intervening in the affairs of men.

So yeah- we see that there are obvious mythological aspects to the work.

Yet- the ancient Geeks did indeed believe the war itself was a real war that took place at around the 12th century BCE.

Some believe that Homer never actually wrote the poems- but that he told the stories- like Oral Tradition- and they were later written down by others.

Sort of like the classic- Paradise Lost- by John Milton. Milton was blind- and told the story to his daughters [oral tradition] and the actual work was penned by those who heard it.

Jesus himself used this method- he never wrote a book- or letter in the New Testament- yet the gospels were compiled by his men after his death.

We read about this when Luke [who I mentioned above] gives the reason for his documenting stuff in the book of Acts [read Acts chapter one].

Luke also wrote his gospel a few years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

So- some believe the same thing happened with Homer- those who heard him tell the story multiple times- simply put it together later on.

Most scholars believe that Homer did indeed write the poems- and that the famous Trojan War was a real historical event.

Last year- when in North Bergen- my atheist friend Daniel said he watched a PBS show- and he said ‘even a priest said the bible was Myth’.

I explained to Daniel that when the more liberal scholars use this term [like in the writings of Bultman] that they do not mean ‘fake’- like Greek Mythology.

But they mean that some of the stories in the gospels might be a compilation of the many Oral teachings of Jesus- and they were put together as one story [some think the Sermon on the Mount was actually multiple teachings Jesus did- and they were compiled into one event].

Now- when I explained this to Daniel- he said ‘see- even you believe it was Myth’.

I told Daniel that no- I do not hold to this theory [not 100%] but that I was simply telling him that even those who use the term Myth- when talking about Theology- they do not mean Myth- as in fake.

So- I find it interesting that both the New testament- and Homers poems- got the same scrutiny.

In these poems we do indeed see the condition of man- which Homer depicts as one of constant war- not peace.

The letter of James in the New Testament says- James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

Homers poems are considered by some to be the beginning of the great works of Western literature- of which there are many.

The great writer C.S. Lewis- who rejected Christianity for many years- later became a believer.

He attributed his conversion to the fact that he could not escape the reality of the Church- or Christian themes- found in all the fields of study.

Whether it was the classics- or history- philosophy.

He said every were he read- studied- he could not escape this scarlet thread that ran thru out all the fields of knowledge.

Yeah- in the end- his thirst for knowledge- his intellectual search- led him to the Cross.

Jesus- in a way- was a 1st century Achilles- he battled the forces of darkness- for the honor of a woman- the Bride- the church.

He- Like Achilles- chose a just death- for a just cause.

There’s a prophecy in the Old Testament- it speaks of Christ ‘the zeal of thine house has eaten me up’.

Jesus was a righteous warrior- a prophet, priest and king- and he had a zeal for the church- that far exceeded anything we find in Homers poems.

VERSES- [These are the verses I either taught- or quoted on today’s post- Sunday sermon]

Philipians 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Philipians 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Philipians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Philipians 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Philipians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Philipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philipians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Philipians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Philipians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Philipians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Philipians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Matthew 13

King James Version (KJV)

13 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Philippians 1:21

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Hebrews 11:35

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 22:14

For many are called, but few are chosen.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

September 24, 2017

« September 23 | September 25 »

Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Lectionary: 133

Reading 1

IS 55:6-9

Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near. Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked his thoughts; let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

Responsorial Psalm

PS 145:2-3, 8-9, 17-18

R. (18a) The Lord is near to all who call upon him. Every day will I bless you, and I will praise your name forever and ever. Great is the LORD and highly to be praised; his greatness is unsearchable. R. The Lord is near to all who call upon him. The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness. The LORD is good to all and compassionate toward all his works. R. The Lord is near to all who call upon him. The LORD is just in all his ways and holy in all his works. The LORD is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth. R. The Lord is near to all who call upon him.

Reading 2

PHIL 1:20C-24, 27A

Brothers and sisters: Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me life is Christ, and death is gain. If I go on living in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. And I do not know which I shall choose. I am caught between the two. I long to depart this life and be with Christ, for that is far better. Yet that I remain in the flesh is more necessary for your benefit. Only, conduct yourselves in a way worthy of the gospel of Christ.

Alleluia

CF. ACTS 16:14B

R. Alleluia, alleluia. Open our hearts, O Lord, to listen to the words of your Son. R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

MT 20:1-16A

Jesus told his disciples this parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, the landowner saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' So they went off. And he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o'clock, the landowner found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.' When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

https://vk.com/id533663718

Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912 [My Facebook videos]

https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

https://icedrive.net/dashboard/#/cloud

I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is [email protected] - contact me first- thank you- John

0 notes

oldguardaudio · 7 years

Text

Rush Limbaugh -> Media Misreads Booing in Baltimore

Rush Limbaugh Combat the Drive-By Media at HoaxandChange.com

No Tax Breaks for the NFL – Unsportsmanship Conduct at HoaxAndChange.com

Oct 2, 2017

RUSH: The NFL circumstance. What happened in Baltimore yesterday is not just what happened in Baltimore is what is fascinating, but the way the media — it’s classic how they don’t understand the average, ordinary American. It’s classic! And we’ll get to it eventually. I’m gonna tell you what happened. Well, the players kneeled, and then they stood for the anthem, and the PA announcer had some — the fans booed the PA announcer and the media doesn’t understand why.

They think the fans of Baltimore are reprobates for what they did. They haven’t the slightest idea why the fans booed the PA announcer. The media thinks the fans were booing prayer, and that’s not what was happening. These are the same people that still to this day cannot understand why 10 people, much less 60 million, voted for Donald Trump. It’s classic.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Now, to the National Football League and particularly in Baltimore. Yesterday was rivalry day for the Steelers and the Ravens. It may be the best rivalry in the NFL at this moment in time. It has lost some of its fervor because the Ravens suck. They’ve had a lot of injuries. I said that trying to be funny. They don’t suck. They’re not the team that they have been the past couple years. The Steelers may not be, either; time will tell. It was still intense, however, and the pregame featured both teams — I think both teams kneeling, some of the Ravens did, and then rising and standing for the national anthem, and yet the fans in the stadium booed!

And the sports media is beside itself. They don’t understand. They think they know why and they think it was horrible. Now, I want to play for you the fans booing. This does not contain — I don’t believe it’s only — maybe it does. They booed the PA announcer. That much the media understands, but they totally misunderstand why. So let’s listen. It’s 14 seconds here. Let’s see what this actually is.

(playing of audio — booing)

RUSH: There’s no PA in there, right?

PA ANNOUNCER: Thank you. (boing)

RUSH: (laughing) The PA announcer in Baltimore asked the crowd to pray for kindness, unity, equality, and justice. And that’s when the crowd booed. And the sports Drive-Bys don’t have any idea why. They think it is reprehensible. One sports Drive-By said the crowd booed players bowing their heads in prayer. No, they weren’t booing the players. They might have been booing the players if the players were kneeling at any point. They might have been booing the players if the players linked arms instead of hand over heart.

It reached peak hilarity Sunday in Baltimore when the PA announcer asked the crowd to pray for kindness, unity, equality and justice in America. The Ravens dropped to one knee and bowed their heads in prayer, and the audience started booing. This was before the anthem. Before they got to playing the anthem. And the sports Drive-Bys are beside themselves thinking, “Oh, my God, this is horrible, this is horrible. Fans are just so in a frenzy here, they don’t even know why they’re booing. But, boy, when you boo prayer, whoa, that’s it.”

Now, how many of you think, based on what I’ve just told you, what you’ve heard, that the fans were booing prayer? You think so, Mr. Snerdley? Okay, I don’t have anybody on the other side of the glass who thinks the fans were booing prayer. Remember, now, this is Baltimore. All I mean by that is Baltimore is not known for its right-wing conservative Republicanism. So if they weren’t booing prayer, what were the fans booing?

Folks, I happen to think that if you’re at the football game and you’re expecting some kind of controversy over the anthem and the flag and players kneeling or not, linking arms, showing respect for the flag or not. And when it’s time to play the anthem, when you expect the PA announcer to say, “Please rise as we honor America, and here’s so-and-so singing our national anthem,” and instead what you hear is a bunch of left-wing tripe, “Let us pray for kindness, unity, equality, and justice,”

I mean, that is pure left-wing social justice warrior language. And I am convinced that that’s what the fans were reacting to. They resent that intrusion into the game. But the sports Drive-Bys — this proves my point that the media makes the mistake of thinking that everybody thinks like they do, that every intelligent person, that every reasonable person, that every educated person, that everybody who knows what’s what thinks like they do. And so the PA announcer asking for people to pray for kindness and unity and quality and justice in America — now, unity is a red flag anyway.

Unity has become a left-wing term just like diversity has, and it doesn’t mean what they mean. Unity means you agree with them or else. Unity does not mean we are all unified in one patriotic belief. Unity means that you will agree with the left. You will agree with the social justice warrior types, and you will love it or else. Equality, they might as well throw in sustainability in there.

Now, it’s also possible that the fans were booing because there were some players kneeling. I don’t know if there were or not. I didn’t watch. The Steelers said they were gonna stand, but I don’t know if they all kneeled before the anthem was played. But I think fans that are upset at all of this recognize that language as divisive language. It’s not the language of unity. “Let’s all pray for kindness, unity, equality.” That’s, in essence, a criticism. That’s how the left criticizes the country. There is no unity and there is no equality and there is no justice, and that’s why all this stuff is happening, and people resent it. I don’t think I’m wrong about this.

Now, there is a related story. Ravens linebacker C. J. Mosley was not surprised when the hometown fans booed at M&T Bank Stadium. He said he wasn’t surprised while the Ravens took a knee Sunday before the national anthem, but the actions of the crowd he said did show him something. Quote, “Even though it was supposed to be a silent prayer, it was mainly boos. But it goes to show that it has nothing to do with the anthem. We stood up for the anthem because we respect the flag and respect the veterans and everything that got misconstrued with us taking a knee last week.”

Now, Mr. Mosley, I know that you are an intelligent man, but you have to understand the fans are not as dumb as you think. The fans know what these kneelings and the lack of respect is. It is to support Colin Kaepernick, and Colin was very clear about why he was not going to stand and salute the flag and do the anthem, because he doesn’t think this country treats minorities fairly and equally. It was an anti-America position that he took. The players now trying to say that this is not about the flag, it’s not about the anthem. It most certainly is. Kaepernick made it about that, and the fans are very much aware of this.

And one other bit of news that I want to repeat. Of all people, John King, somebody at CNN, announced on his Sunday show on CNN yesterday that he knows that the owners and the league know that they are losing viewers and attendance is down because of these protests. The league publicly will not admit that. The league has tried to say, well, it was the election and the Trump campaign. Then they tried to say it was Hurricane Irma and they’ve tried to say it was Christmas shopping and it was climate change and it was anything other than that.

They still haven’t admitted why. And attendance was down, ratings were down this past weekend, too. According to preliminary numbers, it was down again. Now, the thing to watch. We’ve already had some sponsors pull out, but they’re regional. The next thing to watch is to see if any of the highfalutin national sponsors of NFL telecasts or of the NFL enterprise, the NFL Network, the NFL website, if they begin, if one pull out or if two pull out, and people are looking at it because they’ve heard rumblings, ’cause this is far more serious than people in the middle of it want to acknowledge. The owners, however, according to John King at CNN — and I think this is true only because I think it’s true. Not because CNN’s credibility, fake news all over the place.

But this I think is right. I think they know. And even though they know, they are siding with the players. They’re making a calculation. Do not doubt me when I tell you they’re scared over the choice that they have to make. But they are choosing to be seen siding with the players. How many NFL owners endorsed Barack Obama in 2008? There were a few. Why do you think that is?

If your locker room is 75% African-American, and you publicly are holding fundraisers for, who was it, Romney, or if you are donating to Romney — but if you’re out there supporting Obama, isn’t it gonna make you that much more popular in your own locker room if you’re the owner? I’m just asking it. I’m throwing it out there as a think piece.

But, I mean, it makes sense to me that that would happen. In this case they’re siding with the players because they’re judging that if some fans tune out and don’t show up, that’s temporary, but if the players all unify and don’t show up on a Sunday, then there’s no product, and then there’s nothing to sell, and then there’s no TV money, and then there’s trouble. And I know that’s the decision they’re making. But they know.

Now, note what none of them think is an option. These people are all employees. This is workplace. And apparently — I could be wrong about this. I may not be fully informed, but apparently there isn’t — well, that I know of — there isn’t an owner or an organization which will tell his players, “You’re standing. For the sake of this team, for the sake of this league, for the sake of our business enterprise here, you are standing. And if you’ve got a problem we’ll deal with it some other way.” I’ve had bosses tell me what I can and can’t do all the years of my life, except the last 29 ’cause I haven’t had one.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay. So the Ravens PA announcer asked for the audience to pray for justice, peace, equality, and unity. How many fans remember that this league pretty much kicked Tim Tebow out of it because he prayed in public? Remember that? Tim Tebow would take a knee after a touchdown or after a good play or something and remember how the league got nervous, TV announcers got nervous at this public display of worship? And now look. Now look. We’re asking the fans to pray for not God, no, pray for justice, peace, equality, unity. Why don’t you throw climate change in there? Cover every base.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The left outside linebacker the Baltimore Ravens, number 55, Terrell Suggs — his nickname is T-Sizzle — and he said after the game yesterday, “We don’t want anybody to lose the narrative of why we are doing it. We don’t want people to think that we’re disrespecting the flag or the military or anything like that.” Mr. Suggs, that’s exactly what Colin Kaepernick said he was doing, and it is unity with Colin Kaepernick that is driving the actions of the players who are taking a knee or linking arms or not standing for the national anthem.

If you’re not disrespecting the flag or the military or anything like that, what are you doing? Why are you doing it? And this is what I say constitutes everybody backtracking now. I mean, it started out full bore, unity, solidarity with Kaepernick. And then it didn’t go the way the left thought it was gonna go. The left thinks everybody thinks like they do, which means everybody supports the players. Everybody thinks America’s racist. Everybody thinks the cops kill people indiscriminately. Everybody thinks the cops are racists. Everybody thinks “hands up, don’t shoot” happened.

No, most people don’t think any of that and resent having it jammed down their throats when they don’t want any of this kind of politicization of the game they love. So now backtracking, saying, “We don’t want people to think we’re disrespecting the flag or the military.” Why do it, then? With whom are you in solidarity if it isn’t Kaepernick? What are you doing? ‘Cause Mr. Suggs — Terrell Suggs, by the way, is a great player. And he’s an intimidating guy. He’s had two Achilles injuries, and he’s come back from ’em.

But all this is doing is hurting the National Football League, which is the objective of the people who support this. I’m not saying the players are trying to hurt the league. They may. Hell, I don’t know. I don’t know what they know and don’t, but I’m telling you, this is hurting the NFL, and that’s the objective. The objective is not to change the cops. The objective is not to raise consciousness. It’s to hurt the NFL.

The left sees the NFL as a problem. It stands in opposition to what the left wants this country to be and known for. The NFL contains all these things that on college campuses are trying to be weeded out. Masculinity, white privilege, in terms of the ownership, patriotism, rugged individualism, men being men. All of these things that the left is trying to scrub and erase as identifying factors for the United States. And whether the players know it or not, they’re unwittingly helping this along.

Yahoo Sports. Yahoo News, Yahoo Sports, don’t ever confuse them with people like Ronald Reagan or me. Exclusive poll, Yahoo Finance poll, suggests the NFL has an enduring problem on its hands, not a temporary, but enduring. They interviewed 9,000 people at Yahoo Sports. They found that nearly 62% of 9,056 people told them they plan to watch less pro football in response to the anthem controversy.

In addition to 62% saying they’re gonna watch less, 36% said they’re gonna spend less. They’re gonna buy less NFL merchandise. Thirty-two percent have chosen not to attend a game that they otherwise would have gone to. So those people show up disguised as empty seats. Do you think that it’s wrong for players to kneel during the anthem? Seventy-seven percent, “yes.” And yet the left and the sports Drive-Bys and others think the country agrees with the players. If the anthem controversy caused NFL owners and players lasting financial harm, 10% say it would bum them out, 30% say they wouldn’t care, 48% said they would be pleased, if the anthem controversy caused the owners and players lasting financial harm.

Guys, this isn’t tracking in your direction. And your substitute here of kneeling while linking and then standing in time for the entire anthem, it isn’t the solution. All the people in the sports Drive-Bys and some of the player management, the ownership, “Oh, we got a great idea. We can do both.” You can, but it isn’t gonna work.

Here is Henry in Portland, Maine. Henry, glad you called. Thank you for waiting. Hi.

CALLER: Oh, thank you. A couple of quick points. You know, the reason why the Baltimore fans booed is because first the players disrespected the flag and the country. Now they’re disrespecting God because they’re using God as a tool, and that’s the only thing that they’re using it for because I don’t think they really care. And then the other thing is that now high school players and little lad football players were taking knees to protest a couple weeks ago. So now if they take a knee to pray I’m sure the left is gonna be totally happy for football players to pray. And so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s see what happens with that. How many football players on the high school level are gonna be suspended for praying but they’re just following —

RUSH: Hey, it’s a good point because you can’t pray at many high school commencements now, remember? That’s not new. That goes way, way back. Can’t pray, ’cause not everybody is religious, and you can’t force your religion on people by having commencement prayers. You can’t do a moment of silence at commencement, graduation, this kind of thing. You can’t do it because not everybody there is religious. We know that was it Cahokia, Illinois, a bunch of eighth grade football players have begun emulating the NFL and have been kneeling during the anthem.

You know the one Steelers player, Alejandro Villanueva, he was the only one seen standing for the anthem a couple of weeks ago in Chicago, two Sundays ago. He’s continually sought out by the media since that happened, and he’s made nervous by it. He’s an Army Special Forces soldier, and those guys have a lot of things drilled out of them. They’re not supposed to be standout. They’re not supposed to stand above and beyond everybody else. They’re supposed to blend in. It’s part and parcel of the training.

He’s very nervous being a focal point here. And I don’t know to whom he said that. But I found these quotes — I think these are fascinating quotes. Listen to what he said. “I think in life, you’re not prepared for a lot of things. I don’t think you’re prepared to have a kid. I don’t think you’re prepared to get married. I don’t you’re prepared to start one day in the NFL. I think it’s one of those things you have to take in stride and do your best, stick to your family values, stick to the things that you’ve learned throughout your life and try to make the best possible decision.

“I’m not a hero. I didn’t do anything in the military that was outstanding. If you were to compare me to my peers, I was average at best. This was a very unfortunate chain of events, and I just tried my best.”

This was his explanation as to why he ended up being the only guy seen standing for the anthem in Chicago. But what about this: “I think in life you’re not prepared for a lot of things. Not prepared to have a kid, not prepared to get married. And you’re not prepared to actually start one day, the starting lineup in the NFL. But when it happens, you use the best you have to make the right decisions.”

And I think that’s so on the money. There’s some things you can’t prepare for. There isn’t a manual on a lot of things in life. You just have to do it and you learn by doing it. And that’s where your foundational base guides you, your morality, your virtue, your sense of right and wrong, your conscience. You know what your conscience is. Everybody has one. It’s just that in many people it’s been allowed to be covered up, covered over and ignored.

But your conscience is the little voice in your head that always tells you whether what you’re doing’s right or wrong. Everybody has one. I say everybody. I mean, sure, there are probably some sick individuals with an exception who don’t. But it could be said — I think George Washington in a way said it, that conscience, your conscience is where your discipline is. And, you know, most people are gonna have many failings in that area.

But Villanueva is saying since there’s no real way to prep for so many monumental things that happen to you as a human being, you just have to do your best at the time, make the best possible decision.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I got a note from Paul Shanklin, white comedian Paul Shanklin who does the parodies and comedy bits that we do here on the program. He said, “What’s wrong with that thing in Baltimore was that everybody thinks we’ve already got that stuff. The idea of having to pray for these things, it’s insulting. We have peace, we have justice. It’s the left-wing diatribe that the country is flawed and we have to accept the premise that the country is flawed and then pray for it.”

That’s a great point. I mean, one of the dividing lines on the left is, this is an imperfect country and it’s deeply flawed because we say so. And if you don’t agree with them, then you’re part of the problem, and there are a lot of us very proud of the county who don’t believe we’re deeply flawed, but we’re not perfect, either.

But just the left-wing agenda and the assumption that what they say is and therefore we must deal with it, that’s what is offensive. And I have no doubt that that was part of reason for the booing that was happening in Baltimore. That was before the anthem even started.

Rush Limbaugh -> Media Misreads Booing in Baltimore Rush Limbaugh -> Media Misreads Booing in Baltimore Oct 2, 2017 RUSH: The NFL circumstance. What happened in Baltimore yesterday is not just what happened in Baltimore is what is fascinating, but the way the media — it’s classic how they don’t understand the average, ordinary American.

#NFL Sissies

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs

babysizedfics

hermitcraft agere fics+hcs (prev ts agere)

lucychan-blog

Random Stuff

you-are-crazy-just-like-me

theally-8

Welcome To My World

audreyxxs-blog

Ideias do Audrey