Oceanview CRC Discussion Forum - Responses

Re: Joel Rosenberg's book, The 12th Imam.

Glenn Palmer — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:36:42 GMT

Donald,
     I agree with you that the Bible is absolutely central for belief. You have to read the Bible as it is God's message to us. You are correct in quoting Romans 10:17: "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
    However, God is apparently using visions to convert Muslims. They are seeing visions and then on the basis of that vision(s) are searching for Christ. In Joel Rosenberg's book, after seeing a vision of Christ, the Muslims immediately begin looking for the Scriptures. In Africa, there are plenty of Muslims who see a vision of Christ and then based on that vision decide to become a Christian. So the vision is a catalyst to start the people on the way to belief.
    If you rely strictly on visions, then you won't be able to grow in the knowledge of Christ. But apparently visions are used in difficult countries where Islam has a strong grip to shock the people into belief. In other words, the Bible is so foreign to them, that they will not even read it. But after a vision of Christ, they are brought to Christ and His Word.
There are many fewer visions of Christ in the West where the culture is familiar with the Bible and where the Scriptures are taught. Thus, in the West, you can turn on your radio, and if you are in the South, you can hear two or three stations broadcasting Christianity. You can go to a church. In the Hampton Roads area, there are hundreds of churches to choose from. Thus, visions are often not used by God as the Bible is readily available. However, visions appear to be much more frequent in the Islamic countries, where the Bible and churches are banned and where there is darkness covering the land.
      You write "How can you know for sure if someone else has become saved?"
      You cannot know for sure and it is not our place to judge if someone has definitely become a Christian. But in Matthew 7:16-20 we read: "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." While the passage is specifically about false prophets, it applies to the church as well. It is not an absolute guarantee, but it is a good indication if the person is living a changed life.
So a Muslim prays five times a day and prays to Allah and never in Jesus's name. He tries to achieve salvation by works. He receives a vision of Christ, and then becomes a Christian. He attends church and no longer goes to the mosque. He prays to the Father in Jesus's name and asks that the Holy Spirit fill his life. Can I be absolutely certain that he is a Christian? NO. But I would say that by his fruits he is known, and he is now living as a Christian should.

Re: Joel Rosenberg's book, The 12th Imam.

Donald Austin — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:21:50 GMT

Hello Mr. Palmer,

I just finished reading your current post and I decided to make a comment. Why, I do not know. May 21, 2011 and October 21, 2011 apparently came and went just as any ordinary day. This would would lead many to believe that my opinion about what the Bible says holds far less weight. I have been wondering if I owe everyone who I told about May 21, 2011 an apology. I am not sure. I will place that aside and make my comment anyway. You state in this blog that God has apparently been using other means to reach the Islamic community and that He is using visions. You also state that many have been coming to Christ because of that. My questions/comments are simple. If the Bible was completed in approximately 95 AD (I am not sure if we can know for sure if this was the exact date, but I will use it for this discussion anyway), then would that not mean the God is no longer giving any further revelation. God speaks to man through the Bible. God states in Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Would not these things mean that God does not speak to man through dreams, visions, and by just plain talking to them anymore? Does this not mean that God saves through the hearing of His Word (the Bible). Secondly, you stated that many have been coming to Christ because of those visions. How do you know this? I assume that you mean by coming to Christ that these people have been saved. How do you know that? How can you tell if someone has become saved? We cannot see the condition of their hearts. That means we could only assume or give a quess. How can you know for sure if someone else has become saved? Where is your Biblical proof for these things?

Donald Austin

Re: Last Blog? and 21 May 11

Donald Austin — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 07:11:16 GMT

Hi Mr. Palmer,

     Thank you for your reply. I agree with some of your first point. I was not completely accurate in my statement. What I meant to say, but was not clear enough, was that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all eternal God. I was not clear in that they do indeed have different tasks. The trinity, in my observation, is just not possible for us to fully comprehend with our minds. How They are all God, yet separate is not totally comprehendible. At this point, I cannot agree however with your explanation of Mark 13:32. Jesus is God. How is it possible that He could not know? That just doesn’t make sense. In Mark 13:32 when Jesus speaks of the Son, could He be referring to the son of perdition? The son of perdition is Satan and Satan, obviously, would not know when Jesus would return. Could this verse be a trap verse? Could this verse be in the Bible to see if we really believe that Jesus is eternal God?
     In regards to your second point, The answer has to be no. The answer could only be yes if your explanation of Mark 13:32 is correct. My question to you was, if God "wanted" us to know, would Mr Camping be placing himself on the same level as God? "If" God indeed "wants" us to know, then the answer could only be no. I do understand your position on Mark 13:32, however your answer could only be right if your explanation of Mark 13:32 is correct.
     In regards to your 3rd point, I have not heard Mr. Camping say that. It does, however, sound like something that he would say. I would need far more time to think about this before I could comment on it.
     In regards to your 4th point, I would have to say that I disagree with you very strongly. I don’t want to come across as rude by saying that, but I just want to emphasize that I cannot agree with what you said at all. The Bible says a lot about the end times. I will list just some of these, but it is by no means a complete list. Matthew 22:1-14, Matthew 24, Matthew 25, Mark 13, Luke 12:35-48, Luke 12:54-59, Luke 14:15-24, Luke 17:20-37, Luke 21:5-38, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11, 2 Peter 3:1-13, Revelation. Now I am pretty certain that this is not an exhaustive list regarding the New Testament and I didn’t even list any from the Old Testament and there are quite a good number of scriptures in the Old Testament that deal with the end times. Just look at what God says in 2 Peter 3:12 "as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming". And in 2 Peter 3:13 "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness". I just don’t see how we can overemphasize something that we should be looking forward to.
     In regards to your 5th point, I do not think that all churches that claim to be Christian believe in the Apostles Creed. That may be true, but I would doubt it. Irregardless of that, you state that with the true churches there is no confusion. You then go on to list a number of churches that you have worshipped in. Many of these churches do not agree on what the Bible says. Some of these churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, are in absolute violation of God's command in Revelation 22:18-19. God is very clear that we are not to add to or take away from the Bible. Yet the Roman Catholic Church adds books to the Bible like: Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Baruch. These books are written by man, not God therefore they should NOT be in the Bible. Many of these churches believe in a works-grace gospel. But God is clear that there is nothing that man can do to get himself saved. Why did God say that on the Sabbath we are to do no work? Because God is showing us that there is nothing that we can do to get ourselves saved. Take a look at Numbers 15:32-36. There God says, "While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, 'The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.' So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses." All this man was doing was gathering up wood, yet God said to put him to death. This may seem like a harsh punishment for such a seemingly minor offense. But it indeed was NOT a minor offense because God uses this scripture to be very clear that it is God that does ALL of the work regarding salvation. ONLY God saves. God chooses us. We do not choose Him. Choosing God is a work. Faith is a work. Believing is a work. And NO works can save us. This is why that man had to be put to death. From beginning to end the Bible is very clear that God predestined His elect before the foundations of the world were set into place. Yet churches like the Free Will Baptists believe that we choose God. And they are not the only ones that believe that form the list of churches that you have attended. A works-grace gospel is sin. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is sin. The Bible is clear that women are not to be pastors of churches. Yet many of the churches that you named allow women and people who claim to be homosexual to be pastors of their churches. How can they do this and still claim to be faithful to the Bible? The answer is that they are not faithful to the Bible. The answer is that they do create confusion. Does the OVCRC speak out against the Christian Reformed denominations stance on women pastors, or because of self preservation do you remain silent? This is not a criticism. It is actually a question that I am curious to know the answer to since I am not sure what the OVCRC's stance on that is anymore. You state that there are various interpretations of the Bible because we are humans. That is not an acceptable explanation. We are not to approach the Bible with our own desires or ideas. We are to approach the Bible seeking God to guide us. We are to seek the truth from God alone. Mr. Camping indeed does appear to have a hard time admitting that he is wrong. I have heard him on occasion admit that he was incorrect. I admit that it is rare, but he has. But those people who point fingers at Mr. Camping also need to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves how often they admit that they are wrong. They have to ask themselves if they are being as faithful to the Bible as they should be. There is a lot more I could say about the churches, but for the sake of time I will end it here. Maybe we can discuss more of this topic later.
     In regards to 1994, Mr. Camping was NOT at all definitive about that being the Day of Judgment. He only said that it was a strong possibility. I heard him in an interview in 1993 state just that.
     In regards to the Lord's Supper, Mr. camping only states that just partaking in it will not save you. I have never heard him say that it should not be celebrated.
     In closing, I want to say thank you again for your reply. I truly enjoy the discussion. I love talking about the Bible. It is actually the only thing that I enjoy talking about. Nothing else to me is really important. I am not saying that I do not talk about other things, but nothing compares to talking about the Bible. I only want the truth and nothing else. I did like your joke. I have never heard that before. But I am pretty sure that there are many people attending church that believe that they know the truth and that their church is the one who is correct.

Sincerely,

Don

Re: Last Blog? and 21 May 11

Glenn Palmer — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:54:06 GMT

Don,
   I remember you and your parents very well.
Let me say the following in response to your response:

1.) You write: “You say that Mr. Camping places himself on the same level as God the Father. Don’t you mean God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? They are all the same to my knowledge.”
My response: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not all the same. In theology there is a term called “Divine Economy.” What this means is that while God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all God, yet they have different tasks. For example, God the Father so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son (John 3:16). Thus, God the Son came to the earth to die for our sins. God the Father did the loving, but He did not come to the earth to die. And after Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, God the Father and God the Son sent the Holy Spirit to be our Comforter. God the Father is in heaven, and God the Son is at His right side interceding for us. So God the Son has a different task (intercessor) than God the Holy Spirit who is our Comforter and who is teaching us how to pray. In the Athanasian Creed, it states the equality of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: “The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate, The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.” Then it goes on to show how Christ came to the earth.
    So when God the Son says in Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,” this does not deny the divinity of God the Son. It is just that the Son does not know. Remember that the Son obeys the Father. Thus, at the Mount of Olives He prays “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke 22:42). So the Son is clearly submitting to the Father.

2.) You write “Secondly, if God did indeed want us to know when the end was, would Mr Camping still be placing himself at the level of God?”
The answer is yes because God the Son clearly stated that the "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." If God the Son did not know, if the angels do not know, how is it that Mr. Camping knows? God has certainly said that Christ is coming back, and that we should be prepared, but that does not mean that we should try to predict a specific date.

3.)       You write: “I have listened to Mr Camping for about a year now and he is very faithful to the Bible.”
    My response: Mr. Camping is incredibly smart and knows the Bible exceptionally well. However, his interpretation of the Bible is often suspect. For example, Mr. Camping takes Mt. 13:13 “This is why I speak to them in parables” and Mk 4:34 “He did not say anything to them without using a parable.” He then applies these verses to the whole Bible, and the results are quite far fetched. An example of this is when I was with him he gave this interpretation of the miracle of the axe head found in II Kings 6:1-7. The story is a simple one. While a prophet is cutting down the tree, the axe head flew off and it fell into the Jordan River. Elisha throws a stick into the water and the axe head rises to the surface and the prophet plucks it out. It is a remarkable miracle as iron does not float, and how a stick can make the iron float, is not known. But Mr. Camping, while accepting the historical reality, also makes this clearly historical account into a parable. This is contrary to all the other parables of Jesus. When Jesus taught his parables, He used common events, but these events were not to be taken literally. For example, the parable of five wise and five foolish virgins in Mt. 25:1-13. He was explaining from common happenings that we should “keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” Thus, Jesus was saying to keep watch. It is not that he had actually witnessed a marriage ceremony with five foolish and five wise virgins.
    But Mr. Camping takes a clearly historical account and then adds a parable to it. Thus, we are the axe head. Our sins will cause us to go to the bottom of the pit. Christ is the stick because he died on a tree. When Christ was put into the water (death), then we are raised from the dead to life. That was his interpretation that he told me. So while he accepted the historical story, his interpretation is not faithful to the scriptures - it is preposterous.

4.) You write: “You also say that he places too much emphasis on the study of the last days. Now that may be the most surprising thing that you said. Please explain to me how that is wrong.”
    My response: It is wrong to place so much emphasis on the Last Days as the Bible places very little emphasis on the Last Days, and certainly the Bible never discusses the times, except for statements like “you do not know the day or the hour” (Mt. 25:13).
    In the book of Acts, there is nothing about knowing the last days. In Acts 17:31 we read that “For He [God the Father] has set a day when He [God the Son] will judge the world with justice by the Man [God the Son] He [God the Father] has appointed.” Thus out of 28 chapters in the book of Acts, there is one verse about the Second Coming, and it was only about judgement, not about when. In the book of Romans, there are a smattering of verses about our being with Christ in future glory, but there is nothing about the time of the Second Coming. I Corinthians chapter 15 deals with the Resurrection in the Last Days. But once again, it was only one chapter out of fifteen, and it is about the certainty of the resurrection, NOT about a specific time. And the vast majority of the chapter is about Christ being raised, not about us being raised. In thirteen chapters of II Corinthians there is nothing on the Second Coming of Christ. In the six chapters of Galatians and the six chapters of Ephesians there is nothing on the Second Coming of Christ. So when Mr. Camping puts up billboards everywhere claiming to know the exact time of the Second Coming, he is placing undue emphasis on what the Bible does not preach. The Bible explains how we must live today.

5.) You write: “But when speaking of confusion you must have to recognize the state of the churches today. Now that is confusion. There are a great number of denominations out there. They all, or most, claim to use the Bible as their source of truth. Yet they teach different doctrines. Some of the doctrines are completely different, even on key issues such as salvation. How is that possible? There is only ONE truth. the Bible is not ambiguous. The conclusion that you would have to draw is that most of the churches are wrong in their theology. When people see this, isnt this confusion?”
    My response: While there are many churches and many denominations out there, there is a general unity of belief. The Christian churches can all say:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    the Maker of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    born of the virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
    and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
    from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
    the holy catholic church;
    the communion of saints;
    the forgiveness of sins;
    the resurrection of the body;
    and the life everlasting.
Amen.
    I have worshipped in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, Puritan, Reformed, Methodists, Baptist, Church of the Nazarene, Assembly of God, Congregational, Episcopalian and Anglican, Lutheran, and independent churches. All these Christian churches believe in the Apostles Creed. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientist are not true churches and thus do not say or believe in the Apostles Creed. But with the true churches there is no confusion.
    While there is only one truth and only one Bible, there are various interpretations due to the fact that we are humans. Mr. Camping believes that he has all the answers, and in that he is wrong. He has made mistakes in the past - 21 May 11 has come and gone. Yet he refuses to acknowledge that his interpretation of the Scriptures is in error. He is the one confusing Christians because he claims that his way is the only way and Christians should not go to church. When you do not go to church, you are no longer placing yourself under the discipline of the church, and that allows cults to grow - strong personalities get in the way of beliefs.

6.) You say: “Mr Camping also taught that the world would end on October 21, 2011.”
    I say: Mr Camping is clearly wrong in predicting the end of the world. Christ tells us frequently to watch for the end of the world, but never tells us that we would know when, let alone the exact date.
Mt. 24:36 “No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Mt. 24:42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day the Lord will come.”:
Mark 13:32-33, 35. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. . .Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back-whether in the evening , or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn.”
Luke 12:40 “You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
    Mr. Camping has placed himself over the Scriptures. The Scriptures says no one knows the day or the hour, Mr. Camping says he definitely knows exactly when.

In summary, Mr. Camping has become pig-headed and stubborn. His own church disciplined him, and he refused to listen to them and has set up his own personality driven gathering. He tells his believers to withdraw from the church and gather around his radio station and listen to him. He refuses to say that he was wrong about 1994 when he said that there would be judgment day on 21 May 1994, and then again on 07 September 1994. He refuses to say that he was wrong about 21 May 11. He refuses to say he is wrong about a series of natural and man-made disasters that are to occur between 21 May and 21 October. If 21 October 11 comes and goes, will he admit that he is wrong? I doubt it, because he does not listen to any one.
    He denies that there is a hell. He denies that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper should be practiced. However, St. Paul wrote that “Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” While Christians dispute on how often it should be done, (Roman Catholics daily, Lutherans weekly, some Reformed monthly or other Reformed quarterly), all agree that the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated. But Mr. Camping says it should not be celebrated. There is a great unity among Christians that it should be. Only Camping says no. It reminds me of the old joke on the Fourth of July parade where a proud mother exclaims: “Look at my son John. Everyone is out of step except him!”
    So instead of spending $100 million dollars on specifying exactly when Christ would return, it would have been far better to expend that money on proving the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ.

Re: Last Blog? and 21 May 11

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:51:48 GMT

Hi Mr. Palmer,

My name is Donald Austin. I would assume that you might know me from attending the OVCRC many years ago. Probably more than 17 years ago. If you dont remember me from then, then I would assume that you remembered me from leaving the information regarding Judgment Day. You may very well have heard about May 21, 2011 before I left that information. That I do not know. I was reminded of the OVCRC just today when someone posted a comment to me on Facebook. I remembered that you had a blog page and thought to myself that i would check it out and see what, if anything, was said about May 21, 2011. I guess it doesnt do any good to argue with you because there is no way that I will change your mind, but I would like to respond to just some of the things that you have said if you dont mind.

You say that Mr. Camping places himself on the same level as God the Father. Dont you mean God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? They are all the same to my knowledge. I would understand how your statement could be somewhat true depending on a few things. Number one, you quote Mark 13:32. In that verse it says "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." May I ask you who you think the "Son" in that verse refers to? Jesus Christ is eternal God and He never stopped being God. I am just curious as to your response. Secondly, if God did indeed want us to know when the end was, would Mr Camping still be placing himself at the level of God? Is it true that God has warned the true believers prior to the destruction of the flood of Noah's day and of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day's of Lot? Why would He not warn us now at the very end? Could it not be possible that God wrote the Bible in such a way as to let us know when He will return when that time comes? I have listened to Mr Camping for about a year now and he is very faithful to the Bible. You also state the he uses numerology to come up with May 21, 2011. That is NOT true. You would have to do a little reading to find that out, but he actually came up with that date according to the timeline of history. The proofs that he uses came after the timeline was discovered. Those do involve numbers, but he didnt arrive at the date mathmatically. This is a very detailed topic and there is no way that i am smart enough to explain it all. I could show you where you could read about it, but my guess is you wouldnt be interested. Just thought i would kindly offer though. You also say that he places too much emphasis on the study of the last days. Now that may be the most surprising thing that you said. Please explain to me how that is wrong. We should all be longing for Christ's return. Greatly so. I just dont understand a comment like that that you made so Ill leave it with that. You also state that when he is wrong he confuses people. Now I know what the Christian Reformed denomination believes and so I dont know how what you say would be possible. You all believe in election. The elect of God cannot be pulled from His hand, can they? After all, God saves. God enables us to do the good that we do. We cannot take credit for anything good at all. That being said, I just dont see how you can make or believe your statement. You might think that I am a hypercalvinist, as i have heard that phrase thrown around from time to time. Im not sure exactly what that means, but Im sure its meaning is subjective. (You may even think that i am something far worse) But when speaking of confusion you must have to recognize the state of the churches today. Now that is confusion. There are a great number of denominations out there. They all, or most, claim to use the Bible as their source of truth. Yet they teach different doctrines. Some of the doctrines are completely different, even on key issues such as salvation. How is that possible? There is only ONE truth. the Bible is not ambiguous. The conclusion that you would have to draw is that most of the churches are wrong in their theology. When people see this, isnt this confusion? When they see women being ordained as ministers, isnt that confusing? I list this as an example because didnt the Christian Reformed denomination vote that it is ok for women to be pastors of churches. I could be very wrong on this, but I thought that i did read that on one of the Christian Reformed websites. Either way, are not the churches confusing people? When I speak of the church I speak of the Corporate Church, not the body of true believers. Are not the Joel Osteens of the world God's judgment on those that sit under him?

Now you probably think that I am crazy for even responding to your post because May 21, 2011 came and went with no great earthquake or rapture. Those things did not happen, but I cannot say that May 21, 2011 was not a significant date. Mr Camping also taught that the world would end on October 21, 2011 if you looked at the tract that i gave to you all. I am still convinced that we are living very close to the end of time. I, for one, am looking forward to the Kingdom of God. I want it to come. Just look around you. Look at the world today. I think that it is noble to want to know when Christ is coming back. You were in the Navy. You must have been deployed from time to time. Im sure that when you were that your family wanted to know when you were coming back. Im sure they wanted to know the very day you were coming back. Why? Because they love you. If we love God, why would we not want to know the day that He comes back. I do want to know. Is that wrong?

Sincerely,

Don

Re: FAIR PAY? John Paulson and 5 Billion Dollars

Glenn Palmer — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:26:33 GMT

John,
      I think that there is a vast difference between Pontius Pilate and John Paulson. As you wrote, Jesus said in John 19:11: Jesus answered, You would have no power over me if it were not given to your from above. St. Paul wrote the same in Romans 13:1-2: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted. . . So in the case of Pilate, Pilate derived his authority from God. It was positional authority, and when he was no longer governor, he lost that authority.
     Then you write: Doesn't the same hold true with Paulson? Would he not have his great wealth unless it had been given to him from above?
     Authority is completely different than wealth. While God certainly owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and while God is certainly sovereign, that does not necessarily mean that what Paulson earned was from God. By that same logic, the poor are that way because God chose to give that person a cockroach.
     You write that Isn't it also true that with great wealth comes great responsibility? My response is that great wealth may come from great responsibility, but it not necessarily. Steve Jobs has become very, very wealthy from making a fine product, ipads, iphone, ipods, etc. Ford Motor Co. President and CEO Alan Mulally just received $56.5 million stock award for his work. But at least he did something. The Ford hourly workers all got five thousand dollar bonus checks. He turned Ford around and made the company profitable, something that Ford has not been since 1999. Alan Mulally at least produced something.
    But the question is what were John Paulson’s responsibilities? Does a hedge fund trader lose money? Never. You see they get 2% profit (handling fee) of everything that is invested. So if you invest one million dollars, his profit for that year is $20,000 (two percent of one million dollars). If the next year, your stock did not do well and declined to $900,000, the hedge fund trader still gets paid $18,000. So he gets paid, even if the stock goes down. If on the other hand the stock goes up to $1,500,000 then he gets 2% of $1,500,000 ($30,000), and he gets 20% of $500,000 or $100,000. But it is even better than that. Since the $500,000 is a capital gains, and since hedge fund traders pays no tax on capital gains, the $100,000 is pure profit! That is all with a million dollars as it is easier to understand. A billion dollars is too much money for me to understand.
    So bottom line, if the stock down, he makes money. If the stock goes up, he makes more money - 2% of net worth, plus 20% profit of all gains and he pays no taxes on that gain. And that is why the top hedge fund managers are so rich - the average compensation is about 910 million dollars per year, with the minimum pay of 210 million dollars.
    The related question is how much is a man worth? For example, the minimum wage is $7.25/hour. So a man working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will get paid $15,080/year. So John Paulson has more responsibility and works harder, much harder than the man in the street. Is he worth 100 times more? Let us say he is worth 1000 times more. So 1000 times $15,090 is just over $15 million. Okay, then pay him 15 million dollars. But he earned 66,666 times more than the man is the street. Is he really worth that much? A billion here, a billion there, soon is real money. Further, he bet that the sub-prime mortgages would fail (and by shorting the positions, once the mortgages started to fail, he helped cause the collapse), and he earned 3.7 billion dollars in 2007. That year he earned 246,666 more than the person earning minimum wage. So what did he do that was so valuable?
     Another example is Robert Nardelli. He was the CEO of Home Depot, and after seven years the stock price had gone down. So he was forced out/quit. His severance pay was $210 million in cash and stock options, including a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million. So when a guy gets fired for poor performance, he gets paid quite handsomely.
    Just because it is legal, does not mean that it is right.
    Finally, John Paulson shows no charitable streak. Even Bill and Melinda Gates have set up philanthropic trust.
    I am not advocating government intervention. I am not advocating communism. What I am advocating is for justice. If an ox is worth its wage, and we should not muzzle an ox so that as it treads out the grain, it gets to eat, neither should one ox get 246,666 times what the lowest worker gets. No man is worth that much money.

Re: FAIR PAY? John Paulson and 5 Billion Dollars

John Grant — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:13:27 GMT

Glenn, I couldn't disagree with you more. As reformed believers, we believe that God is sovereign over all things including the money that we earn. He owns the catlle on a thousand hills. As I recall, in John 19:10 Pontius Pilate said to Jesus that he had the power to set him free or to crucify him and Jesus said that he would not have that power unless it had been given to him from above. Doesn't the same hold true with Paulson? Would he not have his great wealth unless it had been given to him from above? Isn't it also true that with great wealth comes great responsibility? He alone will be judged if he doesn't use his wealth in a way that honors God and builds the kingdom with the wealth that has been given to him. Who are you to judge his wealth? Who are you to limit what God gives to somebody?

Re: PETA and Milk

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:20:54 GMT

Thank you for your reply Mr. Palmer. I am glad that you received my comment. It appears that you have done your homework. I appreciate the fact that you did a little research before responding. I would never try to debate you on the things that PETA does wrong. If I did I would lose. I only try to bring to people's attention that PETA has done good things as well. I love animals and cannot stand to see them mistreated. I reread my previous comment and maybe I came across a bit harsh. I guess I do that sometimes.

I also want to say that I agree with some of the statements that you made. At some points you seemed to make up your own conclusions based on statements that people from PETA or other liberal minded people made, but you are indeed entitled to your own opinion. I dont think that PETA sees humans as subanimal, but they are WRONG in putting humans on the same level. Insects are not animals and I could go on and on ... We may, in the end, have to agree to disagree.

I must admit upfront that I am not, nor will I probably ever be, a member of PETA. I only defend their organization from time to time because they have done a lot of good in regards to the mistreatment of animals. So when I hear someone say something negative about PETA, I try to remind them that PETA has done some positive things as well.

I am also not sure, but you made a statement that made me believe that you feel that I am anti-Christian. I am actually very pro-Christian. When I speak of Christians, I am talking about the REAL Christians, not the pew warmers who attend for social hour. I admire real Christians so much, I wish very dearly that I was one. But only God saves as you know, and He chooses who He saves. So dont think that I hate Christians because that just isnt so. It is good to hear about people like William Wilberforce. I will try to do a little research on him and see what I find.

I do agree, as I said before, that PETA has their faults. Ms. Newkirk, if I am correct, is a self proclaimed Athiest. I dont agree with her philosophies on life as I dont agree with PETA on all that they do. The entire comment that I originally sent to you could be summed up by saying that PETA has done many good things regarding the ethical treatment of animals. I applaud their good works. I do remember that article that Mr. Grant sent from years ago regarding the two PETA employees. I found it as disgusting then as I do now. It seems so contradictory, and it is, that an organization could do so much bad and good at the same time. I DO NOT DEFEND THEIR WRONGFUL BEHAVIOR and as I stated in my original comment, I do not support everything that PETA does. I will, however, give credit where credit is due. If PETA does something wrong I will oppose it. If they do something good I will say THANK YOU.

I have thoroughly enjoyed talking with you, Mr Palmer.

Thanks again for your reply.

Re: Title

Joyce — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:40:47 GMT

Well Said Glenn!!! I am also excited about what Jesus has done for me and I am so grateful for my salvation and the hope I have for my eternal future. But tonight my heart is full for those who not only are not excited, those who have no idea or refuse to believe what Jesus did for them. Instead, they accept the world we live in as normal and they rely on their own strength and their own goodness to get to a heaven that they look at as a fairy tale or they just have no interest at all. Tonight, I pray for all believers to be so filled with joy for their salvation that they will be witnesses without having to say a word. And I pray that it will start with us on the hill. May the Holy Spirit be working tonight in hearts of all those in our community, workplaces and homes so that they would also be transformed and know the joy that we know.

Re: PETA and Milk

Glenn Palmer — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:38:18 GMT

First of all I would like to thank Good Steward for a calm discussion. So many of PETA people will not sit down and discuss things. So thank you.
   Second, I wish there had been a little more discussion on the prevention of cruelty to animals from a historical perspective. For you see, Christians have been in the forefront of prevention of cruelty of animals. The leader of this movement was William Wilberforce, who strove so hard to outlaw the slave trade in England. The film Amazing Grace portrays much of his life in fighting slave trade, but it also briefly touched on his love for animals in the scene where he gets out of the carriage in driving rain to berate the man for whipping his draft animals. William Wlberforce, a Christian who applied the Bible to all of life, was the founder of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals. He also worked for prison reform, supported missionary efforts, etc.
     The problem with PETA is that they can not distinguish between human and animal. They equate them as the same. From PETA's website: "As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife. Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner."
http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp
   There are many things that are interesting here. First, they say that "Prejudice is morally unacceptable." So they believe in morals, but that is based on what? Do they believe in God?
   Second, this is obviously written by a Westerner as Chinese think that both dog and pig are delicious to eat. The same with horse and cow. It is only because we think of horses for riding that we don't eat them, but horses used to be eaten on a regular basis. They are very high in iron, and taste delicious (yes I have eaten horse and deer and alligator).
   Third, they are saying that humans have no more or no less rights than other animals. Thus, I do not have a right to build a house as that may take away some habitat for a fox or a deer. If that is followed to its logical conclusion, I do not have a right to eradicate mosquitoes that carry yellow fever and that will kill me. I do not have a right to use pesticide on my crops to feed me.
   If you believe in evolution, then the survival of the fittest should allow me to kill those that threaten me. If you believe in God's creation, it allows me to kill pests - mosquitoes that carry diseases, etc.
   Fourth, I noticed he mentioned only mammals. But I will kill a fly, and a mosquito without a moment's hesitation. I will poison a mouse in my house.
   Fifth, they state: "We wore wool and silk, ate McDonald’s burgers, and fished. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved."    PETA is even against using wool which can be gotten without killing any animals and now they are against using silk from silkworms!
   So I stand by my earlier blog. If PETA was against the cruelty of animals, then I would be for them. But their philosophy is based on "Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, [who] incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by means of the formula: “Each to count for one and none for more than one.” In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. …"
   PETA thus says that the silk worm has the same as the rights as a human.     http://www.peta.org/about/animallib-singer.asp
   No, only man is created in God's image. We may not abuse animals, but animals are created for our use. We are to be good stewards of creation. But God does allow us to kill them for leather, for food, for our survival.

Re: PETA and Milk

John Grant — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:21:08 GMT

PETA is not as ethical to animals as you might think. Back in 2005, some PETA employees were arrested for killing and dumping the dead bodies of dogs and cats into a restaurant dumster down in North Carolina. Read this article.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833

Re: PETA and Milk

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:01:04 GMT

Good day to you Mr. Palmer. I just finished reading your text on Peta and Milk and I can agree with you on some things that you wrote. Yes, PETA can and does often make over the top statements and does do things that are very silly for the sake of publicity. I also do not agree with some of their methods to get the attention that they want in order to promote their agenda. However, that being said I can also say that I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR PETA. Lets start with their name. PETA --- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Sounds like a noble cause to me. Treating animals with decency is NO sin. Treating animals in a cruel manner IS a sin. You state that PETA's entire attitude is that animals are more important than humans. I dont think that this is a true or factual statement. Where is your proof? Does PETA construct large buildings with magnificent flowing springs containing plush beds for the animals while they themselves sleep outside on hay and straw? I have not heard that they do. PETA very well may place animals on the same level as humans, but I dont think that they believe that humans are subanimal even though it appears sometimes that humans act far worse than animals do. You also state that God has placed humans on Earth to rule over nature, including animals. This is very true. You state that only humans are created in the image of God. Also, very very true. Again you state that humans are not animals. Your three for three on those, its also very true. All that being said, just because God placed us in a position of authority over the animals, just because we are to rule over them does not mean we are to treat them poorly. In fact we are to be GOOD STEWARDS of this planet. After all, the Bible also states in Genesis 3:16 that "...your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Just because a husband is to rule over his wife doesnt mean he is to treat her like garbage. Therefore, I am sure that just because we are to rule over animals doesnt give us the right to treat them like garbage either. I believe that one of PETA's main agenda's is to stop the horrible cruelty towards animals. Its very wrong to leave a dog tied to a stake in a backyard without food for days until they appear emaciated and lifeless. Yet people do. It is wrong to hang chickens upside down in slaughterhouses and kill them by beating them with bats. Yet people do. It is wrong to shove a pole up the backside of an ox until it shrieks in pain and falls to its knees because it wont do what you want it to do. Yet people do. It is wrong to stomp on the head of an animal over and over until you crush its skull and blood flows from its nostrils, eyes, and ears. Yet people do. I know that these are graphic and disgusting examples of cruelty towards animals, but there are people who treat them this way. PETA stands against these acts and for that I say THANK YOU. PETA was there when the story broke about Michael Vick and his inconcievable acts of torture towards dogs came out. Michael Vick held dogs by the neck and shoved their heads underwater until they drowned and laughed while doing it. He strung them up by their necks and beat them and electrocuted them when they lost fights. He placed puppies in the ring with dogs he trained to fight and timed how many seconds it took for them to be destroyed. PETA was there to stand against this vulgar and unimaginable behavior. You ask in your text, where was PETA when muslims strapped bombs to children. How far do you want PETA to branch out Mr. Palmer? Dont many law firms specialize in one or two areas of law? You cant expect every law firm to practice all types of law can you? Then why cant PETA specialize in protecting animals so that they are not tortured? If a man straps a bomb to himself, he himself made his own stupid decision. A donkey had that decision made for them. I am glad PETA takes a stand against that. PETA has freely taken in animals and paid for their veterinary bills and saw that they were fed at no cost to their negligent owners. They have stopped the gross mistreatment of many animals in slaughterhouses. I am not a vegetarian. I dont think I ever will be. Hamburgers are still my favorite food. I believe it is ok to kill cows, chickens, etc ... for their meat. BUT DO IT IN A HUMANE MANNER. There is no need for them to suffer. Once again, I dont agree with all of PETA's tactics, but their cause to have animals treated properly is noble and right. I am not trying to put you down in making this comment, but I do think that you might want to know a little more before bashing PETA.

Re: Memorial Day or Remembrance Day

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:06:55 GMT

Hooah!

Re: Movie Review: Expelled

John Grant — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:30:50 GMT

One thing that I found remarkable in the movie was the scene where the News Man asked the Science expert if any Intelegent Design papers had ever been published in reputable scientific journals. That question was irrelevant because these journals are controlled by the same group that has an agenda to keep Intelegent Design out of the debate. The movie points out what happens to a scientist who allows intelligent design papers to be published or authors such papers for peer review.