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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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?
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.