Similar Posts

2 Comments

  1. A study into the life and work of Charles Finney and Asa Mahan {of whom the latter was a close personal friend and advisor to Abraham Lincoln} would be valuable and this especially in view of this…

    “During the summer of 1853 Oberlin was struck with a severe drought. The hay fields were dried up so there was no feed for the cattle. The cattle soon must die and the harvest fail unless rain comes. Crops had withered, wells dried up, and the parched earth became powdery.
    On Sunday morning the church was filled. Not a cloud was in sight and no one expected a drop of water to fall from the skies that day. The situation was desperate. Finney arose from his chair walked to the pulpit and lifted his voice in prayer.
    ‘O Lord! Send us rain. We pray for rain. Our harvests perish. There is not a drop for the thirsting birds. The ground is parched. The choking cattle lift their voices toward a brassy heaven and lowing, cry ’Lord give us water…We do not presume to dictate to Thee what is best for us, yet Thou dost invite us to come to Thee as children to a father and tell Thee all our wants. We want rain! Even the squirrels in the woods are suffering for want of it. Unless Thou givest us rain our cattle must die…O Lord, send us rain! and send it now! For Jesus sake! Amen
    “In the preachers voice,” reports the California minister, “was the plaintiveness of a creatures cry. I do not know whether any pencil caught more of this wonderful prayer, but all who heard it had to tell of its bold importunity. It had the pathos and power of an Isaiah.”
    Then the pastor-revivalist poured out his soul in a searching sermon, ’hewing close to the line,’ from the text, “I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left thy first love.” “Not many minutes did the sermon go on before a cloud about the size of a man’s hand came athwart the summer sky,” says the California preacher, “It grew fast. The wind rattled the shutters of the old church. Darkness came on the air, joy aroused our anxious hearts as great raindrops pattered on the sun-scorched shingles of the monumental old church.
    Finney’s lithe figure, tall as a Sioux warrior, ruddy as a David, trembled. His clarion voice choked. God had heard his cry. The sermon was never finished, for torrents of water poured from the prayer-unlocked heavens. The preacher bowed over the pulpit and said, Let us thank the Lord for the rain.”
    He gave out the hymn, When all they mercies, O my God my rising soul surveys, Transported with the view, I’m lost in wonder, love and praise.”
    The congregation could not sing for weeping. Then Finney lifted heavenward a prayer of thanksgiving and praise. “I can remember not a word of the closing prayer, but the reverent and relaxed figure, the pathetic voice, the pallid and awe-struck countenance, are vivid as if it was yesterday; the plank sidewalks of the dear old town splashed our garments as we walked home from a short service, of which life’s memory must be lasting.” This is the testimony of the student who sat in the gallery and saw and heard Finney that morning.” {pg. 126-128 Miller}

    or this concerning Asa Mahan himself…

    “I had an appointment,” he said, “during the season of afflictive drought, to preach in one of the churches of the city where I lived one Sabbath morning. As we came to our carriage, I said to my wife, ‘There is not the remotest probability that it will rain today. I will, therefore, carry in the robe which we usually take with us,’ and did so. “When I kneeled before that congregation, I had no more expectation that it would rain that day outside than inside the house of God. When I began to pray about the drought, however a power came over me which rendered that prayer a wonder to myself and the congregation. The Monday’s issue of our daily paper contained this statement: ‘The preacher in one of our churches prayed very fervently yesterday morning that it might rain, and his congregation were drenched with rain on going home at the close of that service.’
    “I can never tell when the ‘spirit of grace and of supplication,’ in that form, shall be poured upon me. Nor do I feel under obligation to have such experience whenever I pray. All that I can do, or feel bound to do, is leave my heart open, and let the Spirit intercede in it as and when He chooses. This I do say, however, that when the Spirit does thus intercede, I always obtain the specific object for which I pray. Nor can anyone pray under the intercessory power of the Spirit without the hearer, as well as himself, marking the peculiarity of prayer.”
    “Hence it is that, for many years past, my students, in times of drought, for example, have been accustomed to say, ‘We shall have rain now. Did you mark our President’s prayer?’ Nor were they ever disappointed.” {pg. 74-75 Harvey}

    God made a serious promise to the ancient Israelites that there exists a connection between the weather and their obedience to Him {Deuteronomy 11:8-18} and this right here is what answers the questions regarding global warming and climate change.
    Faith is not blind nor ever was it but people chose to believe Charles Darwin instead of the good book.

    cHEERS

    Jerry

    MORAL HAZARD!!!!! WOW check out these…

    “When I shoot at you with my deadly and destructive arrows of famine, I will shoot to destroy you. I will bring more and more famine upon you and cut off your supply of food. I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will leave you childless. Plague and bloodshed will sweep through you, and I will bring the sword against you. I the Lord have spoken.” {Ezekiel 5:16}

    “The word of the Lord came to me, Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its men and their animals, even if these three men Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.” {Ezekiel 14: 12-14}

  2. Freedom Fest 2009 – Should the Fed be abolished?

    Tom Woods, John Fund, and Others

    Four panelists debated over the question stated on the subject line. A WSJ editor and an economist who worked for the IMF crossed swords with two advocates of the Rothbard, von Mises School. If anyone else paid attention besides me they would have noticed the absence of any reference by either side to two moral dilemmas inherent in the economic system now in use or any they proposed. First, no one brought up the moral repugnance aspect of the fractional reserve system of lending. Second, not one participant ever mentioned the $1.2 Trillion paid in interest every day on the $13+ Trillion national debt to debtors that did nothing useful but print money into existence. Some are now claiming the stimulus package alone is worth another $24 Trillion in debt ($80,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country). These two aspects of modern banking alone (fraudulent lending and fraudulent currency creation) should give pause to everyone who truly cares about their children’s future.

    When we say moral repugnance we should consider that economists every now and then use the phrase moral hazard in their analyses. The hypocrisy involved in these analyses is not apparent to most because no institution with expertise about moral issues ever calls into question the activities of economic institutions such as central banks, banks, institutions of higher learning [sic], governmental treasury ministries, and private corporations. Thus, the economic activity prevalent today has no morally developed system of checks and balances. With absolutely no involvement from institutions that lay claim to expertise with Biblical analysis (with only a few exceptions), we are left to provide this analysis on our own. If we ignore Biblical directives, then weaknesses in the system are not detected and therefore cannot be legislated out or executively ordered out of existence.

    None of the four panelists in the debate explored Biblical advice, let alone the Constitutional mandate to ‘Promote the General Welfare’. Therefore, their understanding in the two key areas of moral hazard remains unaccounted for. No amount of education in the world can compensate for this lack when moral experts remain silent.

    Back in 1937 Reverend Charles Coughlin gave a nationally broadcasted radio address entitled “Relief that Fails to Relieve”. In this address he leveled accusations of moral lack in banking practices involving usury but was silenced by Papal directive. So one whose voice was nationally raised against these morally questionable banking practices became silent. Through the years others’ voices were lifted up such as Destiny Publishers, but none had as large an audience such as Fr. Coughlin. Perhaps one today is coming close whose name is Ron Paul.

    Who determines exactly what is morally repugnant? Judge for yourself by examining the two examples never discussed by these economic ‘experts’ [sic] at the debate. The first scenario is simple in design and thus easily understandable by anyone with an average intellect. Banks, by the fractional reserve lending laws, are allowed to lend out money that they do not actually have. Let’s say you write a check for $80 and lend it to someone but you only have $10 in your checking account. You would get prosecuted for fraud in a federal criminal court because banking laws are federal jurisdiction. But when a bank does this it’s legal and other banks cash the check because a bank issued a check for the original loan. Federal banks have a monopoly on currency creation via two methods. This fractional reserve lending practice is just one of the methods. They can do this because the government has enacted a law that allows them to do it. So what is morally repugnant about this practice? Simply put, they are allowed to lend something they do not have, that is, they did nothing useful to acquire something they will make a profit on. When we do it, it’s fraud. When they do it, it’s okay? Remember what Edison wrote probably 80 or 90 years ago, “Whereas the currency – the honest sort provided by the Constitution – pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way”. If we cannot see the weakness of allowing a class of parasites to take control of our economy via fractional reserve lending (FRL) then our own moral compass has stunted growth.

    But it hasn’t ended there with FRL. And this is the second part of the moral repugnance never addressed in the debate. In 1913 The Federal Reserve Act also empowered the Fed to be directly involved in the creation of currency. Only now in order to get currency that has been added to the Fed’s reserves by simply printing it, the US Treasury must float bonds to acquire it, that is, pay it back to the Fed at interest. Now the Fed is a bank; and when they create new reserves by printing they can then lend out eight time that amount because of FRL laws. But the interest part of the bond hasn’t even been created yet. So how does the Treasury Dept. acquire the currency to pay the interest? Why they will just have to float another bond, of course. So what about the interest on the second bond? That’s right, they must float another bond, and on and on and on……This is a Ponzi-scam in operation, right here in our own country operating in full view of the world and sanctioned by mostly all the institutions of higher learning and the WSJ. No one at that debate addressed the moral repugnance aspects inherent in the present system or the system espoused by Rothbard and Mises advocates even with the Central Bank abolished.

    In the last email I sent out, Executive Order 11110 was discussed. Perhaps the populist JFK was on the right track and took the first step in the right direction. One thing is for sure. We will never know with the information that both teams presented at the debate.

    Daniel S. Krynicki

    St. Clair Shores, Michigan

Comments are closed.