web

d electronically, but also it is a place for your readers to get to know you. It can be an outlet for other writing in the form of blog posts to help readers get a feel for your writing. It can also be a place to show your availability for doing book signings or your willingness to speak at events. It is a place that you can leave evergreen content which doesn't need constantly updating as a blog in itself does. For sales purposes it is a way of building an email list which is an important way of building a list of followers that you own and manage. I say this as a writer, a business owner and a web designer. It's like your own personal shop and brand that you can send people to :) Like · Reply · 1 hr Sophie Neville Sophie Neville For better or for worse, I've sent more than 7,000 to Amazon online sites with one of websites and quite a few to other on-line stockisits and bookshops. I keep 7 other blogs to advertise my books. It's taken time to establish but the blog for my Christian book is getting nearly 4,800 hits a month: http://funnily-enough.blogspot.co.uk/ Funnily Enough funnily-enough.blogspot.com

ending well

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted . . . a time to seek, and a time to lose. (Ecclesiastes 3:1–2, 6) When a new child is born, a new crop is planted, a new project, phase, degree, career, friendship, resolve, marriage, house is pursued, we feel fresh excitement and anticipation. We enter a new season feeling hope about the future. We invest a lot of dreaming, planning, energy, and often money in our beginnings, which explains all the books and videos and coaches offering to help us begin well. But there is not nearly as much help available teaching us how to end well. Probably because the demand is much lower. We typically don’t relish thinking about or planning for endings, because endings are goodbyes. They are chapter closings that often leave us feeling regret, grief, or confusion over who we are and what our purpose is going forward — or some ambivalent mixture of the above. Are Beginnings Better? But the end of a season is often more important than its beginning. When a person dies, we can see much more clearly who they really turned out to be, which is eternally significant. When a crop is harvested, we know what the season and farming diligence actually produced. When a season of life ends, we see, at least to some degree, the true fruit of all our dreaming, planning, labor, and investment. This is why the Bible says, “Better is the end of a thing than its beginning” (Ecclesiastes 7:8). At a beginning, when we’re looking ahead, we envision a possible future, not a real one. And our vision is always some mixed bag of good and bad motives, love and selfish ambition, serving Jesus and serving ourselves. But looking back, we see reality with greater clarity how various factors — our indwelling sin and Spirit-filled goodness, our strengths and weaknesses, the futility woven into this created age (Romans 8:20–21), and others — affected what we began. In other words, endings are usually more truthful than beginnings. A review of the day in the evening is more truthful than the caffeinated optimism of the morning’s good intentions. So, why is a sobering dose of realistic retrospect better than a hopeful high of optimistic prospect? Because wisdom does not want to build its house on the sand of fantasy. It wants to builds on the solid rock of truth. Because at the end of a thing, more than at its beginning, we see our need for a better, more lasting hope than anything we could possibly build here (Hebrews 13:14). And because often an ending, more than a beginning, exposes our idols — things or people in which we have placed false hope and from whom we have drawn a misplaced sense of identity. Endings are often better than beginnings because they more powerfully point us to God as our only hope. Mentor for ‘A Time to Lose’ For every “time to seek,” there is “a time to lose” (Ecclesiastes 3:6). Learning to end well, to let go well, is one of the most neglected subjects in Western Christian discipleship. There’s little teaching and guidance for navigating these tricky waters. Perhaps it’s no surprise that Christian leaders frequently struggle to step out of leadership, and churches struggle with leadership transitions, and Christians, in general, frequently experience confusion and disorientation at the end of various seasons of life and ministry. But God will help us. One way to prepare for our “time to lose,” and help others do the same, is to intentionally pray about it. God can make our transition out of a season uniquely powerful in glorifying Jesus. My favorite model and “time to lose” mentor is John the Baptist. At the end of his season of call, this voice in the wilderness (John 1:23), this second Elijah (Matthew 11:13–14), this greatest man born of women (Matthew 11:11), who blazed across Israel like a prophetic comet, said as he watched his great ministry eclipsed by the bright morning star (Revelation 22:16), “Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:29–30) Those words, as much as anything John ever said, revealed the heart that made him so great. He understood what his life was about: Jesus! The beginning of his ministry was about Jesus and, even more so, its end. And that is what every end of every season of our lives is all about: the increase of Jesus in our decrease. Whatever It Takes, Lord There will be a God-given time to exit every role we enter. Some endings will feel sweet and clear; some will feel bitter and confusing. Therefore, it requires a different kind of wisdom to end well than to begin well. It demands Spirit-wrought humility and Spirit-empowered faith to trust God’s sovereignty, wisdom, and goodness in those transitions. We must prepare for these moments or, better, we must ask God to prepare us, so that as each moment ends, we will say with John the Baptist, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Whatever it takes, Lord, increase my love for your supremacy and my trust in your wise purposes so that, when it’s time for me to step out of something to which you had appointed me for a season, I will receive the decrease in personal influence with joyful faith. Your Greatest Weapon Against Temptation (Sermon Clip on the Power of the Holy Spirit) John Piper / February 27, 2017 Once you come to realize the gravity of the fact that the Holy Spirit of God lives in you, it will change everything in your life. Read Now Desiring God 2112 Broadway Street NE, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55413 update preferences | unsubscribe Copyright © 2017 Desiring God, all rights reserved

kirk cameron

Kirk Cameron Kirk Cameron is a television and film actor and producer, noted recently for his work in the family films SAVING CHRISTMAS and MERCY RULE, the documentaries UNSTOPPABLE and Monumental, and the inspirational film Fireproof. He is also known for his memorable roles on ABC’s Growing Pains, the Left Behind movies, and co-host of The Way of the Master television series. Kirk spends much of his time producing new television and film projects and speaking to people around the country, teaching them how to share their faith and live out a gospel centered marriage and family. Kirk and his wife Chelsea are the founders of Camp Firefly, a camp for seriously ill children and their families. Together, they live in California with their six children. Kirk’s Faith Story Kirk was not raised in a church-going home and describes himself as an atheist from a very young age. By the age of 14 he was so convinced there was no God that he laughed at those who said there was. But that all changed one afternoon as he sat in his sports car pondering the first Gospel message he had ever heard.

not about fame

I found this devotional in my email today and I whole heartedly endorse it. Not About Fame Feb 23, 2017 READ: 2 Corinthians 5:12-21 We are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” (2 Corinthians 5:20). I spent much of my post-college career as a sports journalist—regularly talking with Olympic and professional athletes who professed and modeled a life devoted to Jesus. It wasn’t until I had interviewed well over one hundred athletes that I realized I was more apt to share their testimonies with others than I was to share my own. I believed friends and acquaintances would rather hear about the athletes’ journeys than hear about mine. Scripture, however, doesn’t say, “Celebrities who are in Christ are new persons.” It doesn’t say, “Famous athletes who are in Christ are new persons.” It doesn’t say, “The rich, the famous, the successful who are in Christ are new persons.” The Bible says, “Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). While this passage certainly includes the rich, the famous, and the successful who are in Christ, it doesn’t exclude those who lack notoriety or popularity based on the world’s standards. Respectively, it’s the transformation, the redemption, the salvation through Jesus alone that makes each and every believer’s testimony worth sharing. Our salvation is “not a reward for the good things we have done” (Ephesians 2:9). God reconciles us to Himself through Jesus, and not through our social status or our accomplishments (2 Corinthians 5:18). This means that my faith story is as meaningful and remarkable as the most famous person I’ve interviewed. As is yours. For we are all saved by grace and “are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, ‘Come back to God!’ ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Each salvation story is all about Him. —Roxanne Robbins NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Deuteronomy 29:1-29 MORE: Read 1 Peter 3:15 and consider what it says about being ready to share your story. NEXT: What’s a basic outline of your salvation story—something you can readily share with others? How has Jesus changed your life? Who will you share this with today?

more advice

would use hash tags in Twitter and maybe try Google? Another possible approach would be to look up books on Amazon in the same genre as yours and see who has reviewed them and perhaps try and contact potential bloggers that way. Like · Reply · 25 mins

from the writer Mandy jonston

Hi George, I've sometimes taken part in blog tours organised by Tyndale House or Cross Focused Publications. They work by the publisher advertising the book for the tour and bloggers sign up online. The bloggers received a free copy of the book (either ebook or by post). Over the course of a week (publisher decides the date), bloggers upload their reviews to their own blogs and promote on Amazon, Goodreads and social media. They prove they've done this by emailing the links to the publisher, who also promotes across social media. Hope that helps. I guess if you haven't got a publisher, a good way of attracting book reviewing bloggers is to blitz Twitter and Facebook about your book and get them to sign up. Otherwise, you could always approach bloggers direct and invite them to take part. Hope all of that helps. Like · Reply · 42 mins

JM again

Sign UpLog in Rachel Stevenson R Rachel Stevenson Credit: Jory Micah / Twitter An Open Letter To Jory Micah At Geneva College An Open Letter To Jory Micah Pin It 824 shares Sep 19, 2016 I do not intend this letter to be anything other than food for thought written out of sisterly love and concern. Dear Jory Micah, I want to start this letter by expressing my gratitude for your fiery determination to make this world a better place. Your work as an advocate against sex trafficking and abuse is to be lauded. We need more people in the church standing up against such terrible results of sin in this fallen world. But I also am very concerned about your work in the church and in breaking the so-called glass steeple. This letter is written out of love and concern from a fellow sister-in-Christ, who loves theology and church history (and would like to get advanced degrees in these fields if God wills it and opens doors). I also live in the Pittsburgh area! If you'd like to meet up, I'd be happy to do so! I read through several months worth of your Facebook page, some of your blog, watched a few of your videos (specifically your most recent video concerning the loss of your job) and read your master's thesis. I'm very sorry that you lost your job as an adjunct professor. My dream is to teach and I couldn't imagine losing my dream job. However, I'd like to share some thoughts with you, honest thoughts. You talk a lot about "breaking the glass steeple." This very concept is what your master's thesis is based on: the idea that complementarianism is anti-biblical, suppressive, and even abusive. This is not necessarily what I have concerns about, though I do not agree with your general position. Let me start off that the concepts of complementarianism and patriarchy, to use the terminology that I read in your work, are much broader than what they appear. Patriarchal structure in the family has thousands of variations in the world and just as many in the church universal and historical. It may be wise to specify what type of complementarianism and patriarchy you are addressing as opposed to painting wide brushstrokes. Additionally, the egalitarianism that you support is a very new phenomena. I'm by no means a professional historian, I'll admit, but from what I can tell, the family and gender structure in the history of not just the church but also the world has almost always been (with exceptions) in such a way where men hold the highest leadership and the highest authority. This is not to say women do not lead and do not hold authority, but historically, biologically and scripturally, it is acknowledged that they are weaker (not weak, but weaker), and that men are to hold the highest authoritative positions. This is not simply the so-called "cultural backdrop" of the Bible and of church history, but the case from the Fall, where God tells Eve that her desire shall be for her husband, and he will rule over her. The basics of historical study demand that we historians study the past through the perspectives of those who lived it. And scripture demands that we study it for what it says as opposed to playing the "you're putting it out of context" card when someone disagrees with us or looking for proof where there is none. I am afraid, Ms. Micah, that I see more forcing your own 21st century white American perspective on the Bible. I do not deny that there were church mothers and that their work has been severely unacknowledged in the days between then and now. But I cannot agree that the women in the early church had an egalitarian role such as you suggest in your thesis. The early church structure drew a lot of its makeup from the synagogues and from the Old Testament, and also from the teachings of the Apostles (which, in addition, included only men ordained for the position by Jesus directly, as in the Twelve and Paul [one of the qualifications for the selection of Matthias was that he had followed Jesus during our Lord's tenure here on earth]). In the structure of the synagogues and in the Old Testament, women held many positions (look at Miriam or Anna or Deborah, for example), but they did not occupy the position of priest, rabbi, or such equivalents. The Apostles teach that men are to lead alone as ordained officers in the church. The qualifications for ordination as laid out in Titus 1 are all in the masculine. An elder is to be the husband of one wife, a man above reproach. In 1 Timothy 2, contrary to what your thesis states, Paul is giving instructions on the pattern and structure of worship in the church. He asks women to dress modestly (modestly does not mean dowdily, but modesty is, contrary to some of your previous statements, a repeated and gentle command for women throughout the New testament) and to submit, and not to assume authority over a man. You also suggest that Christ has no gender when returning to heaven. After going through various classes this past week addressing ancient Trinitarian heresies, I'm afraid I had to slide this conviction into the same category as said heresies. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man (emphasis on man). If He still has the scars in His hands and side in heaven, how would he no longer possess his masculinity? How come, then, that John saw Him glorified in the form of a Son of Man? To suggest this has two conclusions: one, you either believe that humans can have no gender, or two, you believe that Christ lost elements of His humanity upon His ascension. I'd love to know if it is either or something else, because I am still failing to grasp this statement that Christ has no gender while sitting at the right hand of God, interceding for us as our elder brother, our great high priest, and our king (all clearly male titles), fully God and fully man. I write all this not necessarily with the intention of changing your mind, but rather to clarify some things that I find in your teaching to be inconsistent with plain and simple doctrine laid out in Scripture. Some of your teaching I would agree with if I found it more plainly laid out in Scripture, but I cannot. For example, you discuss Mary the mother of John Mark and how she hosted a church in her home, and draw the conclusion that she was therefore the pastor of that church. There are other such conclusions that I found in your thesis and on your blog. Such conclusions are based in assumptions and guesswork. While these church mothers are to be commended for hosting church functions in their homes, hospitality, which was a feminine jurisdiction in this era, does not equal ordained leadership. Thirdly, you make the statement that "a woman's place is wherever God calls her." I agree. But I think the line needs to be drawn between God's calling and personal feelings and desires. No matter how we may feel we are called, God's calling for us all never goes outside the commands in His Word, and His Word makes it very clear that the ordained office, in His providence, is designed for men alone, and more specifically, men he calls. God will not and will never call any of us to something contrary to His Word. He cannot. God cannot contradict Himself in such a way. This is not to say women are supposed to stay out of influence and refrain from service, teaching, hospitality, theological study, and work in the church. Quite the opposite. But God in His providence has ordained the spiritually authoritative positions of minister, elder and deacon for men. Complementarianism takes many shades, but regardless of how strongly one holds to it or disagrees with it, it is clear that God created complementarianism to be the pattern in daily life and in the church. Biologically, emotionally, and psychologically, women and men compliment each other. Women do things men cannot do, and men do things women cannot do. To deny so and to deny the biological and historical realities of complementarianism is a 21st-century Western concept, not a New Testament one. Lastly, and most importantly, I feel most strongly about your general attitude toward those who disagree with you. Even if you disagree with me on everything I have stated before this, I went through many of the comment sections of your Facebook posts and found an attitude very different than the commendable, cheerful, encouraging demeanor you wear in your videos. I understand how it feels to be trolled. I have my own personal blog and I write here on Odyssey and face trolling. But just because someone disagrees with you and comes across strongly about it does not mean they are trolling you. Many times, they want to engage in purposeful conversation with you. Deleting comments and blocking people who merely want to hold a conversation with you out of curiosity or concerns silences them, is somewhat abusive, is not out of Christian love, and is the exact opposite of the attitude of love and kindness you say complementarians and your other opponents lack. In conclusion, I do not intend this letter to be anything other than food for thought written out of sisterly love and concern. I am sorry that many people have treated you nastily and have legitimately trolled you. That is not at all my intention. I hope that this article gives you things to consider and maybe even opens a door for communication. I also hope that the Lord blesses you, your family, you with your new job at Starbucks and in your walk with Him. Love, blessings, and in Him, Rachel Stevenson Like what you read? Disagree? Join an Odyssey community to continue the conversation. You Might Also Like An Open Letter to Betsy DeVos An Open Letter To Donald Trump An Open Letter to My Ex-Passion Rachel Stevenson R Rachel Stevenson Writer. Photographer. Tulsan. Classy counterculturist. Facebook Comments Related Content Feb 6

JM

esponse to Jory Micah There was an individual named Jory Micah whom caught my attention earlier today on Facebook and in light of the fact that at the time this article is penned, I have another article on the roles of women in the church, whether they can get a job or not or other issues that isn't finished yet, it would be pertinent to comment on this teacher and some of her comments in light of the subject matter. This would have been part of the article but it's better to have this response as it's own self contained article. These things that have been said are rather concerning at best and disturbing at worst. Let us take a look shall we? "I believe that the Holy Scriptures are truth, inspired by the Spirit of God but I don't believe that God is confined to the Bible. God is much bigger than what is revealed to us in the Bible." While God is bigger than scripture and us, I don't really see what she is getting at. The scriptures inspired by God are the church's sole infallible rule of faith. The scriptures determine what is true and what isn't. If there is information presented to us that is contrary to the scriptures, Why must we accept it at all? God can reveal himself to us, but he will not leave us in the dark or mislead us. He gives the church the Holy Spirit and the scriptures to lead us onto the right path. "Feminism is the radical idea that women are human beings, thus deserving of the same opporunities as men, in the home, society and Church." Men and Women have equal dignity and value in God's sight but have different roles and responsiblities. Putting aside the debate of whether or not women can go out to work, let's operate on the basis they can. There are jobs out there that would not be open to women and I am positive there are roles men cannot take up. While it is commendable to fight for women's rights, it is wrong to place them in a position that would violate their womanhood. There are jobs out there that would not and should not be open to women, the army being one example among many. "If I, as a woman made in the image of God, then God must not only be a father, but a "mother" as well." God is a father, not a mother. You could say that he birthed the people of Israel, you can say a man birthed a project, be it a movie, a program, a swimming pool. Men can give birth in that sense, they give birth to a project, but that doesn't make them a mother. Likewise, God birthed the Earth and Adam and created Eve from his side, but that doesn't make God himself a mother. ""God is described as Father by Jesus" Yes, true, but this may be because Jesus was living in an extreme patriachal culture in which "Father" was the best metaphor available to describe God (and probably still is in much of the world), so humans can understand. The father, in Jesus' day, was the protector, provider, and really the source of all livelihood in the home. But remember, Mary was the source that God chose to use, to birth Jesus. No man was needed. God is called, El Shaddai which means, "many breasted one." Our God is also a Mother-she births and nutures life. (Though God does not have a literal gender)." If calling God Father was because of Jesus living in a patriachal culture and it was the best metaphor, then why would Jesus change that based on culture. This isn't like whether or not a woman could have braided hair where the hair in one culture carries a particular connotation that another culture would not recognize it in that way or let's say a word is innocent in one country and offensive in another (The word spunky in America does not carry a sexual connotation that it does in Austrialia or England.) This is talking about the roles of men and women from the beginning established by God, that the man is the one who is the provider for the family, not the woman. Having said that, there are plenty of jobs for women that they could take up. In a marital context, the woman's priority is to look after the home while her husband's priority is the one to work. See the following article on El Shaddai: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Lekh_Lekha/El_Shaddai/el_shaddai.html Conclusion If Jory Micah is reading this, I have this to say. Repent and turn back to Jesus, you are teaching rebellion against him and his Father in heaven. Reconsider what you are teaching, do not teach over mixed congregations and be obedient to the word. Anything else that the Lord wants me to comment on, I'll do it if he so wills. Answering Judaism. Posted by Answering Judaism at 11:09

Rod Stewart - Christmas Live at Stirling Castle 21 nov 2012 full broadcast

Glasgow Accommodation Wolfson Hall

Not a Distant God Feb 14, 2017

Not a Distant God Feb 14, 2017 READ: Luke 12:4-7 What is the price of five sparrows—two copper coins? Yet God does not forget a single one of them (Luke 12:6). Movie director James Cameron has been responsible for some of the most popular movies of all time: The Terminator, Titanic, Avatar, and others. But what many people don’t know is that far from being removed from the details of filmmaking, Cameron is heavily involved with almost every aspect of the process, from cinematography to creative design. Drawing from his earlier experience as a designer, Cameron even played a key role in developing some of the fantastic special effects that are the centerpiece of his most famous films. It can be easy to imagine that God is a creative but distant movie director of sorts, interested only in the grandest aspects of the universe. In fact, American statesman Thomas Jefferson believed in such a Creator. He viewed God as a cosmic clockmaker who designed the world and put it into motion, but—apart from that—has little other involvement in human affairs. But Jesus paints a very different picture of God in Luke 12. In verses 4 and 5, he describes a God of terrifying eternal power, a God rightly to be “feared.” And yet, in the very next verse He also says that this same God cares about creatures as insignificant as sparrows and knows us intimately, right down to the very number of “hairs on [our] head” (Luke 12:7). He goes on to say, “You are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.” He’s the Creator of the entire universe, but also a Father who knows us and cares for us individually. What a profound and beautiful truth this is—that the God of the universe cares for me, and knows everything about me . . . even my deepest thoughts (Psalm 139:1-2). It brings great encouragement to know that we’re loved by such an amazing and caring God! —Peter Chin NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Exodus 19:1-25 MORE: Read Romans 8:31-39 to be reminded of the intimate love God has for us. NEXT: How can you remind yourself today that God cares about the details of your life? What intimate thoughts and concerns will you bring to Him right now?

looking to the future

Moving Past Memories Feb 11, 2017 READ: Genesis 45:1-15 You intended to harm me, but God intended it all for good (Genesis 50:20). When artist Gary Sweeney decided to sell the home his family had owned for seventy years, he created a unique way of saying goodbye. Sweeney selected and enlarged one hundred family photos, placing them on pieces of plywood. He attached the plywood to the home’s exterior—covering the entire structure in memories. Experiences with our parents and siblings stay with us for life. Good or bad, memories pry into our lives with invisible fingers, influencing our self-image, decisions, and emotions. When Joseph was seventeen years old, his brothers sold him as a slave to a group of traders headed to Egypt. Many years later when he encountered his brothers again, Joseph “broke down and wept” (Genesis 45:2). Despite the emotions, Joseph didn’t allow hurtful memories to affect his relationship with his brothers. He acknowledged the past, but didn’t make them feel guilty for what they’d done. He said, “Don’t be angry with yourselves for selling me . . . . It was God who sent me here ahead of you to preserve your lives” (Genesis 45:5). God had given Joseph great success in Egypt and as a result he was able to save his brothers and their families during a severe famine. Joseph could have allowed himself to become bitter and hateful. He could have taken revenge by denying help to his family. Although nothing could change how his brothers had hurt him, Joseph’s decision to treat them with kindness released him from the misery of the past. We may not be able to change our past, but we don’t have to let it determine our future. God is able to redeem the bad intentions of other people (Genesis 50:20). By His grace, we can choose to bless people who’ve hurt us—finding healing through forgiveness. —Jennifer Benson Schuldt NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Exodus 15:22-27, 17:1-7 MORE: Read Revelations 21:3-5 to see how God will one day erase the pain of our earthly lives. Look up Micah 7:19 and see how God handles our offenses against Him. NEXT: How can experiencing God’s forgiveness for our sin help us to extend grace to others? Why do you think God wants us to “[forget] the past and [look] forward to what lies ahead”? (Philippians 3:13).

not all lions are evil

As we reach the end of The Horse and His Boy, Shasta received a stunning revelation about all of the lions he seemed to encounter along the journey for the North. “’I was the lion.’ And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the voice continued. ‘I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.’”[1] What Shasta thought was bad luck was actually the providence of the lion. When things didn’t make sense at the time, there was actually a greater plan at work that brought Shasta to the point in his life when he actually realized it. That’s very much like each one of us. We don’t always understand what is going on, and sometimes it is frightening. There are lions and other things around us that cause stress. Things seem to go wrong, and we don’t always see how these things could work out for good. We are very quick to assume that the lion is evil. Shasta was terrified of the lion, and he didn’t think that there was any way that it could have good intentions for him. He didn’t enjoy having the lion chase him on Bree for example, so he automatically assumed that the lion must have had bad intentions. He never even considered the possibility that not all trials are evil. Some trials are brought into our lives to help lead us to something better in the long run. They help develop our character perhaps in ways that we might not have been proved otherwise. They might keep it away from greater evils that we would have blindly wandered into if we hadn’t been diverted in a different direction. When we think about things going wrong, we automatically assume our perspective on wrong is the right one. By our own judgment, we know that we must understand everything perfectly, so if we believe that something is evil, it must actually be evil. This story reminds us that everything is not always as it seems. Yes, there is evil in the world that we bring upon ourselves by our own decisions. We use our free will in terrible ways to harm other people and even ourselves. However, not everything that is unpleasant is evil. It is like working out in the gym. People always say, “no pain, no gain.” I think our character is very similar. Not all trials are evil. Some can in fact help bring us to a better place that we could not have reached otherwise. [1] CS Lewis, “The Horse and His Boy” in The Chronicles of Narnia Complete 7-Book Collection with Bonus Book: Boxen (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), Kindle Locations 5965-5969, Kindle Edition. Narnia, The Horse and His Boy, Shasta, Aslan, Lion, Trials, Evil Newer Older

tale of three referendums

⌂ nteresting Image [New post] When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 2 – The Nightmare Shopping THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON To george.falconer@yahoo.co.uk Today at 7:00 theweeflea posted: "I am so thankful I split this essay into three parts - because after the publication of When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 1 – The Fantasy I received a large amount of correspondence which proves what I had written in part t" Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 2 – The Nightmare by theweeflea I am so thankful I split this essay into three parts - because after the publication of When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 1 – The Fantasy I received a large amount of correspondence which proves what I had written in part two below! 1) The SNP has chosen to ignore, mock and abuse, or allow to be abused, Scottish people who do not agree with their stance on the EU. Not only the hated ‘Tories’ (many of whom agree with them on the issue of the EU), but also the 36% of SNP voters who voted Leave. Why is the word 'Tory' such a term of abuse? It's as though we are in 1984 (of which more later) and have to have an enemy to hate. I sometimes think that the way language is used very often borders on outright hate speech. Incidentally when the SNP keep claiming that Scotland voted to Remain, they seem to forget that if it were not for the one million Scots who voted Leave, the UK would still be in the EU! We have been classed as racist, bigoted, ignorant, Daily Mail readers. Is it not possible for people to disagree (and even be Scottish Tories) without having to be regarded as traitors or idiots? The SNP claim to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland – which always leaves me wondering who the rest of us are? I mean those of us who don’t agree with them. Are we enemies of the people? Sometimes we are treated as such (especially by the Cybernats) which leads me on to the next step. The SNP have been very savvy in their use of social media and especially I would say in the use of Twitter mobs and other forms of online intimidation. These are just a few of the tweets I received after part 1 was published. I was trolled and abused by other SNP members because I agree with this article. As an SNP member I was gobsmacked. It scared me and put me off Twitter. You are a Tory. Your church supports Tory values. You are not really SNP. In the past 12 hours I have been called an idiot, hypocrite, homophobe, Islamaphobe, Tory apologist - and so on. What is totally fascinating and sad is that not one person has attempted to argue any of the substantive points within the article. They just want to scream 'it's not true' and then call you names....and anyone else who disagrees with you. However I am grateful for many tweets, which even though they didn't intend to, confirmed what had I had written. “I am a Christian. I just don’t agree with the Bible, God and Jesus”…. This was written by a man who thought he was making the brilliant point that because I did not support the EU I could not really be SNP. Which was my point exactly! The SNP has become so much the party of the EU that even if you are for independence you are not considered one of the flock! Being pro-EU is now the heart and meaning of the SNP! The propagandists have done their job well. The 36% of SNP voters who voted Leave are to be excommunicated! Others went mad because they said I was speaking on my own and real SNP people did not speak like me (although one Cybernat was desperate to argue that I SHOULD be speaking on my own because no one can speak for anyone else - I guess he has a real problem with his party speaking on behalf of 'the Scottish people'! But I received several tweets along the following lines, which confirmed that I am not just speaking on my own behalf. “My views on Indy won’t change, but I will vote NO if she drags us back into the EU” The new SNP sidelines those who disagree with their policy, and then mocks. And it can get really vicious. Take for example the following posted yesterday: Hard to beat for its callousness, arrogance and ignorance - and yet several people defended it. Tic Tock Every time a no voter dies, A YES voter turns 16 Tic Tock A bit mercenary, I know, but true. It’s the young people’s future that is being Robbed by the unionists. Those who voted No are enemies of the people. Destroying the future. Harming the young. The contempt for those who don't share their views is quite scary. Do I really want to be in a country where this kind of talk is considered acceptable? And there is another kind of contempt. They keep speaking of Tory contempt for the Scottish people (forgetting the hundreds of thousands of Scots who vote Tory and who are not enemies of the people/traitors/quislings) and yet sometimes their actions show contempt. Does anyone understand why Nicola Sturgeon told the press that the Scottish Parliament vote on Brexit (which was largely symbolic and meaningless) was one of the most important votes ever in the parliament, and yet she stayed away for most of it? That to me seems at least a little inconsistent, if not contemptuous. Sometimes I fear that there is too much grandstanding on the world stage and not enough practical action on the council estates of Scotland. It's all very well retweeting a congratulatory tweet from Bianca Jagger on a meaningless vote in the Scottish parliament, but for me it is the type of gesture politics that we could do without. Which brings us on to another sad twist in this tale. The SNP go round hunting for celebrity endorsement. So yesterday Pat Kane and thus numerous SNP politicians were re-tweeting AC Graylings comment about now supporting Scottish Independence. Grayling is an atheist liberal who was opposed to Scottish Indy but is more fanatically committed to the EU. He can never be in the wrong and so because he has written that Brexit will lead to economic disaster, the end of parliamentary sovereignty (something which as a fanatical pro-EU person he had no interest in before) and the break up of the UK, he now supports Scottish Independence - so that he can be proved right! Is this what we have come to, gloating in the support of an English academic who has opposed our national self-determination before, but now, because it suits his narrow political agenda, is prepared to endorse it? I am more concerned about the kind of contempt and hubris that takes the votes of the Scottish people for granted and shows scant regard for democratic votes that go against you. It does not look good if you refuse to accept the democratic results of two referendums. Apart from anything else it is unwise tactically because when we eventually win, why should the losers not adopt exactly the same tactics? 2) The SNP has being an increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic party – As I stated in part 1 the SNP used to be a fairly broad party with a wide range of views permitted. That had the result of sometimes giving the appearance of a rag-tag bunch who couldn’t organise the proverbial party in a brewery. Some discipline had to be imposed. But the pendulum has completely swung the other way. Now the SNP is the most authoritarian party in the UK (making even Tony Blairs New Labour control freakery seem mild). As The Herald reported SNP politicans are forbidden from speaking against any party policy. Any MP must accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group". It's a policy Stalin would be proud of! This led to the following observation: “Since you can’t criticise the leadership at all, how is joining the SNP any different from joining a cult?” It reminded me of when I was in Edinburgh Uni and involved in student politics. The Socialist Workers Society, all seven of them, used to have their own meeting before any student union general meeting, so they could determine how they would vote as a block. It was very authoritarian. At one time four of them expelled the other three for doctrinal impurity (as one of them told me!). My fear is that the SNP have moved in this direction. Note this is not just amongst the elected politicians. It has become a characteristic of the membership and the social media mob. Even after writing part 1 of this essay I was told by SNP members that I should not vote SNP. I find that ‘inconvenient truths’ are often removed. I have had SNP activists who come flying in with their mantras and soundbites, who when you challenge them and they can’t answer, either become abusive or they end up blocking you. Social media and the internet could and should mean that we have a much wider search-1world from which to glean information and facts. But sadly it all too often means that we set up our own wee echo chambers, only talk to those like us and only listen to those who post articles which act like confirmation bias. For example recently I received a rebuke from an SNP supporter because he saw that I followed on 'Twitter' several people who were not kosher. When I tried to explain that I 'followed' lots of people I disagreed with, that concept seemed to be completely alien to him. Why would you listen to those you disagreed with?! The SNP are not the only ones who do this, but I have noticed an increasing tendency for this cult like behaviour to take hold. And when it does, any free thinkers, questioners or genuine liberals in the old sense of the word – are finished. The Party is Always Right. 1984 is relevant in todays Scotland – not just Trumps USA. “But the party’s strict discipline has had another, less positive effect. The SNP, as far as I can see, has given up any kind of self-examination. The modern SNP has no time for questions. It is concerned only with presenting carefully spun answers. As a result of this unwillingness to reflect upon what it may be doing wrong, the SNP maintains positions long after it has become clear that they are incoherent.” Euan McColm - http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-snp-needs-a-long-hard-look-in-the-mirror-1-4334130 The result of this is that we now have the SNP Stepford politicians. As I type this I am watching the EU debate in Westminster. It's almost comical to see how an SNP MP will be interrupted by another SNP MP and they spend the time congratulating ‘the honourable member/lady’s’ brilliant points. In a good Scots phrase 'it gies me the boke'! There will be no disagreement here. And there will be no disagreement in the Scottish parliament, or indeed anywhere. I was asked to speak for SNP Leave at a press conference and said no, that would be wrong, because although I search-2supported the SNP, I was not a member and it would be better to have a politician. The answer came back - ‘None of them are allowed to speak’. When I stated this, I got the usual mockery and abuse from the cybernats who seemed to believe that all SNP politicians agree with the policy because they are not idiots and it is obviously the only right one. Only after the EU referendum did we learn that Alex Neill and several others actually voted Leave. The SNP don’t actually need party whips. When was the last time an SNP MP voted against party policy? Angus Robertson, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon carry absolute authority. Disobey them at your peril. Likewise SNP party conferences have more in common with national party rallies than they do with search-3democratic party politics. I watched in sorrow last year as the carefully stage-managed EU ‘debate’ resulted in an elderly gentleman being ushered of the stage, looking totally confused as he tried to present a negative view of the EU. His face told me so much. And with authoritarianism comes alternative facts and post-truth history. Of course they have always been around but in an authoritarian system Pravda, ensures that there is only one truth. And in a post-truth world which has rejected the concept of truth, and yet realises it needs that truth, the door is open for a new absolute to be imposed. So the SNP now relies on a too often compliant media, including its own propaganda newspaper; ignoring, ridiculing, mocking and even intimidating other sources; and the social media mob to spread and enforce its new doctrines. search I have a particular concern about the creation of social media mobs and the phenomena of the cybernats. Recently word has gone out from people like Neil Mackay, editor of the Sunday Herald, that people have to behave themselves if we are going to win the No voters over. He is right to be concerned. But I wonder if that degree of self-discipline is possible. Not when you have MPs like Joanna Cherry tweeting about Tom Holland this week: “Being trolled by a male academic who makes the mistake that my ego is as big as his. Lol”. Apart from the fact that Tom Holland is not an academic (he is an author) this tweet is very interesting for what it reveals about the MP. Mr Holland had dared to express an opinion that was different to Ms Cherry and this, in the Brave New World of the SNP is now ‘trolling’. Plus lets throw in a bit of sexism as well – what does his being male have to do with anything? But this is how the politicians use the mob. They are always the truth tellers, the victims and the righteous. Another example. The oft-repeated mantra that Nicola, Alex, Mike, Angus, Tasmina are the brave spokespeople ‘for the people of Scotland’. Mike Russell stated in Brussels that “five million citizens…quite clearly said they do not want to give up their European citizenship” and that the only MSPs to back a leave vote were four Conservative members.The Courier It's astonishing that they think they can get away with this. The truth is that despite all the Scottish political parties, most of the media and all the cultural/academic and metro elites pushing for a Remain vote – only 1.6 million Scots voted for the EU. That is hardly five million citizens! I don’t think Mike was lying or being dishonest. I think that the SNP genuinely do believe they speak for us all, because they don't hear anyone else. But being genuine does not make them right. It’s the hubris of the self-righteous and the undoubting. 3) The Scottish Government has also become authoritarian - Given that the SNP are the party in power this should not be surprising. But the sad thing is that, unlike both the UK and more especially the USA, we don’t have the checks and balances yet installed within our new Scottish political system. The whole system was designed to be its own check and balance by ensuring that one party did not get in power. But thanks to the genius of Alex Salmond, the SNP beat the odds and has become entrenched as the party of government in Scotland. With the collapse of the Labour and alexsalmondfo93jn1qfmpmLiberal parties, this only leaves the Tories as any real kind of opposition. Although again, as Iain McWhirter pointed out in one of his columns, you could probably interchange most SNP, Labour, Green, Liberal and even many Tory politicians in the Scottish parliament and there would not be a great deal of difference. They mostly belong to the same political class, share the same social and cultural views and differ on little substantial. The metro-elites are the ‘us’, the ‘them’ are any one else who dares to challenge their pre-suppositions. This government authoritarianism is seen in different ways. Firstly there is an increasing tendency towards centralisation. The police being the classic example. The removal of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board being another. Centralised control is essential to any command economy - it maybe explains why they are so keen on the EU! It is also very dangerous because so many jobs and positions depend on government patronage. In a small country, where almost everyone in power knows everyone else, it is very dangerous to have so much power and money concentrated in so few hands. It means that academic institutions, charity boards, business and even churches have to watch their P's and Q's because they are so beholden to the State. I sometimes wonder if this curbs the prophetic voice of the Church, because we are too scared to offend those we seek to influence (and whose money often funds our charities)? Is there any room for prophets who speak truth to power and challenge the status quo and the power blocks here? Or are we just going to talk about situations and people we can do nothing about, and who have very little to do with us? Then there is the interference with academic freedom. It has been long-established principle of Scottish education that the government does not tell teachers what to teach, but this is about to be broken with the TIE imposition coming from the government. The use of schools for deliberate social engineering, rather than education is worrying. That is why so many people are opposed to the Named Person Scheme - its not that they don't see the value of it, it's rather that they don't trust a government with Big Brother tendencies to implement it without using it for social control. It is also worrying that the pressure that the government can put on state funded universities to ensure that the right kind of academic research is done. Kath Murray gives a fascinating insight into how this happens. “At the risk of stating the obvious, research that is side-lined, neutralized or otherwise impeded is unlikely to bring about societal or economic benefit.” Kath Murray (Sage Journals) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748895816685766 A free society needs a free press. Of course the Scottish government believes that, but in just the same way as David Cameron tried to get the editor of the Daily Mail replaced, so the SNP are not averse to putting pressure on journalists and media. Can you imagine what would have happened if Donald Trump banned certain newspapers from the White House Press Conference? Why, the Herald, the National and the BBC would have it as their headline news (because apparently he is our President/Bogeyman too!!). Except it wasn't Trump who did that – it was our own retiring President – Alex Salmond. Telegraph, Mail and Express journalists were banned from Alex Salmond’s resignation press conference and The Guardian withdrew when the SNP tried to tell them which journalist they should send. You can read the story Here search-4And there is the sad but true story of Stephen Daisley. He wrote about his 'silencing' Here It is well worth reading and brilliantly written. Ironically I would not have come across it were it not for SNP MPs like Pete Wishart furiously tweeting against him. That roused my curiosity and rather proved his point! My concern here is not to agree with the rather silly SNP equals bad mantra, any more than I accept the SNP equals good mantra. My concern is that what the SNP have done that is good is in enormous danger of being undone, because they are in danger of running the government in the same way they runs the party. It's not that everything is bad - far from it - but this is the direction of travel I see us going and it worries me. We are by no means there yet, but there is a real and present danger that an elitist, one philosophy, one party state could easily exist in a small country like Scotland. That's my nightmare. But it doesn't have to be that way - and tomorrow we will look at an alternative direction of travel.... The Beginning of the Nightmare – Why the SNP are Giving up on Independence for Scotland – Part 2 Fantasy Politics – Why the SNP are Giving up on Independence – Part 3–Childcare theweeflea | February 10, 2017 at 7:00 am | Tags: AC Grayling, Academic Freedom, ALex Neil, Alex Salmond, Brexit, Cybernats, EU Referendum, Joanna Cherry, Stephen Daisley, The Herald, The National, The SNP, Tory | Categories: Politics, Scotland | URL: http://wp.me/p3QeUm-375 Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://theweeflea.com/2017/02/10/when-yes-means-no-a-tale-of-three-referendums-part-2-the-nightmare/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com Reply Reply to All Forward More Click to Reply, Reply all or Forward

boldness

Do you want to live and speak more boldly for Jesus Christ? I do. How badly do we want it? Do we want it enough to ask, seek, and knock until God answers us and to take risks that press on our timidity? Or, if we’re honest, would we rather just keep wishing we were bolder — admiring bold people, being inspired by biographies about bold people, talking with our friends and small group members about our struggles with fear of man — all the while staying where we feel safe and relatively comfortable and letting fear go unchallenged? My flesh likes the second option with a more flattering description. The Spirit says, “If you want to walk with me, choose the first.” There’s the battle line. “The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do” (Galatians 5:17). But in this battle, there’s no stalemate. One side always holds sway. So, “choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). If we are serious about choosing the Spirit, God will grant us our request (Luke 11:13; John 15:7), and enable us to “walk by the Spirit [so we] will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16). What Is Christian Boldness? Boldness, in the biblical sense, is not a personality trait. A typically soft-spoken, introverted, calm person can be bold at a time when a typically driven, outspoken, brash person shrinks back. Boldness is acting, by the power of the Holy Spirit, on an urgent conviction in the face of some threat. That last sentence contains the three ingredients to Christian boldness: Spirit-empowered conviction, courage, and urgency. If one of the ingredients is missing, we won’t act boldly. Without sufficient conviction that something ought to be said or done, what’s there to be bold about? Without sufficient courage, we don’t have enough fiber in our conviction to face opposition or threats. Without a sufficient sense of urgency, we lack the fire under our feet to get us moving. People who are halfhearted, fearful, or indifferent are, by definition, not bold. But if you’re aware of deficiencies in any of these three areas, take heart. The Bible gives us every reason to hope for transformation, and no reason to keep living with debilitating fear. Jesus Bought Boldness In Christ, “we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith” to God our Father (Ephesians 3:12). The truth is there’s no power in heaven or on earth or under the earth that remotely approaches the power of God. He is the only one we need to fear (Luke 12:4–5). And Jesus took upon himself every reason we have to be terrified of God. Now in Christ God is for us. And, If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:31–32) If we can now “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16), who then should we fear (Psalm 27:1)? Jesus did not die on the cross to have us quivering in a corner because some human being might say something mean, or stop our paychecks, or sever a relationship, or even kill us (Luke 12:4). No! For Jesus has ensured that, neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38–39) The only reason fear-based timidity remains in us is that we don’t believe these mind-blowing promises. What freezing fears might melt away, like snow in April, if we let the bright rays of Romans 8 shine on our shadowy places of unbelief, even for just a week? The Spirit Empowers Boldness After sunbathing in Romans 8, we should take an invigorating walk through the book of Acts and watch how Spirit emboldened the early Christians were. Peter and John, once frozen with fear, when filled with the Holy Spirit, were out preaching the gospel for everyone to hear (see Acts 2:14–41). This soon got them arrested — the very thing that had terrified them before — and their boldness astonished the Jewish authorities, who then “recognized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Don’t you want to bear that bold spiritual family resemblance? It requires the Spirit of Jesus (Philippians 1:19). Pray for Boldness! The early Christians knew this. Post-Pentecost they didn’t always feel bold. In fact, in Acts 4, when the disciples came back from the astonished authorities, they told the church of the threats they received. Everyone understood the implication: persecution and possible execution. So, did they flee back into hiding? No, they prayed for boldness: “And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness.” . . . And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:29, 31) In answer to prayer, fear melted away and they received a fresh filling of the Holy Spirit and renewed boldness to keep speaking. Boldness is not constant or taken for granted. We must keep praying for it whenever we need it. Even the apostle Paul experienced this. That’s why he asked the Ephesians to pray that he “may declare [the gospel] boldly, as [he] ought to speak” (Ephesians 6:20). Boldness is not an option for us, but it’s also not a given. Since it is not a constant gift of the Spirit, we must pray for it frequently. Act the Miracle But we should not think every time boldness is required we will feel some heroic swell of confidence. God often gives us Spirit-empowered boldness when, in spite of feeling fear, we step out in faith that the Spirit will provide the measure of boldness we need in that moment. If we look, Acts is full of instances where boldness was given in situations where no doubt the speakers were tempted with fear: In Antioch Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas “spoke out boldly” when the Jews publicly reviled them (Acts 13:46). In Iconium, they were also vigorously opposed, “so they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord” (Acts 14:3). In Ephesus, Apollos spoke “boldly in the synagogue” (Acts 18:26). In Ephesus, Paul taught in the synagogue “and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). In Caesarea, when Paul was imprisoned, he spoke “boldly” to King Agrippa (Acts 26:26). And the last thing we know about Paul is that, while under house arrest in Rome, he went on “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:31). Yes, we should pray to be filled with the Spirit. But when boldness is needed in fearful situations, and we act in spite of sweaty palms and pounding hearts, Jesus promises to fill our mouths by the Spirit (Matthew 10:20). And so we act the miracle. Boldness Is Contagious And a wonderful thing happens when we act the miracle: others begin to act it, too. Paul described this phenomenon: And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. (Philippians 1:14) Paul’s imprisonment for being bold for Christ emboldened other Christians. And we’ve all experienced this in some way. The best way to start a movement of bold witness is to step out in boldness ourselves. Whatever It Takes, Lord! And this is just what our flesh emphatically does not want to do. It resists the Spirit in order to keep us from doing what we want to do. To prayerfully pursue boldness in the power of the Spirit requires dying to our flesh (Romans 8:13). But that’s a death that leads to life! For “to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (Romans 8:6). To die to our flesh in order to pursue boldness is really to choose life. That should lead us to pray: Whatever it takes, Lord, decrease the hold that unbelieving fear has over me and increase my boldness to declare the gospel to everyone you put in my path.

ps 13

READ: Psalm 13:1-6 I trust in your unfailing love. I will rejoice because you have rescued me (Psalm 13:5). “When you hear the hard news, there are two diverging roads from which to choose. One’s despair—don’t go there. There is hope!” I wrote those lyrics as part of a song that shares what I’ve learned through a lengthy battle with cancer. Today I was talking with a thirty-year-old husband whose wife just found out she has breast cancer. As I strived to give him comfort and counsel, what I shared can be summed up in these words: Because of God, there is hope. In Psalm 13, David expresses the raw emotions of someone who’s crushed—someone starving for hope. Four times he expresses to God the plaintive words “how long” (Psalm 13:1-2). He felt as if the Lord had forgotten him, and the “anguish” and “sorrow” were becoming more than he could bear. We can all relate to David’s pain. A cancer diagnosis, a failing relationship, or the loss of something or someone we love can cause us to feel lost and alone. God can appear to be very distant. The psalmist makes an important decision. He calls out to God, saying, “Turn and answer me, O Lord my God!” He prays out of desperation, knowing that only his Creator can “restore the sparkle to [his] eyes” and hope to his heart (Psalm 13:3). Calling out to God even when it seems as if He’s far from us turns our eyes from our misery to Him and His mercy. Prayer plants the seed that allows hope to grow. Finally, David chooses to “trust” in God and His “unfailing love” (Psalm 13:5). His circumstances hadn’t changed, but as he calls out to the Lord in prayer and trusts in His character, his heart erupts in praise—even rejoicing in song! (Psalm 13:6). Which of the two “diverging roads” are you walking today? You can move from despair to hope by turning to God. Because He’s there, there is hope! —Tom Felten NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Exodus 13:17-14:31 MORE: Read Romans 15:13 and consider where hope is found and the importance of trust in finding it. NEXT: What has caused you to lose hope recently? How will you follow David’s example and seek to grow in hope?

Scottish independence and the EU.

⌂ HomeMailNewsSportFinanceCelebrityStyleWeatherAnswersFlickrMobile More ⋁ Yahoo Mail ⌂ Home 👤George ⚙ Help Press ? for Keyboard Shortcuts. Close ad Mail Contacts Calendar Notepad Messenger [New post] When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 1 – The Fantasy Shopping THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON To george.falconer@yahoo.co.uk Today at 12:40 theweeflea posted: " "Supporters of Scottish Independence should vote No if there is another Independence Referendum" That statement seems an oxymoron. Surely if you support Scotland being an independent country, then you should vote Yes in another independence referendum" Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON When Yes means No – A Tale of Three Referendums – Part 1 – The Fantasy by theweeflea search-1 "Supporters of Scottish Independence should vote No if there is another Independence Referendum" That statement seems an oxymoron. Surely if you support Scotland being an independent country, then you should vote Yes in another independence referendum? This argument is not just a semantic political one, it is a tale about Scotland today and about how politics is being conducted in the modern Western world. For me it is also deeply personal. In this essay I will explain what is happening in Scotland and why I, as someone who believes in Scottish independence and who voted Yes in the last referendum, will vote No in the next one - if it happens. This is a tale of three referendums and it is a lengthy one so I am splitting it into three parts - I will post one per day over the next three days. The Fantasy - in which we look at how the SNP adopted the EU as a religion. The Nightmare - in which we look at how a party of freedom became authoritarian. The Dream - in which we look at a better future for Scotland. 1. The Fantasy - “Your contributions are disgraceful…no idea where your head is”…(a politician complaining about my writings!) This is a very difficult article to write. Not least because for me it involves a significant change of opinion and the giving up of a long cherished ideal. I am also aware that in the current climate in Scotland there is an element of personal cost, and I know the abuse that sadly will follow. I am also deeply conscious of my own limitations and lack of knowledge and so I have to be really careful. However I am off work with the lurgy and I need to think this through and get it of my chestand find out where my head is!…so here goes. It is necessary to point out that what follows is my own personal opinion and not that of the Church, or of the Bible – although as always, I hope my Christian thinking influences everything. I am also not writing this from the perspective of someone who hates the SNP or who thinks that everything they have done is bad. I am actually an admirer of much of what they have done and would be classed as an SNP supporter and voter. I am a socially conservative, economically left-wing, believer in Scottish independence. I voted Yes in the Scottish Independence referendum and well remember the day when we just failed to win that referendum. It was a dull and gloomy day in lots of ways. But as a democrat (and also someone whose hopes and trust is not placed in political leaders or solutions) I accepted it and got on with life, thinking that one day independence would happen. Now I have changed my mind. In an ideal world I would still like Scotland to be an independent country, but in the current climate, if the SNP ever have the nerve, or are foolish enough to go ahead with another Independence Referendum, I will this time vote No. And I am not alone. Take this from The Scotsman “Despite only making up 14% of Scottish voters, over four in ten (43%) of these “Leave+Yes” voters have since abandoned their pro-independence position, with 28% now saying they would vote to stay in the union.” There are many Yes voters who feel that they have been sidelined, abused and ignored by the SNP leadership. We feel that the SNP has not only handled this wrongly but has made a fundamental mistake in its current EU policy. I have spoken to many in the party (including some in power) who would agree with much of the following analysis. Others don’t agree. And the establishment hate it. 1 - The SNP has exchanged the idea of Scottish Independence for the fantasy of the progressive EU - There are those who think that the SNP are just using the EU referendum as an excuse to get Scottish Independence. I think this is a faulty analysis which does not take into account the changes in the party over the past three years. They think that the SNP only care about independence and are just using the EU issue to get it. Whilst the initial change in the original anti-EU stance of the SNP was a tactical change (basically to argue that we would not be on our own), the current passion for the EU is of an altogether different order. It is not some kind of Salmond like Machiavellian plot to get another Indy Ref and Scotland out. I don’t believe that Nicola Sturgeon is either that deceptive or that stupid. I think that the current SNP leadership really do think that being part of the ‘progressive’ EU is more important than Scotland being independent. Which is why when some activists say to me ‘we agree – but let's get out first and then we can vote on joining the EU’, I have to point out that does not work. The whole current SNP case is that we have to leave the UK, not to be independent, but so that we can join the EU. Any referendum based on that premise deserves a no vote. How did this happen? How did we get to a stage where a party that was committed to the idea of Scottish independence was willing to bargain it away in order to stay within the EU? After the Independence Referendum the SNP membership increased by over 100,000. It wasn’t just that these were people who were sold on the idea of Scottish independence. No the SNP became the 'go to' party for social progressives and those who wanted a fast track career in politics. We received some really good people, but also some who were clearly inadequate and in a political (if not a financial) sense, those who were ‘on the make’. Somewhat counter intuitively, instead of broadening the party base, the massive increase in membership resulted in an increasingly narrow ideology. The whole nature of the party as a broad party with a wide range of views united on the one common aim of an Independent Scotland, disappeared almost overnight. We have become the Lib Dems of Scotland – only with a more Nationalist tinge. Anyone who does not buy into the progressive, EUphile agenda is out. The EU is presented as the solution for everything. The EU as religion is deeply ingrained in the metro-elitist culture in Scotland. One senior academic told me that of course he, and most academics were for the EU – because the EU paid them. The arts establishment, the business establishment and the political establishment are the same. But it is more than finance. It's emotion based on a political and historical myth. The EU is all that is good. It is progressive, the defender of human rights, the Saviour of the world. That’s why the EU is seen as the answer to everything. Even today I heard Mike Russell, our EU minister state: 'Depopulation can only be resolved through immigration”. Really? I agree with Mike that we need more immigration in Scotland, but the only way to deal with depopulation? How about supporting families, creating jobs and stopping killing our children in the womb? The 400,000 we were supposed to be short matches the number of children we have killed in the womb. But that's another issue. However it does demonstrate the myopic state of much of the current SNP leadership. Everything is seen through EUphile glasses. 2- Independence in Europe is not Independence – The SNP came up with a slogan which was repeated ad nauseam on their social media and press “an independent Scotland in an interdependent EU”. I asked why that was different or any more meaningful than ‘an independent Scotland in an interdependent UK’. And so far no one has been able to answer that. It appears that whilst it is not ok for Scottish laws to be made in Westminster, it is ok for them to be made in Brussels. But this is because in the eyes of the new SNP, Brussells= good and Westminster =bad. One of the things that most depresses me about this – is that every argument they use against Brexit is the same argument that was used against Scottish independence (economic disaster, narrow nationalism, isolationism etc).The SNP have become the anti-English, pro- EU party. Furthermore the economic case is not as strong as the SNP and others keep claiming. Being in the EU is not all economic joy. Of course the SNP can’t even bring themselves to think this but there are many economic advantages in leaving the EU. Read Brian Monteith's superb article in The Scotsman about the disadvantages of Scotland being in the EU - in answering the question what price Scotland leaving the EU, he answered: “The price? Only the saving of over £10 billion a year, control over our laws, taxes and borders together with the ability to strike free trade deals with the rest of the world where the real economic growth is.” 3- The EU is not the democratic, progressive Nirvana that the SNP propaganda machine and politicians publicly espouse. You will search long and hard for any SNP criticism of the EU at all. In fact the very opposite. It is beyond depressing to find how many cybernats obediently trot out the mantras from Party HQ, including the astonishing claim that ‘the EU is more democratic than the UK’. I can understand people who have little or no knowledge making such a claim, but when you have full-time politicians making and apparently believing such nonsense, it makes you despair at the state of politics in our country. One SNP MSP even wrote in public that ‘it could be argued that the UK is not really a democracy at all’, whilst defending the EU! This is alternative fact, post-truth politics at its worst. The EU political executive is the unelected Commission, not one of whom is an elected politician; not one of whom can be 'unelected'. The EU parliament does not have the power to make laws. As Tony Benn pointed out numerous times, if you can’t vote out the people who make your laws, then you do not live in a democracy. The fact that SNP politicians, in order to tow and defend the party line, can repeat such demonstrable nonsense, indicates the level of cynicism or ignorance that some of our politicians have been afflicted with (and yes I know the House of Lords is not elected – but it is as toothless as the EU parliament, being only a revising chamber, not a political executive). Some supporters of independence get it. For example Gerry Hassan in The Scottish Review “This British state of affairs is matched by an unhealthy situation in Europe. The EU is not the benign force of progress and economic advancement that it was seen as in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead, expansion combined with the euro has produced Euro-sclerosis. Monetary union without fiscal union has led to economic and social disaster: a Europe which works for the German economy, but which has left devastation across the Med from Greece to Italy, Portugal and Spain. SNP thinking on independence eventually has to move on and catch up with the times. The spirit and hopes of 1988 and independence in Europe: the EU of Jacques Delors and a 'social Europe' is no more. Similarly, the plans and aspirations of 2014 and the Salmondnomics vision of independence are dead in the water.” But it is not just the illogicality of handing power over to an unelected EU commission that bothers me, it is the fantasy view that the SNP hierarchy have spun about the EU today. In the new religion of the EU (and it is believed, preached and propagated with all the fervour of the most fundamentalist religious extremist), the EU is a nirvana of progressive, social beliefs, where the poor are looked after, workers rights are defended, the environment protected, everyone rides cycles and live in a sea of milk, honey and lemonade with sexual, civil and emotional liberty. To paraphrase Belinda Carlisle, ‘heaven is a place on earth’ and its capital is Brussels. I don’t think the EU is hell on earth, but I do think it is fundamentally undemocratic, elitist and is close to collapse. It’s a good job we are getting out. The SNP are twenty years out of date. 4- An Independent Scotland joining the EU is not the slam dunk deal the SNP keep telling us Scotland is not a member of the EU. The UK is the legal member state of the EU and the UK voted to leave. Incidentally I wish that the SNP would stop distorting the truth about the EU referendum. Scotland did NOT vote for Scotland to stay in the EU. Scotland did not even have a vote about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland had a vote to stay in the UK and then the UK (including Scotland) had a vote to leave the EU. The fact that different areas of the UK voted differently has no more significance than the fact that different areas of Scotland voted differently in the Independence referendum. Can you imagine what would have happened if Scotland had voted to leave the UK and Shetland and Edinburgh claimed that because they voted NO, they should be treated differently? Of course in doctrinaire propaganda, truth and reason don’t really matter and ‘alternative facts’ soon become the story. SNP supporters genuinely believe that EU governments would be falling over themselves to accept Scotland as a new member. Really? Why? The Spanish government have every reason to discourage Catalonia going the same way. And the SNP idea that we could join as a separate nation without committing to join the EU, without hard borders with England (a far more important market to us) and with all the current opt outs of the UK, is fanciful. Their much vaunted and boasted about EU document is just the fantasy politics of a government that has NO power to enact any of it. Politics without power is easy. In fact it seems to have become a speciality of the SNP leadership to put forward as meaningful, documents which they have no power to enact. You won't hear this kind of realism from the SNP - Charles Grant from Business Insider Speaking to Business Insider on Tuesday, Charles Grant, director of think-tank Centre for European Reform (CER), praised the Scottish government for the "weightiness" of the proposals, but said any special deal is unlikely given the lack of appetite from Westminster, the likelihood of a Spanish veto, and the legal difficulties of such an arrangement. He said: "Obviously they would be politically, technically, and legally very hard to make work." "Mrs May would have to push for a deal herself. She would have to say to our partners, 'We want you to give Scotland a sweetheart deal.'" "I don't think she wants to do that, because she is keen on the integrity of the United Kingdom, and creating differences between England and Scotland isn't what a Tory politician like Mrs May thinks of The above argues that the SNP has seen a significant change. It has become the anti-English, pro-EU party. It has thrown all its eggs in the EU basket and, at the moment they are all getting scrambled! But the party line is different. In the simplistic black and white world which much of the SNP now inhabit, everything has to be reduced to a Tweet. Every SNP politician and media source over the next few weeks will repeat the phrase "Tory Hard Brexit" because they don't want to acknowledge that there is a left-wing, socialist case for leaving the EU and they don't want to acknowledge that they have been chasing a fantasy. This tendency to simplify things has other consequences. Not least the suppression of dissent and an increasing tendency towards authoritarianism. We will turn to that tomorrow. Meanwhile you can read my earlier thinking on this The End of the Dream – Why the SNP Have Given up on Independence – Part 1 theweeflea | February 9, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Tags: Alex Salmond, Brexit, Charles Grant, Depopulation, Gerry Hassan, Scottish Independence, The European Union, the Scotsman, The Scottish Review, The SNP | Categories: Politics, Scotland | URL: http://wp.me/p3QeUm-35l Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from THE BLOG OF DAVID ROBERTSON. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://theweeflea.com/2017/02/09/when-yes-means-no-a-tale-of-three-referendums-part-1-the-fantasy/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com Reply Reply to All Forward More Click to Reply, Reply all or Forward

peter the man

READ: Acts 2:14-41 Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day—about 3,000 in all (Acts 2:41). I once supervised a woman who constantly demonstrated that her greatest strength was also her greatest weakness. She had passion and drive to do a great job but often got carried away in her zeal and had to be reined in. Peter was a man of similar extremes who often reacted out of two things—passion and fear (Matthew 14:29-31). It was with passion he declared Jesus as God, only to then fearfully denounce His mission (Matthew 16:16-23). This same heart caused him to lash out at those who arrested Jesus and then follow the crowd and be overcome by fear that led to denial (Matthew 26:51-75). Ruled by his emotions, Peter was a picture of instability until he was indwelt by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was transformed. Instead of hiding his affiliation with Jesus, he boldly “stepped forward . . . and shouted to the crowd” (Acts 2:14). He then went on to preach “for a long time, strongly urging all his listeners to [repent]” (Acts 2:40). God used that impromptu sermon to add 3,000 people to the church! Many of us struggle with a particular behavior or trait we just can’t seem to kick, even though we know it doesn’t please God. These weaknesses can leave us feeling defeated, hopeless, and full of despair. But there’s hope! The transforming power of the Holy Spirit is still available today. Once we surrender our hearts to Christ, Romans 8:9 says that “[we] are not controlled by [our] sinful nature.” As we spend time reading and meditating on Scripture, the Holy Spirit works to mold and transform us into the image of Christ. We no longer have to live in fear, defeat, or shame. Instead, like Peter, we can live out our God-given calling boldly and powerfully! —Remi Oyedele NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Exodus 11:1-10, 12:29-36 MORE: Read 2 Corinthians 5:17 to see what happens when we’re transformed by Jesus. NEXT: Think about a past weakness and the process of overcoming it. What principles can you apply from that experience to a current issue you’re struggling with? How has God’s power helped you overcome fear?

Junia's apostleship

Junia's apostleship Grammatical issue: "prominent among" or "well known to"? The meaning of "outstanding among the apostles" is rendered by some translations as "well-known to the apostles"—suggesting that the couple were not apostles but enjoyed a high reputation among the apostles. Some New Testament scholars consider that the Greek phrase episêmos en + dative (literally "noted among") does not automatically demand that the noted person is a member of the group among whom the person is noted. A well-known example of this grammatical construction is found in Euripides' Hippolytus 101:3 where the goddess Aphrodite is "famous (episêmos) among mortals," but evidently is not included as being among the mortals.[5] For this reason some versions, such as the ESV, translate the Greek phrase as "well known to", unlike other versions such as NRSV which translate "prominent among." Those who have argued for the ESV translation include Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace[6] who agree that Junia was a woman but assert that the correct rendition of the Greek text places her as well known to the apostles rather than prominent among the apostles.[6][7] That translation would indicate that the pair were not apostles, but that they enjoyed a high reputation among the apostles.[6]

Big news

I had to get a new bulb for the rear light of my car, so I went to halfords. One way back, I saw three police vans and a couple of police officers at a house by the chip shop. Obviously something big was happening. I expect we will all read about it in the local newspaper next week.

james white and language

Jory, I saw your aggressive demanding of Summer that she never mention you again, and I will confess, I found it tremendously strange. Let me tell you how I would respond to such demands. I do not engage in apologetic ministry to be safe, or comfortable, or popular. I have written a book on Islam, and debated Muslims in mosques in South Africa. I have defended the faith in debates with atheists on university campuses. I have debated Mormons in Salt Lake City. I do not engage in this ministry for the sake of popularity. I pastor in a small church, and am a churchman first and foremost. So when I speak to a subject, I do so first and foremost for the glory of God, the benefit of His people, and for the salvation of the lost. And if it is helpful to God's people for me to point out, as I did on my webcast yesterday, that El Shaddai means "God Almighty," not "the many breasted one," and exactly why that is, linguistically, contextually, and theologically, I will do so, no matter how aggressively you may demand that I never mention you again. To be honest, you were never on my radar screen until Summer mentioned you on her podcast. Fine. You are now. And I will not swear, abjure, promise or vow to never mention you again as some condition of some peace treaty. Stop telling folks silly things about Hebrew (learn something about natural gender, too, esp. regarding "Spirit" in Hebrew) and maybe I won't have reason to find a teachable moment in your teachings. But no minister worth his salt will say, "Oh, OK, I will be silent in the face of error just for the sake of peace." Not possible for any biblically faithful servant

sheologians

Facebook Email or Phone Password Forgotten account? Sign Up To see more from Sheologians on Facebook, log in or create an account. Sign UpLog In English (UK) · Polski · Español · Português (Brasil) · Français (France) Privacy · Terms · Advertising · AdChoices · Cookies · More Facebook © 2017 News Feed Sheologians 4 October 2016 · I feel badly for Jory Micah. Today she is claiming that those who have gone to her Twitter and Facebook to rebuke her for her heresy are all minions of mine, and a cult I apparently lead with my father, and we follow Doug Wilson? It's all very strange. For the record, I haven't sent any one to knock on her. In fact, I've spent quite a bit of time asking those offended by her theology to watch their tongues. Yes, her heresy is bad. Very bad. But that doesn't mean she herself deserves name-calling, etc. Correct her positions, but don't attack her personally. Further, I have never led a cult, or a church. Because you know....women shouldn't do that :) Of course, she continues to attack me personally and blame me for the heat she's getting on social media. She continues to call me terrible things. If you care for Jory, and the souls of those who listen to her heresy, the best thing you can do is pray. Seriously, pray for her. She's heaping up wrath on herself with her false teaching and we should care about that. If you can interact with her without name-calling, then feel free. Finally, I've seen her posts and I know what she's saying, so no need to message me or tag me or whatever else have you. I've attempted to honestly interact with her, and she is not interested. I know it's hard to find out who my dad is online, but the fact that she didn't even try to find out who she was attacking before she did so says quite enough about whether or not a real dialogue will take place here. There is nothing left for me to interact with. I know it's hard to see God profaned online in the awful ways in which she does it and we all want to see her, and those who follow her, come to a true knowledge of God. If that's what you really want, guard your tongue. Be careful with your words. Preach the Gospel. Confront the lies, but do it with wisdom and love. Have a nice day! And seriously.....stop tagging me. :D 389 Likes55 Comments20 Shares

jory micah word study

ory Micah’s Word Study Fallacy on calling Holy Spirit “She” October 4, 2016 by SLIMJIM Some Jory Micah has posted this on her Social media (Twitter, Facebook): 14590018_10153750156091879_6453935964954370800_o Her theology is *tweeked.* There’s a word study fallacy being committed here. Both Hebrew and Greek is a language that have feminine and masculine forms (actually Greek also have neuter forms as well). That means some words lexically are of a particular gender. But that does not necessarily mean that what the noun is would exactly be that gender. For instance the Hebrew word for eagle, נָ֫שֶׁר, and the Greek word for eagle, ἀετός, are masculine in form. But that doesn’t mean that eagles are all male in gender. It just so happen that the word eagle as a noun is in it’s root masculine in form. One is deducing too much from the gender of the word here if one makes it that eagles are essentially male in its nature. Of course there are other reasons why we believe that there are female eagles. This is exactly what’s going on with Jory Micah’s word study. She’s not accounting for Scripture’s use of masculine pronouns with the word “Spirit.” I want to take this one step further. With that kind of bad reasoning I wonder how she would take it when the Greek noun for sin in the Greek is feminine ἁμαρτία and the noun for evil is the feminine κακία. Does that mean sin and evil is feminine? Is evil a “she?” Is it right to extrapolate from that all kinds of biases in the debate about gender roles and use this as an argument against feminism? Of course not. Again I don’t want to be sidetracked from the focus of this post that here she’s making a word study fallacy and that if we adopt her method it is self-refuting towards some of her own beliefs. She doesn’t know how to blush with the bad handling of the original language. Share this: RedditEmailFacebook18TwitterPress

D showed this to me

If He’s Doing These 5 Things, He’s Sooooooo Stringing You Along BY: Judi Mason - 13 Apr '16 | Relationships Share this article! Share 18 view more articles ← Prev Next → bmwkropestrand_feature Recently an old friend crossed my path. Initially, with the pleasantries and friendly interactions, it appeared as if we might work on reconciling our friendship. However, just as quickly as the pleasantries began, so did the mixed messages, the flirty conversation coupled with the evasive behavior, etc. When I confronted him, he played coy and attempted to down play his actions. Based on our history, I had seen this game played on others, and I had no plans in participating. I ended the craziness before it could even begin. Because we frequent the same general area, our paths were destined to cross. When they did, I smiled and kept going. When we reconnected, it appeared that he had changed. Unfortunately, by his actions and double talk, he hadn’t. Ladies, please hear me! We have all made the mistakes of allowing people, especially men to stay longer than they should in our lives. If we are honest, we would admit that some should have never been in our lives in the first place. In an effort to cultivate healthy relationships in the future, learn from your mistakes and apply these lessons going forward. TNMMaleSmileSmirk Here are five warnings signs to let you know if a man is stringing you along: 1. No Commitment He isn’t looking for a committed relationship. He doesn’t put much work into the dating relationship. Nor does he seem that interested in it, so he talks about himself but never asks anything about you, your thoughts or your desires. You know there is an attraction, but you don’t know how he feels about you or where your relationship stands. 2. Marriage Maybe Someday Is he a bit vague on the topic of marriage? He is not sure if you are the one or not, so he keeps you around just in case. He doesn’t want to lose you, but he is not ready to commit to you either. 3. Perpetual Arm Candy A man who feels that he needs to be seen with a particular type of woman for career or social advancements, will use a woman as arm candy. Many of us have noticed this same type of behavior used by a man on the down low in an effort to hide his sexuality. In either case, he has no intention of moving the relationship any further. If he’s only inviting you on dates as his “plus 1,” then you may be just his arm candy. 4. Decoder Ring Needed If you have to spend time trying to decode his actions and conversations, he is stringing you along. Relationships shouldn’t be hard. Two adults should be able to articulate their feelings and clearly define their relationship without any misunderstanding. If he wants you to have a solid place in his life, he’s going to make it crystal clear. 5. Mind Games He creates scenarios to discuss with you, where he implies you are a part of his future but never makes definite plans for you to be. If he’s all talk and no action, he’s likely looking for entertainment and not a real relationship. As you can imagine, these are just a few of the warning signs. At the end of the day, you decide what you want from the relationship. If your relationship isn’t adding up to your standards, let it go. And make room for someone worthy of you. Remember, YOU are a prize and you deserve only the best in every area of your life especially in your relationships. BMWK, have you ever been strung along by a man? What made you finally realize it? About the author Judi Mason wrote 52 articles on this blog. Judi Mason is an Empowerment Strategist, whose mission is to empower You to become your best authentic self. As an accomplished author, Judi has garnered much success with her self-help books and workshops; including her popular Girl Talk: Relationship 101 events- which was birthed from her best-selling book, The Relationship Chronicles- Real Love, Straight Talk No Drama. As a sought after speaker, Judi uses multiple platforms from the marketplace to ministry; to enable individuals to pursue and fulfill their God ordained purpose with passion, in life, love and entrepreneurship. Blog Twitter Facebook Store like what you're reading? Start Shopping! Discussion Facebook Wordpress Leave a Reply You must be logged in to post a comment. Get Single/Dating Articles Delivered To Your Inbox Daily! Sign up below! Other articles you may like TNMWomanThumbsDownNo_feature BY: Martine Foreman - 7 Feb '17 | Single 5 Signs That Your New Man Doesn’t Value Your Time TNMCoupleDateDrinkSmile_feature BY: Troy Spry - 7 Feb '17 | Single 5 First Date Tips That Will Leave Him Wanting More Discover the secret to unbreakable relationships Signup for our Free 4-part video series! Our New Movie for Stepfamilies! Welcome to BMWK! We're Lamar and Ronnie Tyler, the founders of the site. Click here to learn more about us and our campaign to broadcast a positive image of marriage and family to the world! Learn More!

breaking toward freedom

Breaking Toward Freedom Feb 8, 2017 READ: Psalm 118:1-9 In my distress I prayed to the Lord, and the Lord answered me and set me free (Psalm 118:5). Inky the octopus saw his chance and broke for freedom. In 2014, fishermen found Inky, a small octopus (roughly the size of a volleyball) trapped in a crayfish pot and severely injured. The fishermen delivered Inky to New Zealand’s National Aquarium. Though Inky seemed to adjust to his new home, one of the curators observed how they needed to “keep Inky amused” or he’d get bored. Apparently, he got quite bored. Even more, he yearned for the freedom of the open waters. Maintenance staff accidentally left a small opening in the top of his tank, and Inky made a break for it. The next morning, aquarium staff found a trail of suction marks across the floor, leading to a small pipe that drained into the Pacific Ocean. Inky got a whiff of ocean air, and he was gone! The yearning for freedom compels all of us. We may be trapped by sorrowful memories, by relentless addictions, by fears or false ideas or the opinion of others. We may be trapped by poverty or systems of injustice. We may be tempted to believe there’s no way to break loose. Still, in deep places, we hope that somehow we might one day break free. The psalmist wrote, “In my distress I prayed to the Lord, and the Lord answered me and set me free” (Psalm 118:5). “The Lord is for me,” he insists, “so I will have no fear. What can mere people do to me? Yes, the Lord is for me; he will help me” (Psalm 118:6-7). With God, freedom is always possible. And when God makes us free, we are free indeed (John 8:36). In Jesus, we find true freedom. When we say yes to Christ, yes to the kingdom of God, we make a break toward freedom, toward light, toward our healing. When we run toward God, we run toward life. —Winn Collier NLT 365-day reading plan passage for today: Exodus 9:8-10:29 MORE: Read Romans 8:15. What words does Paul use to describe us when we are not moving toward freedom in Jesus? NEXT: Where are you experiencing a need for freedom—where do you feel trapped? What would hold you back from receiving Jesus’ liberation today, from obeying Jesus and breaking free?

Doctor who actor Colin Baker at the Gladstone Pottery Museum Stoke on t...

job and testing

Read: Job 23:1–12 Bible in a Year: Exodus 39–40; Matthew 23:23–39 When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.—Job 23:10 During an interview, singer and songwriter Meredith Andrews spoke about being overwhelmed as she tried to balance outreach, creative work, marital issues, and motherhood. Reflecting on her distress, she said, “I felt like God was taking me through a refining season, almost through a crushing process.” Job was overwhelmed after losing his livelihood, his health, and his family. Worse still, although Job had been a daily worshiper of God, he felt that the Lord was ignoring his pleas for help. God seemed absent from the landscape of his life. Job claimed he could not see God whether he looked to the north, south, east, or west (Job 23:2-9). In the middle of his despair, Job had a moment of clarity. His faith flickered to life like a candle in a dark room. He said, “[God] knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold” (v. 10). Christians are tried and purified when God uses difficulty to burn away our self-reliance, pride, and earthly wisdom. If it seems as if God is silent during this process and He is not answering our cries for help, He may be giving us an opportunity to grow stronger in our faith. Pain and problems can produce the shining, rock-solid character that comes from trusting God when life is hard. —Jennifer Benson Schuldt Dear Lord, help me to believe that You are with me, even when I can’t see You working in my life. I surrender myself to Your purpose for any suffering I may endure. Faith-testing times can be faith-strengthening times. INSIGHT: In today’s passage, Job responds to the accusations brought by his friend Eliphaz, who sarcastically asks whether Job thinks God is judging him because of his reverence for Him (22:4). Eliphaz insists that Job is suffering for a hidden scandal (v. 5). With assumptions but no evidence, he explains Job’s troubles by accusing him of being a self-centered rich man who has mistreated weak people for his own material gain. And so Job expresses his desire to be able to argue his case before God (ch. 23). The wrong assumptions of his friends have become part of the fire that is testing and refining him (v. 10). Do we have the courage to express our honest questions and true feelings to the Lord? Mart DeHaan Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.