Kicking and Screaming Into the Modern World
The importance of a solid stand on the authority and inerrancy of the Word of God is seen in the wish-washy performance and response of the Osteen couple.
Piers Morgan, the interviewer, recognizes the problem of Osteen's position and presses him hard but Osteen wants to have one foot in the Kingdom of God and one foot in the Kingdom of Public Approval. While we are in the world we are not of the world. No man can serve two masters. Joel is trying but you can see it is not working well in this interview. Moreover, it will be disastrous at the judgment seat of Christ.
Please pay close attention to Piers expectation that the Scripture be dragged into the modern world.
Piers Morgan, the interviewer, recognizes the problem of Osteen's position and presses him hard but Osteen wants to have one foot in the Kingdom of God and one foot in the Kingdom of Public Approval. While we are in the world we are not of the world. No man can serve two masters. Joel is trying but you can see it is not working well in this interview. Moreover, it will be disastrous at the judgment seat of Christ.
Please pay close attention to Piers expectation that the Scripture be dragged into the modern world.
Courageous by Sherwood Pictures
Don’t believe a single review that doesn’t praise Courageous as an excellent movie. Sherwood Pictures has out done itself. Writer Stephen Kendrick and writer-director-actor Alex Kendrick have together done a great job of providing two hours of good challenging entertainment that doesn’t seem like a waste of time. Instead, I left the theater moved, inspired, challenged and thankful I spent the money to watch this movie. I immediately sent a tweet expressing my complete appreciation for the movie. After spending a few minutes reading reviews of the movie, on my iPad, I was once again reminded that Christian fundamentalists are in the extreme minority in America. These movie critics can’t appreciate a movie with a Christian agenda behind it. They don’t mind a pagan or heathen agenda, but an agenda where Jesus is Lord is just unacceptable; therefore, it must be ripped apart.
Every Christian that can afford the cost of a movie ticket should send a strong message to Hollywood with our wallets. We want movies that reflect Christian values and Courageous is just such a movie. Kendrick’s target audience is not the unconverted pagan; so if such a person fails to attend this movie—that is their problem. He or she will still be accountable for their sin. For those who are unregenerate but venture into the theater anyway, they will not be able to say—I didn’t know there were people who believe that sin separates from man from a Holy God. Nor will they be able to say, “I didn’t know there were people who believed that Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, died for the sins of man.” You can’t miss the gospel in this movie, yet it’s a great movie that deals with life in a rough way. All can relate to the struggles of parenting, financial battles,ethical dilemmas at work, etc.
I wish I could order every male in my church to watch the movie, but I can’t. So I will resort to encouraging all in the strongest way: Go watch Courageous! Support the local theater who dares to run such a proselytizing movie.
Sherwood Keep Up the Great Work!
Grace Card: A Must See Movie
This is an excellent movie. It is not perfect and the actors will not win carnal awards for acting, but it is an superb movie. I would fast forward through the previews but once the movie gets going it getting better and better. It does suffer from a bit of predictability but that's true for most movies. It is available on Redbox.
Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism
I thought this was really good. I have not read the book but may like to based on this short review. I commend this to you.
Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism
Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism
Social Security Must Be Fixed
This is an excellent read about the problem with Social Security and what needs to be done to fix it.
Most people are not so misinformed that they don't recognize the necessity of providing a solution.
Moreover the only reason a Christian should be retiring from the "work force" is to do more for the Lord.
Charles Krauthammer Writes:
The Great Social Security Debate boils down to four major points:
* Proposition 1: Of course it's a Ponzi scheme.
In a Ponzi scheme, the people who invest early get their money out with dividends. But these dividends don't come from any profitable or productive activity -- they consist entirely of money paid in by later participants.
This cannot go on forever because at some point there just aren't enough new investors to support the earlier entrants. Word gets around that there are no profits, just money transferred from new to old. The merry-go-round stops, the scheme collapses and the remaining investors lose everything.
Now, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. A current beneficiary isn't receiving the money she paid in years ago. That money is gone. It went to her parents' Social Security check. The money in her check is coming from her son's FICA tax today -- i.e., her "investment" was paid out years ago to earlier entrants in the system and her current benefits are coming from the "investment" of the new entrants into the system. Pay-as-you-go is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
So what's the difference? Ponzi schemes are illegal, suggested one of my colleagues on "Inside Washington."
But this is perfectly irrelevant. Imagine that Charles Ponzi had lived not in Boston but in the lesser parts of Papua New Guinea where the securities and fraud laws were, shall we say, less developed. He runs his same scheme among the locals -- give me ("invest") one goat today, I'll give ("return") you two after six full moons -- but escapes any legal sanction. Is his legal enterprise any less a Ponzi scheme? Of course not.
So what is the difference?
* Proposition 2: The crucial distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Social Security is mandatory.
That's why Ponzi schemes always collapse and Social Security has not. When it's mandatory, you've ensured an endless supply of new participants. Indeed, if Charles Ponzi had had the benefit of the law forcing people into his scheme, he'd still be going strong -- and a perfect candidate for commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
But there's a catch. Compulsion allows sustainability; it does not guarantee it. Hence ...
* Proposition 3: Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme like Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants.
You can force young people into Social Security, but if there just aren't enough young people in existence to support current beneficiaries, the system will collapse anyway.
When Social Security began making monthly distributions in 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be but two.
Now, the average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes. Applying that ratio retroactively, this means that in 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2 percent of his salary to sustain the older folks of his time; in 1950, 2 percent; today, 11 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent.
This is a staggering sum, considering that it is apart from all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare, whose costs are exploding.
The Treasury already steps in and borrows the money required to cover the gap between what workers pay into Social Security and what seniors take out. When young people were plentiful, Social Security produced a surplus. Starting now and for decades to come, it will add to the deficit, increasingly so as the population ages.
Demography is destiny. Which leads directly to
* Proposition 4: This is one Ponzi scheme that can be saved by adapting to the new demographics.
Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means test for richer recipients and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.
When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.
Of course it's a Ponzi scheme. So what?
It's also the most vital, humane and fixable of all social programs. The question for the candidates is: Forget Ponzi -- are you going to fix Social Security?
Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, writes a weekly political column for The Washington Post. Email to letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Most people are not so misinformed that they don't recognize the necessity of providing a solution.
Moreover the only reason a Christian should be retiring from the "work force" is to do more for the Lord.
Charles Krauthammer Writes:
The Great Social Security Debate boils down to four major points:
* Proposition 1: Of course it's a Ponzi scheme.
In a Ponzi scheme, the people who invest early get their money out with dividends. But these dividends don't come from any profitable or productive activity -- they consist entirely of money paid in by later participants.
This cannot go on forever because at some point there just aren't enough new investors to support the earlier entrants. Word gets around that there are no profits, just money transferred from new to old. The merry-go-round stops, the scheme collapses and the remaining investors lose everything.
Now, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. A current beneficiary isn't receiving the money she paid in years ago. That money is gone. It went to her parents' Social Security check. The money in her check is coming from her son's FICA tax today -- i.e., her "investment" was paid out years ago to earlier entrants in the system and her current benefits are coming from the "investment" of the new entrants into the system. Pay-as-you-go is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
So what's the difference? Ponzi schemes are illegal, suggested one of my colleagues on "Inside Washington."
But this is perfectly irrelevant. Imagine that Charles Ponzi had lived not in Boston but in the lesser parts of Papua New Guinea where the securities and fraud laws were, shall we say, less developed. He runs his same scheme among the locals -- give me ("invest") one goat today, I'll give ("return") you two after six full moons -- but escapes any legal sanction. Is his legal enterprise any less a Ponzi scheme? Of course not.
So what is the difference?
* Proposition 2: The crucial distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Social Security is mandatory.
That's why Ponzi schemes always collapse and Social Security has not. When it's mandatory, you've ensured an endless supply of new participants. Indeed, if Charles Ponzi had had the benefit of the law forcing people into his scheme, he'd still be going strong -- and a perfect candidate for commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
But there's a catch. Compulsion allows sustainability; it does not guarantee it. Hence ...
* Proposition 3: Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme like Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants.
You can force young people into Social Security, but if there just aren't enough young people in existence to support current beneficiaries, the system will collapse anyway.
When Social Security began making monthly distributions in 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be but two.
Now, the average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes. Applying that ratio retroactively, this means that in 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2 percent of his salary to sustain the older folks of his time; in 1950, 2 percent; today, 11 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent.
This is a staggering sum, considering that it is apart from all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare, whose costs are exploding.
The Treasury already steps in and borrows the money required to cover the gap between what workers pay into Social Security and what seniors take out. When young people were plentiful, Social Security produced a surplus. Starting now and for decades to come, it will add to the deficit, increasingly so as the population ages.
Demography is destiny. Which leads directly to
* Proposition 4: This is one Ponzi scheme that can be saved by adapting to the new demographics.
Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means test for richer recipients and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.
When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.
Of course it's a Ponzi scheme. So what?
It's also the most vital, humane and fixable of all social programs. The question for the candidates is: Forget Ponzi -- are you going to fix Social Security?
Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, writes a weekly political column for The Washington Post. Email to letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)