How God Heals Your Hidden Wounds

by Pastor Rick

As a pastor for many years, I’ve learned two truths about life. First, everyone has hidden wounds. Second, emotional scars can take much longer to heal than physical ones.

Chances are you know what I’m talking about.

Many of our hidden wounds are built on faulty information we believe about ourselves.

We have what I call “stinking thinking,” which means we don’t always think properly or come to correct conclusions. When you base your life on faulty data, you build a self-defeating lifestyle. You set yourself up for failure and pain. That’s why, in Romans 12:2, Paul tells us not to “copy the behavior and customs of this world” (NLT).

But I have good news for you if you’re struggling with the brokenness that comes from faulty thinking. Jesus Christ can heal those wounds. How does he do it? He shifts the foundation of your life to the truth of the Bible and that changes how you think.

Paul goes on in Romans 12:2 to describe this process: “Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think” (NLT).

Here’s how you can heal those hidden wounds:

1. Ask God to heal your memories. Those open wounds in your heart hurt. God begins the healing process when we ask him to heal us.
2. Fill your mind with God’s Word. The more you fill your mind with Scripture, the more freedom you’ll have from the old, painful memories you’re playing over and over in your mind. Make Bible study a regular part of your life, both on your own and in a group with other believers. Listening to Daily Hope is also a great way to regularly hear God’s Word.
3. Trust the truth from God’s Word about yourself. Paul teaches us that “God chose us to be his very own through what Christ would do for us; he decided then and there then to make us holy in his eyes, without a single fault—we who stand before him covered with his love” (Ephesians 1:4 TLB). That’s how God sees you as soon as you trust in Christ. He takes everything you’ve ever done wrong—all the guilt, regrets, shame, and hurts—and erases it.

Don’t let painful lies from the past continue to wound you. Choose to believe what God says about you instead.

Then watch as God mends the wounds in your life.

Communist concept of human rights and legal systems

Communist concept of human rights and legal systems

According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.", including the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

The Communist conception of human rights was very different from conceptions in the West. Communist legal theory, "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual", whereas Western law claimed the opposite. The Communist state was considered as the source of human rights. Therefore, Communist legal systems regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government. Extensive judicial powers are given to Communist police agencies. Communist regimes abolish Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property which were considered as examples of "bourgeois morality" by the Communist theorists. According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".

Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Communist state and society. For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. Some Communist legal scholars even assert that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt. “Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Communist with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession.”

The purpose of Communist public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities – but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry. Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client's guilt for granted "!!

Freedom of political expression

Political repression is practiced by the Communist police services. An extensive network of civilian informants – either volunteers, or those forcibly recruited – are used to collect intelligence for the government and report cases of suspected dissent.

Communist political repression is a routine system of persecution and prosecution of people who are or perceived to be enemies of the Communist System.

Freedom of literary and scientific expression

Censorship under Communism is pervasive and strictly enforced. Art, literature, education, and science Are placed under strict ideological scrutiny, since people are supposed to serve the interests of the victorious Regine. Socialist realism is an example of such teleologically-oriented art that promoted socialism and communism. All humanities and social sciences are tested for strict accordance with historical Communist materialism.

All natural sciences are to be founded on the philosophical base of materialism. Many prominent scientists were [early in the purge] declared to be "wreckers" or enemies of the people and imprisoned.

Right to vote

According to Communist ideologists, the Communist Political system is considered a true democracy, where workers' councils represent the will of the working class. However, all candidates are selected by Communist Party organizations.

Economic rights

Personal property is allowed with certain limitations. Real property belongs to the State. Health, housing, education, and nutrition were guaranteed through the provision of full employment and economic welfare structures implemented in the workplace. However, these guarantees are not always met in practice.

Freedoms of assembly and association

Freedom of assembly and of association are severely limited. Workers are not allowed to organize free trade unions for example. All existing trade unions were organized and controlled by the Communist State. All political youth organizations serve to enforce the policies of the Communist Party. Participation in non-authorized political organizations could result in imprisonment.

Freedom of religion

The Communist Regimes promote atheism. Toward that end, Communist regimes [in the early years] confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagate atheism in schools. Atheism was propagated through communist organizations, and the media. Organizations such as the Society of the Godless were created.

Freedom of movement

Emigration and any travel abroad are not allowed without an explicit permission from the government. People who are not allowed to leave the country. According to the Communist Criminal Codes, a refusal to return from abroad was treason, punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10–15 years, or death with confiscation of property.

Human rights movement

Human rights activists are regularly subjected to harassment, repressions and arrests. Or, a complete shutdown of the movement's activities. Communist countries have abstained from affirming the 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing its "overly juridical" character as well as the infringements on national sovereignty.

A Country Out of Control Caused by a Permissive Culture

A Country Out of Control Caused by a Permissive Culture

After over 30 years of a growing permissive culture where the theme was “everything is okay; whatever you believe or want to do.”

Today liberal’s deride others for the consequences we are experiencing from the deterioration of our culture. Like many liberal ideologues they disregarded unintended consequences have finally proven to be very dangerous as we are seeing on a daily basis.

The root causes? The disregard of “Social Mores”. Mores are the customs, norms, and behaviors that are acceptable to a society or social group. Social Mores are created over a long period of time and it is safe to say it is the glue that binds us together as a people. When your personal behaviors disagree with cultural mores, you should expect to pushback and that others will be annoyed and disparaging. Why? Incurring the consequences of stepping outside the bright lines of the cultural mores keeps a society bound together. Cultural stability is a good thing.

What is now called “Political Correctness” is an attempt to call out a counter-culture effort using the political process. This is when those wanting freedom from scorn or disagreement for their behavior they turn to the “political process”. More often, the strategy is coopting powerful and large groups to support minority views or behaviors that are counter to the current social mores.

What can we conclude? The use of a political process of rapid change has been going on for over 30 years and the consequences are now being felt as we have undone the cultural glue that binds us together as a people.

To be sure, culture does change overtime. However, is must be done gradually and bring along the whole of society in the process. Otherwise, the culture cleaves, and society suffers undue consequences. Many have been witnessing this phenomenon over their life. Some were afraid for the future while others celebrated their efforts. However, few likely saw the future they were living into; the cultural divide and public discord.

In the U.S., the “counterculture movement” has been speed along by those we call liberals, progressives. Their collective efforts utilizing the political process has speed our culture along the path of change that has outpaced the cultures ability to absorb and “choose” the change to the customs, norms, and behaviors that are acceptable to a society.

What is annoying to many in the U.S. is that liberals that are complaining and blaming about the division in our nation while not wanting to accept accountability for causing our cultural norms to be out of balance. They continue to embrace force (laws) and “political correctness” to have their way. Further, they do not want to accept that all cultures tend to cling to the status quo. In fact, that choose to incorporate this “status quo” proclivity as the “boogeyman” in their drive for accepting their world view and cultural change.

The liberals disparage those that are fearful the cultural/social changes are dragging the country down and should accept the change. Four hundred years of social/cultural mores built upon an enduring idea put to writing. This fact will not change by simply being angry and blaming those that continue to hold to the original Social Mores (values and principles in the Declaration of Independence and more) that believe made the country great. A predictable and normal behavior.

How Liberals Hijacked The Word “Extremist” To Scare Voters

How Liberals Hijacked The Word “Extremist” To Scare Voters   By Frank Camp

What is extremism? To most of us, the word extremism evokes images of Nazis, the KKK, radical Islamists, and other such groups that take their beliefs to the outermost edges. Because of the association between the word “extremist,” and acts of radical violence, the concept of taking an idea to its outer edges is generally viewed as dangerous or unnecessary. However, this is all a cultural concoction, based on fear. The word “extremist” has been hijacked, as well as the core concept of standing on one end of a spectrum of ideas.

I was watching CNN yesterday at the gym. Anderson Cooper was speaking with several guests about Ted Cruz’s 21 hour filibuster. One of the guests began to speak at length about how the American people have become afraid because the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists. His tone suggested that he not only viewed Ted Cruz as an extremist, but that Cruz, by nature of being labeled as such, was inherently bad.

In his book The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,  Jonah Goldberg writes about how the word “extremist” has been painted as evil. He argues that centrists think themselves more sophisticated than so-called extremists. The following is an excerpt:

“There’s a certain Goldilocks bias to discussions of politics: If Papa Bear’s porridge is too hot and Mama Bear’s porridge is too cold, then Baby Bear’s is always just right. It must work the same way in politics, right? Centrists, moderates…independents: they all suffer from variants of this confusion. The ‘extreme’ Republicans argue 10. The ‘extreme’ Democrats argue for 0. Therefore the smart, sensible, reasonable position must be 5. Well, the Wahhabis want to kill all the gays and Jews. The Sufis don’t want to kill any gays or Jews. So the moderate, sensible position must be to kill just the gays, but not the Jews…the point is that sometimes the ‘extreme’ is 100 percent correct, while the centrist position is 100 percent wrong.”

Goldberg goes on to claim that self-titled “independents” are simply not paying attention. He argues—and I agree—that behind the faux sophistication of centrists lies a confusion and a slap-dash understanding of politics. The Democrats are great at labeling. They create slogans and campaign phrases designed to keep voters from actually thinking. In addition, they use the word “extremist” to demonize Conservatives. What does holding “extreme” views actually mean? According to Liberals, it means that Conservatives stand on the fringes, or outer edges of opinion, far away from the center, which—according to their made up rules—means that Conservative beliefs are far from “normal.” And if Conservatives aren’t normal, they must be weird, and probably wrong.

Using the center as the definition of normal or typical is completely arbitrary! First, the Democrats are certainly not in the center. Second, why is the center so sought after? There are valid reasons to take sides. Most issues have such stark differences that to have an opinion at all means taking a side. For example, you either believe abortion is murder, or you don’t. Where is the middle ground on that? You either believe in socialism or capitalism; they are not compatible. There are those who claim otherwise, but they are wrong. Those who attempt to meld bits and pieces from each philosophy into a cohesive whole have no idea how the world works. Centrism is naïveté at its height.

The word “extremist” has been hijacked by the Left to scare voters away from Conservatism. But when broken down, extremism simply means having an opinion. Labeling the center as “normal” is beyond arbitrary, it’s incorrect. Once we set aside the foolish idea that the center is political ground zero, extremism suddenly doesn’t mean much—and it doesn’t sound that scary.

The Left is neither Republican or Democrat - They are evil!

Why You Can't Argue With a Leftist

By Owen Benjamin, Prager University

If we do, we can disagree—even strongly disagree, and still have a productive discussion. We might even reach a compromise. But if we don’t share the same goals? Then what?

Then, rhetorically speaking, we’re at war. And only one side can win.

Let me explain.

My parents and brother lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum than I do. We argue. We slightly nudge each other. We change opinions a little bit. And then we go back to Scrabble.

They were very upset when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords. I was happy. We argued about it, but it was all good because we share the same goals.

We all want clean air and water for our children. We all want to develop clean energy; we want America’s economy to prosper; we want to be less reliant on fossil fuels.

I thought the accords were a bad deal for America. The best way to lower carbon emissions, in my opinion, is to let the free market and American ingenuity loose on the problem. They, in contrast, think the government needs to step in, fund the research, and keep the corporations in line.

Doesn’t matter, because we have the same goal: a healthy planet.

We also disagree on gun control. My brother is a little more with me, but my dad wants a lot more regulation because he wants fewer school shootings. So do I. So does my brother. But I believe if a potential killer knew he’d encounter teachers and administrators well-trained in the use of weapons, we’d have less shootings. Different solutions. Shared goal.

I’ve always thought that this is how America is supposed to work. Liberals and conservatives respectfully arguing over the best solution to a shared goal.

But now there’s a third party in the game: the left. And they’re changing the rules.

When I was growing up, the left was on the fringe. But now they’ve moved into the mainstream. They’ve pretty much taken over our educational system. They’re in the media. In corporate HR departments. And, more and more, sad to say, in the Democratic Party.

The left doesn’t share the same goals that liberals and conservatives do. They have a whole different set of goals.

Let me give you some examples.

Raising kids without a gender identity or encouraging them to question their sexual identity. This, to me, is a form of child abuse. I don’t care who’s doing it—parents, teachers, doctors. Their goal is not my goal.

Here’s another one: Demonizing white people and males for the world’s problems is not part of my value system. There is no shared goal in that.

I believe in merit and character over race. But now it’s cool to say that white males have done all the bad things in the world.

I have two little boys. I get angry just thinking about people telling them they’re responsible for racism and sexism—beautiful little children who just dance in the kitchen and smile. So that’s not a shared goal.

Here’s a third example: People can differ about how many legal immigrants America should allow into the country. But when it comes to whether America should have “open” borders—well, there is no shared goal there. A country with open borders ceases to be a distinct country. And I want America to remain America.

All these ideas—and I could give you a dozen more—are coming from the left. They want to turn the history of Western Civilization, of America—a history I’m very proud of—into a highlight reel of human errors. These ideas threaten everything I cherish—my family, my community, my country.

And what does the left offer in its place? Nothing constructive that I can see. What are their goals? Kids with no clear sexual identity; group-think based on race, gender, and class; no national pride or borders. Are you okay with that?

My issue is not with liberals like my brother and my dad and a lot of my friends. We can argue until the cows come home. My issue is with the left because we don’t share goals.

This war of goals isn’t coming. It’s here. You need to decide which side you’re on: the liberals’ and conservatives’ side, or the left’s.

Your future depends on it.

People that “love their government” because the government “cares for them” are wrong!

People that “love their government” because the government “cares for them” are wrong!

Government is a complex multifaceted institution. It operates by law and policy. It has not soul, no feelings and no heart. Institutions, like a block of wood, cannot have feelings or emotions; therefore, it cannot care. In simple terms it is a great machine that provides governance for a people and their land.

People can love their form of government in how it fulfills the values and principles the nation loves and cares about. However, the government will and cannot return that “emotion”. Caring is an emotion that only living beings can have. Not institutions. We can dare to say that even the people working inside a government don’t care for “you”. They don’t know you, they have a job to do and a life to live. This is their preoccupation, not caring for the individual.

The closest we can come to “caring” is a representative form of government. Even so, to say that individual cares about you, knows you and will commit to your individual needs is ludicrous. At any given moment any politician has people that like them as well as hate them. That, my friend, is the harsh reality.

So, do not expect any branch or political organization to “care” about you. It makes you appear to be childish and wishful at best. Thinking adults know that the government is, and it is the citizens duty to hold it accountable to do what is best for the country and its people. For that, we have the power of the vote. That is your currency. Not a wished upon notion that you are cared for.

“That is not who we are…” (U.S.) Then, who are we?

“That is not who we are…” (U.S.)

Then, who are we.....

It is of importance to know what one speaks, and not to mistake the American impulse for some narrow and impractical ideology. For intellectual development, the first necessity is to define one's terms. If we can enlarge the understanding of Americanism's first principles, we will have begun a reinvigoration of the America’s imagination. The great line of demarcation in modern politics.

A historical perspective of American behavior the generate the “Being American” principles.

·       Enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

·       Two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul and the outer order of the commonwealth.

·       Custom, convention, and continuity. It is custom that enables people to live together peaceably

·       The principle of prescription. The sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

·       Guided by the principle of prudence. Chief among virtues.

·       The principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

·       Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerable ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.

·       Freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling is not economic progress.

·       Uphold voluntary community, as we oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

·       In the name of an abstract democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction--why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity. For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed.

·       Perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human Passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one's fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

·       A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web-of restraints upon will and appetite--these are  approved as instruments of freedom and order.

·       Not opposed to social improvement, although the people doubt whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The people know that any healthy society is influenced by two forces; its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity.

·       Change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of the whole; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host.