Llove Letters

Liquor Sales

I don’t buy liquor, but I could, just south of where I live — two or three miles down the road are three (count ‘em) bottle shops on the same intersection. I know the Scripture teaches temperance - not abstinence - but I hate to see more liquor stores.

From the Star-Telegram today: Northeast Tarrant County residents usually head to Fort Worth or beyond when in need of a good bottle of scotch. The options, outside of a liquor store in Westlake, are limited. But that could change if Colleyville residents approve liquor sales May 8.

I have to admit I am one of those guys who doesn’t understand why Liquor continues to be legal in our society. And while I llove your comments I don’t need to hear about how prohibition failed in the last Century. We’ve come a long way in law enforcement, but one can never stop all the illegal use of banned substances - be it street drugs, or prescription abuse, or HGH in sports.

I guess I will rest my case on how hard we try to stop “smoking.” I know it’s not illegal, but it is becoming unaffordable, and there are multitudes of campaigns against the practice. One only need look at the carnage that is the result of alcohol abuse - from the highways to the hospitals to the courtrooms (both civil and criminal) to the homes to the prisons, to know our society would be better off without it.

Many will say it won’t make it worse to have more outlets. I guess we would say that about “smack” or “speed” as well. But I am clinging to my prejudices (and, by the way, to God and my guns). I’ve seen too many drunks ruining marriages, killing others on the highways, derelict on the streets, and drying out in prisons, to feel differently.

Colleyville just doesn’t need to create more places for people to get the stuff. There are too many now.

Integrity - March 7, 2010

t001_201003071

Integrity is an often used word in our society. Only God has the authority to correctly define it. Psalm 15 is very clear regarding God’s definition.

It Must Be Me

I’ve probably spent too much time complaining and criticizing the plight of the U. S. Congress as they struggle to mix and match and ultimately pass legislation most folks don’t seem to want. I have accused Congressional personnel of behavior that reeks of ignorance, but now I am beginning to think it must be me. I am going to have to admit, finally, and with much sorrow, that I don’t understand how this is going to work.

Here a “case in point.” From an Associated Press story by David Espo:  According to the President of the United States, Much of the cost of the legislation, nearly $1 trillion over a decade, would be financed by cuts in future Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers and higher payroll taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000.

OK! I get that. Old folks on Medicare are going to find more and more health issues not covered by Medicare, or at the very least, the old folks will have to pay more of the bill when they do get health care. And, the “rich” (and I just have to believe that the salary ”number” will come down) will pay for the poor folks who can’t afford health care because it is becoming a crime to be financially successful in this Country. OK! I get that.

In the same story, a couple of paragraphs later, I read this: [President] Obama said he was exploring GOP proposals for cracking down on fraudulent medical charges, revamping ways to resolve malpractice disputes, boosting doctors’ Medicare reimbursements and offering tax incentives to curb unnecessary patient visits to doctors.

Now I’m confused (and I’m not even a candidate for Congress). I though he said he was going to “cut” Medicare reimbursements. Can you have it both ways? I can’t make that work at my house. And, if I get a tax incentive for not going to the Doctor, can I say I was going but changed my mind and now I am not going, so I get to deduct from my taxes the cost of the visit I didn’t make to the Doctor? Or is it that the Doctor gets to deduct the amount he didn’t get when I didn’t go because he refused to see me? But even that may not help him because he surely makes more than $200,000 a year so he is actually paying for my visit, if I do go, in the first place. See? So I apologize. Here I was thinking it was Congress that was dumb, when I guess it was me all the time. In fact, that’s probably why I make less than $200,000 a year in the first place.

My solution? I’m going to agree with the Apostle John - “Even so, come Lord Jesus!”

Toxicogenic

Religious programing on television is common. The attempt to determine which is valuable and which is toxic requires a sharply discerning mind. It is not unusual for me to ask the Father why there is so much performance in His name, yet so little that clearly and accurately reflects His revealed Word.

I cannot seem to dissuade myself from scrutinizing the words and actions of those most prominent in the dissemination of that which appears to shadow the Truth, but fails significantly when exposed to the radiance of God’s Word.

But with cognizance does it not follow that there is an inherent responsibility to expose inaccuracy and the perveyor and source of deceitful fabrication? Is not the task of the “under-Shepherd” to protect the children of God from the venom which leads to terminal toxicity?

Peter, in the second chapter of his 2nd Epistle to the Body of Christ speaks eloquently to this matter. May I suggest you read that passage, so that those who are enemies of God may never - “in their greed exploit you with deceptive words. . .seducing unstable people.” [HCS version; 2 Peter 2:3a and 14b]