Haters and Why They Hate

In I John 3:13, I think that Christians are blessed to read one of the most profound truths of being a contemporary Christian. The passage says: "Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you." This verse refers to the adverse reaction that the righteous face from those who are not living for God.

Before verse 13, I John 13 briefly talks about the story of Cain and Abel where Abel was killed by his jealous brother Cain. There is a famous quote of Albert Einstein that is similar to this Bible verse. Einstein said: "Great spirits often encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds." As Christians, we will face opposition of all kinds. We will face spiritual and fleshly enemies. Why do people of the world hate us? Why should we not be surprised?

The story of Cain and Abel is a story of the first two brothers from the book of Genesis. The story of Cain and Abel immediately follows the Creation Story in the Garden of Eden and the fall of man that happened as Eve bit of the apple. I love the Bible so much because God wasted no time in addressing the key issues of family dysfunction. Cain and Abel is the Bible version of the most severe form of sibling rivalry.

Genesis 4:3-7 says: "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you , but you must master it."

In this excerpt, we see the first example of tithing in the Old Testament. Abel gave the firstborn of his flock and "fat offerings" the Bible says. It's not that Cain came empty handed, his offering just wasn't up to par with Abel's offering. We read nothing about Abel being boastful, rude, loud, or obnoxious to his brother Cain. Cain was angry because of the Lord's response to Abel and his offering. Does that sound familiar? Have you ever been favored highly by the Lord and you realize that the closest people to you are angry and their eyes are downcast?

If you're like most people, the answer to these questions is yes. The sad reality is that when God favors us because of the sacrifices that we make, people around us become very angry. Some people who are like Cain, become angry enough to "kill" us either in their mind or in their heart. Worst case scenario, some people even commit a physical murder out of anger at the favor of another person.

"Do not be surprised if the world hates you." the Bible says. Upon first glance, this verse looks outlandish. How could we not be surprised when people hate us? Why would anyone hate us especially when we are doing the good that is expected of us? The answer to that is quite simple. When you are reaching your potential and honoring God, people around you will recognize that you are being blessed. Envy and/or jealousy will grow in their heart almost undoubtedly. The Bible does not specify if Cain knew that Abel's offerings were better than his. It just says that Cain was angry anyway. People may not need to see the sacrifice that we do in our lives to receive God's blessing. They only see us excelling in our professional, personal, and spiritual lives. They only witness our blessings and become angry.

The latter part of the excerpt from Genesis teaches us another priceless pearl of godly wisdom. It says: "But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." God explained to Cain that if we do not follow His commands, sin or the devil is crouching at our door. Crouching means that the devil is lurking in our mist; in fact, this verse tells us that the devil is right at our door. He's waiting for us to open the door for him. God commands us to master the sin and the manifestations of the devil in our life. If we don't master these, as we see with the case of Cain and Abel, murder and death immediately follow our actions.

"For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23 says. Not living up to our potential leads us to become jealous of those who are doing so. When we become jealous and witness the blessings bestowed on others, we become angry and our eyes are downcast. Beware of those around you who are not living up to their potential in Christ. They are more likely to become angry when they see your blessings than those who are far removed from you. This is why we are to encourage one another to grow in Christ. We should want the best for other brothers and sisters for their benefit and our safety ultimately. The death that follow sin isn't always a physical death--it can be emotional, spiritual and/or of the mind. One can argue that the latter is more dangerous because it is not visible to the human eye.

Is there someone in your life who hates you? Are your surprised by their hate and not sure of where it's coming from? Is there someone who you hate and you know it stems from envy and or jealousy? What are some of the emotional, mental, and spiritual deaths that have occurred in your life because you weren't living up to your potential?

Sunday Morning Christians: Acting One Way at Church, and Another at Home

When I used to go to church, I thought everyone was fake. They shook your hand, hollered the Lord's name, prayed over you, and preached. But after church, you realized the same people who were jumping around and clapping their hands are the same people who would curse you out Monday to Saturday -- but on Sunday they shook your hand.

I've noticed this trend for years. The pastors would preach about it, and the same ones who were yelling “preach pastor, preach” were the same ones who did it. I try not to call people out or hold it against them, because I know I’m not perfect myself; no one is perfect. But when I do take the time and go to church, my attitude always stay the same. I’m not saying that I have a nasty attitude, because I don’t; I’m saying that I’m still the same person no matter where I go. So, why must I change my attitude and become someone I’m not once I walk into the Lord's house?

I’m quite sure everyone knows at least one person who does something along these lines. Like they curse at home, but don’t curse in the church. They go partying every Saturday night, get drunk, and manage to get up Sunday morning and make it to church. They will fight with people as long as they think they can get their way, but smile at those same people on Sunday. They can mess with every guy or girl in town, but on Sunday they’re jumping up and down thinking everyone don’t know what they truly do. Believe me, I’ve seen it all.

One thing about going to church is that it seems like you have to dress to impress. Since when church was a fashion show? I go to church as I am. I don’t dress up. I don’t wear big hats which to me look like a birds nest, I don’t wear dresses with flowers on them, or dresses with polka dots. And I don’t wear them old granny shoes. I wear comfortable clothes. Nothing skimpy or revealing. Just something that suits me.

I also can’t stand it when people always seem to have conversations with you on Sunday, but the rest of the week they ignore you until you see them again the next Sunday. Or either it’s the other way around, they ignore you in church, but outside of church they have so much more to say to you. What is it with people? They’re one way and then next the other. I’m not perfect, and I don’t claim to be perfect. I don’t hide behind a bible nor do I hide inside of church. I am who I am. Why can’t people just be themselves?

Have you ever felt like people act differently toward you at church than outside of church?  Do you think you've been guilty of this?  What can we do to be consistently projecting the love of Christ?

Search Me, O God, and Know My Heart: Cultivating Hearts That Need God

"Investigate my life, O God, find out everything about me; Cross-examine and test me, get a clear picture of what I’m about; See for yourself whether I’ve done anything wrong–then guide me on the road to eternal life"   
  -- Psalm 139:23-24 [MSG].

If God is God, and I believe that He is, why would the Psalmist invite Him to check his life out to see if he had done anything wrong? Wouldn’t it be pretty obvious that God already knew anything and everything David (the Psalmist) had ever done that was out of line? David’s remarks just don’t seem congruent with the idea of an all-knowing God.

Actually it seems to me that David is asking God to examine him -- to thoroughly investigate his life (his heart [see the NIV]) not for God’s benefit, but for his own. Why do you suppose David makes such an earnest request? Perhaps he is fully aware that God knows his heart inside and out, but that he (David) doesn’t. There are many things that he is aware of, but of some things he is not. And so David asks God to make known to him what he has hidden from himself along with all the other deep things about himself that he could never discover without God’s divine insights. 

David may know a lot about himself and his heart, but there is so much more that he does not comprehend, and he understands that even the stuff he is not aware of (what he has tucked away in the deep recesses of his heart) has a profound effect in his life every single day of his life. They vitally impact every aspect of his being.

Look at the emphasis of this passage: "Investigate my life", "find out", "cross examine and test", "get a clear picture" and "see for yourself..."  Why? So God could "guide" him "on the road to eternal life." Without God’s clear and complete perspective, David will be floundering about in total darkness. Until he is able to view his life (heart) through the eyes of God, he will stumble around aimlessly and the issues of his life will continue to be in question.

Jeremiah’s very familiar description of the human heart -- which also addresses David’s concerns above -- is contained in his expanded and insightful commentary on Psalm 1.

"GOD's Message: ‘Cursed is the strong one who depends on mere humans, Who thinks he can make it on muscle alone and sets GOD aside as dead weight.  He's like a tumbleweed on the prairie, out of touch with the good earth.  He lives rootless and aimless in a land where nothing grows.  But blessed is the man who trusts me, GOD, the woman who sticks with GOD. They're like trees replanted in Eden, putting down roots near the rivers-- Never a worry through the hottest of summers, never dropping a leaf, Serene and calm through droughts, bearing fresh fruit every season.

The heart is hopelessly dark and deceitful, ["Deep beyond all things . . . "(Septugint.)] a puzzle that no one can figure out.  But I, GOD, search the heart and examine the mind.  I get to the heart of the human.  I get to the root of things

I treat them as they really are, not as they pretend to be."
  -- Jeremiah 17:5-10 [MSG].

I am quite aware that this passage, particularly verse 9, is thought to describe the deep depravity of the human heart, but I personally believe this description may even be a proper representation of the dilemma confronting our first parents while still inhabiting the Garden of Eden; a careful examination of the first several lines of this reading seems to point to that very circumstance. They were created as perfect humans -- by our standards, an oxymoron -- without sin, but they, like us were dependent beings. A close and constant connection to their Creator was pivotal to their survival in that place. They needed Him to be with them for guidance, wisdom, encouragement and strength.

As long as they maintained this close connection to Him, they thrived. However, they made two fatal mistakes: First, they allowed Satan to isolate them as he appealed to their sense of pride and independence. Second, they were deceived into thinking they could make a good decision without the wise counsel of Yahweh.

They tried to go it alone, the result being that they failed miserably.  God, their loving Father was not far from them, and had they exercised their God-given freedom to go to Him for counsel and guidance, Satan's strategy to destroy humanity would have been foiled. As it turned out, the tempter used one of his favorite ploys -- 'divide and conquer' with tragic consequences. The close connection between God and humanity had been severed and the man and woman were compelled to leave their first home -- the garden of Eden in order to scratch out a living in a less than ideal environment.

Like our parents, Adam and Eve, who failed to negotiate the dark shadows and recesses of the human heart, we too, often learn the hard way just how difficult and confusing the heart’s complexities really are. Indeed, the most shallow heart is profoundly deep because in its depths, the human heart is an impossibly intricate puzzle that not even the wisest of us can master.

Even Jesus, the Divine Son of God confessed: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself"  (John 15:19).  Should it surprise us then that He later said: "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5 [emphasis mine])?  It is critical that we cultivate hearts that understand their limitations and acute need for God’s wisdom and guidance in all things.  This is an insult to our ego and sense of independence, but it is a fact that we will never reach the great potential that we possess without His constant presence both with and within us. We desperately need Him in our lives, and that’s a fact!

Yes Lord, "Search me ... and know my heart; ... See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" 
  --  Psalm 139:23-24 [NIV].

What does it mean to you for God to search and know your heart? 

When the Pastor is a Phony: Preachers Who Are Not Believers

By Matt at  The Church of No People 

I’m not quite sure what to say to this…

…but, as is my style, I’ll try.

Baptist Press published a recent article about pastors who aren't Christians.  As in, they’re preaching from the Bible, but they don’t believe it.  They aren’t just rejecting a few doctrines.  They’re outright atheists.  But their churches don’t know it. 

Being a pastor is different from most professions.  You don’t really hear about an astronaut who went into space, despite his hypocritical denial of gravity.  Or the bank teller who secretly felt that money is a complex and highly vulnerable illusion shared by the whole of mankind that has no intrinsic value.  No one cares what an astronaut or bank teller believes.

The article is anecdotal evidence.  There’s not statistics involved.  It’s just stories of five unbelieving pastors.  There’s the Methodist whose an atheist.  But he admits, most of his congregation doesn’t literally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, or was resurrected either, so it’s all good.

Or the Church of Christ pastor whose an atheistic agnostic, but goes to church to “play act” in front of his congregation, because he no longer sees hypocrisy as wrong.  Well, at least your conscience is clear.

Or how about the Presbyterian minister who rejects most Christian doctrine, but stays in the ministry for the money.  Or the Baptist who would “leave the ministry right away” if someone offered him $200 grand.

I’m speechless about that one…almost.

Since when is the ministry a sound financial strategy?

The Presbyterian blew me away probably the most of all of them.  I’d like to know just what kind of cash the guy is raking in that makes the ministry so flipping attractive that he just can’t pull himself away.  This isn’t the first time a pastor has somehow made me think of the fat little suckling piglets at the petting zoo.  And what’s with the $200,000 figure for the Baptist?  We have to assume these guys have a major financial incentive to stay.

I’d sure like to get a piece of that action.  Instead, I (and thousands of other pastors) labor as “bi-vocational” ministers, thank you very much.  That means we worked hard enough to make ourselves qualified for more than one career to support the ministries we love, because they offer us few financial rewards.  And as of now, I’m still working to claw my way into a viable educational career that makes a decent salary.  I work two jobs and still make a fraction of what most fat-cat pastors make.  Being bi-vocational has absolutely changed my heart, and a lot more pastors should try it.  There’s nothing like working alongside your people during the week to give yourself some extra credibility.

And just for you pastors who don’t think you’d ever find the time to pursue a second productive career, just cut a few of the useless, unproductive business meetings you have every week.  Most of you, even in the mid-size churches would find the time to pursue at least part-time employment outside of your church bubble.  Trust your people to get stuff done without you, if it’s important to them.   But I promise, your church will not collapse without another frivolous meeting to discuss how to waste more money.

Who’s to blame?

That’s usually the best question to ask when something bad happens.  Actually, I think a lot of people are to blame.

The pastors themselves are to blame for abusing the ministry.  They should go into politics or something.  A couple of these guys sounded like they entered the ministry without even being believers.  But the rest of them let their faith deteriorate over time.  That’s probably years of neglect.

The denominations are to blame too.  Who is ministering to their ministers?  I’ll be making my second trip to a monastery for a few days this summer.  I do this to rest, study and meditate.  The monks don’t let me chant with them.  I saw a lot of priests up there last time.  Why?  To go to confession.  Not to hear confessions – to give them.  These guys spend hours, weeks, months listening to people air their dirty laundry and talk about their messed up lives, and no one is there to listen to them at the end of the day, not even a wife!   Pastors need therapy as much as anyone else…probably more.

I also blame the pastors’ church members.  Most pastors don’t go into the ministry because they were drama majors in college.  They aren’t great actors.  If your pastor is a thespian, I’d be suspicious.  It should be pretty tough to fake being a good pastor and a genuine Christian.  If a few hundred people can listen to a guy every week and have no suspicions that he’s a phony who hates his job and doesn’t believe a word he’s saying, then they’re probably all phonies too…which would make sense for a phony pastor to lead a phony church full of phonies.  J.D. Salinger would have a field day with these guys.

How many pastors hate their job?

Just a question I wonder about.  Even among the vast majority of pastors who have faith, how many of them don’t like the ministry?  Or better question: what percent of the time does any given pastor not like his job?  I’d imagine every pastor has his days.  Mondays usually aren’t very good.  What would it take to get them to leave?

I bet if you offered $200,000 to a bunch of Christians for them to never go to church again, a bunch of them would take you up on it, since a lot of people are just in church so Jesus will make them rich anyway.  Just cut the middleman.

What do you think of this?  It can’t be a new thing, but it’s disheartening.  Do you think you’d know if your pastor was a faker?  If you’re a pastor, do you have someone to mentor you?  How much of the time do you not like your job?  If you could take a second career, what would it be?  Or, what would your price be to leave the ministry?

Denominations & Religion

• Posted by Hezekiah Ben Israel on February 20, 2010 at 8:25am in Preaching and Teaching

Hezekiah: There are denominations because they are the daughters of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church because they did not want the Pope to be the Last word. They kept the traditions of the doctrine they worked out, but the Pope no longer lead them. Revelation 17 clearly shows the Catholic Church and her daughters... You can find it in history.. Look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the split of the church.. I will break down this Revelation 17:1-5

Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Hezekiah: The great whore is this religion, and it is over the whole world. The Catholic religion has over a billion followers all over the world. This is that many waters.

Revelation 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Hezekiah: The Kings of the Earth or the Presidents in our time have committed spiritual fornication. Fornication to the Lord is not doing what he says. If you look when the Presidents of the world meet the Pope, they must kiss his ring. They have been made drunk, meaning they have been made to follow this wine or doctrine thinking it is right to do, and it is not. For example Christmas came from Rome. It is the worship of the Pagan winter festival, and the Catholic church said that it will be celebrated as Jesus' birthday. Everyone in the whole world celebrates this festival. The inhabitants, meaning everybody has did Christmas one time or another thinking there was nothing wrong with it .. The majority of people since very few people have not ever done Christmas or some form of this Pagan ritual.

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Hezekiah: He saw the Catholic religion siting on a beast or control the secular world rulership, which will be the European Union when they become more powerful, and get their armies to cooperate. He said having 7 heads and 10 horns. The seven heads are the 7 mountains where this religion rules, which is Rome, and the 10 Horns are the 10 nations that will be ultimately the European Union at the coming of the Lord. The 10 Nations are Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourge, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Great Britain.

 Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Hezekiah: The Woman has a golden cup in her hand, and what was in her cup is bad doctrine. Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Lent, Halloween, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, The January New Year, the rapture, going to Heaven, going to church on Sunday, Sunday Sabbath, 7 year tribulation, Jesus nailing all the laws to the cross except tithes, worshiping Mary, all of that comes from Rome, and not the Bible. If you look on the catholic alter you can see all these scarlet colours, and precious stones, and pearls.

 
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Hezekiah: It is a mystery because the whole world does not know that this church or this religion is this great whore because they are drunk off the wine of her fornication. It is called Babylon the great because Babylon is the only other World rulership to force it's religion on the whole world, and it is called great because it has lasted for so long. It also said that she is the mother of Harlots. She is a mother religion to the religions that came out of her.

Rome

Roma. The Eternal City. The Seat of Holy Mother Church.
http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/roma

The East–West Schism, sometimes known as the Great Schism^[1] divided medieval Christianity into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.^[2] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates travelled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.^[2] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.^[2]The Western legates' acts may have been of doubtful validity due to Leo's death, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.^[2] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed. The Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.^[2] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople. On paper, the two churches were actually reunited in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence), but in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole. In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence, making the breach between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final. In 1965, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.^[2]Contacts between the two sides continue: every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

All mainstream Protestants generally date their doctrinal separation from the Roman Catholic Church to the 16th century, occasionally called the Magisterial Reformation, because the ruling magistrates supported them; unlike the Radical Reformation, which the State did not support. Older Protestant churches, such as the Unitas Fratrum (Unity of the Brethren), Moravian Brethren (Bohemian Brethren) date their origins to Jan Hus in the early 15th century. As it was led by a Bohemian noble majority,
and recognized, for a time, by the Basel Compacts, the HussiteReformation was Europe’s first Magisterial Reformation. One hundred years later, in Germany the protests erupted simultaneously, whilst under threat of Islamic Ottoman invasion ¹, which especially distracted the German princes responsible for military defense.

Hezekiah: There you have it. There is Rome and her daughters, and are not of the church of God. Israel is the church or God. Here is the origins of Islam, and Judiasm..

ISLAM

Origin of Islam: According to Secular History
The origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia. Islam is thus the youngest of the great world religions. The prophet
Muhammad (circa 570-632 A.D.) introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after
experiencing what he claimed to be an angelic visitation. Muhammad
dictated the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims believe to
be the preexistent, perfect words of Allah.

Origin of Islam: According to Islam

The origin of Islam is generally accredited to the prophet Muhammad but to
the devout Muslim, Islam began long before Muhammad ever walked the
earth. The Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad but, according to the
Qur'an, it did not originate with Muhammad. The Qur'an testifies of
itself that it was given by God through the angel Gabriel to the
prophet Muhammad. "This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe.
The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your
heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue"
(Sura 26:192-195). "Say, 'Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that
he has brought down this (the Qur'an) into your heart, in accordance
with God's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance
and good news for the believers'" (Sura 2:97).

Origin of Islam: According to Secular History
The origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia. Islam is thus the youngest of the great world religions. The prophet
Muhammad (circa 570-632 A.D.) introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after
experiencing what he claimed to be an angelic visitation. Muhammad
dictated the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims believe to
be the preexistent, perfect words of Allah.

Origin of Islam: According to Islam
The origin of Islam is generally accredited to the prophet Muhammad but to
the devout Muslim, Islam began long before Muhammad ever walked the
earth. The Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad but, according to the
Qur'an, it did not originate with Muhammad. The Qur'an testifies of
itself that it was given by God through the angel Gabriel to the
prophet Muhammad. "This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe.
The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your
heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue"
(Sura 26:192-195). "Say, 'Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that
he has brought down this (the Qur'an) into your heart, in accordance
with God's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance
and good news for the believers'" (Sura 2:97).

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm

Hezekiah: The Prophet Mohamed is the creator of Islam for the Ishamelites or Arabs, and is not the God of Israel.

Judiasm

Edom (Hebrew: אֱדוֹם, Modern Edom Tiberian ʼĔḏôm ; "red") is a name given to Esau in the Hebrew Bible, as well as to the nation descending from him. The nation's name in Assyrian was Udumi; in Syriac, ܐܕܘܡ; in Greek, Ἰδουμαία (Idoumaía); in Latin, Idumæa or Idumea.

The Edomite people were a Semitic-speaking tribal group inhabiting the Negev Desert and the Arabah valley of what is now southern Dead Sea and adjacent Jordan. The region has much reddish sandstone, which may have given rise to the name "Edom". The nation of Edom is known to have existed back to the 8th or 9th century BC, and the Bible dates it back several centuries further. Recent archaeological evidence may indicate an Edomite nation as long ago as the 11th century BC, but the topic is controversial and others argue that the 8th or 9th century dates are correct.^[1] The nation ceased to exist as a settled state with the Jewish-Roman Wars.

The Hasmoneans (/hæzməˡniən/ Hebrew: חשמונאים‎, Hashmonayim, Audio) were the ruling dynasty of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (140–37 BC),^[1] an independent Jewish state. The Hasmonean dynasty was established under the leadership of Simon Maccabaeus, two decades after his brother Judah the Maccabee defeated the Seleucid army during the Maccabean Revolt in 165 BC. The Hasmonean Kingdom survived for 103 years before yielding to the Herodian Dynasty in 37 BC. Even then, Herod the Great felt obliged to bolster the legitimacy of his reign by marrying a Hasmonean princess, Mariamne, and conspiring to have the last male Hasmonean heir drowned in his Jericho palace.

Hezekiah: If Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70AD all the inhabitants from Israel, The Edomites or Idumaeans had to have slid in and took the land.. They practice Judiasm. That is where it comes from, and they mingled it with the worship of the God of Israel because they stole the land. Now they are called Jews, and claim they worship the God of Israel. Here they are in the Bible.

Obadiah 6-15 How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee:
there is none understanding in him. Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them. But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of
their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;Neither
shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his thatdid remain in the day of distress.

For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Hezekiah: So in the end Israel is the church, and we are to fear God and keep his commandments...

Acts 7:38-39  This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

General David Petraeus Photo: AP

Americans have never been so disgusted with their politicians. More than three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress. President Barack Obama's favourability ratings have slumped to below 50 per cent and he is no longer trusted or believed by many who voted for him.

Republicans are faring little better and the growth of the Tea Party movement reflects the widespread disgust with Washington and the political class. Incumbents across the board are vulnerable in November's mid-term elections.

Many voters yearn for an outsider, someone with authenticity, integrity and proven accomplishment. Someone who has not spent their life plotting how to ascend the greasy pole, adjusting every utterance for maximum political advantage.

In this toxic climate, perhaps the only public institution that has increased in prestige in recent years is the American military. Its officers are looked upon, as General George Patton once noted, as "the modern representatives of the demi-gods and heroes of antiquity".

Where better to look for Obama's successor, therefore, than in the uniformed ranks? Not since 1952, when a certain Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War, was elected President, have the chances of a military man winning the White House been more propitious.

within those ranks, no one stands out like General David Petraeus, head of United States Central Command, leader of 230,000 troops and commander of United States forces in two wars. Having masterminded the Iraq surge, the stunning military gambit that seized victory from the jaws of defeat, he is now directing an equally daunting undertaking in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, 57, has survived the collapse of his parachute 60 feet above the ground. After he was shot in the chest during a training exercise and endured five hours surgery, the then battalion commander refused to lie in hospital recuperating. Demanding that the tubes be removed from his arm, he declared: "I am not the norm."

A Princeton PhD, he has revolutionised the way America fights its wars, inculcating the doctrine of counter-insurgency in a new generation of officers who have finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest. At West Point he qualified for medical school just to prove he could, never bothering to apply.

The problem is that Petraeus appears to have no desire to be commander-in-chief. His denials of any political ambition have come close to the famous statement by General William Sherman. The former American Civil War commander, rejecting the possibility of running for president in 1884 by stating: "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

Yet speculation about "Petraeus in 2012" persists. The White House is wary of him just as President Bill Clinton was wary of General Colin Powell in 1995. Rumours that he wants to run have even reached Downing Street.

At a recent appearance in New Hampshire - which happens to be the state in which the first presidential primary will be held in January 2012 - Petraeus was emphatic.

"I thought I'd said 'no' about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no," he insisted when asked if he was destined for politics. "I've tried quoting a country song 'What part of 'no' don't you understand?' but I really do mean that...I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you." Almost Shermanesque.

Some note, however, when the future President Barack Obama was asked in February 2007 if he would serve his full six-year term in the Senate (due to expire in 2010), he responded: "If you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things." When asked directly if he would run for the White House in 2008, he said flatly: "I will not."

There's little reason to doubt the sincerity of Petraeus's denials. He recently confided that he has remained so steadfastly apolitical since he became a major-general that he has not voted. And he has maintained a much lower profile since the Bush administration, when he became closely identified with the former President.

This month, in an interview for a lengthy and laudatory profile in Vanity Fair, he evens praises Obama as being "everything that everyone says he is... exceedingly bright, very focused - and very competitive, by the way".

Petraeus, wire-thin and an accomplished runner, is known for being one of the most competitive men on the planet and he lacks nothing in the self-assurance department. No one has ever accused him of being deficient in his sense of patriotism.

Whether as an independent or as Republican, he could be a powerful presidential candidate and a potentially accomplished President. He may not want to run but if the clamour to draft him grows he might just find the call of duty - not to mention the contest of a lifetime - difficult to resist.

Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that the world is “at a turning point in history” because of Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

Appearing Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Lieberman said he supported President Barack Obama's call for sanctions against Iran, but he said he thinks the United States should adopt a more aggressive stance on the issue.

“I worry more that we're not going to do enough to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon quickly enough,” he said. “I, I believe we're at a turning point in history. Iran with nuclear weapons is going to mean this world will be a lot less safe than it is today, and there are already threats to our safety every day. We've never – this is an extremist, expansionist power. There's never been another country like this with nuclear weapons, and we've got to impose tough sanctions quickly. I believe Congress will adopt a tough sanctions bill soon, I hope this month of April.”

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said the United States must be tough because “frankly, it's the last chance that we're giving Iran and ourselves not to be left with a choice of either accepting them having nuclear weapons or taking military action. In my opinion, we have to be prepared to take military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program if they refuse to stop themselves.”

By: Dan Weil

Rush Limbaugh is striking back at President Barack Obama.

On Friday, the nation's top-rated radio host hit back at Obama, saying the president isn’t telling the truth and doesn't have the support of the American people.

The controversy started Thursday, when Obama used an interview with CBS' Harry Smith to level a broadside at Limbaugh and Fox News host Glenn Beck.

Smith asked Obama if he is “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation" about him, including being called a Nazi and socialist.

Obama shot back, "Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, and it's troublesome, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out."

The president said, "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country."

Limbaugh didn't take Obama's comments lightly.

In a response on his radio show, also posted to rushlimbaugh.com, the talk radio king said, “Who has called him a Nazi?  Who do we know that has called him a Nazi?  Socialist?  Yeah.  Stalinist?  Yeah.  Marxist?  Yeah.  Nazi?  We have compared healthcare in America to what the Nazis tried to do in Germany and get the control of the people going in that regard.”

As for Obama’s claim to have the people’s support, “The American people do not think that Barack Obama is doing what's best for the country,” Limbaugh said. 

“They do not believe that in the slightest.  Never in my life have I seen a regime like this governing so against the will of the people, purposely.  I have never known more people personally who literally fear for the country.”

Limbaugh also lambasted the major media for its bias in favor of Obama.

“For Barack Obama to run around and say that this show and Beck and all of talk radio is filled with vitriol?  Barack Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and never once complained about the tone of Jeremiah Wright's bigoted, anti-American, racist rants.”

Polling data suggests that Rush may be right, as Obama's approval ratings sink.

Obama’s approval rating fell to 44 percent in the latest CBS News Poll, the lowest level of his tenure in office.

That compares to 49 percent in late March, just before the healthcare reform bill became law. His approval rating was 50 percent in January and 68 percent last April.

resbyterian Church USA Ready to Declare War Against Israel

A group of activists hostile to Israel, including theologians and others in some prominent Protestant churches have launched a dangerous campaign to use theology to delegitimize the Jewish State and her supporters. They may be only days away from putting the policy of a large Protestant denomination on a collision course with Israel’s survival — unless we raise our voices in protest.

This comes just as Israel’s right to defend her citizens is denounced as ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ by the UN’s Goldstone Report; when Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was verbally attacked at Oxford University with chants of “Slaughter the Jews”; and when screaming Muslim “activists” tried to silence or censor the speech by Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, at the University of California, Irvine.

In 2004, The Presbyterian Church in the US (PCUSA) became the first mainline
Protestant denomination to approve a policy of divestment from Israel. Unpopular with church members, it was later rescinded.

But in 2008, church leaders supposedly seeking to balance PCUSA'a Middle East policies, instead, created a committee dominated by seven activists holding strong anti-Israel beliefs. The lone member sympathetic to Israel, quit in protest when he saw their radical agenda.
Here’s what we know about their report from a press release leaked by the committee last month:

•the report calls for the US to withhold financial and military aid to Israel
•it apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist
•it declares that Israel, if defined as a Jewish State, must be inherently racist
•it embraces the Kairos Palestine Document, produced by Palestinian Christians, calling for boycott and sanctions against Israel and endorses full Palestinian ‘right of return‘ to Israel which would lead to the demise of the Jewish democratic state
•it denies any connection between biblical covenants and the Jewish people. Israel’s history, it claims, begins only with the Holocaust, a nation mistakenly created by Western powers at the expense of the Palestinian people to solve the ‘Jewish problem’

Adoption of this poisonous document by the Presbyterian Church will be nothing short of a declaration of war on Israel and her supporters.

It will be negatively impact interfaith relations, and could have significant repercussions in the political domain, with 46 Members of the US Congress and Senate who are Presbyterians.

And these initiatives, encouraged by the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, will cause a ripple effect on other denominations.

Which is why we urgently ask you to do two things:

1) Protest directly to the top leadership of the PCUSA urging them to stop this dangerous campaign which denies the legitimacy and security of Israel.

2) Reach out to your Presbyterian friends and ask them to speak out against this potential rewriting of PCUSA's policy towards Israel that will destroy the era of good will that has been fostered with the Jewish community for decades.

There are many staunch friends of Israel in PCUSA whose voices are being drowned out by a few determined activists, who are relentlessly pursuing a radical political anti-Israel agenda.

Act now: It is not too late for you to make a difference.

Supna Zaida: Feminism's failure to defend Muslim women

By: Supna Zaida
OpEd Contributor
October 16, 2009

Recently, I crossed paths with a cute, chubby prepubescent girl on a street in Philly. She was about six years old, dressed in an ankle length hijab. As we crossed paths, I smiled and thought nothing of it.

Later, though, I was bothered by the idea that someone so young would be required to wear a headscarf, since even the most orthodox interpretation of Islam requires a woman to cover her hair upon hitting puberty, and otherwise, simply dress "modestly".

Then I remembered her mother and an op-ed I read last year. Her mother wore a niqab, which is a hijab-plus garment that not only covers a woman's hair, but also her face and body, leaving slits for eyesight only. Suddenly, the headscarf on the six-year-old made sense. The daughter was being mentally prepared for the niqab.

The niqab is controversial. A ban is being called for from France to Canada. It has become a symbol of not only female suppression, but radical Islam's invocation of separatism and criminality as well. Unfortunately, the niqab is but one issue facing Muslim women today.

Remember Lubna Hussain, the Sudanese journalist found guilty of indecent dress for wearing trousers in Sudan, or the more recent news highlighting Egyptian clerical outrage against Chinese hymen reconstruction kits now available for $30?

Such incidents move quickly through Western news media due to their un-believability. But, if one understood the danger behind such incidences, perhaps reaction in the West would be stronger, especially from feminists.

What these stories have in common is the continued use of a woman's body as the first battleground for political and cultural conflicts between reformers and authoritarian religious patriarchs that enjoy the status quo.

Which brings me to the op-ed, I mentioned above. Feminist Naomi Wolf published a troubling article entitled, "Behind theveil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality," where Wolf argued that veiling is a valid form of modesty when predicated upon choice. Her proof of free-will was based on visits to various homes in Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.

Wolf argues that, unlike Western society which ruins women's lives with unattainable standards of beauty, the veil allows women to be taken seriously in the public sphere without objectification. Moreover, Muslim women are "thriving" in private where their sexuality is appropriately channeled towards marriage.

Is this what feminists argue these days? It is essential to recognize that, while some modern Muslims may choose to wear a headscarf, no choice exists where a girl is socialized to "channel" her sexuality "for her husband."

Such social mores reinforce the belief that women are property, who must consider their sexuality and identity as mere extensions of family honor. It is no coincidence then that honor killings are prevalent in the countries Wolf visited.

Moreover, it is ironic that Wolf, ignoring such realities of the Middle East and North Africa, is able to marvel at the access Muslim women have to Victoria's Secret catalogues, whose very images illustrate the feminine ideal Wolf ridicules in the West.

Lubna Hussain was not jailed for wearing pants. She was convicted for being an outspoken journalist, who criticized undemocratic laws in Sudan. She was an easy target because she was a woman. If the authoritarian Sudanese government was incapable of debating her intellectually, they resorted to attacking her person - her sex, and justifying it with high-minded notions of religion and morality.

Likewise, Egyptian clerics who revile the hymen-reconstruction kits, are not simply concerned with immorality in society. Instead, they tacitly reinforce the notion that the "goodness" in society, or its collective honor, is the woman's burden alone.

Wolf forgets that women in our own nation were never handed equal rights, but fought for them in increments. For generations, American women endured threats, jail, physical assaults and ostracization from friends and family, including religious arguments against their activities. Yet, Wolf concludes by asking that the West not judge the veiled women on our streets and calls any hesitancy we have Islamophobic.

I can't imagine what she would conclude then of actual Muslim women in Muslim majority nations, like Lubna Hussain, who fight for more personal and political rights and are criticized, harmed or jailed by locals for upsetting local religious or cultural standards that are meant to keep women marginalized.

The debate on women's rights and human rights are not "relative" but universal. Feminists like Naomi Wolf do men and women a disservice by blurring the line between equality and human rights with cultural relativism.

Supna Zaida is assistant director of Islamist Watch and editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today.