This Blog -
Moved To:
http://professor-howdy.blogspot.com/

There is no surer proof
of Christ's divinity
than that He is still
so hated some 2,000
years after his death.
- Ann Coulter




===============







The word Holocaust was originally used in English for a "burnt
offering," a "sacrifice completely consumed by fire" (Mark 12:33,
"more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," in the King
James version of the Bible, was translated by William Tyndale
in 1526 as "a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices").

John Milton is the first English writer recorded as using it
in the wider sense "complete destruction by fire," in the
late 17th century, and in the succeeding centuries several
precedents were set for its modern application to "nuclear
destruction" and "mass murder."

Bishop Ken, for instance, wrote in 1711 "Should general
Flame this World consume...An Holocaust for Fontal Sin,"
and Leitch Ritchie in 1833 refers to Louis VII making "a holo-
caust of thirteen hundred persons in a church." The specific
application to the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis
during World War II was introduced by historians during the
1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew hurban and shoah
"catastrophe" (used in the same sense).






===============







"A Makeover for the Woman You Love"
Ephesians 5:25


It's no wonder many American women are unhappy with their looks.
They're comparing themselves to the magazine pictures of these flawless
models. Of course, that woman doesn't really exist. She's the creation of
hair stylists, makeup artists, wardrobe specialists, special lighting and
hundreds of continuous-frame photos - from which one good one is selected,
and then airbrushed to remove all imperfections. Nobody looks good compared
to that mythical icon - including the real girl in the picture! But with our
obsession with a certain definition of beauty, the word "makeover" has
become more and more popular. They even have TV shows now that are totally
devoted to transforming a woman thought of as "average" into someone much
more stylish. It just takes some time backstage with the hair, makeup, and
wardrobe magicians. And with the split screen showing her "before," out
steps this glamorous "new woman" with her makeover!

There are husbands who've been doing makeovers for a long time -
making their wife more beautiful - from the inside out. Changing makeup
and hairstyle, and clothing - oh, that's the easy kind of makeover - and
it's totally superficial. But the Bible makes it clear that a husband has the
power to contribute to an internal makeover in the woman he loves - a
makeover that will eventually show up on the outside. The true beautifying
of a woman doesn't come through a makeup or wardrobe artist. It comes
through the love of God, expressed through the self-sacrificing love of a
husband.

That's the makeover miracle God describes in our word for today from
the Word of God in Ephesians 5, beginning with verse 25. He says, "Husbands,
love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for
her." Instinctively, a man likes to be the center of everything. But with
Christ in his life, he has the potential to be something so much better -
to love as Jesus did. Jesus set aside all self-interest, all self-protection,
all self-seeking for us. He forgot about Himself, thought only of us, and
sacrificed everything in the love that took Him to the cross. The high
calling of a husband is to let the woman he loves taste that kind of love
through his love as, several times a day, he sets aside what he needs
for what she needs, what matters to him for what matters to her. Love,
Jesus-style, is not a four-letter word. It's a nine-letter word: sacrifice.

Listen to the result of Christ loving us that way and ultimately of
a man loving a woman that way. "Christ gave himself up for her, to make
her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word, and to
present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any
other blemish. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their
own bodies."

The selfless love of a husband can, over time, help a woman feel
safe enough to deal with her weaknesses, to pour out her soul. And, in so
doing, to cleanse her soul. God's love through a loving husband can set her
free from the fears and the scars of the past that have defined her for so
long. His praise can restore her sense of worth. His listening can offload
what weighs her down.

His attentiveness can free her to trust him with all her needs and
to respond to him without reservation. It's a beautiful thing. You can tell
a woman who's being loved like this. She glows. She's radiant. She's being
loved as God intended, and by just being what God intended for him to be,
her husband ends up with a wife with a glowing new beauty.

And it starts with the man. Our wife, in so many ways, is a mirror
of the way we love her - or don't love her. But God has always planned
marriage to be a powerful makeover tool - not because you're trying to
change the person you love, but because you love them so much that
something beautiful happens. Ron Hutchcraft





Listen with RealAudio!
http://xrl.us/d4np

To subscribe to "A Word With You," send a blank email to:
awordwithyou-subscribe@hutchcraft.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To find out how you can begin a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ, please call:

1-888-NEED HIM.








===============








Here are some famous inventions:

» There were 15,700,003 Model T Ford's manufactured,
all in black.

» The electric chair was invented by a dentist.

» Thomas Edison held more than 1,300 U.S. and foreign
patents.

» Thomas Edison's first major invention was the quadruplex
telegraph. Unlike other telegraphs at the time, it could
send four messages at the same time over one wire.

» The film for the first Kodak camera was 2¾ inches wide,
or 70 millimeters. Kodak has been manufacturing 70-millimeter
film continuously since 1888.

» The first "braces" were constructed by Pierre Fauchard in
1728. Fauchard's "braces" consisted of a flat strip of metal,
which was connected to teeth by pieces of thread.

» Though Frederick Banting and Charles Best were co-
discovers of insulin, only Banting was officially recognized
for the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1923. He shared his
winnings with Best, though.

» Today, 40 percent of the world's newspapers are printed
on paper made from Canada's forests.






===============








UNC PROF: Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?

UNC SOPH: H I J K L M N O!!

UNC PROF: What? What are you talking about, Donald?

UNC SOPH: Well, yesterday you said it's H to O, so. . .
  .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

Dear Ronald,

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
  .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}