How do we get our heads around a free gift, something like when a stranger stands on a street corner and hands you a $100 bill? You did nothing to earn it but you take it probably willingly, but most likely you'd be thinking maybe it's a fake or, someone will soon come out from behind a tree and say, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera"...
Well the fact that Jesus Christ died on a cross to take the full brunt of all of our sins is hard to comprehend, after all why would anyone do that for us? Well, no ordinary bloke would, however, Jesus IS God and He has His own way of doing things, totally different to the way we do things and I'm rapt about that because I can put my faith in Him who knows everything and who truly does have the Whole World In His Hands. The peace and the joy truly knowing that, is just one of the freedom gifts that comes with the Christian tag attached to me.
Christmas Day rolls around every year and it is a wonderful occasion for other's to hear about Jesus and His birth and short life on earth. However, what the world needs to know more about is that He is still here, as the Holy Spirit, living in the believer's who are spreading the Good News about the Saviour of The World.
HAVE A JOYOUS CHRISTMAS EVERYONE AND MAY YOU TOO COME TO KNOW THE ONE I KNOW
Friday, December 23, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
The 3- Inch Bird
Young son recounted the doings of the family cat found to be stashing two of it's birds inside the house this morning...son finds the '3-inch bird' first with hundreds of feathers scattered everywhere and he is wondering if the birds have the bird flu. When I ask, why? he says because he is feeling itchy all over...and cos the birds are kinda, coughing. When gingerly, I ask, why are they coughing, he says they're like, chirping err, err real loud and that the 15-cm bird's head was in the cat's mouth but then it slipped out and then out of the cat's paws and went straight out the doors...I'm left thinking bird flu would be a better option for some birdies.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
A Millstone Round The Neck
The Lord Jesus Christ says if someone causes His people to sin they might as well commit suicide, choose to have a millstone placed round their neck and be cast into the deepest sea.
Another prostitute has been brutally murdered in New Zealand and it is obvious that a life isn't worth much to many people, the murder stats are certainly reflecting that.
It is just as well Jesus Christ came to earth to be our Saviour, we only have to accept Him in Faith, if we do we are assured of eternal life, if we choose not to then we continue on to eternal death and destruction, the millstone round our neck and cast in to hell. The ultimate sin, the sin of unbelief.
Another prostitute has been brutally murdered in New Zealand and it is obvious that a life isn't worth much to many people, the murder stats are certainly reflecting that.
It is just as well Jesus Christ came to earth to be our Saviour, we only have to accept Him in Faith, if we do we are assured of eternal life, if we choose not to then we continue on to eternal death and destruction, the millstone round our neck and cast in to hell. The ultimate sin, the sin of unbelief.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
A Bloggin Minute:The Children are Eating Dog Faeces, arn't they?
A Bloggin MinuteWell yes, one did, forced to, over a seven-week period by his mother and two of her friends.http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3490069a12855,00.html
This type of horrendous crime against children is becoming all too frequent in our small country with a population of only 4Million. It never used to be like this. Things have progressively declined morally since homosexuality was legalised in this country in 1984 and our liberal abortion laws enable thousands of baby New Zealander's to be murdered each year. Recently, the liberal Labour Government has also allowed Civil Unions, the closest they could get, at the moment, to homosexual and lesbian marriage, and they have legalised prostitution and pimping openly on our streets and brothel operating and keeping, in our neighbourhoods. We have drug runners using our soft-touch country now as a major trafficking route, yes it's open slather in what 'was' affectionately known as, Godzone!
I heard a talk-back radio host say,".. but we have the lowest unemployment in the world and the immigrant's coming here are saying this country is so great". Well, they would say that wouldn't they when the countries they are leaving are currently worse than our own, but will they be worse much longer? Or, will our country be worn-down completely? and then where will we go, to India perhaps? South Africa, Zimbabwe, China, how's about Thailand...
This type of horrendous crime against children is becoming all too frequent in our small country with a population of only 4Million. It never used to be like this. Things have progressively declined morally since homosexuality was legalised in this country in 1984 and our liberal abortion laws enable thousands of baby New Zealander's to be murdered each year. Recently, the liberal Labour Government has also allowed Civil Unions, the closest they could get, at the moment, to homosexual and lesbian marriage, and they have legalised prostitution and pimping openly on our streets and brothel operating and keeping, in our neighbourhoods. We have drug runners using our soft-touch country now as a major trafficking route, yes it's open slather in what 'was' affectionately known as, Godzone!
I heard a talk-back radio host say,".. but we have the lowest unemployment in the world and the immigrant's coming here are saying this country is so great". Well, they would say that wouldn't they when the countries they are leaving are currently worse than our own, but will they be worse much longer? Or, will our country be worn-down completely? and then where will we go, to India perhaps? South Africa, Zimbabwe, China, how's about Thailand...
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing Down
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing Down(New Zealand) Parliament loses opportunity to protect marriage
Yesterday, Parliament voted 73-47 to defeat the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Bill that would have defined in legislation that marriage is between one man and one woman. This Bill would have sent a clear message that the traditional definition of marriage is valued and protected in this country.
Parties treated the vote as a conscience issue, although there were some clear voting patterns. All Labour MPs, except one voted against the Bill; National MPs were split 36 in favour of the Bill and 12 opposed; New Zealand First were split, five in favour and two opposed; Jim Anderton, the Green and Maori MPs opposed the Bill; and all United Future MPs and both Act MPs voted in support of the legislation.
Many MPs were convinced by the argument that this legislation is unnecessary because marriage is already defined in our courts as a union between one man and one woman. Whilst technically true, this argument missed the real need for and importance of this Bill.
When similar legislation was passed in Australia last August, the Attorney General, Mr. Peter Ruddock stated it this way: "The bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage...The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children."
This was an opportunity for our Parliament to show it's support for the place of marriage in New Zealand - an opportunity sadly lost.
(The above post was taken from an email from Maxim Institute, (http://www.maxim.org.nz) dated 8 December 2005. Real Issues #186. Sign up for them on the site.)
Yesterday, Parliament voted 73-47 to defeat the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Bill that would have defined in legislation that marriage is between one man and one woman. This Bill would have sent a clear message that the traditional definition of marriage is valued and protected in this country.
Parties treated the vote as a conscience issue, although there were some clear voting patterns. All Labour MPs, except one voted against the Bill; National MPs were split 36 in favour of the Bill and 12 opposed; New Zealand First were split, five in favour and two opposed; Jim Anderton, the Green and Maori MPs opposed the Bill; and all United Future MPs and both Act MPs voted in support of the legislation.
Many MPs were convinced by the argument that this legislation is unnecessary because marriage is already defined in our courts as a union between one man and one woman. Whilst technically true, this argument missed the real need for and importance of this Bill.
When similar legislation was passed in Australia last August, the Attorney General, Mr. Peter Ruddock stated it this way: "The bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage...The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children."
This was an opportunity for our Parliament to show it's support for the place of marriage in New Zealand - an opportunity sadly lost.
(The above post was taken from an email from Maxim Institute, (http://www.maxim.org.nz) dated 8 December 2005. Real Issues #186. Sign up for them on the site.)
Saturday, December 03, 2005
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing Down
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing DownSupreme Court to Consider Parents Rights
from the November 29, 2005 eNews issue. www.khouse.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court will hear a major case on the abortion issue this Wednesday. In 2003, Planned Parenthood took New Hampshire's new parental notification law to court, where it was overturned. The nation's highest court will now hear arguments to determine whether parents' rights over the medical care of their children has more importance than the rights of minor girls to get secret abortions.
New Hampshire's law is simple. It requires at least one parent to be notified, either in person or by certified mail, 48 hours before a minor daughter can legally obtain an abortion. It includes an exception to save the minor's life, as well as a judicial bypass if the girl can convince a judge that she is mature enough to make the decision on her own. A lower court struck down the law days before it was to take effect because it failed to include an exception for the "health" of the girl, and because the exception to save her life was deemed too narrow.
While health exceptions sound like good things, in reality they simply gut laws like this one. "Health" exceptions and "life" exceptions are completely different. If a girl is going to die because the growing embryo has remained inside her Fallopian tube, then an emergency procedure may be necessary before a parent can be notified. However, a child's "health" might include anything. According to the Supreme Court's definition in Doe v. Bolton (1973), "health" can include physical, psychological, emotional, familial, educational or financial "health". A health exception makes laws like these veritably useless.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, will be extremely significant, and will have an effect on other laws that restrict abortions. Right now, thirty-four states have laws that require a parent to either be notified or to give their consent before their minor daughter goes through an abortion. Another nine states have passed similar laws, but have had them struck down by local courts.
This case will also cause the Supreme Court to revisit other abortion-related cases, including Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban (5-4) because the law was vaguely worded and did not include a health exception. The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), another parental/spousal notification case, will also be reconsidered.
Laws that require teenagers to notify their parents or guardians before getting abortions are just good policy. Nobody would argue that minor girls should be allowed to get their tonsils removed without parental consent. Parents have the primary responsibility over the health and welfare of their children. They will be the ones dealing with any harmful physical and emotional effects an abortion might have on their scared, young daughters. They have a right to know their daughter is planning to have an abortion and to have time to discuss with her other options she might not have considered.
"Laws like this are extremely important for protecting vulnerable children against coercion, deception, and the damaging emotional and physical consequences of abortion," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center of Law and Justice. "It makes no sense to permit children to undergo a medical procedure like abortion without their parents being notified. To permit children to get abortions without parental notification is not only legally flawed, but bad public policy. This is an important opportunity for the high court to step in and protect the health and well being of our children."
Related Links:
• Supreme Court Should Uphold Parental Notification Law for Children Seeking Abortions - ACLJ Press Release
• Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England - Duke Law
• Abortion Case Offers U.S. Chief Justice Chance to Reshape - Bloomberg
from the November 29, 2005 eNews issue. www.khouse.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court will hear a major case on the abortion issue this Wednesday. In 2003, Planned Parenthood took New Hampshire's new parental notification law to court, where it was overturned. The nation's highest court will now hear arguments to determine whether parents' rights over the medical care of their children has more importance than the rights of minor girls to get secret abortions.
New Hampshire's law is simple. It requires at least one parent to be notified, either in person or by certified mail, 48 hours before a minor daughter can legally obtain an abortion. It includes an exception to save the minor's life, as well as a judicial bypass if the girl can convince a judge that she is mature enough to make the decision on her own. A lower court struck down the law days before it was to take effect because it failed to include an exception for the "health" of the girl, and because the exception to save her life was deemed too narrow.
While health exceptions sound like good things, in reality they simply gut laws like this one. "Health" exceptions and "life" exceptions are completely different. If a girl is going to die because the growing embryo has remained inside her Fallopian tube, then an emergency procedure may be necessary before a parent can be notified. However, a child's "health" might include anything. According to the Supreme Court's definition in Doe v. Bolton (1973), "health" can include physical, psychological, emotional, familial, educational or financial "health". A health exception makes laws like these veritably useless.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, will be extremely significant, and will have an effect on other laws that restrict abortions. Right now, thirty-four states have laws that require a parent to either be notified or to give their consent before their minor daughter goes through an abortion. Another nine states have passed similar laws, but have had them struck down by local courts.
This case will also cause the Supreme Court to revisit other abortion-related cases, including Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban (5-4) because the law was vaguely worded and did not include a health exception. The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), another parental/spousal notification case, will also be reconsidered.
Laws that require teenagers to notify their parents or guardians before getting abortions are just good policy. Nobody would argue that minor girls should be allowed to get their tonsils removed without parental consent. Parents have the primary responsibility over the health and welfare of their children. They will be the ones dealing with any harmful physical and emotional effects an abortion might have on their scared, young daughters. They have a right to know their daughter is planning to have an abortion and to have time to discuss with her other options she might not have considered.
"Laws like this are extremely important for protecting vulnerable children against coercion, deception, and the damaging emotional and physical consequences of abortion," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center of Law and Justice. "It makes no sense to permit children to undergo a medical procedure like abortion without their parents being notified. To permit children to get abortions without parental notification is not only legally flawed, but bad public policy. This is an important opportunity for the high court to step in and protect the health and well being of our children."
Related Links:
• Supreme Court Should Uphold Parental Notification Law for Children Seeking Abortions - ACLJ Press Release
• Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England - Duke Law
• Abortion Case Offers U.S. Chief Justice Chance to Reshape - Bloomberg
Friday, December 02, 2005
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing Down
A Bloggin Minute: Wearing DownA Judicial Assault on Parenthood
Michael Medved
In an appalling travesty of justice, the Washington State Supreme Court has ordered a husband and wife to share custody of their ten-year-old daughter with a third parent: a lesbian lover the mother rejected four years ago!
The two women lived together when the baby was born, but the mother left homosexuality to marry the biological father of the girl. The court, however, anointed the one-time lesbian lover as a "de facto parent" with the same rights as the mother--despite the fact that she never adopted the girl legally when they lived together.
This decision not only trashes the rights of biological parents, but also slights the significance of legal adoption. It grants special status to a homosexual relationship--even when discarded--while clearly ignoring the best interests of a child.
How would a ten year old benefit from a court-created third parent to whom she bears no biological or adoptive relationship?
Michael Medved is the host of The Michael Medved Show.
Michael Medved is the author of Right Turns: Unconventional Lessons from a Controversial Life.
Michael Medved
In an appalling travesty of justice, the Washington State Supreme Court has ordered a husband and wife to share custody of their ten-year-old daughter with a third parent: a lesbian lover the mother rejected four years ago!
The two women lived together when the baby was born, but the mother left homosexuality to marry the biological father of the girl. The court, however, anointed the one-time lesbian lover as a "de facto parent" with the same rights as the mother--despite the fact that she never adopted the girl legally when they lived together.
This decision not only trashes the rights of biological parents, but also slights the significance of legal adoption. It grants special status to a homosexual relationship--even when discarded--while clearly ignoring the best interests of a child.
How would a ten year old benefit from a court-created third parent to whom she bears no biological or adoptive relationship?
Michael Medved is the host of The Michael Medved Show.
Michael Medved is the author of Right Turns: Unconventional Lessons from a Controversial Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
