miracle baby Rises from the "Dead"

This is just a feel good story:


http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14973817&ch=4226714&src=news

And it makes you wonder when they say a baby will not survive the birth-and they perform a abortion-this should give them second thoughts.... For it is God Who has the final word......


Deuteronomy 32:39


Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage



39"'See now that(A) I, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
(B) I kill and I make alive;
(C) I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.



Cross references:
A.Deuteronomy 32:39 : Isa 41:4; 48:12
B.Deuteronomy 32:39 : 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 5:7
C.Deuteronomy 32:39 : Job 5:18; Hos 6:1

English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

Job 14:5


Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage


5Since his(A) days are determined,
and(B) the number of his months is with you,
and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass,



Cross references:
A.Job 14:5 : Job 7:1; Psalm 39:4
B.Job 14:5 : Job 21:21

In Memoriam for Scott Wesley Buchholz-Sanchez

This week i could not blog anymore-i just felt not right and dishonoring to the memory of this precious child-so i will blog again next week and end this one with a article on God and babies that die young in their entirety:

Are Those Who Die in Infancy Saved?Sam Storms
Nov 6, 2006
Series: Controversial Issues
If human nature is corrupt and guilty from conception, the consequence of Adam's transgression, are those who die in infancy lost? The same question would apply to those who live beyond infancy but because of mental retardation or some other handicap are incapable of moral discernment, deliberation, or volition.

This is more than a theoretical issue designed for our speculation and curiosity. It touches one of the most emotionally and spiritually unsettling experiences in all of life: the loss of a young child.

I was first confronted with this issue on a personal level in the late 1970s. I received a phone call from a family in our church which had just experienced the premature birth of twin girls. Upon arriving at the hospital I was informed that one of the girls had died. I never anticipated the question that came my way as I walked into the room of the grieving mother: "Sam, is my baby in heaven?" A few years later the young child of a good friend was killed in a car accident. The parents asked me to perform the funeral, once again putting me in the position of having to think through and articulate in a biblical and compassionate way what I believed about the eternal destiny of their child. So, what conclusion did I reach? Let's take a look at the variety of options that have been suggested.

(1) The sinlessness of infants - One view insists that those dying in infancy are saved for the simple reason that there is nothing in them or done by them that merits condemnation. In other words, they are born in a state of moral neutrality or moral equilibrium. They do not possess a sin nature nor are they corrupt. They are, in a word, characterless. They lack moral standing. There is nothing in their souls that is properly the object of divine judgment. Hence all dying in that state are saved for no other reason than that they are not condemnable. Several texts would seem to contradict this view, among them Pss. 51:5; 58:3; Prov. 22:15; Gen. 8:21; Job 15:14-16; Eph. 2:3.

(2) Universalism - Another viewpoint simply asserts that all will be saved, inclusive of those dying in infancy. None will suffer eternal condemnation. God's saving grace extends effectually to the entire human race. Again, countless texts could be cited to disprove this idea, among them Mt. 7:13-14, 21-23; 8:11-12; 10:28; 13:37-42; Luke 16:23-28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 6; Rev. 14:10-11; 20:11-15.

(3) Post-Mortem Salvation - Based on a certain interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6, it is asserted that those who die without having the opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ and make a cognitively and morally informed decision will be granted a "second chance" (it is, in fact, a "first" chance if they never had a legitimate opportunity in this life). As for infants in particular, it is said that God will bring them to a state in which they are sufficiently mature to understand and choose responsibly.

There are several problems with this view.

First, how can they be brought into a state of maturity by God without the influence of parents, education, peers, experience, etc. which contribute to our own intellectual and spiritual framework and on the basis of which we ourselves make an informed choice? Would they be brought into a state of moral equilibrium, having had no history of personal sin that has so decisively shaped who we are? If God is the one who somehow directly educates and nurtures them, has he not then prejudiced their minds/wills in a way that is altogether different from the way we are educated and nurtured? The problems associated with this are innumerable.

Second, the two texts on which they base their view say nothing about post-mortem evangelism for either those dying in infancy or pagans who never hear the name of Jesus. I will address both these texts in a future installment of Deciphering Difficult Texts.

Third, from a pastoral point of view, this theory does nothing to ease the anxieties of parents who want to know if their baby is in heaven. For there is no guarantee, on this view, that even if given an opportunity after death that they will respond in faith.

(4) Infant Salvation via Infant Baptism - Certain traditions within Christianity have affirmed baptismal regeneration, according to which the waters of baptism are used by God to effect the regeneration, spiritual cleansing, and forgiveness of the infant. Needless to say, this view is only as cogent as is the case for baptismal regeneration, and the case for the latter is poor. In addition, it fails to address the question of what happens to the vast majority of infants in the history of the world who died without the benefit of Christian baptism.

(5) The Roman Catholic Concept of "Limbo" - The Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged the possibility of a state of natural blessedness or happiness in which unbaptized infants experience a form of eternal peace but not the consummate joy of heaven itself. Rome has neither formally affirmed nor denied this teaching.

(6) Salvation of the Infants of Believing Parents - Others have appealed to 1 Cor. 7:14-16 to argue that the infants or children of a believing parent or parents are, for that reason, granted special salvific privilege in the kingdom of God. Again, this view is only as cogent as is that particular interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.

(7) Elect Infants are Saved - Another view advocated by some Reformed theologians is that some who die in infancy are elect, and therefore saved, while others are non-elect, and therefore condemned.

(8) All those dying in Infancy are Elect - The view that I embrace is that all those dying in infancy, as well as those so mentally incapacitated that they are incapable of making an informed choice, are among the elect of God chosen by him for salvation before the world began. The evidence for this view is scant, but significant.

First, in Romans 1:20 Paul describes people who are recipients of general revelation as being 'without excuse.' Does this imply that those who are not recipients of general revelation (i.e., infants) are therefore not accountable to God or subject to wrath? In other words, those who die in infancy have an "excuse" in that they neither receive general revelation nor have the capacity to respond to it.

Second, there are texts which appear to assert or imply that infants do not know good or evil and hence lack the capacity to make morally informed and thus responsible choices. According to Deut. 1:39 they are said to 'have no knowledge of good or evil.' This in itself, however, would not prove infant salvation, for they may still be held liable for the sin of Adam.

Third, is the story of David's son in 2 Sam. 12:15-23 (esp. v. 23). The first-born child of David and Bathsheba was struck by the Lord and died. In the seven days before his death, David fasted and prayed, hoping that "the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live" (v. 22). Following his death, David washed himself, ate food, and worshipped (v. 20). When asked why he responded in this way, he said that the child "has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (v. 23). What does it mean when David says "I shall go to him?" If this is merely a reference to the grave or death, in the sense that David, too, shall one day die and be buried, one wonders why he would say something so patently obvious! Also, it appears that David draws some measure of comfort from knowing that he will "go to him." It is the reason why David resumes the normal routine of life. It appears to be the reason David ceases from the outward display of grief. It appears to be a truth from which David derives comfort and encouragement. How could any of this be true if David will simply die like his son. It would, therefore, appear that David believed he would be reunited with his deceased infant. Does this imply that at least this one particular infant was saved? Perhaps. But if so, are we justified in constructing a doctrine in which we affirm the salvation of all who die in infancy?

Fourth, there is consistent testimony of Scripture that people are judged on the basis of sins voluntary and consciously committed in the body. See 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Rev. 20:11-12. In other words, eternal judgment is always based on conscious rejection of divine revelation (whether in creation, conscience, or Christ) and willful disobedience. Are infants capable of either? There is no explicit account in Scripture of any other judgment based on any other grounds. Thus, those dying in infancy are saved because they do not (cannot) satisfy the conditions for divine judgment.

Fifth, and related to the above point, is what R. A. Webb states. If a deceased infant

"were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment, but the child's mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell its neighbor - it could not tell itself - why it was so awfully smitten; and consequently the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed of its vindication. Such an infant could feel that it was in hell, but it could not explain, to its own conscience, why it was there" (The Theology of Infant Salvation [Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1981], 288-89).

Sixth, we have what would appear to be clear biblical evidence that at least some infants are regenerate in the womb, such that if they had died in their infancy they would be saved. This at least provides a theoretical basis for considering whether the same may be true of all who die in infancy. That is to say, "if this sort of thing happens even once, it can certainly happen in other cases" (Ronald Nash, When a Baby Dies [Zondervan, 1999], 65). These texts include Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15.

Seventh, some have appealed to Matthew 19:13-15 (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17) where Jesus declares, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' Is Jesus simply saying that if one wishes to be saved he/she must be as trusting as children, i.e., devoid of skepticism and arrogance? In other words, is Jesus merely describing the kind of people who enter the kingdom? Or is he saying that these very children were recipients of saving grace? But if the latter were true, it would seem to imply that Jesus knew that the children whom he was then receiving would all die in their infancy. Is that credible?

Eighth, Millard Erickson argues for the salvation of deceased infants in an unusual way. He argues that notwithstanding Adam's sin, there must be a conscious and voluntary decision on our part to embrace or ratify it. Until such is the case, the imputation of Adam's sin to his physical posterity, as is also true of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his spiritual posterity, is conditional. Thus, prior to reaching the "age of accountability" all infants are innocent. When and in what way does this ratification of Adam's sin come about? Erickson explains:

"We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time. We would in that case repent of it and might even, if there is an awareness of the gospel, ask God for forgiveness and cleansing. . . . But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own" (Christian Theology, 2:639).

But there are at least two problems with this. First, if we are born with a corrupt and sinful nature, as Erickson concedes we are, our willing ratification of Adam's transgression and the guilt and corruption of nature which are its effects is itself an inevitable effect of the corrupt nature to which we are now ostensibly giving our approval. In other words, how else could a person who is born corrupt and wicked respond but in a corrupt and wicked way, namely, by ratifying Adam's sin? If Erickson should suggest that such a response is not inevitable, one can only wonder why it is that every single human being who ever lived (except Jesus) ratifies and embraces the sin of Adam and its resultant corruption of nature. Surely someone, somewhere would have said No. Erickson would have to argue that at the point when each soul becomes morally accountable it enters a state of complete moral and spiritual equilibrium, in no way biased by the corruption of nature and wicked disposition with which it was born. But that leads to the second problem, for it would mean that each of us experiences our own Garden of Eden, as it were. Each human soul stands its own probation at the moment the age of moral accountability is reached. But if that is so, what is the point of trying to retain any connection at all between what Adam did and who/what we are? If ultimately I become corrupt by my own first choice, what need is there of Adam? And if I am corrupt antecedent to that first choice, we are back to square one: my guilt and corruption inherited from Adam, the penal consequence of his choice as the head and representative of the race.

Ninth, an argument that is entirely subjective in nature (and therefore of questionable evidential value) may be noted. We must ask the question: Given our understanding of the character of God as presented in Scripture, does He appear as the kind of God who would eternally condemn infants on no other ground than that of Adam's transgression? Admittedly, this is a subjective (and perhaps sentimental) question. But it deserves an answer, nonetheless.

Personally speaking, I find the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth points convincing. Therefore, I do believe in the salvation of those dying in infancy. I affirm their salvation, however, neither because they are innocent nor because they have merited God's forgiveness but solely because God has sovereignly chosen them for eternal life, regenerated their souls, and applied the saving benefits of the blood of Christ to them apart from conscious faith.



God Bless,

willie

texas mom kills baby son

IT Always brings tears when a baby is killed by their birth parents a ultimate betrayal and i can empathize with the victim since my mother was mentally ill and could not keep me. all i can say as i read the article and look at the picture is commend that baby to God 's awesome arms where there is infinite love,mercy,grace,justice,wisdom etc The fountaian all that is good and holy.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_baby_decapitated

racism ruins children fun at swimming pool

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/10/philly.pool.response/index.html

cat in oven

Teen Cheyenne Cherry taunts animal activists after guilty plea for killing kitten in oven
BY Dorian Block
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Updated Thursday, July 16th 2009, 9:08 AM


Lombard for News

Animal lovers gathered across the street of the Bronx Supreme Court.


Cheyenne Cherry

Young Tiger Lily
Take our PollPet Justice
Kitten killer Cheyenne Cherry can't own a pet for three years. Is that long enough?



No, she should be banned from ever owning a pet, period.



Yes, by then perhaps she'll learn to have compassion for animals.

.Related News
Articles
Teen who burned cat in oven busted in '08 in armed dog-napping: cops
Here's evil teen who tossed cat in the oven
Wave of cat mutilations grips South Florida
A heartless kitty killer hissed angrily at animal rights activists Wednesday, grinning widely as she took credit for stuffing the helpless pet into a 500-degree oven.

"It's dead, *****!" snapped an unrepentant Cheyenne Cherry, sticking her tongue out after a plea bargain that will put her behind bars for a year in the May 6 killing of tiny Tiger Lily.

Cherry, 17, was confronted after her guilty plea in Bronx Supreme Court to charges of animal cruelty and attempted burglary in the May 6 killing at her former roommate's apartment.

Tiger Lily was left to die inside the blistering oven after Cherry and a 14-year-old friend trashed the apartment of Valerie Hernandez, destroying furniture before stealing DVDs and food.

After her arrest, Cherry told police the cat killing was "just a joke."

In court Wednesday, Cherry admitted to Judge Margaret Clancy that the younger girl put the cat in the oven - and "I didn't let the cat out."

The pair fled the apartment because they didn't want to hear the dying cat's cries or desperate scratching at the oven door, authorities said.

The second girl is facing trial in Family Court because of her age. Prosecutor Jennifer Troiano said Cherry was granted a plea deal because her cohort was "more culpable" for the crimes.

Under the agreement, Cherry pleaded guilty to two charges in a six-count indictment. She waived her right to appeal and agreed not to keep a pet for the next three years. Cherry, jailed on a probation violation, faces formal sentencing July 31.

As she exited the courtroom, she passed a row of animal rights activists outraged by her crime.

"Justice for Tiger Lily," read one sign held by the demonstrators.

Sharon Tuerlings, 43, of Levittown, L.I., extended both her middle fingers and kissed them. Cherry grinned widely, stuck out her tongue and responded with her profane retort.

Cherry is not new to animal crimes.

She was busted last year for using a BB gun to dog-nap a teacup Yorkie with her boyfriend. She was also arrested for robbing a man of his iPod at gunpoint.

The dozen animal lovers who attended the hearing said they represented more than 20,000 people who signed an online petition supporting harsh punishment for Cherry.

They were thrilled by the deal that guaranteed Cherry would do time for the cruel killing. "She is dangerous," said Brooklyn cat owner Josie Marrero. "A very dangerous young lady."

Tuerlings said she wanted to get a glimpse of the monster behind the cat execution. "It felt so good to look at her ugly face," she said. "Those evil eyes that she has."

**********************************************************************************
This is what happens in a society where life becomes cheaper each passing day--when leave children without a firm moral framework to fall on and build upon.

The christain reformed church

These editorals from the past two months caught my eye. reflections will follow next post.

What's to Discuss?
by Rev. Bob De Moor


The ethical position of the Christian Reformed Church on homosexuality was reaffirmed by the denomination's synod (annual leadership meeting) in 2002-2003:

homosexual orientation is a result of humanity's fallen condition and not the result of sinful choice(s) made by those who have this orientation;
homosexual actions are sinful, and a person who persists in them is subject to church discipline;
CRC members who have a homosexual orientation but do not engage in homosexual practices are eligible for church office, but those who engage in homosexual practices are not;
our congregations must show full acceptance to all our brothers and sisters who have a homosexual orientation, lovingly enfold them in the fellowship of believers, and support them with pastoral care in living out God’s will for their lives.
On that last point, synod admitted that our congregations have failed miserably in fulfilling our responsibility to those among us who are homosexual. I've asked around. We've made precious little progress on that since Synod 2003 made that admission. Congregations, de facto, use a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that continues to marginalize those who are homosexual and makes them feel anything but welcome in our midst.

This "ostrich in the sand" approach isn't serving any of us well. I know of a number of congregations who have members living in committed homosexual relationships and in which church leaders are not actively applying church discipline. Why not? It's not because those leaders are lazy or uncaring but because present CRC policy doesn't help them deal pastorally with same-sex couples who live in a committed relationship and who show strong faith, Christian maturity, and a sincere desire to continue within the fellowship of believers.

Perhaps more common is the ongoing exodus of those who must choose between a lifelong same-sex partnership and membership in the CRC. They quietly leave our congregations to worship elsewhere.

Rev. Mike Veenema's IMHO on page 8 reveals the deep personal pain that people suffer because of this present reality in the CRC. Perhaps we need to maintain our official position with respect to homosexual practice but build on it and train local church councils how to implement it properly. Perhaps we need to modify it in some way to address differently those who are in committed same-sex relationships. In either case, we need to converse and deal openly with each other in seeking God’s will and God's way in this very significant pastoral matter—without the chilling effect of ecclesiastical censure.

It's time to take another look at the best way for us to proceed together in faith, love, and unity.

Why risk discussing this again, seeing the pain it has brought in other denominations? Because, as Pastor Mike's IMHO shows, the pain is already here. It's quietly borne by those who are silenced and excluded and by their loved ones. For their sake and all of ours, let's heed Paul's urging to "speak the truth in love" so that we will "grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:15, NRSV).

Let's talk.


We Can Be Sure and Wrong, Right?
by Rev. Bob De Moor


With great interest I’ve followed our discussions on homosexuality in The Banner, on the Banner website, and on “Bob’s Blog,” also on the Banner website (www.thebanner.org).

Two things strike me. The first is that these conversations are open, respectful, and keenly concerned about being true to Scripture. That’s hopeful. The second is that so many of us are so sure about stuff—even though what we’re sure of stands diametrically opposed to what others are sure of.

This is what many respondents are sure of:

• The Bible clearly forbids all homosexual practices.

• The Bible does not forbid all homosexual practices.

• The church must discipline those who are in same-sex relationships.

• The church must not discipline those who are in same-sex relationships.

• If parents love their homosexual children, they will support them if they choose a same-sex partner.

• If parents love their homosexual children, they will warn their children away from same-sex relationships.

Interestingly, respondents on both sides of the debate agree that they’re sure the Banner editor raised this issue because he’s secretly hoping that the present church policy will be liberalized. But the one side is sure that’s a good thing, the other that it’s a bad thing.

(For the record, if you refer back to the March issue of The Banner you’ll see that the editor is not at all sure of what’s needed, just that there are a lot of people hurting out there and that we either need to help our churches better implement the policy we have, or we need to adjust it in some way to meet the challenge placed before us by Synods 2002 and 2003 to provide better pastoral care.)

So what might get our conversation unstuck? What might get us beyond our conundrum?

I see hope in the fact that we’re all sure we must do what Scripture would have us do—both in terms of the policy we adopt and how we implement that policy in extending loving acceptance and pastoral care to all our members. Might it help our conversation forward if we parked our certainties at the door and humbly asked our best minds to do some fresh, serious Bible study that is also informed by the latest scientific research on the subject (since Reformed folks do need to consult creation revelation as well)? A new synodical study committee might help us to do that, and, further, to advise our churches on how we are to implement CRC policy (changed or unchanged) in an appropriate manner.

Sometimes the more we study, the less we know we really know. That’s not a bad thing because it opens us up to the Holy Spirit’s leading as we pray, learn, dialogue, and continue to live together in love.

I’m sure that the same applies to the issue at hand. And, yeah, I could be wrong

Swine flu epedimic??? english/spanish

i encourage anyone visiting my site concerning swine flu to visit the cdc to get accurate and credible info as well as up to date:

current info; http://www.cdc.gov/

english: http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/swineflu_you.htm

spanish: http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/espanol/swine_espanol.htm

bank of america as the unmerciful servant

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-republic-windows-doors-dec03,0,2737966.story

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Republic.Doors.and.2.881630.html

After congress bails out bank of america-bank of america in turn refuses to bail out one of its customers-this reminds me of the parable of the unmerciful servant;

Mateo 18:23-35 \ Matthew 18:23-35
La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Listen to this passage
Parábola de los dos deudores 23Por eso, el reino de los cielos puede compararse a cierto rey que quiso ajustar cuentas con sus siervos.
24Y al comenzar a ajustarlas, le fue presentado uno que le debía diez mil talentos.
25Pero no teniendo él con qué pagar, su señor ordenó que lo vendieran, junto con su mujer e hijos y todo cuanto poseía, y que se le pagara la deuda.
26Entonces el siervo cayó postrado ante él, diciendo: "Ten paciencia conmigo y todo te lo pagaré."
27Y el señor de aquel siervo tuvo compasión, y lo soltó y le perdonó la deuda.
28Pero al salir aquel siervo, encontró a uno de sus consiervos que le debía cien denarios, y echándole mano, lo ahogaba, diciendo: "Paga lo que debes."
29Entonces su consiervo, cayendo a sus pies, le suplicaba, diciendo: "Ten paciencia conmigo y te pagaré."
30Sin embargo, él no quiso, sino que fue y lo echó en la cárcel hasta que pagara lo que debía.
31Así que cuando vieron sus consiervos lo que había pasado, se entristecieron mucho, y fueron y contaron a su señor todo lo que había sucedido.
32Entonces, llamándolo su señor, le dijo*: "Siervo malvado, te perdoné toda aquella deuda porque me suplicaste.
33"¿No deberías tú también haberte compadecido de tu consiervo, así como yo me compadecí de ti?"
34Y enfurecido su señor, lo entregó a los verdugos hasta que pagara todo lo que le debía.
35Así también mi Padre celestial hará con vosotros, si no perdonáis de corazón cada uno a su hermano.

La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997 by The Lockman Foundation
English Standard Version (ESV)
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
23"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished(A) to settle accounts with his servants.[a] 24When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him(B) ten thousand(C) talents.[b] 25(D) And since he could not pay, his master ordered him(E) to be sold, with his wife and(F) children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26So the servant[c](G) fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and(H) forgave him the debt. 28But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred(I) denarii,[d] and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' 29So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33(J) And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' 34(K) And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,[e](L) until he should pay all his debt. 35(M) So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother(N) from your heart."
Footnotes:
Matthew 18:23 Greek bondservants; also verses 28, 31
Matthew 18:24 A talent was a monetary unit worth about twenty years’ wages for a laborer
Matthew 18:26 Greek bondservant; also verses 27, 28, 29, 32, 33
Matthew 18:28 A denarius was a day’s wage for a laborer
Matthew 18:34 Greek torturers

salvation army and the pharisical thing

This me that this stipulation reminds me Of A Roman Catholic church ban on clergy/nuns marrying-it is part of this "family" as a distant adopted step child....





However, at present, Salvation Army officers have to marry other officers if they wish to remain in the ministry*. Salvation Army officer-marriages are a partnership, and in local centres in particular this joint ministry can make the work more effective.

Éste yo que esta estipulación me recuerda una interdicción de la iglesia católica romana en el clero/las monjas casar-él es parte de este " family" como un niño adoptado distante del paso…. Sin embargo, actualmente, los oficiales del Ejército de Salvamento tienen que casar a otros oficiales si desean permanecer en el ministry*. Las oficial-uniones del Ejército de Salvamento son una sociedad, y en centros locales particularmente el este ministerio común puede hacer el trabajo más eficaz.

link to:

http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/36c107e27b0ba7a98025692e0032abaa/d4fc7f998548399180256b5e0035e270!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1.2,1.1



story :http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462684,00.html



the only stipulation Christ the Lord,Savior and Teacher of his Church put upon us is this:

la única estipulación Cristo el señor, el salvador y el profesor de su iglesia puesta sobre nosotros es ésta:

1 Corinthians 7:39 (21st Century King James Version)
39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. But if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, but only in the Lord.


1 Corintios 7:39 \ 1 Corinthians 7:39
La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Listen to this passage
39La mujer está ligada mientras el marido vive; pero si el marido muere, está en libertad de casarse con quien desee, sólo que en el Señor.


2 Corintios 6:15 \ 2 Corinthians 6:15
La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Listen to this passage
15¿O qué armonía tiene Cristo con Belial? ¿O qué tiene en común un creyente con un incrédulo?
English Standard Version (ESV)
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
15(A) What accord has Christ with Belial?[a] Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?



This Salvation army stipulation is similar to Christ's teaching to the church:

esta estipulación si del Ejército de Salvamento rozada en Christ' s que enseña a la iglesia:

Marcos 7:9-13 \ Mark 7:9-13
La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Listen to this passage
9También les decía: Astutamente violáis el mandamiento de Dios para guardar vuestra tradición.
10Porque Moisés dijo: "HONRA A TU PADRE Y A TU MADRE"; y: "EL QUE HABLE MAL DE su PADRE O DE su MADRE, QUE MUERA;"
11pero vosotros decís: "Si un hombre dice al padre o a la madre: 'Cualquier cosa mía con que pudieras beneficiarte es corbán (es decir, ofrenda a Dios)'";
12ya no le dejáis hacer nada en favor de su padre o de su madre;
13invalidando así la palabra de Dios por vuestra tradición, la cual habéis transmitido, y hacéis muchas cosas semejantes a éstas.

La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997 by The Lockman Foundation
English Standard Version (ESV)
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
9And he said to them, "You have a fine way of(A) rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said,(B) 'Honor your father and your mother'; and,(C) 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)[a]— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus(D) making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."



Colossians 2:21-25 (English Standard Version)
21(A) "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22((B) referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to(C) human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in(D) promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are(E) of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.



Isaiah 29:13
Listen to this passage
13And the Lord said:"Because(A) this people(B) draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me,and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,



Matthew 15:9
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
9in vain do they worship me, teaching as(A) doctrines the commandments of men.'"



Titus 1:12-15
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
12(A) One of the Cretans,[a] a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."[b] 13This testimony is true. Therefore(B) rebuke them(C) sharply, that they(D) may be sound in the faith, 14(E) not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and(F) the commands of people(G) who turn away from the truth. 15(H) To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and(I) unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both(J) their minds and their consciences are defiled.


La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Isaías 29:13
Listen to this passage
Hipocresía de Israel 13Dijo entonces el Señor: Por cuanto este pueblo se me acerca con sus palabras y me honra con sus labios, pero aleja de mí su corazón, y su veneración hacia mí es sólo una tradición aprendida de memoria ,

La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997 by The Lockman Foundation
Mateo 15:9
Listen to this passage
9"MAS EN VANO ME RINDEN CULTO, ENSEÑANDO COMO DOCTRINAS PRECEPTOS DE HOMBRES."

La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997 by The Lockman Foundation
Tito 1:12-15
Listen to this passage
12Uno de ellos, su propio profeta, dijo: Los cretenses son siempre mentirosos, malas bestias, glotones ociosos.
13Este testimonio es verdadero. Por eso, repréndelos severamente para que sean sanos en la fe,
14no prestando atención a mitos judaicos y a mandamientos de hombres que se apartan de la verdad.
15Todas las cosas son puras para los puros, mas para los corrompidos e incrédulos nada es puro, sino que tanto su mente como su conciencia están corrompidas.





Colosenses 2:15-17 \ Colossians 2:15-17
La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Listen to this passage
15Y habiendo despojado a los poderes y autoridades, hizo de ellos un espectáculo público, triunfando sobre ellos por medio de El.

Advertencias contra mandamientos de hombres 16Por tanto, que nadie se constituya en vuestro juez con respecto a comida o bebida, o en cuanto a día de fiesta, o luna nueva, o día de reposo;
17cosas que sólo son sombra de lo que ha de venir, pero el cuerpo pertenece a Cristo.

La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)
Copyright © 1986, 1995, 1997 by The Lockman Foundation
English Standard Version (ESV)
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
15(A) He disarmed the rulers and authorities[a] and(B) put them to open shame, by(C) triumphing over them in him.[b]
Let No One Disqualify You 16Therefore let no one(D) pass judgment on you(E) in questions of food and drink, or with regard to(F) a festival or(G) a new moon or a Sabbath. 17(H) These are a shadow of the things to come, but(I) the substance belongs to Christ.

What is wrong with walmart?SHame on YOU!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death;_ylt=AnwFM8vQmqyDRC9wn7hK6UCs0NUE

http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1759915

on the scene momments after it happend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3wuAkNsd0&feature=related

We have all heard now of the tragic death of a walmart employee when he was stampeded by hundreds of people who acted like animals over cheap material things that break,fade or get lost over time...And walmart has the audacity to reopen that same store a couple hours later as if it was buisness as usual...

Todos ahora hemos oído de la muerte trágica de un empleado de walmart cuando a centenares de gente lo precipitó que actuaba como animales sobre las cosas materiales baratas que se rompen, se descoloran o consigue perdida en un cierto plazo… y walmart tiene la audacia a abrir de nuevo que igual almacena horas de un par más adelante como si fuera negocio como de costumbre…


2 Timothy 3:1-5 (English Standard Version)
2 Timothy 3
Godlessness in the Last Days 1But understand this, that(A) in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2For people will be(B) lovers of self,(C) lovers of money,(D) proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3(E) heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal,(F) not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless,(G) swollen with conceit,(H) lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but(I) denying its power.(J) Avoid such people.



Judges 21:25 (English Standard Version)
25(A) In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.



2 Timoteo 3
Carácter y conducta de los hombres en los últimos días 1Pero debes saber esto: que en los últimos días vendrán tiempos difíciles.
2Porque los hombres serán amadores de sí mismos, avaros, jactanciosos, soberbios, blasfemos, desobedientes a los padres, ingratos, irreverentes,
3sin amor, implacables, calumniadores, desenfrenados, salvajes, aborrecedores de lo bueno,
4traidores, impetuosos, envanecidos, amadores de los placeres en vez de amadores de Dios;
5teniendo apariencia de piedad, pero habiendo negado su poder; a los tales evita.



Jueces 21:25
Listen to this passage
25En esos días no había rey en Israel; cada uno hacía lo que le parecía bien ante sus ojos.

a just stand for life

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64876

I came across this recent news item and felt i should pass it along to you all...me and my wife faced the same situation somewhat she took the test for down syndrome etc for expectant mothers-we both agreed if the results came back negative that we would take the stand like this brave lady did-to keep her down syndrome baby whose life is a blessing of God and because of this all life is sacred,has meaning and purpose... here is a quote from the article that caught my eye:

"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place"

In Memory of maria

My heart goes out to steve camp and his family-after they lost their daughter maria in a tragic accident-i have lost two babies to the Lord last year and this year came close this past monday to lose the little 12 week old in my wife's womb-all i can add ia to pray for them that God will provide the grace they all need to sail through thsi storm of grief and perhaps doubt.....

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/

http://chapmanchannel.typepad.com/inmemoryofmaria/

baby picture

Please pray for our little one who is in this picture 11 weeks old....

THANK YOU

34
84
408
10,040

To my suprise today I passed the 10,000 visitor mark!!!

I thank God

I thank God because it looked like a third baby was going home to Him-and i am glad to say My wife did not miscarry God was/is with us in the hospital and every area of our life...that God still wants us to enjoy that little blessing here on earth...

just keep her and the little baby in her womb in your prayers-along with me and my son...

thank you for visiting my blog

willie

sorry about this week

i am sorry i have not responded nor posted this week-i just needed some time off. Life lately has been a rollercoaster ride the high of being a new father by this thanksgiving-and the low of going to and searching for jobs-thinking you got the job and left just hearing the silence of crickets-and wondering even in declaring no discrimination base on age,race,disability etc is it all just lip service??? and do they all see in me is my limp??? well anyway i am taking the rest of this week off and hopefully i will post next week...pray for me as i contuine the elusive search for employment and thus fullfilling God's call for husbands to provide for their families....

Baby on the way

Please pray for my wife and the baby that is on the way...The last year was a bitter sad time for us-especially my wife as we lossed two babies back to back-early on in the conception in a 7 month span..My desire is that one day GOd will reunite us with those babies He graciously and sovereignly callled to Him...

Baby bottle danger!!!

We try to be good parents but when corperations we trust sell dangerous products to our children for profit-in light that they know what they are selling are dangerous and keeping that info to themselves-it is another burden we parents must bear and be aware of.....

helpful sites:

http://zrecs.blogspot.com/2007/07/z-report-bisphenol-in-polycarbonate.html

http://www.windsorpeak.com/babybargains/BPAFREEbottles.html

Main article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202008/news/nationalnews/bottle_babies_in_plastic_peril_107239.htm

Please pray for my son

Dear readers my friends in Christ;

please pray for my son who has a throat infection and fever that he will get better soon...

thank you and God bless,

willie

Dr Seuss Day

Here are some pictures of Dr Seuss day at my son's school. The bible passage that comes to mind is:

Psalm 127:3
Listen to this passage
3Behold,(A) children are a heritage from the LORD, (B) the fruit of the womb a reward.

Proverbs 22:6
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
6(A) Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Cross references:
Proverbs 22:6 : Eph 6:4; 2 Tim 3:15

Ephesians 6:4
Listen to this passageView commentary related to this passage
4Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger,(A) but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Cross references:
Ephesians 6:4 : Gen 18:19; Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; Psalm 78:4; Prov 19:18; 22:6; 29:17; 2 Tim 3:15